Back to Authors

Marx, Robert G.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2894-0198

Mayo Clinic

Hospital for Special Surgery

Citations 23

Meniscal Repair in the Setting of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: 6-Year Follow-up Results From the MARS Cohort
Group;, MARS, Fox, Jake A. , Huston, Laura J. , Haas, Amanda K. , Cooper, Daniel E. , Dunn, Warren R. , Lantz, Brett A., Amendola, Annunziato , Annunziata, Christopher C., Arciero, Robert A. , Bach, Bernard R. , Baker, Champ L., Bartolozzi, Arthur R. , Baumgarten, Keith M. , Berg, Jeffrey H., Bernas, Geoffrey A., Brockmeier, Stephen F. , Bush‐Joseph, Charles A., Butler, J. Brad, Carey, James L. , Carpenter, James E. , Cole, Brian J. , Cooper, Jonathan M. , Creighton, R. Alexander , Flanigan, David C. , Frederick, Robert W., Ganley, Theodore J. , Gatt, Charles J. , Gecha, Steven R., Hame, Sharon L. , Hannafin, Jo A., Harner, Christopher D. , Harris, Norman Lindsay, Hechtman, Keith S., Hershman, Elliott B., Hoellrich, Rudolf G., Johnson, David C. , Kaeding, Christopher C., Kamath, Ganesh V. , Klootwyk, Thomas E., Levy, Bruce A. , Benjamin, C. , Maiers, G. Peter, Marx, Robert G. , Matava, Matthew J. , Mathien, Gregory M., McCormack, Robert G. , Miller, Bruce S., Nissen, Carl W. , O’Neill, Daniel F., Parker, Richard D., Purnell, Mark L., Ramappa, Arun J. , Rauh, Michael A. , Rettig, Arthur C., Sekiya, Jon K., Shea, Kevin G. , Slauterbeck, James R., Smith, Matthew V. , Svoboda, Col. Steven J., Taft, Timothy N., Tenuta, Joachim J., Tingstad, Edwin M., Vidal, Armando F. , Viskontas, Darius G., White, Richard A., Williams, James S., Wolcott, Michelle L., York, James J. , Wright, Rick W. , Svoboda, Steven J. , Group;, MARS, Pennings, Jacquelyn S. , Allen, Christina R. , DeBerardino, Thomas M. , Spindler, Kurt P , Stuart, Michael J., Brophy, Robert H. , Carpenter, James E., Cox, Charles L. , David, Tal S. , Flanigan, David C. , Giffin, J. Robert , Johnson, David C., Johnson, Timothy S. , Jones, Morgan H. , Kaeding, Christopher C. , Marx, Robert G. , McAllister, David R. , McCarty, Eric C. , Miller, Bruce S., Owens, Brett D. , Sherman, Orrin H. , Spang, Jeffrey T. , Vidal, Armando F. , Wolf, Brian R.

The American Journal of Sports Medicine | November 12, 2025 | Volume: 53 | Issue: 14 | Pages: 3435-3445

