• Review article
  • Open up Access
  • Published:

Two-stage revision inductive cruciate ligament reconstruction

  • 11k
    Accesses

  • 2
    Citations

  • Metrics
    details

Abstract

With the rising number of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions, revision ACL reconstructions are condign increasingly common. A revision procedure may be performed to improved human knee role, correct instability, and facilitate a return to normal activities. When performing a revision reconstruction, the surgeon decides between a single-phase or a two-phase revision. Two-stage revisions are rarely performed, just are particularly useful when addressing substantial tunnel-widening, active infection, and concomitant knee pathology (east.g., malalignment, other ligamentous injuries, meniscal or chondral lesions). Among these potential scenarios requiring a two-stage revision, tunnel-widening is the nearly common crusade; the start stage involves graft removal, tunnel curettage, and bone grafting, followed by revision ACL reconstruction in the second phase. The purpose of this article is to review the preoperative planning, surgical considerations, rehabilitation, and outcomes of ii-phase revision ACL reconstructions and summarize the recent literature outlining treatment results.

Background

Inductive cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction rates have increased over the past 20 years to roughly 200,000 per twelvemonth [1]. As this number has continued to increment, the incidence of revision ACL reconstruction (ACLR) has as well grown to a rate of betwixt four.1 and 13.3% of all primary ACLRs performed [2]. The goal of revision ACLR is to ameliorate knee stability and activeness levels, but the outcomes are reported to be inferior to those of primary ACLR [3]. Successful revision surgery requires an agreement of the crusade of failure, careful preoperative planning, meticulous surgical execution, proper postoperative rehabilitation, and advisable patient counseling [four].

Revision ACLR surgeries tin can exist mainly divided into one-stage and two-phase procedures. Two-stage revision ACLR typically involves an initial os-graft process—to fill the widened or misplaced tunnels—and subsequent fourth dimension to permit for the bone graft to heal sufficiently before the 2nd phase is undertaken [5]. A relatively small-scale simply challenging subset of patients requires two-stage revision ACLR. Reports suggest that a two-stage procedure is performed in simply viii to 9% of revision ACLRs [6].

To appointment, the literature on revision ACLR surgery has primarily focused on comparing the outcomes to those of master ACLR. While one-stage revision ACLR is well described and reported, few studies have reported the outcomes of two-stage revision ACLR. For the aforementioned reasons, in this review, we will provide an overview of two-stage revision ACLR in the post-obit order: preoperative planning, surgical considerations, rehabilitation, outcomes, and conclusions.

Preoperative planning for 2-stage ACLR

Preoperative planning for revision ACL surgery is essential for a successful outcome. The important stages in assessing a patient with failed ACL surgery include history, patient selection, concrete exam and investigations, option of graft, surgical technique, and rehabilitation [seven]. Major reasons to proceed with a 2-stage strategy include tunnel-widening or other loss of os stock, tunnel malposition, arthrofibrosis, active infection, concomitant meniscal deficiency, malalignment, and focal chondral lesions and/or other ligamentous laxity that may require a staged approach [eight, 9] (Table 1).

Table 1 Indications for two-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Full size table

An agile infection should exist treated with irrigation and debridement with confirmation of eradication (due east.k., normalized laboratory exam results, negative cultures) before a patient has a new graft and implant put in place. Similarly, a patient with a loss of more than than 5° of extension or 20° of flexion of knee joint motion should exist considered for lysis of adhesions and manipulation under anesthesia followed by rehabilitation [4, 10].

Tunnel orientation and size are the virtually of import causes related to the 2-stage procedure, as these enlarged tunnels may complicate graft placement and fixation [eleven, 12]. Although in that location are many proposed theories for tunnel lysis, it is most accurate to state that this status has a multifactorial origin; mechanical and biologic causes have been reported, and both contribute to enlarged graft tunnels [eleven, 13]. Tunnel malpositioning that volition interfere with new revision reconstruction tunnel placement can reduce graft apposition within the tunnels at the time of graft fixation, thereby placing the graft stability and subsequent incorporation at greater take a chance of failure [11].

