YUN Xing , WEI Yu , LI Zhongli , LIU Yujie , WANG Zhigang , ZHANG Qiang , LIU Yang , WEI Min
  • Department of Orthopaedics, the First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, P.R.China;
WEI Min, Email: weim301gk@sina.com
Anterior cruciate ligament; reconstruction; revision; arthroscopy; mid-term effectiveness
10.7507/1002-1892.202008125
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables References Cited by

Objective To assess the mid-term effectiveness of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision and to analyze the relevant factors that may affect the surgical outcomes.Methods The clinical data of 24 patients who underwent ACL revision surgery between April 2009 and July 2018 and were followed up for more than 2 years were retrospectively analyzed. There were 20 males and 4 females with a median age of 30 years [interquartile distance (IQR) was (25, 36) years]. The median body mass index was 24.45 kg/m2 and IQR was (22.93, 25.93) kg/m2. The median time between ACL revision and reconstruction was 41 months and IQR was (15, 85) months. The direct cause of the failure of reconstruction surgery included 14 cases of trauma, 8 cases of no obvious cause, and 2 cases of infection. During the revision operation, 14 patients had a poor bone tunnel position, all of which were drilled with new tunnels, the remaining 10 patients were freshly modified on the basis of the original bone tunnel. Seventeen patients used autogenous tendon revision, 7 patients used LARS ligament; 16 patients had cartilage injury. The Lysholm score, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, and the Tegner sports rating score were used for functional evaluation before operation, at 1 year after operation, and at last follow-up. The Likert satisfaction score was recorded at last follow-up.Results Patients were followed up with a median time of 47 months and IQR was (32, 61) months. The Lysholm score, IKDC score, and Tegner sports rating score were significantly improved at 1 year after operation and at last follow-up when compared with preoperative scores (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between at last follow-up and at 1 year after operation (P>0.05). At last follow-up, the median Likert satisfaction score was 4.0 and IQR was (3.0, 4.5). According to the presence or absence of cartilage damage and the type of graft, the above scores at last follow-up were compared between the groups, and the differences were not significant (P>0.05). At last follow-up, 2 patients had graft fractures due to trauma again, and autogenous iliac bones were taken to fill the bone tunnel, and the second stage was revised; the rest of the patients recovered satisfactorily.Conclusion With preoperative identification of the cause of ACL reconstruction failure, the stability and function of knee joint can be significantly improved by selecting appropriate bone tunnels and grafts during the revision and by active rehabilitation exercises.

Citation： YUN Xing, WEI Yu, LI Zhongli, LIU Yujie, WANG Zhigang, ZHANG Qiang, LIU Yang, WEI Min. Mid-term effectiveness of anterior cruciate ligament revision. Chinese Journal of Reparative and Reconstructive Surgery, 2021, 35(1): 58-63. doi: 10.7507/1002-1892.202008125 Copy

  • Previous Article

    Effectiveness comparison of partial versus intact posterior cruciate ligament-retaining in total knee arthroplasty with cruciate-retaining prosthesis

  • Next Article

    Application of new H-shaped anatomical titanium plate for posterior wall/posterior column acetabular fractures