PURPOSE:To investigate the clinical and radiographic outcomes of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR) combined with anterior closing-wedge high tibial osteotomy (ACWHTO) for posterior tibial slope (PTS) reduction. METHODS:We performed a systematic search across multiple databases, including Scopus, MEDLINE via PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane, and Embase, to identify all articles published before August 2, 2024. Pre- and postoperative outcomes, complications, and surgical characteristics were investigated. Studies with a mean follow-up under 24 months were excluded for meta-regression and meta-analysis. Statistical analysis was conducted using the Stata software, and the risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies of Interventions, version 2 tool. RESULTS:This systematic review included 11 studies (267 patients); however, only 8 studies (190 patients) with a mean follow-up of 24 months were included in the final analysis. Statistically significant improvements in PTS (8.40°), International Knee Documentation Committee score, Lysholm score, and anterior tibial translation were observed following slope reduction surgery (P < .001 for all). Patellar height, the Tegner activity scale, and the risk of osteoarthritis showed no significant changes pre- and postoperatively. The pooled risk difference for pivot shift was significantly reduced after surgery (P < .001). Subgroup analysis showed that supratubercular ACWHTO resulted in a significantly greater reduction in PTS compared with transtubercular ACWHTO (9.31° vs 4.41°, P < .001). Meta-regression analysis of the effect of different variables on functional and radiological outcomes did not show any significant results. CONCLUSIONS:Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction combined with ACWHTO significantly improves PTS and anterior tibial translation, enhancing knee stability and functional outcomes. These results support incorporating ACWHTO when indicated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Level IV, systematic review and meta-analysis of level IV studies.

Medial meniscus extrusion significantly compromises the load-distribution function of the meniscus, accelerating the progression of osteoarthritis. Current medial meniscus centralization techniques often involve release of the meniscotibial ligament, which can lead to further instability and result in ineffective reduction and advancement of the extruded medial meniscus. This Technical Note describes an arthroscopic technique for medial meniscus centralization with capsular advancement, which preserves the meniscotibial distal ligament attachment while efficiently centralizing the meniscus to reduce extrusion. By separating the superficial and deep layers of the medial collateral ligament with a small osteotome under direct arthroscopic visualization, the capsule and meniscus can be mobilized without compromising stability. Knotless suture anchors are used to secure the meniscus in a centralized position, restoring the meniscus's function and reducing medial compartment pressures. This approach addresses meniscal extrusion and aims to prevent further degeneration in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND:Meniscal preservation has been demonstrated to contribute to long-term knee health and has been a successful intervention in isolation and in patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The long-term results of meniscal repair in the setting of revision ACLR have yet to be documented. PURPOSE:To report the incidence of meniscal repair failures at the 6-year follow-up in a cohort of patients who underwent concurrent revision ACLR and primary meniscal repair. STUDY DESIGN:Prospective cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS:All revision ACLRs with concomitant primary meniscal repair cases from a multicenter group between 2006 and 2011 were selected. Six-year follow-up was obtained to determine whether any subsequent surgery had occurred since their initial revision ACLR. If so, operative reports were obtained, whenever possible, to verify pathological condition and treatment. RESULTS:In total, 221 patients from 1234 revision ACLRs underwent concurrent primary meniscal repairs (18% of the cohort). There were 238 repairs performed: 173 medial and 65 lateral. The majority of these repairs (n = 181; 76%) were performed with an all-inside technique. Six-year surgical follow-up was obtained in 77% (171/221) of the cohort, or 189 of 238 (79%) of the repairs (136 medial, 53 lateral). The meniscal repair failure rate, defined as reoperation, was 16% (31/189) at 6 years. Of the 31 failures, 28 were medial (24 all-inside, 4 inside-out; 28/136 = 20.6% failure rate) and 3 were lateral (2 all-inside, 1 inside-out; 3/53 = 5.7% failure rate). Three medial failures were treated in conjunction with a subsequent repeat revision ACLR. Medial tears underwent reoperation for failure at a significantly higher rate than lateral tears (20.6% vs 5.7%; P = .01) and had a significantly shorter survival time compared with lateral tears (P = .02). No difference was found between the failure and nonfailure groups when it came to tear type, tear length, repair technique utilized, suture/implant type, or number of sutures used between the 2 groups. CONCLUSION:Meniscal repair in the revision ACLR setting has a 16% failure rate at 6 years. Failure rates for medial tears (20.6%) were found to be higher than that for lateral tears (5.7%), which aligns with previous studies in both the revision and primary ACLR setting.

