New Trends in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of National Surveys of the Last 5 Years

Alberto Grassi, Christian Carulli, Matteo Innocenti, Massimiliano Mosca, Stefano Zaffagnini, Corrado Bait, SIGASCOT Arthroscopy Committee, Alberto Grassi, Christian Carulli, Matteo Innocenti, Massimiliano Mosca, Stefano Zaffagnini, Corrado Bait, SIGASCOT Arthroscopy Committee

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to analyze national surveys of orthopaedic surgeons on anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction to determine their preferences related to the preferred graft, femoral tunnel positioning, fixation and tensioning methods, antibiotic and anti-thromboembolic prophylaxis, and use of tourniquet and drains. A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was performed. Inclusion criteria were surveys of ACL reconstruction trends and preferences published in the past 5 years (2011-2016), involving members of national societies of orthopaedics. Information regarding survey modalities, population surveyed, graft choice both in the general or in the athletic population, surgical technique, fixation, use of antibiotic, tourniquet, drains, and anti-thromboembolic prophylaxis was extracted. Eight national surveys were included from Europe (three), North or Latin America (three), and Asia (two). Overall, 7,420 questionnaires were sent, and 1,495 participants completed the survey (response rate ranging from 16 to 76.6%). All surveys reported the hamstring tendon (HT) autograft as the preferred graft, ranging from 45 to 89% of the surveyed population, followed by bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) graft (2-41%) and allograft (2-17%). Only two surveys focusing on graft choice in athletic population underlined how in high-demand sportive population the graft choices changes in favor of BPTB. Single-bundle reconstruction was the preferred surgical technique in the four surveys that investigated this issue. Five surveys were in favor of anteromedial (AM) portal and two in favor of trans-tibial technique. Suspension devices for femoral fixation were the preferred choice in all but one survey, while interference screws were the preferred method for tibial fixation. The two surveys that investigated graft tensioning were in favor of manual tensioning. The use of tourniquet, antibiotics, drains, and anti-thromboembolic prophylaxis were vaguely reported. A trend toward the preference of HT autograft was registered in all the surveys; however, sport participation has been highlighted as an important variable for increased use of BPTB. Single-bundle reconstruction with AM portal technique and suspension femoral fixation and screws fixation for the tibia seem the preferred solution. Other variables such as tensioning, antibiotic, anti-thromboembolic prophylaxis, tourniquet use, and drains were investigated scarcely among the surveys; therefore, no clear trends could be delineated. This is a Level V, systematic review of expert opinion study.

Keywords: anterior cruciate ligament; graft choice; national survey; reconstruction; systematic review.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest None declared.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Literature search flowchart according to the PRISMA guidelines. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Visual representation of the graft choice between HTs (blue bars) or BPTB (red bar) within the various national surveys. BPTB, bone-patellar-tendon-bone; HT, hamstring tendon.

