Differences between traumatic and non-traumatic causes of ACL revision surgery
The purpose of this study was to evaluate and classify causes for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction failure. It was hypothesized that specific technical and biological reconstruction aspects would differ when comparing traumatic and non-traumatic ACL reconstruction failures.
Materials and methods
One hundred and forty-seven consecutive patients who experienced ACL reconstruction failure and underwent revision between 2009 and 2014 were analyzed. Based on a systematic failure analysis, including evaluation of technical information on primary ACL reconstruction and radiological assessment of tunnel positions, causes were classified into traumatic and non-traumatic mechanisms of failure; non-traumatic mechanisms were further sub-divided into technical and biologic causes. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient and chi-squared tests were performed to determine differences between groups based on various factors including graft choice, fixation technique, technique of femoral tunnel positioning, tunnel malpositioning, and time to revision.
Non-traumatic, i.e., technical, and traumatic mechanisms of ACL reconstruction failure were found in 64.5 and 29.1% of patients, respectively. Biological failure was found only in 6.4% of patients. Non-anatomical femoral tunnel positioning was found the most common cause (83.1%) for technical reconstruction failure followed by non-anatomical tibial tunnel positioning (45.1%). There were strong correlations between non-traumatic technical failure and femoral tunnel malpositioning, transtibial femoral tunnel drilling techniques, femoral transfixation techniques as well as earlier graft failure (p < 0.05).
Technical causes, particularly tunnel malpositioning, were significantly correlated with increased incidence of non-traumatic ACL reconstruction failure. Transtibial femoral tunnel positioning techniques and femoral transfixation techniques, showed an increased incidence of non-traumatic, earlier graft failure.
KeywordsAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ACL reconstruction Revision Tunnel positioning Transtibial femoral tunnel positioning Femoral transfixation techniques
There is no funding source.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Institutional review board approval was obtained by the ethics committee of Witten/Herdecke University (IRB Number: 09-2015).
- 2.Wiggins AJ, Grandhi RK, Schneider DK, Stanfield D, Webster KE, Myer GD (2016) Risk of secondary injury in younger athletes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546515621554 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Chen JL, Allen CR, Stephens TE, Haas AK, Huston LJ, Wright RW, Feeley BT, Multicenter ACLRSG. (2013) Differences in mechanisms of failure, intraoperative findings, and surgical characteristics between single- and multiple-revision ACL reconstructions: a MARS cohort study. Am J Sports Med 41(7):1571–1578. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546513487980 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 9.Brophy RH, Haas AK, Huston LJ, Nwosu SK, Group M, Wright RW (2015) Association of meniscal status, lower extremity alignment, and body mass index with chondrosis at revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 43(7):1616–1622. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546515578838 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 10.Hashemi J, Chandrashekar N, Mansouri H, Gill B, Slauterbeck JR, Schutt RC Jr, Dabezies E, Beynnon BD (2010) Shallow medial tibial plateau and steep medial and lateral tibial slopes: new risk factors for anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Am J Sports Med 38(1):54–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546509349055 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Ireland ML, Ballantyne BT, Little K, McClay IS (2001) A radiographic analysis of the relationship between the size and shape of the intercondylar notch and anterior cruciate ligament injury. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 9(4):200–205. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001670100197 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Group M, Wright RW, Huston LJ, Spindler KP, Dunn WR, Haas AK, Allen CR, Cooper DE, DeBerardino TM, Lantz BB, Mann BJ, Stuart MJ (2010) Descriptive epidemiology of the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) cohort. Am J Sports Med 38(10):1979–1986. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546510378645 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Matava MJ, Arciero RA, Baumgarten KM, Carey JL, DeBerardino TM, Hame SL, Hannafin JA, Miller BS, Nissen CW, Taft TN, Wolf BR, Wright RW, Group M (2015) Multirater agreement of the causes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction failure: a radiographic and video analysis of the MARS cohort. Am J Sports Med 43(2):310–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546514560880 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Dejour D, Ntagiopoulos PG, Saggin PR, Panisset JC (2013) The diagnostic value of clinical tests, magnetic resonance imaging, and instrumented laxity in the differentiation of complete versus partial anterior cruciate ligament tears. Arthroscopy 29(3):491–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2012.10.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Sullivan JP, Matava MJ, Flanigan DC, Gao Y, Britton CL, Amendola A, Group M, Wolf BR (2012) Reliability of tunnel measurements and the quadrant method using fluoroscopic radiographs after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 40(10):2236–2241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546512458086 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Wright R, Spindler K, Huston L, Amendola A, Andrish J, Brophy R, Carey J, Cox C, Flanigan D, Jones M, Kaeding C, Marx R, Matava M, McCarty E, Parker R, Vidal A, Wolcott M, Wolf B, Dunn W (2011) Revision ACL reconstruction outcomes: MOON cohort. J Knee Surg 24(4):289–294CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 32.Arno S, Bell CP, Alaia MJ, Singh BC, Jazrawi LM, Walker PS, Bansal A, Garofolo G, Sherman OH (2016) Does anteromedial portal drilling improve footprint placement in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? Clin Orthop Relat Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4847-7 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Chen Y, Chua KH, Singh A, Tan JH, Chen X, Tan SH, Tai BC, Lingaraj K (2015) Outcome of single-bundle hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the anteromedial versus the transtibial technique: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arthroscopy 31(9):1784–1794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2015.06.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 35.Ahn JH, Lee YS, Jeong HJ, Park JH, Cho Y, Kim KJ, Ko TS (2017) Comparison of transtibial and retrograde outside-in techniques of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in terms of graft nature and clinical outcomes: a case control study using 3T MRI. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137(3):357–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-016-2606-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 36.Rahr-Wagner L, Thillemann TM, Pedersen AB, Lind MC (2013) Increased risk of revision after anteromedial compared with transtibial drilling of the femoral tunnel during primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: results from the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Register. Arthroscopy 29(1):98–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2012.09.009 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 37.Jaecker V, Zapf T, Naendrup JH, Pfeiffer T, Kanakamedala AC, Wafaisade A, Shafizadeh S (2017) High non-anatomic tunnel position rates in ACL reconstruction failure using both transtibial and anteromedial tunnel drilling techniques. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137(9):1293–1299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-017-2738-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 38.Zhu M, Li S, Su Z, Zhou X, Peng P, Li J, Wang J, Lin L (2018) Tibial tunnel placement in anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison study of outcomes between patient-specific drill template versus conventional arthroscopic techniques. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 138(4):515–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-018-2880-6 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 40.Gifstad T, Foss OA, Engebretsen L, Lind M, Forssblad M, Albrektsen G, Drogset JO (2014) Lower risk of revision with patellar tendon autografts compared with hamstring autografts: a registry study based on 45,998 primary ACL reconstructions in Scandinavia. Am J Sports Med 42(10):2319–2328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546514548164 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 41.Jaureguito JW, Paulos LE (1996) Why grafts fail. Clin Orthop Relat Res (325):25–41Google Scholar