Background:Focal chondral defects are often treated with cartilage restoration procedures. Malalignment often accompanies chondral defects. High tibial osteotomy (HTO), classically utilized to treat uni-compartmental knee osteoarthritis, corrects malalignment. HTO combined with cartilage restoration procedures can treat uni-compartmental osteoarthritis and focal chondral defects. Purpose:To assess outcomes of combined HTO and cartilage restoration procedures and review prognostic factors that may assist in preoperative planning and patient counseling. Study design:Systematic Review of published literature. Methods:A systematic review of PubMed and Scopus was performed following PRISMA guidelines. Thirty-four papers were included in qualitative considerations. Results:Thirty-four papers that reported the combined outcome of HTO and cartilage repair were included. Twenty of the 34 included papers reported prognostic factors that affected the success or failure of combined HTO and cartilage repair surgery for focal articular defect and uni-compartmental knee osteoarthritis. Cartilage repair techniques that were combined with HTO and included in this review are bone marrow stimulation, allograft transplantation, osteochondral autograft transplantation, autologous chondrocyte implantation, and mesenchymal stem cell implantation. Conclusions:HTO with adjunctive cartilage repair procedures improve clinical outcome scores and restore alignment in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis and isolated focal chondral defects. HTO with adjunctive cartilage procedures produces optimal results in younger, non-obese patients with focal chondral defects and varus malalignment, without significant lateral compartment and patellofemoral involvement.

Background: As machine learning becomes increasingly utilized in orthopaedic clinical research, the application of machine learning methodology to cohort data from the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) presents a valuable opportunity to translate data into patient-specific insights. Purpose: To apply novel machine learning methodology to MARS cohort data to determine a predictive model of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR) graft failure and features most predictive of failure. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The authors prospectively recruited patients undergoing rACLR from the MARS cohort and obtained preoperative radiographs, surgeon-reported intraoperative findings, and 2- and 6-year follow-up data on patient-reported outcomes, additional surgeries, and graft failure. Machine learning models including logistic regression (LR), XGBoost, gradient boosting (GB), random forest (RF), and a validated ensemble algorithm (AutoPrognosis) were built to predict graft failure by 6 years postoperatively. Validated performance metrics and feature importance measures were used to evaluate model performance. Results: The cohort included 960 patients who completed 6-year follow-up, with 5.7% (n = 55) experiencing graft failure. AutoPrognosis demonstrated the highest discriminative power (model area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: AutoPrognosis, 0.703; RF, 0.618; GB, 0.660; XGBoost, 0.680; LR, 0.592), with well-calibrated scores (model Brier score: AutoPrognosis, 0.053; RF, 0.054; GB, 0.057; XGBoost, 0.058; LR, 0.111). The most important features for AutoPrognosis model performance were prior compromised femoral and tibial tunnels (placement and size) and allograft graft type used in current rACLR. Conclusion: The present study demonstrated the ability of the novel AutoPrognosis machine learning model to best predict the risk of graft failure in patients undergoing rACLR at 6 years postoperatively with moderate predictive ability. Femoral and tibial tunnel size and position in prior ACLR and allograft use in current rACLR were all risk factors for rACLR failure in the context of the AutoPrognosis model. This study describes a unique model that can be externally validated with larger data sets and contribute toward the creation of a robust rACLR bedside risk calculator in future studies. Registration: NCT00625885 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