References

    1. Holm I, Oiestad B E, Risberg M A, Gunderson R, Aune A K. No differences in prevalence of osteoarthritis or function after open versus endoscopic technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: 12-year follow-up report of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(11):2492–2498.
    1. Shaerf D A, Pastides P S, Sarraf K M, Willis-Owen C A. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction best practice: a review of graft choice. World J Orthop. 2014;5(01):23–29.
    1. Zeng C, Gao S G, Li H et al.Autograft versus allograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and systematic review of overlapping systematic reviews. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(01):153–163.
    1. Xie X, Liu X, Chen Z, Yu Y, Peng S, Li Q. A meta-analysis of bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft versus four-strand hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee. 2015;22(02):100–110.
    1. Giron F, Cuomo P, Aglietti P, Bull A MJ, Amis A A. Femoral attachment of the anterior cruciate ligament. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006;14(03):250–256.
    1. Tiamklang T, Sumanont S, Foocharoen T, Laopaiboon M. Double-bundle versus single-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;11:CD008413.
    1. Riboh J C, Hasselblad V, Godin J A, Mather R C., III Transtibial versus independent drilling techniques for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(11):2693–2702.
    1. Noh J H, Roh Y H, Yang B G, Yi S R, Lee S Y. Femoral tunnel position on conventional magnetic resonance imaging after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in young men: transtibial technique versus anteromedial portal technique. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(05):882–890.
    1. Matassi F, Sirleo L, Carulli C, Innocenti M. Anatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: transtibial versus outside-in technique: SIGASCOT Best Paper Award Finalist 2014. Joints. 2015;3(01):6–14.
    1. Sirleo L, Innocenti M, Innocenti M, Civinini R, Carulli C, Matassi F. Post-operative 3D CT feedback improves accuracy and precision in the learning curve of anatomic ACL femoral tunnel placement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018;26(02):468–477.
    1. Debieux P, Franciozi C ES, Lenza M et al.Bioabsorbable versus metallic interference screws for graft fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;7(07):CD009772.
    1. Carulli C, Matassi F, Soderi S, Sirleo L, Munz G, Innocenti M. Resorbable screw and sheath versus resorbable interference screw and staples for ACL reconstruction: a comparison of two tibial fixation methods. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(04):1264–1271.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman D G; PRISMA Group.Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement PLoS Med 2009607e1000097.
    1. Vascellari A, Grassi A, Combi A, Tomaello L, Canata G L, Zaffagnini S; SIGASCOT Sports Committee.Web-based survey results: surgeon practice patterns in Italy regarding anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and rehabilitation Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 201725082520–2527.
    1. Astur D C, Batista R F, Gustavo A, Cohen M. Trends in treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injuries of the knee in the public and private healthcare systems of Brazil. Sao Paulo Med J. 2013;131(04):257–263.
    1. Chechik O, Amar E, Khashan M, Lador R, Eyal G, Gold A. An international survey on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction practices. Int Orthop. 2013;37(02):201–206.
    1. Moksnes H, Engebretsen L, Seil R. The ESSKA paediatric anterior cruciate ligament monitoring initiative. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016;24(03):680–687.
    1. Petersen W, Zantop T. Return to play following ACL reconstruction: survey among experienced arthroscopic surgeons (AGA instructors) Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2013;133(07):969–977.
    1. Erickson B J, Harris J D, Fillingham Y A et al.Orthopedic practice patterns relating to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in elite athletes. Am J Orthop. 2015;44(12):E480–E485.
    1. Erickson B J, Harris J D, Fillingham Y A et al.Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction practice patterns by NFL and NCAA football team physicians. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(06):731–738.
    1. Farber J, Harris J D, Kolstad K, McCulloch P C. Treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injuries by major league soccer team physicians. Orthop J Sports Med. 2014;2(11):2.325967114559892E15.
    1. Mall N A, Abrams G D, Azar F M et al.Trends in primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction among National Basketball Association team physicians. Am J Orthop. 2014;43(06):267–271.
    1. Shafizadeh S, Jaecker V, Otchwemah R, Banerjee M, Naendrup J H. Current status of ACL reconstruction in Germany. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2016;136(05):593–603.
    1. Vaishya R, Agarwal A K, Ingole S, Vijay V. Current practice variations in the management of anterior cruciate ligament injuries in Delhi. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2016;7(03):193–199.
    1. Kirwan G W, Bourke M G, Chipchase L, Dalton P A, Russell T G. Graft tensioning practices in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction amongst orthopaedic surgeons in Australia: a national survey. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2015;135(12):1733–1741.
    1. Ambra L F, Rezende F C, Xavier B, Shumaker F C, da Silveira Franciozi C E, Luzo M VM. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: how do we perform it? Brazilian orthopedic surgeons' preference. Int Orthop. 2016;40(03):595–600.
    1. Van der Bracht H, Goubau L, Stuyts B, Schepens A, Verdonk P, Victor J. Surgical management of anterior cruciate ligament injuries in Belgium anno 2013. Acta Orthop Belg. 2015;81(04):738–746.
    1. McRae S M, Chahal J, Leiter J R, Marx R G, Macdonald P B. Survey study of members of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association on the natural history and treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injury. Clin J Sport Med. 2011;21(03):249–258.
    1. Budny J, Fox J, Rauh M, Fineberg M. Emerging trends in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Knee Surg. 2017;30(01):63–69.
    1. Mahnik A, Mahnik S, Dimnjakovic D, Curic S, Smoljanovic T, Bojanic I. Current practice variations in the management of anterior cruciate ligament injuries in Croatia. World J Orthop. 2013;4(04):309–315.
    1. Grassi A, Vascellari A, Combi A, Tomaello L, Canata G L, Zaffagnini S; SIGASCOT Sports Committee.Return to sport after ACL reconstruction: a survey between the Italian Society of Knee, Arthroscopy, Sport, Cartilage and Orthopaedic Technologies (SIGASCOT) members Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 20162605509–516.
    1. Suk M, Hanson B, Helfet D L. Evidence-based orthopedic surgery: is it possible? Orthop Clin North Am. 2010;41(02):139–143.
