Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jul;50(9):2397-2409.
doi: 10.1177/03635465221104470.

Descriptive Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With and Without Tunnel Bone Grafting

MARS Group  1 Steven F DeFroda  2   1 Brett D Owens  3   1 Rick W Wright  4   1 Laura J Huston  4   1 Jacquelyn S Pennings  4   1 Amanda K Haas  5   1 Christina R Allen  6   1 Daniel E Cooper  7   1 Thomas M DeBerardino  8   1 Warren R Dunn  9   1 Brett Brick A Lantz  10   1 Kurt P Spindler  11   1 Michael J Stuart  12   1 John P Albright  13   1 Annunziato Ned Amendola  14   1 Christopher C Annunziata  15   1 Robert A Arciero  16   1 Bernard R Bach Jr  17   1 Champ L Baker 3rd  18   1 Arthur R Bartolozzi  19   1 Keith M Baumgarten  20   1 Jeffery R Bechler  21   1 Jeffrey H Berg  22   1 Geoffrey A Bernas  23   1 Stephen F Brockmeier  24   1 Robert H Brophy  5   1 Charles A Bush-Joseph  17   1 J Brad Butler 5th  25   1 James L Carey  26   1 James E Carpenter  27   1 Brian J Cole  28   1 Jonathan M Cooper  29   1 Charles L Cox  4   1 R Alexander Creighton  30   1 Tal S David  31   1 David C Flanigan  32   1 Robert W Frederick  33   1 Theodore J Ganley  34   1 Elizabeth A Garofoli  5   1 Charles J Gatt Jr  21   1 Steven R Gecha  35   1 James Robert Giffin  36   1 Sharon L Hame  37   1 Jo A Hannafin  38   1 Christopher D Harner  39   1 Norman Lindsay Harris Jr  40   1 Keith S Hechtman  41   1 Elliott B Hershman  42   1 Rudolf G Hoellrich  10   1 David C Johnson  43   1 Timothy S Johnson  43   1 Morgan H Jones  11   1 Christopher C Kaeding  32   1 Ganesh V Kamath  30   1 Thomas E Klootwyk  44   1 Bruce A Levy  45   1 C Benjamin Ma  46   1 G Peter Maiers 2nd  47   1 Robert G Marx  38   1 Matthew J Matava  5   1 Gregory M Mathien  48   1 David R McAllister  37   1 Eric C McCarty  49   1 Robert G McCormack  50   1 Bruce S Miller  27   1 Carl W Nissen  51   1 Daniel F O'Neill  52   1 Richard D Parker  11   1 Mark L Purnell  53   1 Arun J Ramappa  54   1 Michael A Rauh  23   1 Arthur C Rettig  44   1 Jon K Sekiya  27   1 Kevin G Shea  55   1 Orrin H Sherman  56   1 James R Slauterbeck  57   1 Matthew V Smith  5   1 Jeffrey T Spang  30   1 Steven J Svoboda  58   1 Timothy N Taft  30   1 Joachim J Tenuta  59   1 Edwin M Tingstad  60   1 Armando F Vidal  49   1 Darius G Viskontas  61   1 Richard A White  62   1 James S Williams Jr  63   1 Michelle L Wolcott  49   1 Brian R Wolf  13   1 James J York  64   1
Affiliations

Descriptive Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With and Without Tunnel Bone Grafting

MARS Group et al. Am J Sports Med. 2022 Jul.

Abstract

Background: Lytic or malpositioned tunnels may require bone grafting during revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR) surgery. Patient characteristics and effects of grafting on outcomes after rACLR are not well described.

Purpose: To describe preoperative characteristics, intraoperative findings, and 2-year outcomes for patients with rACLR undergoing bone grafting procedures compared with patients with rACLR without grafting.

Study design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods: A total of 1234 patients who underwent rACLR were prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Baseline revision and 2-year characteristics, surgical technique, pathology, treatment, and patient-reported outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and Marx Activity Rating Scale [Marx]) were collected, as well as subsequent surgery information, if applicable. The chi-square and analysis of variance tests were used to compare group characteristics.

Results: A total of 159 patients (13%) underwent tunnel grafting-64 (5%) patients underwent 1-stage and 95 (8%) underwent 2-stage grafting. Grafting was isolated to the femur in 31 (2.5%) patients, the tibia in 40 (3%) patients, and combined in 88 patients (7%). Baseline KOOS Quality of Life (QoL) and Marx activity scores were significantly lower in the 2-stage group compared with the no bone grafting group (P≤ .001). Patients who required 2-stage grafting had more previous ACLRs (P < .001) and were less likely to have received a bone-patellar tendon-bone or a soft tissue autograft at primary ACLR procedure (P≤ .021) compared with the no bone grafting group. For current rACLR, patients undergoing either 1-stage or 2-stage bone grafting were more likely to receive a bone-patellar tendon-bone allograft (P≤ .008) and less likely to receive a soft tissue autograft (P≤ .003) compared with the no bone grafting group. At 2-year follow-up of 1052 (85%) patients, we found inferior outcomes in the 2-stage bone grafting group (IKDC score = 68; KOOS QoL score = 44; KOOS Sport/Recreation score = 65; and Marx activity score = 3) compared with the no bone grafting group (IKDC score = 77; KOOS QoL score = 63; KOOS Sport/Recreation score = 75; and Marx activity score = 7) (P≤ .01). The 1-stage bone graft group did not significantly differ compared with the no bone grafting group.

Conclusion: Tunnel bone grafting was performed in 13% of our rACLR cohort, with 8% undergoing 2-stage surgery. Patients treated with 2-stage grafting had inferior baseline and 2-year patient-reported outcomes and activity levels compared with patients not undergoing bone grafting. Patients treated with 1-stage grafting had similar baseline and 2-year patient-reported outcomes and activity levels compared with patients not undergoing bone grafting.

Keywords: bone graft; outcomes; revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; tunnel lysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Battaglia MJ, Cordasco FA, Hannafin JA, et al. Results of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(12):2057–2066. doi:10.1177/0363546507307391. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baumfeld JA, Diduch DR, Rubino LJ, et al. Tunnel widening following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring autograft: a comparison between double cross-pin and suspensory graft fixation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008;16(12):1108–1113. doi:10.1007/s00167-008-0606-y. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. J R Stat Soc Ser B. 1995;57(1):289–300. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2346101.
    1. Chahla J, Dean CS, Cram TR, et al. Two-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Bone Grafting Technique Using an Allograft Bone Matrix. Arthrosc Tech. 2016;5(1):e189–e195. doi:10.1016/j.eats.2015.10.021. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. DeFroda SF, Karamchedu NP, Owens BD, et al. Tibial tunnel widening following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A retrospective seven-year study evaluating the effects of initial graft tensioning and graft selection. Knee. 2018;25(6):1107–1114. doi:10.1016/j.knee.2018.08.003. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types