BACKGROUND:Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been documented to have inferior outcomes compared with primary ACL reconstruction. The reasons why remain unknown. PURPOSE:To determine whether surgical factors performed at the time of revision ACL reconstruction can influence a patient's outcome at 6-year follow-up. STUDY DESIGN:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS:Patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction were identified and prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Data collected included baseline patient characteristics, surgical technique and pathology, and a series of validated patient-reported outcome instruments: Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective form, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Marx activity rating score. Patients were followed up for 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of outcome instruments. Regression analysis was used to control for baseline patient characteristics and surgical variables to assess the surgical risk factors for clinical outcomes 6 years after surgery. RESULTS:A total of 1234 patients were enrolled (716 men, 58%; median age, 26 years), and 6-year follow-up was obtained on 79% of patients (980/1234). Using an interference screw for femoral fixation compared with a cross-pin resulted in significantly better outcomes in 6-year IKDC scores (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-3.9; P = .008) and KOOS sports/recreation and quality of life subscale scores (OR range, 2.2-2.7; 95% CI, 1.2-4.8; P < .01). Use of an interference screw compared with a cross-pin resulted in a 2.6 times less likely chance of having a subsequent surgery within 6 years. Use of an interference screw for tibial fixation compared with any combination of tibial fixation techniques resulted in significantly improved scores for IKDC (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.3-2.9; P = .001); KOOS pain, activities of daily living, and sports/recreation subscales (OR range, 1.5-1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.4; P < .05); and WOMAC pain and activities of daily living subscales (OR range, 1.5-1.8; 95% CI, 1.0-2.7; P < .05). Use of a transtibial surgical approach compared with an anteromedial portal approach resulted in significantly improved KOOS pain and quality of life subscale scores at 6 years (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.02-2.2; P≤ .04). CONCLUSION:There are surgical variables at the time of ACL revision that can modify clinical outcomes at 6 years. Opting for a transtibial surgical approach and choosing an interference screw for femoral and tibial fixation improved patients' odds of having a significantly better 6-year clinical outcome in this cohort.

Background Anterior rotator interval lesions (ARIL) have been associated with shoulder instability. However, a paucity of data exists on its association with labrum pathology as a source for persistent anterior shoulder pain. This study primarily aims to describe pathoanatomy of ARIL and the parameters we used that aid in the diagnosis of ARIL. Secondly, the objective is to describe and report the prevalence of ARIL in combination with labrum injuries presenting as anterior shoulder pain with mild or no instability. Lastly, we intend to present a cohort of patients with combined labrum injury and ARIL and report on the clinical results after labrum repair with Arthroscopic Rotator Interval Closure (ARIC). Methods Consecutive patients at a single center in United States treated for labrum tears were included by retrospective chart-review. Patients presenting with anterior shoulder pain with mild or no instability were included. Patients with recurrent dislocations, moderate to severe instability and those with bony lesions were excluded. Besides history and physical examination, Magnetic Resonance Arthrography (MRA) was used to aid the diagnosis. Labrum tears with ARIL were treated with an additional ARIC procedure along with arthroscopic labrum repair. Results Out of two hundred fourty patients with a labrum tear, 114 had associated ARIL. The prevalence of ARIL ranged from 71 % with reverse Bankart tears to 46 % with anterior Bankart and 36 % in Type II SLAP tears. The success rate after labrum tear repair with ARIC performed in patients with ARIL with labrum pathology was 94.7 % at a 2-year follow-up in terms of relief from anterior shoulder pain. Conclusion Almost half (47.5 %) of our patients presented with anterior shoulder pain with labrum tears were associated with ARIL. We recommend keeping a high index of suspicion for ARIL in labrum injuries presenting mainly with anterior shoulder pain for better treatment planning. Level of evidence Level IV (Retrospective case series without a comparision group)