    1. Mohtadi N G, Chan D S, Dainty K N, Whelan D B. Patellar tendon versus hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(09):CD005960.
    1. Duquin T R, Wind W M, Fineberg M S, Smolinski R J, Buyea C M. Current trends in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Knee Surg. 2009;22(01):7–12.
    1. Baer G S, Harner C D. Clinical outcomes of allograft versus autograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin Sports Med. 2007;26(04):661–681.
    1. Reinhardt K R, Hetsroni I, Marx R G. Graft selection for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a level I systematic review comparing failure rates and functional outcomes. Orthop Clin North Am. 2010;41(02):249–262.
    1. Schoderbek R J, Jr, Treme G P, Miller M D. Bone-patella tendon-bone autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Clin Sports Med. 2007;26(04):525–547.
    1. Poolman R W, Abouali J A, Conter H J, Bhandari M. Overlapping systematic reviews of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction comparing hamstring autograft with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft: why are they different? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(07):1542–1552.
    1. Poolman R W, Farrokhyar F, Bhandari M. Hamstring tendon autograft better than bone patellar-tendon bone autograft in ACL reconstruction: a cumulative meta-analysis and clinically relevant sensitivity analysis applied to a previously published analysis. Acta Orthop. 2007;78(03):350–354.
    1. Matsumoto A, Yoshiya S, Muratsu H et al.A comparison of bone-patellar tendon-bone and bone-hamstring tendon-bone autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(02):213–219.
    1. Maletis G B, Inacio M C, Desmond J L, Funahashi T T. Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: association of graft choice with increased risk of early revision. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(05):623–628.
    1. Gifstad T, Foss O A, Engebretsen L et al.Lower risk of revision with patellar tendon autografts compared with hamstring autografts: a registry study based on 45,998 primary ACL reconstructions in Scandinavia. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(10):2319–2328.
    1. Persson A, Fjeldsgaard K, Gjertsen J E et al.Increased risk of revision with hamstring tendon grafts compared with patellar tendon grafts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a study of 12,643 patients from the Norwegian Cruciate Ligament Registry, 2004-2012. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(02):285–291.
    1. Tiamklang T, Sumanont S, Foocharoen T, Laopaiboon M. Double-bundle versus single-bundle reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament rupture in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;11:CD008413.
    1. Herbort M, Lenschow S, Fu F H, Petersen W, Zantop T. ACL mismatch reconstructions: influence of different tunnel placement strategies in single-bundle ACL reconstructions on the knee kinematics. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010;18(11):1551–1558.
    1. Kato Y, Ingham S J, Kramer S, Smolinski P, Saito A, Fu F H. Effect of tunnel position for anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction on knee biomechanics in a porcine model. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010;18(01):2–10.
    1. Kocher M S, Steadman J R, Briggs K K, Sterett W I, Hawkins R J. Relationships between objective assessment of ligament stability and subjective assessment of symptoms and function after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2004;32(03):629–634.
    1. Chambat P, Guier C, Sonnery-Cottet B, Fayard J M, Thaunat M. The evolution of ACL reconstruction over the last fifty years. Int Orthop. 2013;37(02):181–186.
    1. Zantop T, Kubo S, Petersen W, Musahl V, Fu F H. Current techniques in anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2007;23(09):938–947.
    1. Voos J E, Musahl V, Maak T G, Wickiewicz T L, Pearle A D. Comparison of tunnel positions in single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions using computer navigation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010;18(09):1282–1289.
    1. Brophy R H, Wright R W, Matava M J. Cost analysis of converting from single-bundle to double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(04):683–687.
    1. Pearle A D, Shannon F J, Granchi C, Wickiewicz T L, Warren R F. Comparison of 3-dimensional obliquity and anisometric characteristics of anterior cruciate ligament graft positions using surgical navigation. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(08):1534–1541.
    1. Strauss E J, Barker J U, McGill K, Cole B J, Bach B R, Jr, Verma N N. Can anatomic femoral tunnel placement be achieved using a transtibial technique for hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? Am J Sports Med. 2011;39(06):1263–1269.
    1. Bird J H, Carmont M R, Dhillon M et al.Validation of a new technique to determine midbundle femoral tunnel position in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using 3-dimensional computed tomography analysis. Arthroscopy. 2011;27(09):1259–1267.
    1. Brophy R H, Pearle A D. Single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of conventional, central, and horizontal single-bundle virtual graft positions. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37(07):1317–1323.
    1. Meredick R B, Vance K J, Appleby D, Lubowitz J H. Outcome of single-bundle versus double-bundle reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: a meta-analysis. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(07):1414–1421.
    1. Verhelst L, Van Der Bracht H, Oosterlinck D, Bellemans J. ACL repair with a single or double tunnel: a comparative laboratory study of knee stability using computer navigation. Acta Orthop Belg. 2012;78(06):771–778.
    1. Hettrich C M, Dunn W R, Reinke E K, Spindler K P; MOON Group.The rate of subsequent surgery and predictors after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: two- and 6-year follow-up results from a multicenter cohort Am J Sports Med 201341071534–1540.
    1. Hosseini A, Lodhia P, Van de Velde S K et al.Tunnel position and graft orientation in failed anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a clinical and imaging analysis. Int Orthop. 2012;36(04):845–852.
    1. Marchant B G, Noyes F R, Barber-Westin S D, Fleckenstein C. Prevalence of nonanatomical graft placement in a series of failed anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(10):1987–1996.
    1. Arno S, Bell C P, Alaia M J et al.Does Anteromedial Portal Drilling Improve Footprint Placement in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(07):1679–1689.
    1. Rahr-Wagner L, Thillemann T M, Pedersen A B, Lind M C. Increased risk of revision after anteromedial compared with transtibial drilling of the femoral tunnel during primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: results from the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Register. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(01):98–105.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera