Prospective case series, level 4.

PurposeTo report clinical and functional results of ACL reconstruction in patients over 50 years old and investigate the influence of surgery on osteoarthritis progression in this cohort of patients. MethodsA systematic review was performed on PubMed, Scopus, Google scholar, Cochrane library and EMBASE, using a strategy search design to collect clinical studies reporting outcomes of ACL reconstruction in patients aged 50 years or older. The primary outcome measure was clinical and functional results, including failure rate defined as reoperation for revision ACL surgery or conversion to total knee arthroplasty; secondary outcomes included radiological findings, expressed according to the validated grading score. ResultsA total of 16 studies were found suitable and included. Overall, 470 arthroscopic ACL reconstructions were performed in 468 patients (278 males, 190 females), with a mean age of 53.6 years (50–75 years). The total failure rate, described as reoperation for revision ACL surgery was 2.7% (10 knees), ranging from 0 to 14.3% in the selected studies. All papers reviewed showed a statistically significant improvement of clinical and functional scores at final follow‐up, comparable to younger control group, when reported. Post‐operative objective stability testing with KT‐1000 arthrometer device or equivalent was performed in seven studies, with a mean side‐to‐side difference of 2.2 mm (0.2–2.7 mm). Radiographic signs of progression of osteoarthritis were reported in six studies, where severe signs of degeneration (grade 3 or 4 according Kellgren–Lawrence or Ahlbäck classification) shifted from 4 out of 216 knees (1.9%) before surgery to 28 out of 187 knees (15%) following ACL reconstruction, after a mean period of follow‐up ranging from 32 to 64 months. ConclusionACL reconstruction in patients older than 50 years is a safe procedure with good results that are comparable to those of younger patients previously reported. Age itself is not a contraindication to ACL surgery because physiological age, clinical symptoms and functional requests are more important than chronological age in decision process. Since cohort size in the present study is not large enough, and taking into account the high occurrence of concomitant meniscal and chondral lesions, more high‐quality studies are necessary to draw definitive conclusions about development of osteoarthritis of the knee after ACL surgery in these patients. Level of evidenceIV.

Background: Arthroscopic debridement with graft preservation has been advocated as the treatment of choice for septic arthritis after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, but no previous studies have investigated if hardware removal, while retaining the graft in situ, improves the success rate. Moreover, it is unclear whether the premature removal of fixation devices may affect graft integration and knee stability. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to assess the clinical and functional outcomes of patients with septic arthritis after ACL reconstruction who underwent arthroscopic debridement, while retaining the graft in situ but removing fixation devices, and to determine if premature hardware removal affects graft integrity and function. The hypothesis was that arthroscopic debridement with hardware removal would be effective in eradicating infections while not compromising graft integration and function. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: From a cohort of 2384 cases of arthroscopic ACL reconstruction, 24 patients with postoperative septic arthritis were included for the analysis; 18 patients were available for a clinical evaluation using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Lysholm score, and Tegner score at a minimum 12-month follow-up. Knee laxity was assessed clinically with standardized manual laxity tests and instrumentally using an arthrometer and a triaxial accelerometer. Additionally, 3-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at final follow-up was performed, focusing on the graft signal, the cartilage status, and the occurrence of arthrofibrosis. Results: Eradication of the infection was achieved in all cases, and only 1 graft removal was performed because of insufficient tension. Among the remaining 23 patients, a single arthroscopic debridement procedure with hardware removal while preserving the graft was effective in 21 cases (91%) at a mean of 30 ± 37 days from ACL reconstruction to debridement. At last follow-up, 2 patients required a further ACL revision procedure. The mean IKDC, WOMAC, Lysholm, and Tegner scores of the patients available for the clinical evaluation were 75 ± 19, 90 ± 8, 79 ± 21, and 6 ± 2, respectively. No abnormal laxity was reported on manual testing, and arthrometric and accelerometer tests also demonstrated good knee stability (mean KT-1000 arthrometer side-to-side difference was 1.6 ± 1.2 mm at manual maximum force). On MRI, a good graft signal was found in 50% of cases, while concomitant signs of arthrofibrosis were detected in 81% of patients. Severe cartilage defects (International Cartilage Repair Society grade ≥3) were reported in 63% of cases. Conclusion: Arthroscopic debridement with hardware removal was effective in the eradication of infections after ACL reconstruction with extra-articular fixation while preserving graft integrity without compromising knee stability. Patients and surgeons should be aware of complications that might affect the outcome, particularly arthrofibrosis and chondrolysis.

No abstract

Purpose The goal of this study was to compare the risk of periprosthetic infection of a consecutive cohort of primary varusvalgus constrained (VVC) total knee arthroplasties (TKAs), with a matched 1:1 cohort of primary posterior-stabilized (PS) TKAs. Methods 74 primary VVC TKAs performed in 66 patients were identiied and matched 1:1 with a cohort of 74 primary PS TKAs performed in 73 patients. At last follow up, patients were clinically evaluated using the Knee Society Score (KSS). Kaplan-Meier survival curves were generated to analyze survivorship using as endpoints revision for any reason, revision for periprosthetic infection and revision for mechanical failure after excluding periprosthetic infection. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was constructed to determine whether revision surgery for periprosthetic infection was inluenced by patients' gender, age, surgical time and reasons for TKA (primary vs secondary osteoarthritis). Results Demographic data were not signiicantly diferent between the two groups as regard patients' age, gender, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, reasons for replacement, and length of follow-up. Surgical time was greater in the VVC group (95.7 ± 22.5 min vs 88.6 ± 17.1 min, respectively, p = 0.032). Postoperative KSS, range of motion and radiographic data did not difer signiicantly between the two groups. Overall revision rate and revision rate for mechanical failure after 5 years of follow-up was not statistically diferent between the two groups. Considering only the revision rate due to periprosthetic infection, the risk was higher in patients with primary VVC implants (p = 0.013). The surgical time was the only factor that signiicantly afected the risk of revision for periprosthetic infection (OR 1.0636, CI 95% 1.0209-1.1081, p = 0.0032), whereas patients' gender, age and reason for TKA had no inluence. Conclusions Patients and surgeons should be aware of the higher risk of periprosthetic knee infection using a VVC prosthesis. However, the present study supports the use of VVC implants in cases of diicult knee replacements, since comparable clinical outcomes and overall revision rate was found after at least 5 years of follow up. Level of evidence Retrospective cohort study, Level III.