[One- and two-stage procedure for revision after failure of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction].
OBJECTIVE
Most surgeons favour a one-stage procedure for ACL revision surgery. Tunnel widening, limited range of motion or existent hardware can make a two-stage procedure necessary. Studies evaluating the results between both procedures are still lacking. Thus, we performed a prospective preliminary study comparing early results after one- and two-stage procedures for ACL revision reconstruction.


METHODS
Between 1/2005 and 1/2006 21 patients were operated on for ACL revision. The follow-up period of the 4 women and 16 men was 12 months. One patient was excluded due to a juvenile osteoporosis. Median age was 34 years. All patients had a subjective instability, including 11 patients (55%) with a traumatic rerupture. The indication for a two-stage procedure depended on tunnel widening under consideration of tunnel placement, disturbing existing hardware and extension deficits. Eleven patients received a one-stage procedure while 9 patients were operated in a two-stage process. Seven received autogenous bone grafting.


RESULTS
The preoperative tunnel diameter was for one-stage revisions (OS) femoral 7.9 +/- 1.8 mm and tibial 8.8 +/- 2.2 mm. For the two-stage (TS) procedure mean femoral tunnel was preoperatively 10.1 +/- 1.4 mm and tibial 12.1 +/- 1.4 mm. Femoral tunnel placement after revision (OS/TS) yielded a mean angle in anteroposterior view of 28.7 degrees /26.9 degrees and in the sagittal view most tunnels were placed in the dorsal quadrant. Tibial placement was in the sagittal view at 46.1%/46.9% in the anteroposterior direction and for mediolateral direction in the a. p. view at 44.2%/44.5%. Results for Lysholm score were 85.7/83.9 and for IKDC 73.6/76.4. The anterior tibial translation compared to the healthy side was 1.5 mm/1.8 mm. In one leg jumping patients obtained a distance of 83 %/86% of the healthy side and stated their pain on a VAS to be as low as 1.9/1.4 points. Both groups had similar ranges of motion as well.


CONCLUSIONS
The success of ACL revision surgery crucially depends on preoperative planning and analysis. No functional or radiological differences could be observed between one- and two-stage procedures. Although the one-stage procedure might be favourable because of faster convalescence and shorter work incapacity, it should not be enforced at the price of an insufficient ACL.
Marquass
B
B
Klinik für Unfall-, Wiederherstellungs- und Plastische Chirurgie, Universität Leipzig. bastian.marquass@medizin.uni-leipzig.de
Engel
T
T
Hepp
P
P
Theopold
J D
JD
Josten
C
C
D000328:Adult; D016118:Anterior Cruciate Ligament / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery*; D000070598:Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries; D001863:Bone Screws; D016025:Bone Transplantation; D005260:Female; D005269:Femur / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D007593:Joint Instability / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery; D007718:Knee Injuries / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery*; D008297:Male; D010147:Pain Measurement; D011183:Postoperative Complications / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000601:surgery*; D012086:Reoperation; D053441:Suture Anchors; D013710:Tendons / Q000637:transplantation*; D014057:Tomography, X-Ray Computed; D017211:Treatment Failure; D016474:Weight-Bearing / Q000502:physiology