Currently, the “gold standard” for measuring tunnel size is the computed tomography (CT) method. Studies have shown that CT outperforms magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and radiographs in both inter- and intra-observer reliability for evaluating tunnel-widening [14, xv]. When measuring with CT, the centric-plane image is considered wrong because the airplane of cuts is inconsistent. Therefore, the coronal and sagittal images (4-tunnel view; femur-coronal, tibia-coronal, femur-sagittal, tibia-sagittal) are primarily used (Fig. one). Measurements are made perpendicular to the centric plane of the tunnel at the widest indicate [15].

Fig. ane

Coronal (a) and sagittal (b) view of computed tomography (CT) images demonstrate widening of the tibial tunnel in the setting of a failed anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Measurements are made perpendicular to the axial plane of the tunnel at the widest bespeak

Full size epitome

Previous literature has reported that if the tunnel size exceeds 10–15 mm, two-stage surgery should be performed. However, an accented threshold for how much tunnel-widening and bone loss is adequate to undergo a single stage with an intraoperative os graft prior to drilling has non been established [4, xvi,17,18,19]. Battaglia and Miller [12] indicated that os grafting should be performed in cases with a tunnel bore of 10–fifteen mm. Additionally, Chocolate-brown and Carson [20] regarded patients with a os tunnel of < 15 mm diameter equally good candidates for grafting. They explained that because a bone tunnel of 15 mm bore with 45° of inclination resulted in a tibial tunnel discontinuity of > twenty mm, a xx-mm tunnel aperture was regarded equally a candidate for grafting. Yoon et al. [21] evaluated 88 patients who underwent ane-stage revision ACLR. The patients were divided into two groups based on the tunnel diameter (group A, < 12 mm; group B, < 12 mm). At a hateful follow-upward of 7.nine years, clinical scores following revision ACLR did not differ significantly according to the tunnel size. However, the results of the postoperative side-to-side differences of the Lachman test as well as the pivot-shift test were significantly superior in grouping A (< 12 mm).

Surgical considerations of ii-stage ACL reconstruction

Os grafting

Autograft bone, either from the iliac crest or anterior tibial plateau, is yet considered the golden standard source for grafting because of its osteoconductive, osteoinductive, and osteogenic properties. Clinically, many authors have reported adept results for two-staged revision ACLR using autograft bone [4, eleven]. Thomas et al. reported that the laxity measurements achieved with a 2-phase revision ACLR using autograft iliac os could be like to those achieved afterward main ACLR and clinical comeback [11]. But an iliac-crest autograft is comparatively invasive with relatively loftier donor-site morbidity and the potential for bereft yield quantities [11, 22]. For an allograft, a single bone dowel approximately 1 mm larger than the diameter of the tunnel is used and placed using a bone tamp for a printing-fit technique, ensuring that the entire tunnel is filled [four]. The utilize of allograft cloth negates the issue of donor-site morbidity but carries the potential risk of disease or infection transmission [23, 24]. To minimize the take chances of viral and bacterial contamination, allograft bone is sterilized. However, methods used to sterilize allograft material (eastward.one thousand., gamma irradiation and autoclaving), are known to adversely affect the structural and other properties of the graft material [25].

Popular:   Erling Haaland - Borussia Dortmund - Real Madrid CF - LaLiga - FC Barcelona - Kylian Mbappé - Gerard Piqué

Recently, a technique for sterilizing musculoskeletal allografts using supercritical carbon dioxide (sCO2) has been developed [26]. In theory, the sCO2-sterilized graft only provides osteoconductive properties to the grafted os tunnels. The metaphyseal location and predominantly cancellous bone surrounding the graft tissue result in high osteoinductive and osteogenic potential from the host’s bone marrow [26]. Van de pol et al. [26] reported the utilise of a sCO2-sterilized bone allograft to fill tunnel defects equally the first stage of a two-stage revision ACLR. The mean time between the two stages was 8.eight months and in the second phase, bone-biopsy specimens were taken from the tibia. They plant that a sCO2-sterilized bone allograft showed graft incorporation and remodeling through creeping substitution.

Silicate-substituted calcium phosphate (Si-CaP), which represents a synthetic, porous bone-graft substitute, may also be an appropriate bone-graft substitute [27,28,29,30]. Si-CaP appears to provide a more stable osteoconductive scaffold to support faster angiogenesis. Von recum et al. [31] used Si-CaP for a os-graft substitute for tunnel augmentation in two-stage revision ACLR. Dial-biopsy specimens of the augmented tunnels were taken at the ii-phase procedure, and histologic examination included quantitative assay of the area of immature bone formation, lamellar os, and bone marrow. CT analysis likewise included the determination of the filling rates of the tunnels. They reported that Si-CaP as a bone-graft substitute for tunnel augmentation showed favorable histologic, radiologic, and intraoperative integration comparable to the autologous iliac bone graft.