Background:Several classifications have been proposed for subscapularis tendon tearing (SCTs); however, there remains a poor agreement between orthopedic surgeons regarding the diagnosis and management of these lesions. Distinguishing the various tear patterns and classifying them with some prognostic significance may aid the operating surgeon in planning appropriate treatment.Purpose:The purpose of this study was to outline the current literature regarding SCT classification and treatment and conduct a survey among shoulder and elbow surgeons to identify the approaches regarding surgical decision-making for these injuries.Methods:In this systematic review, we analyzed 12 articles regarding the subscapularis tendon tear classification and implications regarding treatment plans and outcomes. In addition, 4 international experts in subscapularis repair surgery participated in the development of a questionnaire form that was distributed to 1161 ASES members. One hundred sixty five surgeons participated and chose whether they agree, disagree, or abstain for each of the 32 statements in 4 parts including indications/contraindications, treatment plan, and the factors affecting outcomes in the survey.Results:Classification criteria were extremely variable with differing recommendations and descriptions of tear morphology; most were based on tear size, associated shoulder pathology, or lesser tuberosity footprint exposure. Considering the multiple classification systems and the overall poor agreement regarding SCT management, our study found that the most widely agreed upon (more than 80%) statements included early surgery is advised for traumatic SCT, chronic degenerative SCT (without fatty infiltration) associated with acute supraspinatus tear is a candidate for repair, and rotator cuff arthropathy is a contraindication for SCT repair.Conclusion:Our study was able to identify both patient and tear characteristics that are well agreed upon among surgeons in the treatment of these injuries. Lafosse classification is generally widely accepted; however, it needs to be improved by some additions. Continued collaboration among surgeons is needed to establish an acceptable and broadly applicable classification system for the management of these injuries.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to systematically review the clinical and biomechanical studies regarding noncircular (rectangular and oval) femoral tunnel anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). We hypothesized that noncircular femoral tunnel ACLR has its advantages in unique situations while maintaining comparable clinical and radiographic outcomes when compared to conventional techniques. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed in PubMed and Scopus databases to identify published articles on the clinical outcomes of noncircular (rectangle and oval) ACLR. The results of the eligible studies were analyzed in terms of instrumented laxity measurements, Lachman test, pivot-shift test, Lysholm and Tegner scores, objective and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, and surgical complications/failures. A meta-analysis was performed on Lysholm scores and KT side-to-side data comparing noncircular ACLR with the conventional round technique. Results: A total of 22 papers for the rectangle group ( n = 1314) met the inclusion criteria. With an average follow-up of 15.8 months (±10.4 months), the mean reported Lysholm score was 97.8 (±0.80) and the mean reported KT-1000 arthrometer measurement was 1.2 (±1.9). When comparing the rectangle technique to the conventional round, no significant differences were seen regarding the Lysholm score ( P = 0.95) or KT-1000 arthrometer measurements ( P = 0.14) at the final follow-up. In the oval group, a total of 5 studies ( n = 322) met the eligibility criteria. With an average follow-up of 20.2 months (±13.7 months), the mean reported Lysholm score was 94.4 (±2.0), the mean IKDC subjective was 90.4 (±1.2), and the mean KT-1000 arthrometer measurement was 1.6 (±0.4). The scarcity of randomized controlled trials available for this analysis limited the amount of data available for meta-analysis. Conclusions: Noncircular femoral tunnel ACLR has shown reasonable and comparable clinical outcomes to the conventional technique, demonstrating no difference between the two techniques and making it a valuable option for primary or revision ACLR.

Background: Meniscal and chondral damage is common in the patient undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Purpose: To determine if meniscal and/or articular cartilage pathology at the time of revision ACL surgery significantly influences a patient’s outcome at 6-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction were prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Data collection included baseline demographics, surgical technique, pathology, treatment, and scores from 4 validated patient-reported outcome instruments: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Marx Activity Rating Scale. Patients were followed up at 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of outcome instruments. Regression analysis assessed the meniscal and articular cartilage pathology risk factors for clinical outcomes 6 years after revision ACL reconstruction. Results: An overall 1234 patients were enrolled (716 males, 58%; median age, 26 years). Surgeons reported the pathology at the time of revision surgery in the medial meniscus (45%), lateral meniscus (36%), medial femoral condyle (43%), lateral femoral condyle (29%), medial tibial plateau (11%), lateral tibial plateau (17%), patella (30%), and trochlea (21%). Six-year follow-up was obtained on 79% of the sample (980/1234). Meniscal pathology and articular cartilage pathology (medial femoral condyle, lateral femoral condyle, lateral tibial plateau, trochlea, and patella) were significant drivers of poorer patient-reported outcomes at 6 years (IKDC, KOOS, WOMAC, and Marx). The most consistent factors driving outcomes were having a medial meniscal excision (either before or at the time of revision surgery) and patellofemoral articular cartilage pathology. Six-year Marx activity levels were negatively affected by having either a repair/excision of the medial meniscus (odds ratio range, 1.45-1.72; P≤ .04) or grade 3-4 patellar chondrosis (odds ratio, 1.72; P = .04). Meniscal pathology occurring before the index revision surgery negatively affected scores on all KOOS subscales except for sports/recreation ( P < .05). Articular cartilage pathology significantly impaired all KOOS subscale scores ( P < .05). Lower baseline outcome scores, higher body mass index, being a smoker, and incurring subsequent surgery all significantly increased the odds of reporting poorer clinical outcomes at 6 years. Conclusion: Meniscal and chondral pathology at the time of revision ACL reconstruction has continued significant detrimental effects on patient-reported outcomes at 6 years after revision surgery.