10.1177/03635465251387333 Get It

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.
A Novel Machine Learning Model to Predict Revision ACL Reconstruction Failure in the MARS Cohort
Group, MARS, Vasavada, Vrinda, Devana, Sai K. , Hame, Sharon L. , Jazrawi, Laith M. , Huston, Laura J. , Haas, Amanda K. , Cooper, Daniel E. , Amendola, Annunziato, Annunziata, Christopher C., Arciero, Robert A. , Bach, Bernard R. , Baker, Champ L., Bartolozzi, Arthur R. , Baumgarten, Keith M. , Berg, Jeffrey H., Bernas, Geoffrey A., Brockmeier, Stephen F. , Bush‐Joseph, Charles A., Butler, J. Brad, Carey, James L. , Carpenter, James E. , Cole, Brian J. , Cooper, Jonathan M., Creighton, R. Alexander , Dunn, Warren R. , Flanigan, David C. , Frederick, Robert W., Ganley, Theodore J. , Gatt, Charles J. , Gecha, Steven R., Hannafin, Jo A., Harris, Norman Lindsay, Hechtman, Keith S., Hershman, Elliott B., Hoellrich, Rudolf G., Johnson, David C. , Kaeding, Christopher C., Kamath, Ganesh V. , Klootwyk, Thomas E., Levy, Bruce A. , Benjamin, C. , Maiers, G. Peter, Marx, Robert G. , Matava, Matthew J. , Mathien, Gregory M., McCormack, Robert G. , Miller, Bruce S., Nissen, Carl W. , O’Neill, Daniel F., Parker, Richard D., Purnell, Mark L., Ramappa, Arun J. , Rauh, Michael A. , Rettig, Arthur C., Sekiya, Jon K., Shea, Kevin G. , Slauterbeck, James R., Smith, Matthew V. , Svoboda, Steven J. , Taft, Timothy N., Tenuta, Joachim J., Tingstad, Edwin M., Vidal, Armando F. , Viskontas, Darius G., White, Richard A., Wolcott, Michelle L., Wright, Rick W. , York, James J. , Group, MARS, Vasavada, Kinjal , Moran, Jay T. , Lee, Chang Hee , Sherman, Orrin H. , Allen, Christina R. , DeBerardino, Thomas M. , Spindler, Kurt P , Stuart, Michael J., Brophy, Robert H. , Cox, Charles L. , David, Tal S. , Giffin, J. Robert , Johnson, David C., Johnson, Timothy S. , Jones, Morgan H. , Kaeding, Christopher C. , McAllister, David R. , McCarty, Eric C. , Miller, Bruce S., Owens, Brett D. , Spang, Jeffrey T. , Vidal, Armando F. , Williams, James S. , Wolf, Brian R.

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine | November 14, 2024 | Volume: 12 | Issue: 11 | Pages: No page available

10.1177/23259671241291920 Get It

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).
Surgical Predictors of Clinical Outcome 6 Years After Revision ACL Reconstruction
Group, The MARS, Wright, Rick W. , Huston, Laura J. , Haas, Amanda K. , Cooper, Daniel E. , Dunn, Warren R. , Lantz, Brett A., Amendola, Annunziato , Annunziata, Christopher C., Arciero, Robert A. , Bach, Bernard R. , Baker, Champ L., Bartolozzi, Arthur R. , Baumgarten, Keith M. , Berg, Jeffrey H., Bernas, Geoffrey A., Brockmeier, Stephen F. , Bush‐Joseph, Charles A., Butler, J. Brad, Carey, James L. , Carpenter, James E. , Cole, Brian J. , Cooper, Jonathan M., Creighton, R. Alexander , Flanigan, David C. , Frederick, Robert W., Ganley, Theodore J. , Gatt, Charles J. , Gecha, Steven R., Hame, Sharon L. , Hannafin, Jo A., Harner, Christopher D. , Harris, Norman Lindsay, Hechtman, Keith S., Hershman, Elliott B., Hoellrich, Rudolf G., Johnson, David C. , Kaeding, Christopher C., Kamath, Ganesh V. , Klootwyk, Thomas E., Levy, Bruce A. , Benjamin, C. , Maiers, G. Peter, Marx, Robert G. , Matava, Matthew J. , Mathien, Gregory M., McCormack, Robert G. , Miller, Bruce S., Nissen, Carl W. , O’Neill, Daniel F., Parker, Richard D., Purnell, Mark L., Ramappa, Arun J. , Rauh, Michael A. , Rettig, Arthur C., Sekiya, Jon K., Shea, Kevin G. , Slauterbeck, James R., Smith, Matthew V. , Svoboda, Steven J. , Taft, Timothy N., Tenuta, Joachim J., Tingstad, Edwin M., Vidal, Armando F. , Viskontas, Darius G., White, Richard A., Wolcott, Michelle L., York, James J. , Group, The MARS, Pennings, Jacquelyn S. , Allen, Christina R. , DeBerardino, Thomas M. , Spindler, Kurt P , Stuart, Michael J. , Brophy, Robert H. , Cox, Charles L. , David, Tal S. , Giffin, J. Robert , Johnson, David C., Johnson, Timothy S. , Jones, Morgan H. , Kaeding, Christopher C. , McAllister, David R. , McCarty, Eric C. , Miller, Bruce S., Owens, Brett D. , Sherman, Orrin H. , Spang, Jeffrey T. , Vidal, Armando F. , Williams, James S. , Wolf, Brian R.

