Mitchell Stephen Fourman1, Sherif Galal Hassan1, James W Roach1, Jan S Grudziak2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh, 4401 Penn Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15224, USA. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh, 4401 Penn Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15224, USA. GrudziakJS@upmc.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To understand if anatomic physeal-sparing ACL reconstruction in the immature host preserves range of motion, permits a return to sports, and avoids limb length discrepancy and accelerated intra-articular degeneration with a cross-sectional radiographic, physical examination and patient-reported outcomes analysis. METHODS: A cross-sectional recall study included 38 patients aged 7-15 who underwent all-epiphyseal ACL reconstruction with hamstring allograft performed by a single surgeon at a large academic medical center. All-epiphyseal reconstructions were performed using a modified Anderson physeal-sparing technique, with the femoral tunnel placed using an "inside-out" technique. Assessments consisted of a physical exam, long leg cassette radiographs, KT-1000 measurements, subjective patient metrics, and magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: Thirty-eight (56.7%) of 66 eligible patients returned for in-person clinical and radiographic exams. Patients were 11.4 ± 1.8 years at the time of surgery. Five patients were females (13.2%). Mean follow-up was 5.5 ± 2.4 years. ACL re-injuries occurred in four patients (10.5%), all of whom underwent revision reconstructions. Thirty-three of the remaining 34 (97.1%) patients returned to sports following their reconstruction, and 24 (70.6%) returned to their baseline level of competition. Mean limb length discrepancy (LLD) was 0.2 ± 1.4 cm. Nine patients had an LLD of > 1 cm (26.5%), which occurred at an equivalent age as those with < 1 cm LLD (10.8 ± 2.0 vs. 11.7 ± 1.7, n.s.). Pre-operative Marx scores (13.1 ± 3.5) were not significantly different from post-operative values (12.3 ± 5.1, n.s.). Patients who required ACL revisions had significantly lower Marx scores than those with intact primary grafts (8.3 ± 7.1 vs. 13.4 ± 4.5, p = 0.047). Cohort mean International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score was 89.7 ± 12.7. CONCLUSION: Anatomic all-epiphyseal anatomic ACL reconstruction appears to be useful in patients with significant projected remaining growth, with good return-to-sport outcomes and minimal risk of clinically significant physeal complications. However, given the limited patient recall possible in the present study, further large sample size, high-quality works are necessary to validate our findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
PURPOSE: To understand if anatomic physeal-sparing ACL reconstruction in the immature host preserves range of motion, permits a return to sports, and avoids limb length discrepancy and accelerated intra-articular degeneration with a cross-sectional radiographic, physical examination and patient-reported outcomes analysis. METHODS: A cross-sectional recall study included 38 patients aged 7-15 who underwent all-epiphyseal ACL reconstruction with hamstring allograft performed by a single surgeon at a large academic medical center. All-epiphyseal reconstructions were performed using a modified Anderson physeal-sparing technique, with the femoral tunnel placed using an "inside-out" technique. Assessments consisted of a physical exam, long leg cassette radiographs, KT-1000 measurements, subjective patient metrics, and magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: Thirty-eight (56.7%) of 66 eligible patients returned for in-person clinical and radiographic exams. Patients were 11.4 ± 1.8 years at the time of surgery. Five patients were females (13.2%). Mean follow-up was 5.5 ± 2.4 years. ACL re-injuries occurred in four patients (10.5%), all of whom underwent revision reconstructions. Thirty-three of the remaining 34 (97.1%) patients returned to sports following their reconstruction, and 24 (70.6%) returned to their baseline level of competition. Mean limb length discrepancy (LLD) was 0.2 ± 1.4 cm. Nine patients had an LLD of > 1 cm (26.5%), which occurred at an equivalent age as those with < 1 cm LLD (10.8 ± 2.0 vs. 11.7 ± 1.7, n.s.). Pre-operative Marx scores (13.1 ± 3.5) were not significantly different from post-operative values (12.3 ± 5.1, n.s.). Patients who required ACL revisions had significantly lower Marx scores than those with intact primary grafts (8.3 ± 7.1 vs. 13.4 ± 4.5, p = 0.047). Cohort mean International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score was 89.7 ± 12.7. CONCLUSION: Anatomic all-epiphyseal anatomic ACL reconstruction appears to be useful in patients with significant projected remaining growth, with good return-to-sport outcomes and minimal risk of clinically significant physeal complications. However, given the limited patient recall possible in the present study, further large sample size, high-quality works are necessary to validate our findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.
Authors: Spencer K Y Chang; Darren K Egami; Mark D Shaieb; Darryl M Kan; Allen B Richardson Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2003 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Michael J Collins; Thomas A Arns; Timothy Leroux; Austin Black; Randy Mascarenhas; Bernard R Bach; Brian Forsythe Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2016-05-07 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: Kenneth L Cameron; Karen Y Peck; Brandon S Thompson; Steven J Svoboda; Brett D Owens; Stephen W Marshall Journal: Sports Health Date: 2015-03-06 Impact factor: 3.843