BACKGROUND:Patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision report lower outcome scores on validated knee questionnaires postoperatively compared to cohorts with primary ACL reconstruction. In a previously active population, it is unclear if patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are associated with a return to activity (RTA) or vary by sports participation level (higher level vs. recreational athletes).HYPOTHESES:Individual RTA would be associated with improved outcomes (ie, decreased knee symptoms, pain, function) as measured using validated PROs. Recreational participants would report lower PROs compared with higher level athletes and be less likely to RTA.STUDY DESIGN:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.METHODS:There were 862 patients who underwent a revision ACL reconstruction (rACLR) and self-reported physical activity at any level preoperatively. Those who did not RTA reported no activity 2 years after revision. Baseline data included patient characteristics, surgical history and characteristics, and PROs: International Knee Documentation Committee questionnaire, Marx Activity Rating Scale, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. A binary indicator was used to identify patients with same/better PROs versus worse outcomes compared with baseline, quantifying the magnitude of change in each direction, respectively. Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate risk factors for not returning to activity, the association of 2-year PROs after rACLR surgery by RTA status, and whether each PRO and RTA status differed by participation level.RESULTS:At 2 years postoperatively, approximately 15% did not RTA, with current smokers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.3; P = .001), female patients (aOR = 2.9; P < .001), recreational participants (aOR = 2.0; P = .016), and those with a previous medial meniscal excision (aOR = 1.9; P = .013) having higher odds of not returning. In multivariate models, not returning to activity was significantly associated with having worse PROs at 2 years; however, no clinically meaningful differences in PROs at 2 years were seen between participation levels.CONCLUSION:Recreational-level participants were twice as likely to not RTA compared with those participating at higher levels. Within a previously active cohort, no RTA was a significant predictor of lower PROs after rACLR. However, among patients who did RTA after rACLR, approximately 20% reported lower outcome scores. Most patients with rACLR who were active at baseline improved over time; however, patients who reported worse outcomes at 2 years had a clinically meaningful decline across all PROs.

» The thrower's shoulder has been a subject of great interest for many decades. Different theories have been proposed to clarify the pathophysiology, clinical presentation, and treatment options for this condition. In this review article, we summarize the relevant anatomy and pathophysiology and how these translate into signs, symptoms, and imaging findings. Also, a historical review of the treatment methodologies in the setting of an evolving concept is presented. » The initial event in the cascade is thickening and contracture of the posteroinferior capsule resulting from repetitive tensile forces during the deceleration phase of throwing. This is known as "the essential lesion" and is clinically perceived as glenohumeral internal rotation deficit (GIRD), and a Bennett lesion may be found on radiographs. » Change in the glenohumeral contact point leads to a series of adaptations that are beneficial for the mechanics of throwing, specifically in achieving the so-called "slot," which will maximize throwing performance. » The complexity of the throwing shoulder is the result of an interplay of the different elements described in the cascade, as well as other factors such as pectoralis minor tightness and scapular dyskinesis. However, it is still unclear which event is the tipping point that breaks the balance between these adaptations and triggers the shift from an asymptomatic shoulder to a painful disabled joint that can jeopardize the career of a throwing athlete. Consequences are rotator cuff impingement and tear, labral injury, and scapular dyskinesis, which are seen both clinically and radiographically. » A thorough understanding of the pathologic cascade is paramount for professionals who care for throwing athletes. The successful treatment of this condition depends on correct identification of the point in the cascade that is disturbed. The typical injuries described in the throwing shoulder rarely occur in isolation; thus, an overlap of symptoms and clinical findings is common. » The rationale for treatment is based on the pathophysiologic biomechanics and should involve stretching, scapular stabilization, and core and lower-body strengthening, as well as correction of throwing mechanics, integrating the entire kinetic chain. When nonoperative treatment is unsuccessful, surgical options should be tailored for the specific changes within the pathologic cascade that are causing a dysfunctional throwing shoulder.

Introduction:Most patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) experience favorable outcomes. Some patients, however, experience prolonged post-operative knee pain and tenderness at the joint line. This has been attributed in some cases to soft tissue impingement due to pseudomeniscus. The purpose of this study is to evaluate patient outcomes for arthroscopic excision of pseudomeniscus for persistent knee pain after TKA and to perform a review of literature for pseudomeniscus after knee arthroplasty. Methods:A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing arthroscopy to remove soft tissue causing persistent knee pain after previous TKA was performed. Outcome scores were asked at three time points: prior to knee arthroplasty, prior to arthroscopy, and post-arthroscopy at final follow-up. Subjective satisfaction with surgery and willingness to repeat procedures were also recorded. A two-tailed distribution paired t-test was used to determine statistical significance (p < 0.05). We also performed a review of the literature for pseudomeniscus complications for comparison. Results:Nine out of eleven patients were considered eligible to be assessed for post-operative satisfaction. Seven out of nine patients reported complete satisfaction and eight participants stated they would undergo the procedures again if they have to. Among 9 included patients, five patients have successfully completed the clinical score evaluation survey. The mean age of the patients with clinical score evaluation at the time of TKA was 61 years (range, 53-72) and the time between TKA and undergoing arthroscopy was 8 months (range, 5-13). The average follow-up period for patient-determined assessment after the arthroscopic procedure was 71 months (range, 16-115). All 5 patients reported improved Oxford Knee Scores (p=0.017), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (p=0.023), and pain scores (p=0.018) comparing pre-arthroscopy to post-arthroscopy at follow-up. Conclusion:Arthroscopic removal of pseudomeniscus after TKA provides promising results in patients who experience persistent knee joint line pain and tenderness. Considering our results and review of literature, we recommend including pseudomeniscus in the differential for post arthroplasty knee pain. Study design:Case series with a review of literature.

