Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the differences in the patient-reported functional outcomes, and graft failure in revision ACL reconstruction using quadriceps tendon (QT), Hamstring tendon (HT) and bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autografts. Methods Between 2010 and 2020, 97 patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction (40 patients received a QT, 26 an HT and 31 a BPTB graft) met the inclusion criteria. Pre-injury and at 2-year postoperatively patients were evaluated for patient-reported functional outcomes; Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity level and VAS (visual analogue scale) for pain; and graft failure. Patient-reported outcomes and graft failure were compared between the QT, HT and BPTB groups. The patients with graft failure were not included for outcome analysis at 2-years of follow-up. Results All three revision groups with QT, HT and BPTB autograft did not differ significantly in terms of age, sex, time from injury to surgery, concomitant injuries and single-stage or double-stage procedures (n.s.). No significant difference was found in the pre-injury patient-reported outcome; Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity and VAS for pain (n.s.) between the three groups. At the 2-year follow-up functional outcomes improved in all three groups and all the patients returned to pre-injury activity level; however, no significant difference was found in functional outcomes at the 2-year follow-up between the three groups (n.s.). Graft failure occurred in 4 (10%), 5 (19%) and 3 (10%) patients of QT, HT and BPTB groups, respectively. However, the rate of failure did not differ significantly between groups. Conclusion All three autografts (QT, HT and BPTB) demonstrated satisfactory patient-reported outcomes in revision ACL reconstruction. Compared with QT and BPTB grafts, HT graft showed a higher tendency for failure rates. With the increasing incidence of revision ACL reconstruction, surgeons should be aware of all the available graft options. The findings of this study will assist the surgeons in the graft selection for revision ACL reconstruction. Level of evidence Level III.

Purpose This study aimed to systematically evaluate the clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes, complications, and rate of return to sports among patients with RAMP lesion of the medial meniscus encountered during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Methods A systematic review was conducted based on the PRISMA guidelines. Two independent reviewers searched the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases using the terms “ACL” or “anterior cruciate ligament,” and “RAMP lesion.” The outcome measures extracted from the studies were the Short Form-12 (SF-12) in its mental and physical component (MCS and PCS), Lysholm score, Subjective IKDC, Marx Score, WOMAC Score, Tegner, Radiological changes, complications, failures and/or revision surgery, and rate of return to sports. Results The cohort of patients consisted of 1,243 participants with a mean age of 28.6 ± 2.6. The mean postoperative follow-up was 40.9 ± 6.3 months. A total of 1145 (92.1%) RAMP lesions were repaired with concomitant ACL reconstruction, while only 98 (7.9%) lesions were left untreated (or treated with abrasion only). The Lysholm score was used in 6 studies (in one only at final follow-up), with a significant improvement in all the studies (Lysholmpre 60.03 ± 6.12; Lysholmpost 89.9 ± 5.0). Eight studies out of nine reported Subjective IKDC score, and a significant improvement was noted in all cases (IKDCpre 56.2 ± 5.8. IKDCpost 84.9 ± 3.7). Of 18 (1.4%) complications reported, 15 (1.2%) were related to RAMP/ACL surgery, and of the remaining three (0.2%) two (0.2%) were hematomas and one (0.1%) a contralateral ACL lesion. Of the 106 (8.5%) revision surgeries required, 5 (0.4%) were in non-treated lesions [two (0.2%) ACL re-ruptures and three (0.2%) medial meniscus re-injury]. In treated patients, the revision occurred for the following reasons: 75 (6.0%) meniscectomy, 14 (1.1%) meniscal suture revisions, 11 (0.9%) ACL failures and one (0.1%) arthrolysis. Conclusions It is not yet clear if, in all cases of ACL reconstruction in which a medial meniscal RAMP lesion is encountered, the lesion needs to undergo surgical repair. Accordingly, it is recommended that in the repair of all unstable medial meniscal RAMP lesions during an ACL reconstruction in cases associated with a stable RAMP lesion, the surgeon may decide on repair based on the patient profile. Level of evidence Level IV.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the patient-reported outcomes, graft failure, quadriceps rupture and sports preference after arthroscopic ACL reconstruction in patients older than 50 years who underwent arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with a quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft. Methods Between 2010 and 2020, prospectively collected data were obtained from an institutional database. Patients older than 50 years with primary arthroscopic ACL reconstruction and a minimum of 2 years of follow-up were included. Patients undergoing a revision ACL reconstruction or undergoing a primary ACL reconstruction using a graft other than a QT autograft, and patients with a contralateral knee injury or osteoarthritis (Ahlbäck stage 2 or higher) were excluded. A minimally invasive technique was used for QT autograft harvesting. Patients were evaluated for pre-injury and 2-year follow-up Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity level, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, graft failure, quadriceps tendon rupture, and return to sport. Results A total of 57 patients were included in the study. The mean age of the cohort was 54.9 ± 5.2 (range 50–75). Of the 57 reconstructions, 16 (28%) were isolated ACL reconstructions, while 41 (72%) were complex reconstructions (concomitant meniscus, cartilage and/or collateral ligament injuries). At the 2-year follow-up Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity level and VAS for pain improved to pre-injury level and no significant difference was noted between pre-injury and 2-year follow-up functional scores (n.s.). No case of graft failure or quadriceps tendon rupture was reported. No significant difference was noted in the pre-injury and postoperative sports preference (n.s.) and all patients return to their desired sports activity. Conclusion Arthroscopic ACL reconstruction by using QT autograft in highly active older patients provides satisfactory patient-reported functional outcomes and allows recovery of the pre-injury level of activity. QT autograft is a good graft option in patients older than 50 years. Level of evidence Level IV.

