Top

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

Published in:

Open Access 01-11-2021 | KNEE

Knee laxity and functional knee outcome after contralateral ACLR are comparable to those after primary ACLR

Authors: Riccardo Cristiani, Sofia Viheriävaara, Per-Mats Janarv, Gunnar Edman, Magnus Forssblad, Anders Stålman

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 11/2021

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate and compare knee laxity and functional knee outcome between primary and contralateral anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

Methods

Patients who underwent primary and subsequent contralateral ACL reconstruction (ACLR) at Capio Artro Clinic, Stockholm, Sweden, from 2001 to 2017, were identified in our local database. The inclusion criteria were: the same patients who underwent primary and contralateral hamstring tendon or bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft ACLR and no associated ligament injuries. The KT-1000 arthrometer, with an anterior tibial load of 134 N, was used to evaluate knee laxity preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was collected preoperatively and at the 1-year follow-up.

Results

A total of 326 patients with isolated primary and contralateral ACLR met the inclusion criteria (47.9% males; mean age at primary ACLR 23.9 ± 9.4 years and contralateral ACLR 27.9 ± 10.1 years). The arthrometric laxity measurements were available for primary and contralateral ACLR for 226 patients. The mean preoperative and postoperative anterior tibial translation (ATT), as well as the mean ATT reduction from preoperatively to postoperatively, did not differ significantly between primary and contralateral ACLR. The KOOS was available for primary and contralateral ACLR for 256 patients. No significant differences were found preoperatively and at the 1-year follow-up between primary and contralateral ACLR for any of the five KOOS subscales.

Conclusion

The findings in this study showed that anterior knee laxity and functional knee outcome after contralateral ACLR are comparable to those after primary ACLR. It is important for clinicians to counsel patients about their expectations after contralateral ACLR. This study shows that the results after contralateral ACLR in terms of knee laxity and functional knee outcome are predictable and likely to be comparable to those after primary ACLR.

Level of evidence

Level III.

Andernord D, Desai N, Björnsson H, Gillén S, Karlsson J, Samuelsson K (2015) Predictors of contralateral anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cohort study of 9061 patients with 5-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 43(2):295–302CrossRef

Cristiani R, Engström B, Edman G, Forssblad M, Stålman A (2019) Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction restores knee laxity but shows inferior functional knee outcome compared with primary reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports TraumatolArthrosc 27(1):137–145CrossRef

Cristiani R, Mikkelsen C, Edman G, Forssblad M, Engström B, Stålman A (2020) Age, gender, quadriceps strength and hop test performance are the most important factors affecting the achievement of a patient-acceptable symptom state after ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports TraumatolArthrosc 28(2):369–380CrossRef

Cristiani R, Sarakatsianos V, Engström B, Samuelsson K, Forssblad M, Stålman A (2019) Increased knee laxity with hamstring tendon autograft compared to patellar tendon autograft: a cohort study of 5462 patients with primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports TraumatolArthrosc 27(2):381–388CrossRef

Fältström A, Hägglund M, Kvist J (2013) Patient-reported knee function, quality of life, and activity level after bilateral anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Am J Sports Med 41(12):2805–2813CrossRef

Fältström A, Hägglund M, Magnusson H, Forssblad M, Kvist J (2016) Predictors for additional anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: data from the Swedish national ACL register. Knee Surg Sports TraumatolArthrosc 24(3):885–894CrossRef

Grassi A, Ardern CL, MarcheggianiMuccioli GM, Neri MP, Marcacci M, Zaffagnini S (2016) Does revision ACL reconstruction measure up to primary surgery? A meta-analysis comparing patient-reported and clinician-reported outcomes, and radiographic results. Br J Sports Med 50(12):716–724CrossRef

Ingelsrud LH, Terwee CB, Terluin B, Granan LP, Engebretsen L, Mills KAG, Roos EM (2018) Meaningful change scores in the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 46(5):1120–1128CrossRef

Kvist J, Kartus J, Karlsson J, Forssblad M (2014) Results from the Swedish national anterior cruciate ligament register. Arthroscopy 30(7):803–810CrossRef

10.