Background: Lytic or malpositioned tunnels may require bone grafting during revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR) surgery. Patient characteristics and effects of grafting on outcomes after rACLR are not well described. Purpose: To describe preoperative characteristics, intraoperative findings, and 2-year outcomes for patients with rACLR undergoing bone grafting procedures compared with patients with rACLR without grafting. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 1234 patients who underwent rACLR were prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Baseline revision and 2-year characteristics, surgical technique, pathology, treatment, and patient-reported outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and Marx Activity Rating Scale [Marx]) were collected, as well as subsequent surgery information, if applicable. The chi-square and analysis of variance tests were used to compare group characteristics. Results: A total of 159 patients (13%) underwent tunnel grafting—64 (5%) patients underwent 1-stage and 95 (8%) underwent 2-stage grafting. Grafting was isolated to the femur in 31 (2.5%) patients, the tibia in 40 (3%) patients, and combined in 88 patients (7%). Baseline KOOS Quality of Life (QoL) and Marx activity scores were significantly lower in the 2-stage group compared with the no bone grafting group ( P≤ .001). Patients who required 2-stage grafting had more previous ACLRs ( P < .001) and were less likely to have received a bone–patellar tendon–bone or a soft tissue autograft at primary ACLR procedure ( P≤ .021) compared with the no bone grafting group. For current rACLR, patients undergoing either 1-stage or 2-stage bone grafting were more likely to receive a bone–patellar tendon–bone allograft ( P≤ .008) and less likely to receive a soft tissue autograft ( P≤ .003) compared with the no bone grafting group. At 2-year follow-up of 1052 (85%) patients, we found inferior outcomes in the 2-stage bone grafting group (IKDC score = 68; KOOS QoL score = 44; KOOS Sport/Recreation score = 65; and Marx activity score = 3) compared with the no bone grafting group (IKDC score = 77; KOOS QoL score = 63; KOOS Sport/Recreation score = 75; and Marx activity score = 7) ( P≤ .01). The 1-stage bone graft group did not significantly differ compared with the no bone grafting group. Conclusion: Tunnel bone grafting was performed in 13% of our rACLR cohort, with 8% undergoing 2-stage surgery. Patients treated with 2-stage grafting had inferior baseline and 2-year patient-reported outcomes and activity levels compared with patients not undergoing bone grafting. Patients treated with 1-stage grafting had similar baseline and 2-year patient-reported outcomes and activity levels compared with patients not undergoing bone grafting.