Purpose Given the paucity of literature on the re-revision of ACL, the current study was undertaken. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesise and qualitatively assess the currently available evidence in the literature regarding the re-revision of ACL reconstruction (rrACLR). Methods A systematic review was conducted based on the PRISMA guidelines. The following search terms were used in the title, abstract and keywords fields: “ACL” or “anterior cruciate ligament” AND “revision” or “multiple” or “repeat”. The outcome data extracted from the studies were the Lysholm score, Subjective IKDC, Marx Score, Tegner, Marx Score, KOOS score, radiological changes and the rate of return to sports. Complications, failures and/or revision surgery were also analysed. Results The cohort consisted of 295 patients [191 (64.7%) men and 104 (35.3%) women] with a mean age of 29.9 ± 2.8 years (range 14–58 years) from 10 studies. The mean postoperative follow-up (reported in all studies except one) was 66.9 ± 44.7 months (range 13–230.4 months). Associated injuries were 103 (34.9%) medial meniscus tears, 57 (19.3%) lateral meniscus tears, 14 (4.7%) combined medial plus lateral meniscus tears, 11 (3.7%) meniscal tears (not specified), 252 (85.4%) cartilage lesions, 6 (2.0%) medial collateral ligament injury and 2 (0.7%) lateral collateral ligament injuries. In 47 (15.9%) patients an extra-articular plasty was performed for the anterolateral ligament. In all studies that reported pre- and post-operative IKDC (subjective and objective) and Lysholm score, there was a significant improvement compared to the pre-operative value (p < 0.05). At the final follow-up, laxity measured with KT-1000 was found to be 2.2 ± 0.6 mm. 31 (10.5%) out of 295 patients returned to their pre-injury activity level. A total of 19 (6.4%) re-ruptures were found, while only 4 (1.4%) complications (all minors) were reported, out of which 2 (0.7%) were superficial infections, 1 (0.3%) cyclops lesion and 1 (0.3%) flexion loss. Conclusion Multiple revisions of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction allow acceptable clinical results and a good degree of knee stability with a low rate of subsequent new re-ruptures but the possibility of regaining pre-injury sports activity is poor; whenever possible, it is preferred to revise the ligament in one stage. This surgery remains a challenge for orthopaedic surgeons and many doubts persist regarding the ideal grafts, additional extra-articular procedures and techniques to use. Level of evidence IV. Study registration PROSPERO-CRD42022352164 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/).

Anterior knee pain (AKP) is one of the most common conditions to bring active young patients to a sports injury clinic. It is a heterogeneous condition related to multiple causative factors. Compared to the general population, there appears to be a higher risk of development of patellofemoral osteoarthritis in patients with AKP. AKP can be detrimental to the patient’s quality of life and, in the larger context, significantly burdens the economy with high healthcare costs. This study aims to present a comprehensive evaluation of AKP to improve clinical daily practice. The causes of AKP can be traced not only to structures within and around the knee, but also to factors outside the knee, such as limb malalignment, weakness of specific hip muscle groups, and core and ligamentous laxity. Hence, AKP warrants a pointed evaluation of history and thorough clinical examination, complemented with relevant radiological investigations to identify its origin in the knee and its cause. Conservative management of the condition achieves good results in a majority of patients with AKP. Surgical management becomes necessary only when it is deemed to provide benefit—when the patient has well-characterized structural abnormalities of the knee or limb that correlate with the AKP clinically or in situations where the patient does not obtain significant or sustained relief from symptoms. AKP has a multifactorial etiology. The treatment strategy must be individualized to the patient based on the patient profile and specific cause identified. Hence, treatment of AKP warrants a pointed evaluation of history and thorough clinical examination complemented with relevant radiological investigations to identify the condition’s origin and its cause. A holistic approach focused on the patient as a whole will ensure a good clinical outcome, as much as a focus on the joint as the therapeutic target.