PURPOSE: To (1) assess clinical outcomes of revision multiligament knee injury (MLKI) reconstruction at a minimum of 2 years' follow-up and (2) present a standardized treatment algorithm used in treating revision MLKI patients. METHODS: A retrospective review of our institution's MLKI database was performed to identify all patients who underwent revision MLKI reconstructions (≥2 ligaments reconstructed) after implementation of a standardized treatment algorithm in 2000 and had a minimum of 2 years' follow-up. Patient demographic information, injury description (mechanism of injury, neurovascular status, knee dislocation grade, associated chondral or meniscal injury), surgical technique (repair vs reconstruction, staged vs nonstaged, concomitant procedures), mechanism of failure, knee stability, and range of motion, as well as International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm scores, were obtained. RESULTS: We assessed 23 patients (8 female and 15 male patients), with an average age of 26.7 ± 11.5 years at primary surgery and 30.8 ± 11.0 years at revision surgery. The mean follow-up period was 7.5 ± 5.3 years. Of the 23 patients, 10 (43.4%) underwent staged revision procedures: isolated bone grafting in 3, osteotomy in 4, hardware removal with osteochondral allograft in 1, hardware removal with bone grafting in 1, and meniscus repair for a locked knee in 1. The average International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm scores were 74.5 ± 22.3 and 79.4 ± 20.2, respectively. High-energy injury and increasing age at revision surgery were the only risk factors found to be associated with significantly worse outcomes (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with recurrent instability after MLKI reconstruction present with many concomitant pathologies, including limb malalignment, bone tunnel widening, retained hardware, meniscal incompetence, and cartilage defects. Revision MLKI reconstruction can provide these patients with modest functional outcomes when a standardized treatment algorithm is used focusing on identification and treatment of the concomitant pathology, often in a staged manner. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series.
PURPOSE: To (1) assess clinical outcomes of revision multiligament knee injury (MLKI) reconstruction at a minimum of 2 years' follow-up and (2) present a standardized treatment algorithm used in treating revision MLKI patients. METHODS: A retrospective review of our institution's MLKI database was performed to identify all patients who underwent revision MLKI reconstructions (≥2 ligaments reconstructed) after implementation of a standardized treatment algorithm in 2000 and had a minimum of 2 years' follow-up. Patient demographic information, injury description (mechanism of injury, neurovascular status, knee dislocation grade, associated chondral or meniscal injury), surgical technique (repair vs reconstruction, staged vs nonstaged, concomitant procedures), mechanism of failure, knee stability, and range of motion, as well as International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm scores, were obtained. RESULTS: We assessed 23 patients (8 female and 15 male patients), with an average age of 26.7 ± 11.5 years at primary surgery and 30.8 ± 11.0 years at revision surgery. The mean follow-up period was 7.5 ± 5.3 years. Of the 23 patients, 10 (43.4%) underwent staged revision procedures: isolated bone grafting in 3, osteotomy in 4, hardware removal with osteochondral allograft in 1, hardware removal with bone grafting in 1, and meniscus repair for a locked knee in 1. The average International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm scores were 74.5 ± 22.3 and 79.4 ± 20.2, respectively. High-energy injury and increasing age at revision surgery were the only risk factors found to be associated with significantly worse outcomes (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS:Patients with recurrent instability after MLKI reconstruction present with many concomitant pathologies, including limb malalignment, bone tunnel widening, retained hardware, meniscal incompetence, and cartilage defects. Revision MLKI reconstruction can provide these patients with modest functional outcomes when a standardized treatment algorithm is used focusing on identification and treatment of the concomitant pathology, often in a staged manner. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series.
Authors: Kyle A Borque; Mary Jones; Ganesh Balendra; Lukas Willinger; Vitor Hugo Pinheiro; Bobby Singh Anand; Andy Williams Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2022-03-13 Impact factor: 4.114