Vidal, Armando F.

Background: Meniscal preservation has been demonstrated to contribute to long-term knee health and has been a successful intervention in isolation and in patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The long-term results of meniscal repair in the setting of revision ACLR have yet to be documented. Purpose: To report the incidence of meniscal repair failures at the 6-year follow-up in a cohort of patients who underwent concurrent revision ACLR and primary meniscal repair. Study Design: Prospective cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: All revision ACLRs with concomitant primary meniscal repair cases from a multicenter group between 2006 and 2011 were selected. Six-year follow-up was obtained to determine whether any subsequent surgery had occurred since their initial revision ACLR. If so, operative reports were obtained, whenever possible, to verify pathological condition and treatment. Results: In total, 221 patients from 1234 revision ACLRs underwent concurrent primary meniscal repairs (18% of the cohort). There were 238 repairs performed: 173 medial and 65 lateral. The majority of these repairs (n = 181; 76%) were performed with an all-inside technique. Six-year surgical follow-up was obtained in 77% (171/221) of the cohort, or 189 of 238 (79%) of the repairs (136 medial, 53 lateral). The meniscal repair failure rate, defined as reoperation, was 16% (31/189) at 6 years. Of the 31 failures, 28 were medial (24 all-inside, 4 inside-out; 28/136 = 20.6% failure rate) and 3 were lateral (2 all-inside, 1 inside-out; 3/53 = 5.7% failure rate). Three medial failures were treated in conjunction with a subsequent repeat revision ACLR. Medial tears underwent reoperation for failure at a significantly higher rate than lateral tears (20.6% vs 5.7%; P = .01) and had a significantly shorter survival time compared with lateral tears ( P = .02). No difference was found between the failure and nonfailure groups when it came to tear type, tear length, repair technique utilized, suture/implant type, or number of sutures used between the 2 groups. Conclusion: Meniscal repair in the revision ACLR setting has a 16% failure rate at 6 years. Failure rates for medial tears (20.6%) were found to be higher than that for lateral tears (5.7%), which aligns with previous studies in both the revision and primary ACLR setting.

Background: As machine learning becomes increasingly utilized in orthopaedic clinical research, the application of machine learning methodology to cohort data from the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) presents a valuable opportunity to translate data into patient-specific insights. Purpose: To apply novel machine learning methodology to MARS cohort data to determine a predictive model of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR) graft failure and features most predictive of failure. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The authors prospectively recruited patients undergoing rACLR from the MARS cohort and obtained preoperative radiographs, surgeon-reported intraoperative findings, and 2- and 6-year follow-up data on patient-reported outcomes, additional surgeries, and graft failure. Machine learning models including logistic regression (LR), XGBoost, gradient boosting (GB), random forest (RF), and a validated ensemble algorithm (AutoPrognosis) were built to predict graft failure by 6 years postoperatively. Validated performance metrics and feature importance measures were used to evaluate model performance. Results: The cohort included 960 patients who completed 6-year follow-up, with 5.7% (n = 55) experiencing graft failure. AutoPrognosis demonstrated the highest discriminative power (model area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: AutoPrognosis, 0.703; RF, 0.618; GB, 0.660; XGBoost, 0.680; LR, 0.592), with well-calibrated scores (model Brier score: AutoPrognosis, 0.053; RF, 0.054; GB, 0.057; XGBoost, 0.058; LR, 0.111). The most important features for AutoPrognosis model performance were prior compromised femoral and tibial tunnels (placement and size) and allograft graft type used in current rACLR. Conclusion: The present study demonstrated the ability of the novel AutoPrognosis machine learning model to best predict the risk of graft failure in patients undergoing rACLR at 6 years postoperatively with moderate predictive ability. Femoral and tibial tunnel size and position in prior ACLR and allograft use in current rACLR were all risk factors for rACLR failure in the context of the AutoPrognosis model. This study describes a unique model that can be externally validated with larger data sets and contribute toward the creation of a robust rACLR bedside risk calculator in future studies. Registration: NCT00625885 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Background: Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been documented to have inferior outcomes compared with primary ACL reconstruction. The reasons why remain unknown. Purpose: To determine whether surgical factors performed at the time of revision ACL reconstruction can influence a patient’s outcome at 6-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction were identified and prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Data collected included baseline patient characteristics, surgical technique and pathology, and a series of validated patient-reported outcome instruments: Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective form, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Marx activity rating score. Patients were followed up for 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of outcome instruments. Regression analysis was used to control for baseline patient characteristics and surgical variables to assess the surgical risk factors for clinical outcomes 6 years after surgery. Results: A total of 1234 patients were enrolled (716 men, 58%; median age, 26 years), and 6-year follow-up was obtained on 79% of patients (980/1234). Using an interference screw for femoral fixation compared with a cross-pin resulted in significantly better outcomes in 6-year IKDC scores (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-3.9; P = .008) and KOOS sports/recreation and quality of life subscale scores (OR range, 2.2-2.7; 95% CI, 1.2-4.8; P < .01). Use of an interference screw compared with a cross-pin resulted in a 2.6 times less likely chance of having a subsequent surgery within 6 years. Use of an interference screw for tibial fixation compared with any combination of tibial fixation techniques resulted in significantly improved scores for IKDC (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.3-2.9; P = .001); KOOS pain, activities of daily living, and sports/recreation subscales (OR range, 1.5-1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.4; P < .05); and WOMAC pain and activities of daily living subscales (OR range, 1.5-1.8; 95% CI, 1.0-2.7; P < .05). Use of a transtibial surgical approach compared with an anteromedial portal approach resulted in significantly improved KOOS pain and quality of life subscale scores at 6 years (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.02-2.2; P≤ .04). Conclusion: There are surgical variables at the time of ACL revision that can modify clinical outcomes at 6 years. Opting for a transtibial surgical approach and choosing an interference screw for femoral and tibial fixation improved patients’ odds of having a significantly better 6-year clinical outcome in this cohort.

