Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using a 2-Stage Technique With Bone Grafting of the Tibial Tunnel
Background: Revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery is often considered a salvage procedure with limited goals. However, this limitation need not be the case. Similar to primary reconstruction, the goal should be to choose an appropriate graft and place it in an anatomical position in a good qua...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The American journal of sports medicine 2005-11, Vol.33 (11), p.1701-1709 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background: Revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery is often considered a salvage procedure with limited goals. However, this limitation
need not be the case. Similar to primary reconstruction, the goal should be to choose an appropriate graft and place it in
an anatomical position in a good quality bone. The issue of good quality bone seems to have been ignored.
Hypothesis: A 2-stage anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction with bone grafting of the tibial tunnel and the use of a different
femoral tunnel will produce measured knee laxity and International Knee Documentation Committee scores similar to a primary
anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Study Design: Case control study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods: This prospective study involved 49 consecutive 2-stage anterior cruciate ligament revisions (group R) performed by a single
surgeon from 1993 to 2000. Two-stage revision surgery was performed if the tibial tunnel from a previous reconstruction surgery
would overlap (either partially or fully) the correctly placed revision tunnel. The first stage consisted of removal of the
old graft and interfering metalwork, together with bone grafting of the tibial tunnel. After ensuring adequate bone graft
incorporation using computed tomography scan, the second stage revision was undertaken. This stage comprised harvesting the
autograft, its anatomical placement, and its adequate fixation. The results were compared with the results of a matched group
of patients with primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (group P).
Results: In group R, as meniscal and chondral lesions were more common, the International Knee Documentation Committee scores were
lower than those of group P (61.2 for group R and 72.8 for group P; P = .006). Objective laxity measurement was similar in both groups (1.36 mm for group R and 1.2 mm for group P; P = .25).
Conclusion: This study establishes that the laxity measurements achieved with a 2-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
can be similar to those achieved after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, although the International Knee
Documentation Committee rating is lower.
Keywords:
revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction
bone grafting
clinical outcome |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0363-5465 1552-3365 |
DOI: | 10.1177/0363546505276759 |