The American Journal of Sports Medicine | November 6, 2024 | Volume: 52 | Issue: 13 | Pages: 3286-3294

10.1177/03635465241288227 Get It

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.
Multiligament knee injury (MLKI): an expert consensus statement on nomenclature, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation
Murray, Iain R. , Makaram, Navnit S. , Moatshe, Gilbert , Crossley, Kay M. , Davis, Aileen M. , Tuca, María , Eun, SeungPyo, Noyes, Frank R. , Marx, Robert G. , Harner, Chris, Levy, Bruce A. , Whelan, Daniel B. , Hatch, George F. Rick , Wahl, Christopher J. , Thorborg, Kristian , Irrgang, James J. , MacDonald, Peter , Shelbourne, K. Donald , Musahl, Volker , Miller, Mark D., LaPrade, Robert F. , Murray, Iain Robert , Moatshe, Gilbert , Crossley, Kay , Davis, Aileen , Janse van Rensburg, Dina C , Emery, Carolyn A , King, Enda , Engebretsen, Lars , Seil, Romain , Verhagen, Evert , Irrgang, James J , LaPrade, Robert F , Geeslin, Andrew G. , Chahla, Jorge , Kew, Michelle Elizabeth , Potter, Hollis G. , Emery, Carolyn A. , Eun, Seung-Pyo, Grindem, Hege , Cook, James L. , Pujol, Nicolas , Medvecky, Michael J. , Stuart, Michael J. , Krych, Aaron J. , Engebretsen, Lars , Stannard, James P. , Seil, Romain , Fanelli, Gregory C. , Maak, Travis G. , Verhagen, Evert , Hirschmann, Michael T. , Schenck, Robert C.

British Journal of Sports Medicine | September 5, 2024 | Volume: 58 | Issue: 23 | Pages: 1385-1400

10.1136/bjsports-2024-108089 Get It

Multiligament knee injuries (MLKIs) represent a broad spectrum of pathology with potentially devastating consequences. Currently, disagreement in the terminology, diagnosis and treatment of these injuries limits clinical care and research. This study aimed to develop consensus on the nomenclature, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation strategies for patients with MLKI, while identifying important research priorities for further study. An international consensus process was conducted using validated Delphi methodology in line with British Journal of Sports Medicine guidelines. A multidisciplinary panel of 39 members from 14 countries, completed 3 rounds of online surveys exploring aspects of nomenclature, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation and future research priorities. Levels of agreement (LoA) with each statement were rated anonymously on a 5-point Likert scale, with experts encouraged to suggest modifications or additional statements. LoA for consensus in the final round were defined ‘a priori’ if >75% of respondents agreed and fewer than 10% disagreed, and dissenting viewpoints were recorded and discussed. After three Delphi rounds, 50 items (92.6%) reached consensus. Key statements that reached consensus within nomenclature included a clear definition for MLKI (LoA 97.4%) and the need for an updated MLKI classification system that classifies injury mechanism, extent of non-ligamentous structures injured and the presence or absence of dislocation. Within diagnosis, consensus was reached that there should be a low threshold for assessment with CT angiography for MLKI within a high-energy context and for certain injury patterns including bicruciate and PLC injuries (LoA 89.7%). The value of stress radiography or intraoperative fluoroscopy also reached consensus (LoA 89.7%). Within treatment, it was generally agreed that existing literature generally favours operative management of MLKI, particularly for young patients (LoA 100%), and that single-stage surgery should be performed whenever possible (LoA 92.3%). This consensus statement will facilitate clinical communication in MLKI, the care of these patients and future research within MLKI.
Meniscal and Articular Cartilage Predictors of Outcome After Revision ACL Reconstruction: A 6-Year Follow-up Cohort Study
Group, The MARS, Wright, Rick W. , Haas, Amanda K. , Pennings, Jacquelyn S. , Cooper, Daniel E. , Dunn, Warren R. , Lantz, Brett A., Albright, John P., Amendola, Annunziato , Andrish, Jack T. , Annunziata, Christopher C., Arciero, Robert A. , Bach, Bernard R. , Baker, Champ L., Bartolozzi, Arthur R. , Baumgarten, Keith M. , Bechler, Jeffery R., Berg, Jeffrey H., Bernas, Geoffrey A., Brockmeier, Stephen F. , Bush‐Joseph, Charles A., Butler, J. Brad, Carey, James L. , Carpenter, James E. , Cole, Brian J. , Cooper, Jonathan M. , Cox, Charles L. , Creighton, R. Alexander , Dahm, Diane L., Flanigan, David C. , Frederick, Robert W., Ganley, Theodore J. , Garofoli, Elizabeth A. , Gatt, Charles J. , Gecha, Steven R., Hame, Sharon L. , Hannafin, Jo A., Harner, Christopher D. , Harris, Norman Lindsay, Hechtman, Keith S., Hershman, Elliott B., Hoellrich, Rudolf G., Johnson, David C. , Kaeding, Christopher C. , Kamath, Ganesh V. , Klootwyk, Thomas E., Levy, Bruce A. , Benjamin, C. , Maiers, G. Peter, Marx, Robert G. , Matava, Matthew J. , Mathien, Gregory M., McCarty, Eric C. , McCormack, Robert G. , Miller, Bruce S. , Nissen, Carl W. , O’Neill, Daniel F., Parker, Richard D., Purnell, Mark L., Ramappa, Arun J. , Rauh, Michael A. , Rettig, Arthur C., Sekiya, Jon K., Slauterbeck, James R., Smith, Matthew V. , Spang, Jeffrey T. , Svoboda, LTC Steven J., Taft, Timothy N., Tenuta, Joachim J., Tingstad, Edwin M., Vidal, Armando F. , Viskontas, Darius G., White, Richard A., Williams, James S., Wolcott, Michelle L., York, James J. , Svoboda, Steven J. , McCarty, Eric C , Group, The MARS, Huston, Laura J. , Allen, Christina R. , DeBerardino, Thomas M. , Spindler, Kurt P , Stuart, Michael J. , Brophy, Robert H. , Campbell, John , David, Tal S. , Giffin, J. Robert , Johnson, David C., Johnson, Timothy S. , Jones, Morgan H. , Marx, Robert G. , McAllister, David R. , Owens, Brett D. , Shea, Kevin G. , Sherman, Orrin H. , Vidal, Armando F. , Wolf, Brian R.

The American Journal of Sports Medicine | February 3, 2023 | Volume: 51 | Issue: 3 | Pages: 605-614

10.1177/03635465231151389 Get It

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.
Posterolateral Corner Reconstruction Using Double Femoral Fixation With Adjustable Loop Cortical Suspension and Interference Screw
Kennedy, Nicholas I. , Therrien, Érik , Marx, Robert G. , Levy, Bruce A. , Stuart, Michael J.