Timing of ii-phase revisional ACL reconstruction

The optimal and earliest possible timing of the two-stage procedure is still not clear. Typically, a staged procedure requires an average delay of 4 to half-dozen months to let for the os defect to heal [11, eighteen], likely subjecting patients to a prolonged period of knee joint instability and thus adding to the gamble of meniscal injury, additional deterioration of muscle strength, and osteochondrosis [32]. For assessment of bone-graft incorporation, radiographs are routinely used. Some authors have described the additional utilize of CT scans to confirm healing at 3–5 months later on bone grafting [iv, 12, 33, 34]. Thomas et al. performed a CT scan at 4 months to assess healing of the os graft in the tibial tunnel. Blurring of the tunnel margins, reactive sclerosis, and the presence of os within the tunnel were used as signs of acceptable healing. They observed that an average of 5.8 months was needed for healing of the autograft dowel to become visible on CT scans [xi]. Uchida et al. [34] reported 10 sequent patients (four female and half dozen male person patients with a mean age of 28 years) who underwent autogenous os grafting prior to ACLR revision. CT examinations were performed at iii, 12, and 24 weeks after bone grafting. Evaluations were performed in the axial plane of the tibia using three parameters (occupying ratio, union ratio, and bone mineral density). They recommended that 2-phase reconstruction could be safely performed at 24 weeks later on os grafting past the iliac-bone block-grafting technique.

Graft choice and fixation

At that place has been a long-standing argue as to whether an autograft or an allograft should exist used for revision ACLR. A conclusion that will often depend on the graft used during the main ACLR. However, many authors prefer using an autograft for revision ACLR when possible. According to the result of the multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) Grouping, the take a chance of graft re-rupture post-obit revision ACLR in patients receiving an autograft is two.78 times less likely than in those receiving an allograft [35]. Noyes et al. advocate that the allograft should not exist considered as the starting time choice of graft for revision surgery [36]. If no autograft is bachelor for revision surgery, they propose augmentation of the allograft with the lateral extra-articular iliotibial ring procedure to reduce the high failure charge per unit associated with the use of the allograft.

Patient age and activity level are as well important factors when deciding on graft choice for revision procedures. Allografts may be well suited for recreational athletes older than 30 years of historic period, but autografts may be a better choice for younger athletes who wish to render to college-level athletics [iv].

Secure graft fixation is critical in ensuring a successful 2-staged ACLR. Because of weak bone from bone-grafted tunnels or enlarged tunnels, the surgeons should pay conscientious attention to the fixation methods and consider double fixation in all revisions [37]. The insertion of an interference spiral not merely compresses the graft in the tunnel but likewise leads to an enlargement of the bone tunnel itself [13]. When discontinuity fixation is not possible, familiarity with, and use of, all-inside tibial and femoral sockets with cortical suspensory fixation may be necessary [4].

Additional procedure

Numerous studies have reported that boosted procedures (e.g., actress-articular tenodesis, anatomical anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction) could be a meaningful option in cases of revision ACLR to improved rotatory stability which is associated with re-injury.

Trojani et al. [38] accept reported the outcomes of revision ACLR with and without lateral extra-articular tenodesis. They noted that although additional lateral tenodesis did not influence the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score in a multicenter study of 163 revision ACLRs, the proportion of negative pivot shifts was 80% with lateral tenodesis plus revision ACLR versus 63% without tenodesis. Louis et al. [39] have demonstrated that 349 patients who underwent revision ACLR-combined-ALL reconstructions showed improving rotational stability without increasing the risk of early and tardily complications and the re-rupture rate was one.two% in their multicenter study.

Lee et al. [40] reported the results of 87 patients who underwent revision ACLR with a follow-up of more than 3 years. Patients were divided into the isolated revision ACLR group (northward = 45) and the revision ACLR group in combination with ALL reconstruction (due north = 42). They observed that revision ACLR in combination with ALL reconstruction significantly reduced rotational laxity and showed a higher rate of return to the aforementioned level of sports activeness than revision ACLR alone, although there were no significant differences in inductive laxity or functional test results between the ii groups.

