Bo Hyun Kim1, Joong Il Kim2, Osung Lee3, Ki Woung Lee1, Myung Chul Lee1, Hyuk Soo Han4. 1. Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. 2. Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, 1 Singil-ro, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, 07441, Republic of Korea. 3. Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, 82 Gumi-ro 173 Beon-gil, Bundang-gu, Seongnam, Gyeonggi-do, 13620, Republic of Korea. 4. Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 03080, Republic of Korea. oshawks7@snu.ac.kr.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the influence of synovial coverage of the remnant on clinical outcomes and graft healing in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. METHODS: Seventy-five patients who underwent second-look arthroscopy after a single-bundle ACL reconstruction using autologous quadriceps tendon graft were included. The patients were divided into two groups according to whether the remnant was preserved (group P, n = 42) or sacrificed (group S, n = 33). Group P was further classified according to the degree of synovial coverage of the remnant on initial arthroscopic findings: group A (remnant fully covered with synovium, n = 15), group B (synovial coverage >50%, n = 15), and group C (coverage <50%, n = 12). Clinical outcomes including manual laxity tests, KT-2000 side-to-side difference, modified Lysholm score, Tegner activity score, and International Knee Documentation Committee score were evaluated pre-operatively and prior to the second-look arthroscopy. Graft tension, degrees of synovialization, and gross integrity were evaluated on second-look arthroscopic examination. RESULTS: There were no statistical differences in manual laxity tests, KT-2000 side-to-side difference, and clinical scores between groups P and S. In second-look arthroscopic examination, graft tension showed no difference between the two groups, but gross integrity and synovialization were significantly higher in group P (P = 0.032 and P = 0.008, respectively). In subgroup analysis, only group A showed higher grade regarding gross integrity and synovialization in comparison with group S (P = 0.007 and P < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Preservation of remnant in ACL reconstruction showed no superiority concerning knee stability and clinical outcomes over remnant sacrificing at post-operative 1-year second-look arthroscopy. Preservation of remnant with good synovial coverage had a positive effect on graft synovialization and maintenance of graft integrity, but this effect was not observed in cases of a remnant with poor synovial coverage. When deciding whether to preserve the remnant or not, the degree of synovial coverage should be considered. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the influence of synovial coverage of the remnant on clinical outcomes and graft healing in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. METHODS: Seventy-five patients who underwent second-look arthroscopy after a single-bundle ACL reconstruction using autologous quadriceps tendon graft were included. The patients were divided into two groups according to whether the remnant was preserved (group P, n = 42) or sacrificed (group S, n = 33). Group P was further classified according to the degree of synovial coverage of the remnant on initial arthroscopic findings: group A (remnant fully covered with synovium, n = 15), group B (synovial coverage >50%, n = 15), and group C (coverage <50%, n = 12). Clinical outcomes including manual laxity tests, KT-2000 side-to-side difference, modified Lysholm score, Tegner activity score, and International Knee Documentation Committee score were evaluated pre-operatively and prior to the second-look arthroscopy. Graft tension, degrees of synovialization, and gross integrity were evaluated on second-look arthroscopic examination. RESULTS: There were no statistical differences in manual laxity tests, KT-2000 side-to-side difference, and clinical scores between groups P and S. In second-look arthroscopic examination, graft tension showed no difference between the two groups, but gross integrity and synovialization were significantly higher in group P (P = 0.032 and P = 0.008, respectively). In subgroup analysis, only group A showed higher grade regarding gross integrity and synovialization in comparison with group S (P = 0.007 and P < 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Preservation of remnant in ACL reconstruction showed no superiority concerning knee stability and clinical outcomes over remnant sacrificing at post-operative 1-year second-look arthroscopy. Preservation of remnant with good synovial coverage had a positive effect on graft synovialization and maintenance of graft integrity, but this effect was not observed in cases of a remnant with poor synovial coverage. When deciding whether to preserve the remnant or not, the degree of synovial coverage should be considered. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Authors: Lisa Tibor; Priscilla H Chan; Tadashi T Funahashi; Ronald Wyatt; Gregory B Maletis; Maria C S Inacio Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2016-07-06 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Harasees Singh; Isaac Glassman; Andrew Sheean; Yuichi Hoshino; Kanto Nagai; Darren de Sa Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2022-10-18 Impact factor: 4.114