Background: Meniscal and chondral damage is common in the patient undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Purpose: To determine if meniscal and/or articular cartilage pathology at the time of revision ACL surgery significantly influences a patient’s outcome at 6-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction were prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Data collection included baseline demographics, surgical technique, pathology, treatment, and scores from 4 validated patient-reported outcome instruments: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Marx Activity Rating Scale. Patients were followed up at 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of outcome instruments. Regression analysis assessed the meniscal and articular cartilage pathology risk factors for clinical outcomes 6 years after revision ACL reconstruction. Results: An overall 1234 patients were enrolled (716 males, 58%; median age, 26 years). Surgeons reported the pathology at the time of revision surgery in the medial meniscus (45%), lateral meniscus (36%), medial femoral condyle (43%), lateral femoral condyle (29%), medial tibial plateau (11%), lateral tibial plateau (17%), patella (30%), and trochlea (21%). Six-year follow-up was obtained on 79% of the sample (980/1234). Meniscal pathology and articular cartilage pathology (medial femoral condyle, lateral femoral condyle, lateral tibial plateau, trochlea, and patella) were significant drivers of poorer patient-reported outcomes at 6 years (IKDC, KOOS, WOMAC, and Marx). The most consistent factors driving outcomes were having a medial meniscal excision (either before or at the time of revision surgery) and patellofemoral articular cartilage pathology. Six-year Marx activity levels were negatively affected by having either a repair/excision of the medial meniscus (odds ratio range, 1.45-1.72; P≤ .04) or grade 3-4 patellar chondrosis (odds ratio, 1.72; P = .04). Meniscal pathology occurring before the index revision surgery negatively affected scores on all KOOS subscales except for sports/recreation ( P < .05). Articular cartilage pathology significantly impaired all KOOS subscale scores ( P < .05). Lower baseline outcome scores, higher body mass index, being a smoker, and incurring subsequent surgery all significantly increased the odds of reporting poorer clinical outcomes at 6 years. Conclusion: Meniscal and chondral pathology at the time of revision ACL reconstruction has continued significant detrimental effects on patient-reported outcomes at 6 years after revision surgery.