Rehabilitation

In the immediate postoperative menses, the weakest office of whatsoever ACLR is the fixation. After vi to 12 weeks, failures tend to occur in mid-substance [eleven]. Some authors suggest that an accelerated rehabilitation program for revision ACLR is not advisable because of weaker initial graft fixation [twenty]. Nonetheless, Thomas et al. [11] noted that this suggestion is unnecessary, as using a two-stage technique ensures that there is adept-quality bone around the tunnels, and the initial graft fixation is as secure as in the master reconstruction.

Rehabilitation afterward the initial bone-grafting stage shares similarities with standard ACLR protocols [17]. The initial rehabilitation emphasis is focused on restoring tibiofemoral and patellofemoral passive range of motion, restoring quadriceps’ activation, and decision-making and resolving any joint effusion. No restrictions are placed on their range of movement and patients were allowed to weightbear on the affected leg using crutches [17]. Physical therapy with muscle-strengthening and proprioceptive preparation can be performed. Improved muscle strength may be the decisive factor; however, changes in functional motion patterns after intensive physical therapy are likewise important to consider [41].

Popular:   Los Angeles Clippers - NBA - Marcus Morris Sr. - Eric Bledsoe - Kawhi Leonard - Serge Ibaka - Washington Wizards - John Wall - Spencer Dinwiddie - Point guard

Outcomes

Few studies report the outcomes of two-stage revision ACLR lone. Current studies study an boilerplate-low failure rate of iii.6% (wide range of 0–eight.1%) for utilizing 2-stage revision ACLR [11, 33, 34, 42, 43] (Table 2).

Table 2 Electric current reports on upshot of 2-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Full size tabular array

Thomas et al. [eleven] reported the results of 49 consecutive ii-stage revision ACLRs in which the tibial tunnel was grafted (the bone graft was taken from the ipsilateral iliac crest) during the first stage, followed by an ACLR using diverse grafts and fixation methods for the second stage. The results from this group were compared to the results of a matched group of patients with primary ACLR. The two-stage grouping contained significantly more than patients with meniscal and chondral pathology compared with the primary ACLR group. At a hateful follow-up of 6 years, the laxity measurements achieved with a 2-stage revision ACLR can be similar to those accomplished after principal ACLR, although the IKDC rating is lower.

Franceschi et al. [33] evaluated 30 patients who underwent 2-staged ACLR revision procedure after a traumatic re-rupture of the ACL. All the patients in the study underwent spiral removal and filling of the tunnels with an autograft harvested from the anterior tibial metaphysis. The 2d stage of the revision ACLR was performed a minimum of 3 months later, after obtaining a CT demonstrating acceptable filling of the tunnels using a hamstring autograft though a transtibial drilling technique. The new ligament was stock-still to the tibia past a metallic screw and to the femur by a bioabsorbable screw. At a mean follow-upward half-dozen.seven years postoperatively, 66.7% of patients had returned to their preoperative sports activity level, 23.three% had changed to lower, not-impact sports, and 10% had given up any sports action. At that place was also a significant improvement in the Lysholm score when comparing preoperative and postoperative values.

Uchida et al. [34] evaluated 10 consecutive patients who underwent staged revision ACLR using autogenous os grafting and reported that all patients had a total range of motility of the knees, a negative Lachmann sign and negative pivot-shift exam . An average Lysholm score at two years postal service operation was 96.6 points ± 2.1 (91–100 points).

One comparative cohort study reported that objective outcomes and subjective patient scores and satisfaction were non significantly unlike between one-stage and ii-stage revision ACLRs and both groups had significantly improved objective outcomes and patient subjective outcomes without notable differences in failure rates [42]. They observed that the the failure charge per unit was x.iii% in the one-stage revision group and half-dozen.ane% in the two-stage group. In boosted analyses, 24% (12/49) of patients were newly plant to have concomitant genu injuries (e.g., chondral defects, meniscal lesions) at the time of the second-phase operative process.