Video Journal of Sports Medicine | October 6, 2022 | Volume: 2 | Issue: 5 | Pages: No page available

10.1177/26350254221114890 Get It

Background: The posterolateral corner (PLC) of the knee is a complex anatomic region of the knee comprising the popliteus tendon, the popliteofibular ligament (PFL), and the fibular collateral ligament (FCL). Treatment of PLC injuries is based on the degree of varus and rotational instability on preoperative examination and is recommended in grade 3 injuries. 1,6 Technique Description: The key concept of this new surgical technique is to use adjustable loop cortical suspensory fixation implants for initial femoral fixation of the popliteus and the FCL grafts. This allows for individual tensioning of the grafts prior to definitive fixation with an interference screw. An anatomic fibular tunnel is initially created, followed by popliteus and FCL anatomic femoral socket drilling. A TightRope RT implant is attached to the popliteus end of the graft and secured through a bone tunnel on the medial femoral cortex initially. The popliteus end of the graft is then pulled into the femoral socket before tunneling the graft through the fibular tunnel. A second TightRope RT implant is secured to the FCL end of the graft before securing it to the medial femoral cortex through a bone tunnel and pulling the graft into the drilled femoral socket. An interference screw is first used to secure the graft at the fibular tunnel. The knee is then taken to 60° where the TightRope device is used to remove residual creep and optimize final tensioning prior to final fixation with interference screw in femoral socket. With the knee at 30° of flexion, neutral rotation, and slight valgus, the same steps are repeated for FCL graft. A posterolateral capsular shift is completed for additional stability. Results: Residual posterolateral corner instability or failure after reconstruction surgery has been reported in 6% to 9.4% of surgical reconstruction case. 2,3,5 The use of cortical suspensory devices in PLC reconstructions allows independent dialing of optimal graft tension for both the popliteus and FCL reconstruction before final interference screw fixation, therefore presumably limiting any residual creep and allowing for a double femoral fixation of the graft. Discussion: We describe a novel technique for posterolateral corner reconstruction which allows for optimal and individual tensioning of the structures of the posterolateral corner. Given the technique still uses well-described and validated graft choices and anatomic landmarks for reconstruction, we expect this new technique to allow for similar if not improved outcomes when compared with current gold standard. 4
Descriptive Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With and Without Tunnel Bone Grafting
Group, MARS, DeFroda, Steven F. , Wright, Rick W. , Huston, Laura J. , Pennings, Jacquelyn S. , Haas, Amanda K. , Cooper, Daniel E. , Dunn, Warren R. , Lantz, Brett A., Albright, John P., Amendola, Annunziato , Annunziata, Christopher C., Arciero, Robert A. , Bach, Bernard R. , Baker, Champ L., Bartolozzi, Arthur R. , Baumgarten, Keith M. , Bechler, Jeffery R., Berg, Jeffrey H., Bernas, Geoffrey A., Brockmeier, Stephen F. , Brophy, Robert H. , Bush‐Joseph, Charles A., Butler, J. Brad, Carey, James L. , Carpenter, James E. , Cole, Brian J. , Cooper, Jonathan M. , Cox, Charles L. , Creighton, R. Alexander , Flanigan, David C. , Frederick, Robert W., Ganley, Theodore J. , Garofoli, Elizabeth A. , Gatt, Charles J. , Gecha, Steven R., Hame, Sharon L. , Hannafin, Jo A., Harner, Christopher D. , Harris, Norman Lindsay, Hechtman, Keith S., Hershman, Elliott B., Hoellrich, Rudolf G., Johnson, David C. , Kaeding, Christopher C. , Kamath, Ganesh V. , Klootwyk, Thomas E., Levy, Bruce A. , Benjamin, C. , Maiers, G. Peter, Marx, Robert G. , Matava, Matthew J. , Mathien, Gregory M., McCarty, Eric C. , McCormack, Robert G. , Miller, Bruce S. , Nissen, Carl W. , O’Neill, Daniel F., Parker, Richard D., Purnell, Mark L., Ramappa, Arun J. , Rauh, Michael A. , Rettig, Arthur C., Sekiya, Jon K., Slauterbeck, James R., Smith, Matthew V. , Spang, Jeffrey T. , Svoboda, Steven J. , Taft, Timothy N., Tenuta, Joachim J., Tingstad, Edwin M., Vidal, Armando F. , Viskontas, Darius G., White, Richard A., Williams, James S., Wolcott, Michelle L., Wolf, Brian R. , York, James J. , Brophy, Robert H. , McCarty, Eric C , Group, MARS, Owens, Brett D. , Allen, Christina R. , DeBerardino, Thomas M. , Spindler, Kurt P , Stuart, Michael J. , David, Tal S. , Giffin, J. Robert , Johnson, David C., Johnson, Timothy S. , Jones, Morgan H. , Benjamin, C. , McAllister, David R. , Shea, Kevin G. , Sherman, Orrin H.