Background: Although graft choice may be limited in the revision setting based on previously used grafts, most surgeons believe that graft choice for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is an important factor related to outcome.Hypothesis: In the ACL revision setting, there would be no difference between autograft and allograft in rerupture rate and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 6-year follow-up.Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.Methods: Patients who had revision surgery were identified and prospectively enrolled in this cohort study by 83 surgeons over 52 sites. Data collected included baseline characteristics, surgical technique and pathology, and a series of validated PRO measures. Patients were followed up at 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of PRO instruments. Incidence of additional surgery and reoperation because of graft failure were also recorded. Multivariable regression models were used to determine the predictors (risk factors) of PROs, graft rerupture, and reoperation at 6 years after revision surgery.Results: A total of 1234 patients including 716 (58%) men were enrolled. A total of 325 (26%) underwent revision using a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autograft; 251 (20%), soft tissue autograft; 289 (23%), BTB allograft; 302 (25%), soft tissue allograft; and 67 (5%), other graft. Questionnaires and telephone follow-up for subsequent surgery information were obtained for 809 (66%) patients, while telephone follow-up was only obtained for an additional 128 patients for the total follow-up on 949 (77%) patients. Graft choice was a significant predictor of 6-year Marx Activity Rating Scale scores (P = .024). Specifically, patients who received a BTB autograft for revision reconstruction had higher activity levels than did patients who received a BTB allograft (odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.25-2.94). Graft rerupture was reported in 5.8%(55/949) of patients by their 6-year follow-up: 3.5% (16/455) of patients with autografts and 8.4% (37/441) of patients with allografts. Use of a BTB autograft for revision resulted in patients being 4.2 times less likely to sustain a subsequent graft rupture than if a BTB allograft were utilized (P = .011; 95% CI, 1.56-11.27). No significant differences were found in graft rerupture rates between BTB autograft and soft tissue autografts (P = .87) or between BTB autografts and soft tissue allografts (P = .36). Use of an autograft was found to be a significant predictor of having fewer reoperations within 6 years compared with using an allograft (P = .010; OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.87).Conclusion: BTB and soft tissue autografts had a decreased risk in graft rerupture compared with BTB allografts. BTB autografts were associated with higher activity level than were BTB allografts at 6 years after revision reconstruction. Surgeons and patients should consider this information when choosing a graft for revision ACL reconstruction.

Infection is a rare occurrence after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR). Because of the low rates of infection, it has been difficult to identify risk factors for infection in this patient population. The purpose of this study was to report the rate of infection following rACLR and assess whether infection is associated with patient- and surgeon-dependent risk factors. We reviewed two large prospective cohorts to identify patients with postoperative infections following rACLR. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, history of diabetes, and graft choice were recorded for each patient. The association of these factors with postoperative infection following rACLR was assessed. There were 1423 rACLR cases in the combined cohort, with 9 (0.6%) reporting postoperative infections. Allografts had a higher risk of infection than autografts (odds ratio, 6.8; 95% CI, 0.9-54.5;p = .045). Diabetes (odds ratio, 28.6; 95% CI, 5.5-149.9;p = .004) was a risk factor for infection. Patient age, sex, BMI, and smoking status were not associated with risk of infection after rACLR.

This study aims to compare the actual patellar tendon width with the skin and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measurements and to describe a more accurate method to predict the actual patellar tendon width before anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).Thirty-nine patients undergoing primary ACLR were identified. Patients with patellar tendon width of less than 30mm by skin or MRI measurements were excluded from the study. The actual patellar tendon width was measured as an intraoperative reading taken after surgical exposure. Mean difference between the skin and actual measurement and mean difference between the MRI and actual measurement was calculated. Paired t -test was run to determine any significant differences. A difference was also calculated between the actual measurement and the average sum of skin and MRI measurements for each patient. Skin thickness was compared to Delta (Delta =preincision skin measurement of patellar tendon width minus postincision actual measurement) by Spearman's correlation test. Mean difference between skin and actual measurements was 2.5mm, with p =0.001. Mean difference between MRI and actual measurement was -2.7mm with p =0.001. However, the mean difference between the actual and the average sum of skin and MRI measurements was 0.13mm with p =0.76. The Pearson's correlation coefficient, r(s) , between average sum of skin and MRI measurements and the actual measurement was 0.6 with p =0.001. There was no correlation found between the skin thickness and Delta.. This study indicates that there is a significant difference between the actual patellar tendon width and the measurement of the tendon taken using a ruler on the skin or using MRI image software. However, the average sum of skin and MRI measurements, which is not significantly different from the actual width, can accurately predict the actual patellar tendon width before ACLR. The study reflects level IV evidence.