Diermeier et al. [43] reported the results of 54 patients who underwent bone grafting due to recurrent, symptomatic ACL deficiency following ACLR. Only 44 patients underwent a staged revision ACLR after bone grafting and 10 patients refused to undergo a revision ACLR. At a mean menstruum of 33.ix months, in that location was an improvement in the Lysholm score (77.ii ± 15.5 vs 72.9 ± xviii.vii), IKDC score (69.0 ± 13.4 vs 69.iii ± 13.4) and Tegner activity score (four.1 ± 1.5 vs 4.vi ± 1.2) for both groups. But no significant deviation was observed between the two groups. Genu-laxity measurements were elevated in the without-revision group, simply the difference was non significant. Postoperatively, no complications were reported and none of the included patients had a flexion or extension deficit. Withal, the small number of included patients, especially in the group of patients without revision ACLR, is express.

Conclusions

In active immature patients, failed primary ACLR may require a revision ACLR. Two-stage revision ACLR should be considered in cases of tunnel lysis, infection, malalignment, meniscal deficiency, or chondral lesions. A two-stage process is technically more demanding than the primary or one-stage procedure and outcomes are potentially junior, especially for agile patients who make a high need on their bodies. However, with precise indications, proper preoperative planning and operative-technique pick, 2-stage revision ACLR tin achieve favorable outcomes.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicative, this is a review article.

Abbreviations

ACL:

Anterior cruciate ligament

ACLR:

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

ALL:

Anterolateral ligament

sCO2:

Supercritical carbon dioxide

Si-CaP:

Silicate-substituted calcium phosphate

References

  1. i.

    Ohly NE, Murray IR, Keating JF (2007) Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: timing of surgery and the incidence of meniscal tears and degenerative modify. J Bone Joint Surg Br 89:1051–1054

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar

  2. 2.

    van Eck CF, Schkrohowsky JG, Working ZM, Irrgang JJ, Fu FH (2012) Prospective analysis of failure charge per unit and predictors of failure after anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with allograft. Am J Sports Med xl:800–807

    Article  Google Scholar

  3. iii.

    Grouping Thousand, Ding DY, Zhang AL, Allen CR, Anderson AF, Cooper DE et al (2017) Subsequent surgery afterwards revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: rates and risk factors from a multicenter cohort. Am J Sports Med 45:2068–2076

    Article  Google Scholar

  4. 4.

    Erickson BJ, Cvetanovich G, Waliullah Chiliad, Khair M, Smith P, Bach B Jr et al (2016) Two-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthopedics 39:e456–e464

    Commodity  Google Scholar

  5. five.

    Noyes FR, Barber-Westin SD (2006) Anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction: results using a quadriceps tendon-patellar bone autograft. Am J Sports Med 34:553–564

    Commodity  Google Scholar

  6. 6.

    MARS Group, Wright RW, Huston LJ, Spindler KP, Dunn WR, Haas AK et al (2010) Descriptive epidemiology of the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) accomplice. Am J Sports Med 38:1979–1986

    Article  Google Scholar

  7. vii.

    Dye SF (1996) The futurity of inductive cruciate ligament restoration. Clin Orthop Relat Res 325:130–139

    Commodity  Google Scholar

  8. viii.

    Andernord D, Desai N, Bjornsson H, Ylander M, Karlsson J, Samuelsson G (2015) Patient predictors of early revision surgery later on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cohort study of 16,930 patients with 2-year follow-upwards. Am J Sports Med 43:121–127

    Article  Google Scholar

  9. 9.

    Carson EW, Anisko EM, Restrepo C, Panariello RA, O’Brien SJ, Warren RF (2004) Revision inductive cruciate ligament reconstruction: etiology of failures and clinical results. J Articulatio genus Surg 17:127–132

    Article  Google Scholar

  10. 10.

    Mayr R, Rosenberger R, Agraharam D, Smekal V, El Attal R (2012) Revision inductive cruciate ligament reconstruction: an update. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 132:1299–1313

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar

  11. xi.

    Thomas NP, Kankate R, Wandless F, Pandit H (2005) Revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a 2-stage technique with os grafting of the tibial tunnel. Am J Sports Med 33:1701–1709

    Article  Google Scholar

  12. 12.

    Battaglia TC, Miller Md (2005) Management of bony deficiency in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using allograft bone dowels: surgical technique. Arthroscopy 21:767

    Article  Google Scholar

  13. 13.

