Skip to main content
Log in

Rehabilitation after one-stage anterior cruciate reconstruction and osteochondral grafting

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

At least 10–20% of all ACL reconstructions require additional cartilage repair. The aim of this study was to compare the activity recovered by patients after one-stage open ACL reconstruction and osteochondral autologous grafting of articular cartilage lesions and after isolated open ACL reconstruction. The study group included 21 patients with chronic ACL deficiency and grade III or IV cartilage lesion according to the ICRS scale who were treated with combined ACL reconstruction and osteochondral grafting in one step. The control group included 32 patients with chronic ACL insufficiency and no chondral deficit higher than grade I on the ICRS scale who underwent isolated reconstruction of the ligament. For the assessment, the Lysholm and Gillquist (L&G) score and the functional Marshall score were used. Both groups displayed a statistically significant improvement in the L&G score and the Marshall score between the preoperative and 12-month assessments. The mean gain in L&G score over this period was 30.66±7.79 in the study group and 31.65±6.96 in the control group. The difference between the control group and the study group was not significant. The difference between 12 months and initial assessment was counted. The mean gain in Marshall score was 9.05±3.81 in the study group and 10.71±3.43 in the control group. The difference between the initial and the 12-month evaluation was statistically significant (p=0.49). Return to normal activity was slower and patient satisfaction was lower during the first year after operation in the study group than in the control group, however the overall advantage of the one-step operation outweighs the slightly inferior functional results at 12 months.

Résumé

Au moins 10 à 20% des reconstructions de ligament croisé antérieur nécessitent un geste sur le cartilage. Le but de ce travail était de comparer la fonction des patients après ligamentoplastie et autogreffe de cartilage en un temps et après ligamentoplastie isolée. Le groupe d'étude comprenait 21 patients avec des lésions cartilagineuses de grade III ou IV selon l'échelle ICRS et le groupe de contrôle, traité avec une ligamentoplastie isolée, comprenait 32 patients avec des lésions cartilagineuses ne dépassant pas le grade I. Pour l'évaluation le score de Lysholm et de Gillquist ainsi que le score fonctionnel de Marshall ont été utilisés. Les deux groupes ont eut une amélioration significative dans ces scores entre l'état préopératoire et celui 12 mois après. Pour le premier, le gain moyen en points était de 30,66+−3,43 dans le groupe d'étude et de 31,65+−6,96 dans le groupe de contrôle, sans différence statistique notable. Pour le deuxiéme, le gain moyen du groupe d'étude était de 9,5+−3,81 et celui du groupe de contrôle était de 10,71+−3,43, avec une différence significative (p=0,49). Le retour à une activité normale et la satisfaction des patients dans la première année après l'opération est moins bonne dans le groupe d'étude que dans le groupe de contrôle.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alfredson H, Thorsen K, Lorentzon R (1999) Treatment of tear of the anterior cruciate ligament combined with localised deep cartilage defects in the knee with ligament reconstruction and autologous periosteum transplantation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 7(2):69–74

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. O'Driscoll SW (1999) Articular cartilage regeneration using periosteum. Clin Orthop 367[Suppl]:186–203

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fithian DC, Paxton LW, Goltz DH (2002) Fate of the anterior cruciate ligament injured knee. Orthop Clin North Am 33(4):621–636v, Oct

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Hangody L, Fules P (2003) Autologous osteochondral mosaicplasty for the treatment of full-thickness defects of weight-bearing joints: ten years of experimental and clinical experience. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85-A Suppl 2:25–32

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hjelle K, Solheim E, Strand T, Muri R, Brittberg M (2002) Articular cartilage defects in 1000 knee arthroscopies. Arthroscopy 18(7):730–734, Sept

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Jones HP, Appleyard RC, Mahajan S, Murrel GA (2003) Meniscal and chondral loss in the anterior cruciate ligament injured knee. Sports Med 33(14):1075–1089

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lysholm J, Gillquist J (1982) Evaluation of the knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med 10:150–154

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Maffulli N, Binfield PM, King JB (2003) Articular cartilage lesions in the symptomatic anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee. Arthroscopy 19(7):685–690, Sep

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Marcacci M, Kon E, Zaffagnini S, Iacono F, Neri MP, Vascellari A, Visani A, Russo A (2005) Multiple osteochondral arthroscopic grafting (Mosaicplasty) for cartilage defects of the knee: prospective study results at 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 21(4):462–470, April

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Marshall J, Fetto J, Botero P (1977) Knee ligament injuries: a standardized evaluation method. Clin Orthop 123:115

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Mithofer K, Peterson L, Mandelbaum BR, Minas T (2005) Articular cartilage repair in soccer players with autologous chondrocyte transplantation: functional outcome and return to competition. Am J Sports Med Nov;33(11):1639–1646. Epub 2005 Aug 10

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Nebelung W, Wuschech H (2005) Thirty-five years of follow-up of anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knees in high-level athletes. Arthroscopy 21(6):696–702, June

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Newsletter International Cartilage Repair Society, 5–8, 1998

  14. Robert H (2002) Techniques for repair of chondral and osteochondral lesions in the knee. Principles of rehabilitation. Ann Readapt Med Phys 45(2):62–68, Feb

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Shelbourne KD, Gray T (1997) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autogenous patellar tendon graft followed by accelerated rehabilitation. Am J Sports Med 25(6):786–795

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Stedman JR, Rodkey WG, Rodrigo JJ (2001) Microfracture: surgical technique and rehabilitation to treat chondral defects. Clin Orthop 139[Suppl]:362–369

    Google Scholar 

  17. Tandogan RN, Taser O, Kayaalp A (2004) Analysis of meniscal and chondral lesions accompanying anterior cruciate ligament tears: relationship with age, time from injury, and level of sport. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Jul;12(4):262–270. Epub 2003 Sep 20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Krzysztof Gawęda.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gawęda, K., Walawski, J., Węgłowski, R. et al. Rehabilitation after one-stage anterior cruciate reconstruction and osteochondral grafting. International Orthopaedics (SICO 30, 185–189 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-005-0041-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-005-0041-3

Keywords

Navigation