The American Journal of Sports Medicine | July 14, 2022 | Volume: 50 | Issue: 9 | Pages: 2397-2409

10.1177/03635465221104470 Get It

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.
Five‐Year Structural Changes in the Knee Among Patients With Meniscal Tear and Osteoarthritis: Data From a Randomized Controlled Trial of Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy Versus Physical Therapy
Collins, Jamie E. , Shrestha, Swastina , Marx, Robert G. , Jarraya, Mohamed , Jones, Morgan H. , Levy, Bruce A. , Mandl, Lisa A. , Williams, Emma E. , Wright, Rick W. , Group, METEOR Investigator, Losina, Elena , Jones, Morgan H , Mandl, Lisa A , Williams, Emma E , Katz, Jeffrey N , Collins, Jamie E , Losina, Elena , Marx, Robert G. , Guermazi, Ali , Spindler, Kurt P , Katz, Jeffrey N. , Group, METEOR Investigator

Arthritis & Rheumatology | March 4, 2022 | Volume: 74 | Issue: 8 | Pages: 1333-1342

10.1002/art.42105 Get It

ObjectiveTo estimate the risk of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–based structural changes in knee osteoarthritis (OA) among individuals with meniscal tear and knee OA, using MRIs obtained at baseline and 18 and 60 months after randomization in a randomized controlled trial of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) versus physical therapy (PT).MethodsWe used data from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (METEOR) trial. MRIs were read using the MRI OA Knee Score (MOAKS). We used linear mixed‐effects models to examine the association between treatment group and continuous MOAKS summary scores, and Poisson regression to assess categorical changes in knee joint structure. Analyses assessed changes in OA between baseline and month 18 and between months 18 and 60. We performed both intention‐to‐treat and as‐treated analyses.ResultsThe analytic sample included 302 participants. For both treatment groups, more OA changes were seen during the early interval than during the later interval. ITT analysis revealed that, between baseline and month 18, APM was significantly associated with an increased risk of having a worsening cartilage surface area score, involving both any worsening across all knee joint subregions (risk ratio [RR] 1.35 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.14, 1.61]) and the number of subregions damaged (RR 1.44 [95% CI 1.13, 1.85]) having a worsening effusion‐synovitis score (RR 2.62 [95% CI 1.32, 5.21]), and having ≥1 additional subregion with osteophytes (RR 1.24 [95% CI 1.02, 1.50]). Significant associations were detected between months 18 and 60 only for having any subregion with a worsening osteophyte score (RR 1.28 [95% CI 1.04, 1.58]).ConclusionThese findings suggest that the association between APM and MRI‐based structural changes in knee OA is most apparent during the initial 18 months after surgery. The reason for attenuation of this association over longer follow‐up merits further investigation.
Association Between Structural Change Over Eighteen Months and Subsequent Symptom Change in Middle‐Aged Patients Treated for Meniscal Tear
Katz, Jeffrey N. , Collins, Jamie E. , Marx, Robert G. , Mandl, Lisa A. , Levy, Bruce A. , Wright, Rick W. , Jarraya, Mohamed , MacFarlane, Lindsey A. , Chang, Yuchiao , Mandl, Lisa A , MacFarlane, Lindsey A , Losina, Elena , Collins, Jamie E , Katz, Jeffrey N , Jones, Morgan H. , Spindler, Kurt P , Marx, Robert G. , Guermazi, Ali , Losina, Elena