Purpose: (1) To determine whether examination under anesthesia (EUA) and/or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an accurate means for determining patient selection for a selective-bundle reconstruction, (2) to determine whether the preoperative clinical assessment correlates with the arthroscopic examination, and (3) to examine histologically whether a partial anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear is truly partial in terms of vascular insult. Methods: This prospective, nonrandomized cohort study included 95 patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction from January 2013 through May 2014. All patients underwent an EUA, MRI, and arthroscopic evaluation. In patients with partial ACL tears, the intact bundle was resected and underwent histologic examination. The chi(2) test was used to compare EUA and MRI in the detection of partial tears. Results: Of the 95 patients included, 40 (42%) had EUA findings consistent with a partial ACL tear whereas 22 (23%) had MRI findings interpreted as showing a partial ACL tear. Arthroscopic examination confirmed a partial ACL tear in only 11 patients (12%). The sensitivity of EUA and MRI in the detection of partial ACL tears was 100% and 90.9%, and the specificity was 65% and 85.7%, respectively. The chi(2) test suggested statistically significant associations between the method of evaluation and diagnostic outcome [chi(2)(1) = 7.83, P = .005]. MRI was 1.24 times more likely to correctly identify a partial tear (95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.45). EUA was 2.23 times as likely to incorrectly identify a partial tear (95% confidence interval, 1.24-4.02). The histologic analysis showed increased numbers of lymphocytes, absent polymorphonuclear leukocytes, predominant fibroblasts, neovascularization, and variable collagen orientation. Conclusions: There is a disparity between EUA, MRI, and arthroscopic findings in the evaluation of partial ACL tears. Arthroscopy remains the gold standard for diagnosing the macroscopic integrity of the intact bundle. Microscopic analysis reveals that the integrity of the remaining intact ligament material is altered and may show a histologic response similar to a complete ACL rupture.

Background: Meniscal preservation has been demonstrated to contribute to long-term knee health. This has been a successful intervention in patients with isolated tears and tears associated with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, the results of meniscal repair in the setting of revision ACL reconstruction have not been documented. Purpose: To examine the prevalence and 2-year operative success rate of meniscal repairs in the revision ACL setting. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: All cases of revision ACL reconstruction with concomitant meniscal repair from a multicenter group between 2006 and 2011 were selected. Two-year follow-up was obtained by phone and email to determine whether any subsequent surgery had occurred to either knee since the initial revision ACL reconstruction. If so, operative reports were obtained, whenever possible, to verify the pathologic condition and subsequent treatment. Results: In total, 218 patients (18%) from 1205 revision ACL reconstructions underwent concurrent meniscal repairs. There were 235 repairs performed: 153 medial, 48 lateral, and 17 medial and lateral. The majority of these repairs (n = 178; 76%) were performed with all-inside techniques. Two-year surgical follow-up was obtained on 90% (197/218) of the cohort. Overall, the meniscal repair failure rate was 8.6% (17/197) at 2 years. Of the 17 failures, 15 were medial (13 all-inside, 2 inside-out) and 2 were lateral (both all-inside). Four medial failures were treated in conjunction with a subsequent repeat revision ACL reconstruction. Conclusion: Meniscal repair in the revision ACL reconstruction setting does not have a high failure rate at 2-year follow-up. Failure rates for medial and lateral repairs were both <10% and consistent with success rates of primary ACL reconstruction meniscal repair. Medial tears underwent reoperation for failure at a significantly higher rate than lateral tears.

Purpose: To summarize currently available data regarding the use of bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) for the treatment of focal chondral lesions of the knee in experimental animal models and human clinical studies. Methods: A systematic review searching for the terms "(bone marrow)" AND "(aspirate OR concentrate)" AND "(cartilage OR chondral OR osteochondral)" was performed in the databases PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar regarding the use of BMAC for the treatment of focal chondral lesions of the knee. The inclusion criteria were animal and clinical studies published in English that used autologous BMAC to treat focal chondral defects of the knee. We excluded studies that evaluated nonconcentrated preparations of bone marrow aspirate or preparations that were culture expanded. Results: A total of 23 studies were included: 10 studies performed in animal models and 13 human clinical studies. Animal studies showed inconsistent outcomes regarding the efficacy of BMAC for the treatment of chondral or osteochondral lesions, assessed by gross morphology, second-look arthroscopy, magnetic resonance imaging, histology, immunohistochemistry, mechanical testing, and micro-tomography. Chondral defect filling was achieved with fibrocartilage or "hyaline-like" cartilage. Cells present in BMAC did not meet the criteria to be characterized as mesenchymal stem cells according to the International Society for Cell Therapy because freshly isolated cells failed to show trilineage differentiation. Overall, all clinical studies, independent of the study group or level of evidence, reported improved clinical outcomes and higher macroscopic, magnetic resonance imaging, and histology scores. Comparative trials favored BMAC over microfracture and reported equivalent outcomes between BMAC and matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation. However, clinical studies were scant and showed low scientific rigor, poor methodologic quality, and low levels of evidence on average. Conclusions: Although clinical success in short-term and midterm applications has been suggested for the application of BMAC for the restoration of cartilage defects in lesions of the knee, current study designs are generally of low scientific rigor. In addition, clinical applications of this technology in animal model investigations have shown inconsistent outcomes. Thus, clinicians should apply this technology cautiously.