This study aimed to investigate the effect of anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with high-grade pivot shift. The hypothesis was that revision ACLR combined with ALLR (RACLR with ALLR group) would show superior clinical outcomes to those of isolated revision ACLR. We retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients who underwent revision ACLR (RACLR) combined with ALLR between October 2015 and January 2017. The indication for combination of ALLR with revision ACLR was failed ACLR with ≥G2 pivot-shift instability. The control group included patients who underwent isolated revision ACLR (isolated RACLR group) for the same indication between July 2013 and September 2015. Exclusion criteria were ≤G1 pivot-shift instability, multiple ligament reconstruction, bilateral ligament injury, double-bundle reconstruction, insufficient medical records, postoperative infection, and follow-up loss at postoperative 2 years. Clinical scores, stability tests, and failure rates were compared between groups at the 2-year follow-up. The RACLR with ALLR group had 18 patients (mean age, 32.9 ± 10.8 years) and the RACLR group had 21 patients (mean age, 29.6 ± 10.2 years). Clinical scores at the 2-year follow-up showed no significant differences between groups. However, the RACLR with ALLR group showed better stability in the Lachman test (p = 0.005), pivot-shift test (p = 0.030), and side-to-side difference in stress radiographs (3.9 ± 3.0 mm vs. 5.9 ± 2.8 mm, p = 0.018) than the isolated RACLR group. The RACLR with ALLR group had two failures (11.1%), and the RACLR group had three failures (14.3%). In conclusion, ALLR in revision ACLR with high-grade pivot shift improves anteroposterior stability as well as rotational stability at 2-year follow-up. Therefore, ALLR is recommended with revision ACLR, especially in patients with high-grade pivot shift. This is a Level III, retrospective cohort review.

No abstract

Background: Biomechanical studies have shown that double-bundle (DB) posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCLR) is better than single-bundle (SB) PCLR in restoring normal biomechanical function and stability. However, most clinical studies report no differences between the technical methods, and there is yet no long-term clinical comparative study. Hypothesis: DB PCLR would show superior results and survivorship outcomes to those of SB PCLR in long-term follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The authors retrospectively evaluated 64 patients who underwent primary PCLR between 2000 and 2008 and were followed up for a minimum of 10 years: 28 patients underwent SB PCLR (mean ± SD: age, 29.1 ± 12.2 years), and 36 underwent DB PCLR (age, 27.0 ± 9.2 years). Clinical scores (International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, Lysholm score, Tegner activity score), side-to-side difference in stress radiographs, osteoarthritis progression, and survival rate were compared between the SB and DB groups at the last follow-up. Results: At the final follow-up, all clinical scores showed no significant differences between the SB and DB groups. The mean side-to-side difference in stress radiographs (SB, 5.3 ± 3.5 mm; DB, 5.0 ± 3.8 mm; P = .828) and osteoarthritis progression (SB, 14.3%; DB, 13.9%; P = .964) were not different between the groups. The 15-year survival rate was 82.1% for SB PCLR and 83.7% for DB PCLR. Conclusion: Both the SB and DB techniques for PCLR showed satisfactory long-term clinical results and survivorship outcomes. There were no significant differences between SB and DB PCLR in clinical, radiologic, and survivorship outcomes at a minimum follow-up of 10 years. Clinical Relevance: DB PCLR did not show superior clinical results to those of SB PCLR in the long-term follow-up. These results should be considered in the surgical planning for PCLR.

Purpose This study aimed to compare patient demographics, associated lesions (concurrent meniscal and chondral injuries), and clinical outcomes between revision and re‐revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Methods Patients who underwent revision or re‐revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction between 2008 and 2016 with a minimum 2‐year follow‐up were retrospectively evaluated. Detailed patient demographic data, radiographic preoperative tunnel diameters, posterior tibia slope, and concurrent meniscal and chondral lesion were reviewed. Clinical scores and laxity tests’ results were compared between the groups at the last follow‐up. Results Eighty‐two patients (mean age, 33.8 ± 9.9 years; revision group, n = 62; re‐revision group, n = 20) were included. The re‐revision group showed a higher grade for preoperative arthritis (P < 0.001); more severe preoperative bone defects of the femoral (13.8 ± 2.6 vs 11.7 ± 2.7 mm, P = 0.004) and tibial tunnels (14.6 ± 2.4 vs 13.0 ± 2.3 mm, P = 0.010); and a higher prevalence of subtotal medial meniscectomy (P = 0.008) and chondral defects of the medial (P = 0.006) and lateral femoral condyles (P < 0.001), patella (P = 0.040), and trochlea (P = 0.036). At the final follow‐up, the clinical scores did not differ significantly between the groups. However, the re‐revision group showed more instability in the anterior drawer (P = 0.001), Lachman (P < 0.001), and pivot‐shift (P < 0.001) tests, while a side‐to‐side difference was observed on the Telos stress radiographs (7.1 ± 4.7 vs 4.9 ± 3.7 mm, P = 0.038). Conclusion These findings showed that the patients who underwent re‐revision had poor prognostic factors as compared with those who underwent revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Although the clinical scores did not differ significantly between the groups, the re‐revision group showed more laxity at the 2‐year follow‐up. Level of evidence Cohort study; IV.

Background: Cartilage repair procedures using mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) can provide superior cartilage regeneration in the medial compartment of the knee joint when high tibial osteotomy (HTO) is performed for varus knee osteoarthritis (OA). However, few studies have reported the factors influencing the outcomes of MSC implantation with concomitant HTO. Purpose: To investigate the outcomes of MSC implantation with concomitant HTO and to identify the prognostic factors that are associated with the outcomes. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A total of 71 patients (75 knees) were retrospectively evaluated after MSC implantation with concomitant HTO. Clinical and radiological outcomes were evaluated, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was used to assess cartilage regeneration. Statistical analyses were performed to determine the effect of different factors on clinical, radiographic, and MRI outcomes. Results: Clinical and radiographic outcomes improved significantly from preoperatively to final follow-up ( P < .001 for all), and overall cartilage regeneration was encouraging. Significant correlations were found between clinical and MRI outcomes. However, radiographic outcomes were not significantly correlated with clinical or MRI outcomes. Patient age and number of MSCs showed significant correlations with clinical and MRI outcomes. On multivariate analyses, patient age and number of MSCs showed high prognostic significance with poor clinical outcomes. Conclusion: MSC implantation with concomitant HTO provided feasible cartilage regeneration and satisfactory clinical outcomes for patients with varus knee OA. Patient age and number of MSCs were important factors that influenced the clinical and MRI outcomes of MSC implantation with concomitant HTO for varus knee OA.