    Wilson TC, Kantaras A, Atay A, Johnson DL (2004) Tunnel enlargement after anterior cruciate ligament surgery. Am J Sports Med 32:543–549

    Commodity  Google Scholar

  14. 14.

    Groves C, Chandramohan G, Chew C, Subedi Northward (2013) Use of CT in the management of anterior cruciate ligament revision surgery. Clin Radiol 68:e552–e559

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar

  15. 15.

    Marchant MH Jr, Willimon SC, Vinson E, Pietrobon R, Garrett WE, Higgins LD (2010) Comparison of plain radiography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of bone tunnel widening after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:1059–1064

    Commodity  Google Scholar

  16. 16.

    Bhatia S, Korth Chiliad, Van Thiel GS, Frank RM, Gupta D, Cole BJ et al (2016) Consequence of tibial tunnel diameter on femoral tunnel placement in transtibial unmarried bundle ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24:51–57

    Article  Google Scholar

  17. 17.

    Chahla J, Dean CS, Cram TR, Civitarese D, O’Brien 50, Moulton SG et al (2016) Two-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: os grafting technique using an allograft bone matrix. Arthrosc Tech v:e189–e195

    Article  Google Scholar

  18. 18.

    Hofbauer M, Muller B, Murawski CD, Baraga Grand, van Eck CF, Fu FH (2013) Strategies for revision surgery after principal double-packet anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Genu Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:2072–2080

    Article  Google Scholar

  19. xix.

    Magnussen RA, Debieux P, Benjamin B, Lustig S, Demey K, Servien E et al (2012) A CT-based classification of prior ACL femoral tunnel location for planning revision ACL surgery. Human knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc twenty:1298–1306

    Commodity  Google Scholar

  20. 20.

    Brownish CH Jr, Carson EW (1999) Revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery. Clin Sports Med xviii:109–171

    Article  Google Scholar

  21. 21.

    Yoon KH, Kim JS, Park SY, Park SE (2018) One-stage revision inductive cruciate ligament reconstruction: results according to preoperative bone tunnel diameter: five to xv-year follow-upward. J Bone Articulation Surg Am 100:993–k

    Article  Google Scholar

  22. 22.

    Banwart JC, Asher MA, Hassanein RS (1995) Iliac crest os graft harvest donor site morbidity. a statistical evaluation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) twenty:1055–1060

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar

  23. 23.

    Campbell DG, Li P (1999) Sterilization of HIV with irradiation: relevance to infected bone allografts. Aust N Z J Surg 69:517–521

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar

  24. 24.

    Eagan MJ, McAllister DR (2009) Biological science of allograft incorporation. Clin Sports Med 28:203–214 vii

    Article  Google Scholar

  25. 25.

    Islam A, Chapin Thousand, Moore Eastward, Ford J, Rimnac C, Akkus O (2016) Gamma radiation sterilization reduces the high-cycle fatigue life of allograft bone. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474:827–835

    Article  Google Scholar

  26. 26.

    Van de Pol GJ, Bonar F, Salmon LJ, Roe JP, Pinczewski LA (2018) Supercritical carbon dioxide-sterilized bone allograft in the handling of tunnel defects in 2-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a histologic evaluation. Arthroscopy 34:706–713

    Commodity  Google Scholar

  27. 27.

    Hing KA, Revell PA, Smith N, Buckland T (2006) Result of silicon level on rate, quality and progression of bone healing within silicate-substituted porous hydroxyapatite scaffolds. Biomaterials 27:5014–5026

    CAS  Commodity  Google Scholar

  28. 28.

    Hing KA, Wilson LF, Buckland T (2007) Comparative operation of 3 ceramic os graft substitutes. Spine J 7:475–490

    Commodity  Google Scholar

  29. 29.

    Jenis LG, Banco RJ (2010) Efficacy of silicate-substituted calcium phosphate ceramic in posterolateral instrumented lumbar fusion. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 35:E1058–E1063

    Article  Google Scholar

  30. 30.

    Lerner T, Liljenqvist U (2013) Silicate-substituted calcium phosphate as a bone graft substitute in surgery for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis. Eur Spine J 22(Suppl ii):S185–S194

    Article  Google Scholar

  31. 31.

    von Recum J, Schwaab J, Guehring T, Grutzner PA, Schnetzke M (2017) Bone incorporation of silicate-substituted calcium phosphate in 2-phase revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a histologic and radiographic report. Arthroscopy 33:819–827

    Article  Google Scholar

  32. 32.

