Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction After Primary Anatomic Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Case Series of 40 Patients.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the surgical methods according to the status of tunnels at the time of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and to evaluate clinical outcomes of revision ACLR in patients who underwent primary ACLR with the anatomic 4-tunnel double-bundle (DB) technique.

METHODS

A total of 487 patients who underwent primary anatomic DB ACLR from April 2010 to July 2016 were retrospectively reviewed, and among those knees, the patients who underwent revision ACLR were included in the study. The patients with concomitant posterior cruciate ligament injuries were excluded. Forty patients (40 knees) were identified and enrolled. The surgical methods were reviewed. The range of motion, objective laxity using KT-2000, Lysholm score, Hospital for Special Surgery score, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, and Tegner score after revision ACLR were compared with those after primary ACLR in the same patient using paired t-test with Bonferroni correction.

RESULTS

The timing of reinjury after primary ACLR and mean interval between primary and revision ACLR were 18 months (range 1.5-80 months) and 24 months (range 4-82 months), respectively. Among 40 patients, 38 patients (95%) underwent 1-stage revision with the DB technique using pre-existing tunnels without compromised positioning of the grafts, and the other 2 patients (5%) underwent 2-stage revision. The postrevision range of motion, KT-2000, Lysholm score, Hospital for Special Surgery score, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, and Tegner score were 137 ± 7°, 2.4 ± 1.2 mm, 91.4 ± 5.8, 98.9 ± 2.2, 78.6 ± 11.5, and 5.5 ± 1.2, respectively, and did not show any differences from those after primary ACLR.

CONCLUSIONS

In the revision setting after primary anatomic DB ACLR, most of the cases could be managed with 1-stage revision with DB technique using pre-existing tunnels, and the objective laxity and clinical scores after revision DB ACLR were comparable with those after primary DB ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Case series, Level IV.