Leys T, Salmon L, Waller A, Linklater J, Pinczewski L (2012) Clinical results and risk factors for reinjury 15 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective study of hamstring and patellar tendon grafts. Am J Sports Med 40(3):595–605CrossRef

11.

Paterno MV, Rauh MJ, Schmitt LC, Ford KR, Hewett TE (2012) Incidence of contralateral and ipsilateral anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury after primary ACL reconstruction and return to sport. Clin J Sport Med 22(2):116–121CrossRef

12.

Paterno MV, Schmitt LC, Ford KR, Rauh MJ, Myer GD, Huang B, Hewett TE (2010) Biomechanical measures during landing and postural stability predict second anterior cruciate ligament injury after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and return to sport. Am J Sports Med 38(10):1968–1978CrossRef

13.

Roos EM, Lohmander LS (2003) The knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:64CrossRef

14.

Roos EM, Roos HP, Ekdahl C, Lohmander LS (1998) Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS): validation of a Swedish version. Scand J Med Sci Sports 8(6):439–448CrossRef

15.

Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD (1998) Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS): development of a self-administrated outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 28(2):88–96CrossRef

16.

Rothrauff BB, Karlsson J, Musahl V, Irrgang JJ, Fu F (2020) ACL consensus on treatment, outcome, and return to sport. Knee Surg Sports TraumatolArthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06088-0CrossRef

17.

Salmon L, Russell V, Musgrove T, Pinczewski L, Refshauge K (2005) Incidence and risk factors for graft rupture and contralateral rupture after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 21(8):948–957CrossRef

18.

Samuelsson K, Magnussen RA, Alentorn-Geli E, Krupic F, Spindler KP, Johannson C, Forssblad M, Karlsson J (2017) Equivalent knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome scores 12 and 24 months after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: results from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register. Am J Sports Med 45(9):2085–2091CrossRef

19.

Shelbourne KD, Gray T, Haro M (2009) Incidence of subsequent injury to either knee within 5 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon autograft. Am J Sports Med 37(2):246–251CrossRef

20.

Webster KE, Feller JA, Richmond LWB, AK, (2014) Younger patients are at increased risk for graft rupture and contralateral injury after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 42(3):641–647CrossRef

21.

Weiler A, Schmeling A, Stöhr I, Kääb MJ, Wagner M (2007) Primary versus single-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous hamstring tendon grafts: a prospective matched-group analysis. Am J Sports Med 35(10):1643–1652CrossRef

22.

Wright RW, Dunn WR, Amendola A et al (2007) Risk of tearing the intact anterior cruciate ligament in the contralateral knee and rupturing the anterior cruciate ligament graft during the first 2 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective MOON cohort study. Am J Sports Med 35(7):1131–1134CrossRef

23.

Wright RW, Magnussen RA, Dunn WR, Spindler KP (2011) Ipsilateral graft and contralateral ACL rupture at five years or more following ACL reconstruction: a systematic review. J Bone JtSurg Am 93(12):1159–1165CrossRef

Title: Knee laxity and functional knee outcome after contralateral ACLR are comparable to those after primary ACLR
Authors: Riccardo Cristiani
Sofia Viheriävaara
Per-Mats Janarv
Gunnar Edman
Magnus Forssblad
Anders Stålman
Publication date: 01-11-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 11/2021
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06417-3

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Knee laxity and functional knee outcome after contralateral ACLR are comparable to those after primary ACLR

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Level of evidence

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Level of evidence

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 11/2021

Clinical outcomes of rectangular tunnel technique in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were comparable to the results of conventional round tunnel technique

Increased tibiofemoral rotation on MRI with increasing clinical severity of patellar instability

Medial collateral ligament reconstruction graft isometry is effected by femoral position more than tibial position

An accelerated 6-week return to full weight bearing after matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation results in good clinical outcomes to 5 years post-surgery

Anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction could not achieve sufficient control of pivot-shift when accompanying tibial tunnel coalition

Increased posterior tibial slope results in increased incidence of posterior lateral meniscal root tears in ACL reconstruction patients