    Diamantopoulos AP, Lorbach O, Paessler HH (2008) Anterior cruciate ligament revision reconstruction: results in 107 patients. Am J Sports Med 36:851–860

    Article  Google Scholar

  33. 33.

    Franceschi F, Papalia R, Del Buono A, Zampogna B, Diaz Balzani Fifty, Maffulli N et al (2013) 2-stage procedure in anterior cruciate ligament revision surgery: a five-year follow-up prospective study. Int Orthop 37:1369–1374

    Article  Google Scholar

  34. 34.

    Uchida R, Toritsuka Y, Mae T, Kusano M, Ohzono K (2016) Healing of tibial os tunnels after bone grafting for staged revision inductive cruciate ligament surgery: a prospective computed tomography analysis. Knee 23:830–836

    Article  Google Scholar

  35. 35.

    MARS Group (2014) Effect of graft selection on the effect of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the Multicenter ACL Revision Report (MARS) Cohort. Am J Sports Med 42:2301–2310

    Article  Google Scholar

  36. 36.

    Noyes FR, Barber-Westin SD, Roberts CS (1994) Use of allografts later failed treatment of rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Am 76:1019–1031

    CAS  Commodity  Google Scholar

  37. 37.

    Richter DL, Werner BC, Miller Dr. (2017) Surgical pearls in revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery: when must I stage? Clin Sports Med 36:173–187

    Article  Google Scholar

  38. 38.

    Trojani C, Beaufils P, Burdin Chiliad, Bussiere C, Chassaing V, Djian P et al (2012) Revision ACL reconstruction: influence of a lateral tenodesis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc twenty:1565–1570

    Commodity  Google Scholar

  39. 39.

    Louis ML, D’Ingrado P, Ehkirch FP, Bertiaux S, Colombet P, Sonnery-Cottet B et al (2017) Combined intra- and extra-articular grafting for revision ACL reconstruction: a multicentre report past the French Arthroscopy Society (SFA). Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 103:S223–S2S9

    Article  Google Scholar

  40. 40.

    Lee DW, Kim JG, Cho SI, Kim DH (2019) Clinical outcomes of isolated revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction or in combination with anatomic anterolateral ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 47:324–333

    Article  Google Scholar

  41. 41.

    Chmielewski TL, Hurd WJ, Rudolph KS, Axe MJ, Snyder-Mackler L (2005) Perturbation training improves knee kinematics and reduces musculus co-contraction after complete unilateral anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Phys Ther 85:740–749

    PubMed  Google Scholar

  42. 42.

    Mitchell JJ, Chahla J, Dean CS, Cinque M, Matheny LM, LaPrade RF (2017) Outcomes after 1-stage versus 2-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 45:1790–1798

    Article  Google Scholar

  43. 43.

    Diermeier T, Herbst East, Braun S, Saracuz East, Voss A, Imhoff AB et al (2018) Outcomes afterwards bone grafting in patients with and without ACL revision surgery: a retrospective study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 19:246

    Commodity  Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

We give thanks Eun-Ji Jeon and Min-Ji Kim for their support.

Author data

Affiliations

Contributions

All authors have made substantial contributions to all of the following: (1): the conception and design of the report, (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content, and (iii) final approval of the version to be submitted.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ki-Cheor Bae.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Boosted information

Publisher’southward Annotation

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access
This article is distributed nether the terms of the Artistic Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in whatever medium, provided you requite advisable credit to the original writer(due south) and the source, provide a link to the Artistic Commons license, and signal if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/i.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and Permissions

Nearly this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kim, DH., Bae, KC., Kim, DW.
et al.
Two-phase revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Knee Surg & Relat Res
31,
10 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43019-019-0010-half-dozen

Download citation

  • Received:



  • Accustomed:



  • Published:



  • DOI
    :

    https://doi.org/x.1186/s43019-019-0010-6

Keywords

  • Human knee
  • Anterior cruciate ligament
  • Reconstruction
  • Revision
  • Stage

Source: https://kneesurgrelatres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s43019-019-0010-6