Rainer Siebold1,2, Tsuyoshi Takada3,4, Sven Feil3, Carmen Dietrich3, Shaun K Stinton5, Thomas P Branch6,7. 1. Institute for Anatomy and Cell Biology, Ruprecht-Karls-University, Heidelberg, Germany. rainer.siebold@atos.de. 2. HKF - International Center for Hip, Knee and Foot Surgery and Sports Traumatology, ATOS Klinik Heidelberg, Bismarckstr. 9-15, 69115, Heidelberg, Germany. rainer.siebold@atos.de. 3. HKF - International Center for Hip, Knee and Foot Surgery and Sports Traumatology, ATOS Klinik Heidelberg, Bismarckstr. 9-15, 69115, Heidelberg, Germany. 4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Hiroshima University, Hiroshima, Japan. 5. University Orthopedics, 441 Armour Place NE, Atlanta, GA, 30324, USA. 6. University Orthopedics, 1014 Sycamore Drive, Decatur, GA, 30030, USA. 7. Morehouse College, University Orthopedics, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To analyse the clinical, rotational and radiological (MRI) results of paediatric anatomical "C-shaped" double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with anteromedial and posteromedial bundle compared to single-bundle (SB) ACL reconstruction. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2014, 57 consecutive patients received a paediatric ACL reconstruction with open physis and were allocated into two groups, according to the surgical procedure. Transepiphyseal SB technique was used until 2012 and DB consecutively thereafter. Follow-up consisted of a clinical evaluation with assessment of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form, the Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity score, KT-1000 arthrometer evaluation, VAS Scores for satisfaction, MRI and testing of rotational stability using a robotic system. RESULTS: The mean time from ACL reconstruction to follow-up was 48.1 ± 15.8 in the SB group (n = 17) and 23.1 ± 13.2 in the DB group (n = 16; p < 0.001). No differences were found in the subjective scores. Biomechanically, there were significant differences identified in the KT-1000 (p < 0.03) and total tibial axial rotation (p < 0.04) when evaluating the reconstructed knee only. Ten of 17 (59%) of the SB patients had a Joint Play Area within the acceptable range of the median healthy knee value compared to 100 % in the DB group. Decreased patient satisfaction was associated with increased total tibial axial rotation. No growth disturbance was observed. Overall, 98% of patients were reached and either examined or interviewed. Re-rupture rate was 3 of 21 (14.3%) for DB and 9 of 35 (25.7%) for SB. All but one re-ruptures (92%) happened in the first 16 postoperative months independent of technique. CONCLUSIONS: The re-rupture rate after pre-adolescent ACL reconstruction is too high both historically and in this mixed cohort. Anatomical transepiphyseal DB ACL reconstruction with open physis may result in a reduction in this re-rupture rate, which may be related to a tighter control of the Joint Play Area. While subjective clinical results were similar between SB and DB, decreased patient satisfaction was associated with increased total tibial axial rotation in the entire cohort. Despite the need for two transepiphyseal tunnels in the DB technique, there did not appear to be an increased risk in growth plate disturbance. Transepiphyseal DB ACL reconstruction appears to be a reasonable alternative to current techniques in pre-adolescent children with an ACL rupture. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
PURPOSE: To analyse the clinical, rotational and radiological (MRI) results of paediatric anatomical "C-shaped" double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with anteromedial and posteromedial bundle compared to single-bundle (SB) ACL reconstruction. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2014, 57 consecutive patients received a paediatric ACL reconstruction with open physis and were allocated into two groups, according to the surgical procedure. Transepiphyseal SB technique was used until 2012 and DB consecutively thereafter. Follow-up consisted of a clinical evaluation with assessment of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form, the Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity score, KT-1000 arthrometer evaluation, VAS Scores for satisfaction, MRI and testing of rotational stability using a robotic system. RESULTS: The mean time from ACL reconstruction to follow-up was 48.1 ± 15.8 in the SB group (n = 17) and 23.1 ± 13.2 in the DB group (n = 16; p < 0.001). No differences were found in the subjective scores. Biomechanically, there were significant differences identified in the KT-1000 (p < 0.03) and total tibial axial rotation (p < 0.04) when evaluating the reconstructed knee only. Ten of 17 (59%) of the SBpatients had a Joint Play Area within the acceptable range of the median healthy knee value compared to 100 % in the DB group. Decreased patient satisfaction was associated with increased total tibial axial rotation. No growth disturbance was observed. Overall, 98% of patients were reached and either examined or interviewed. Re-rupture rate was 3 of 21 (14.3%) for DB and 9 of 35 (25.7%) for SB. All but one re-ruptures (92%) happened in the first 16 postoperative months independent of technique. CONCLUSIONS: The re-rupture rate after pre-adolescent ACL reconstruction is too high both historically and in this mixed cohort. Anatomical transepiphyseal DB ACL reconstruction with open physis may result in a reduction in this re-rupture rate, which may be related to a tighter control of the Joint Play Area. While subjective clinical results were similar between SB and DB, decreased patient satisfaction was associated with increased total tibial axial rotation in the entire cohort. Despite the need for two transepiphyseal tunnels in the DB technique, there did not appear to be an increased risk in growth plate disturbance. Transepiphyseal DB ACL reconstruction appears to be a reasonable alternative to current techniques in pre-adolescent children with an ACL rupture. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.
Entities:
Keywords:
ACL reconstruction; Adolescents; Anteromedial bundle; Children; Double bundle; Internal rotation; Open physis; Posteromedial bundle; RKT; Single bundle
Authors: Rafael Calvo; David Figueroa; Federico Gili; Alex Vaisman; Pablo Mocoçain; Maximiliano Espinosa; Agustín León; Sergio Arellano Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2014-11-17 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Peter D Fabricant; Kristofer J Jones; Demetris Delos; Frank A Cordasco; Robert G Marx; Andrew D Pearle; Russell F Warren; Daniel W Green Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2013-03-06 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Ashley N Mastrangelo; Brian M Haus; Patrick Vavken; Matthew P Palmer; Jason T Machan; Martha M Murray Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2010-08 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Rainer Siebold; Peter Schuhmacher; Francis Fernandez; Robert Śmigielski; Christian Fink; Axel Brehmer; Joachim Kirsch Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2014-05-20 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Thomas P Branch; Shaun K Stinton; William C Hutton; Philippe Neyret Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Clare L Ardern; Guri Ekås; Hege Grindem; Håvard Moksnes; Allen F Anderson; Franck Chotel; Moises Cohen; Magnus Forssblad; Theodore J Ganley; Julian A Feller; Jón Karlsson; Mininder S Kocher; Robert F LaPrade; Mike McNamee; Bert Mandelbaum; Lyle Micheli; Nicholas G H Mohtadi; Bruce Reider; Justin P Roe; Romain Seil; Rainer Siebold; Holly J Silvers-Granelli; Torbjørn Soligard; Erik Witvrouw; Lars Engebretsen Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2018-03-21
Authors: Clare L Ardern; Guri Ranum Ekås; Hege Grindem; Håvard Moksnes; Allen F Anderson; Franck Chotel; Moises Cohen; Magnus Forssblad; Theodore J Ganley; Julian A Feller; Jón Karlsson; Minider S Kocher; Robert F LaPrade; Michael McNamee; Bert Mandelbaum; Lyle Micheli; Nicholas Mohtadi; Bruce Reider; Justin Roe; Romain Seil; Rainer Siebold; Holly J Silvers-Granelli; Torbjørn Soligard; Erik Witvrouw; Lars Engebretsen Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2018-02-24 Impact factor: 13.800