Arthritis Care & Research | October 5, 2021 | Volume: 75 | Issue: 2 | Pages: 340-347

10.1002/acr.24796 Get It

ObjectiveMiddle‐aged subjects with meniscal tear treated with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) experience greater progression of damage to joint structures on imaging than subjects treated nonoperatively. It is unclear whether these changes are clinically relevant. The goal of this study was to assess whether worsening in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–assessed tissue damage over 18 months leads to subsequent worsening in knee pain over the subsequent 3.5 years.MethodsWe used data from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (MeTeOR) trial of APM versus physical therapy for subjects ages ≥45 years with knee pain, cartilage damage, and meniscal tear. We assessed whether change in cartilage surface area damage score (and other structural measures) from baseline to 18 months, assessed on MRI with the MRI Osteoarthritis Knee Score (MOAKS) system, was associated with change in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) pain score (range 0–100; 100 = worst) from 18 to 60 months.ResultsThe primary analysis included 168 subjects with complete MRI data at baseline and 18 months and KOOS data at 18 and 60 months. We did not observe clinically important associations between change in cartilage surface area score between baseline and 18 months and change in pain scores from 18 to 60 months. Pain scores in the worst tertile for cartilage surface area damage score progression worsened by 0.45 points more than in the best tertile (95% confidence interval –4.45, 5.35). Similarly, we did not observe clinically important associations between changes in bone marrow lesions, osteophytes, or synovitis and subsequent pain.ConclusionWe did not observe clinically important associations between early changes in cartilage damage and other structural measures and worsening in pain over the subsequent 3.5 years. Further follow‐up is required to assess this association over a longer follow‐up period.
Association Between Graft Choice and 6-Year Outcomes of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in the MARS Cohort
Group, MARS, Wright, Rick W. , Huston, Laura J. , Haas, Amanda K. , Pennings, Jacquelyn S. , Cooper, Daniel E. , Dunn, Warren R. , Lantz, Brett A., Stuart, Michael J., Albright, John P., Amendola, Annunziato , Andrish, Jack T. , Annunziata, Christopher C., Arciero, Robert A. , Bach, Bernard R. , Baker, Champ L., Bartolozzi, Arthur R. , Baumgarten, Keith M. , Bechler, Jeffery R., Berg, Jeffrey H., Bernas, Geoffrey A., Brockmeier, Stephen F. , Brophy, Robert H. , Bush‐Joseph, Charles A., Butler, J. Brad, Campbell, John D. , Carey, James L. , Carpenter, James E. , Cole, Brian J. , Cooper, Jonathan M. , Cox, Charles L. , Creighton, R. Alexander , Dahm, Diane L., Flanigan, David C. , Frederick, Robert W., Ganley, Theodore J. , Garofoli, Elizabeth A. , Gatt, Charles J. , Gecha, Steven R., Hame, Sharon L. , Hannafin, Jo A., Harner, Christopher D. , Harris, Norman Lindsay, Hechtman, Keith S., Hershman, Elliott B., Hoellrich, Rudolf G., Johnson, David C. , Johnson, Timothy S. , Kaeding, Christopher C. , Kamath, Ganesh V. , Klootwyk, Thomas E., Levy, Bruce A. , Benjamin, C. , Maiers, G. Peter, Marx, Robert G. , Matava, Matthew J. , Mathien, Gregory M., McCarty, Eric C. , McCormack, Robert G. , Miller, Bruce S. , Nissen, Carl W. , O’Neill, Daniel F., Parker, Richard D., Purnell, Mark L., Ramappa, Arun J. , Rauh, Michael A. , Rettig, Arthur C., Sekiya, Jon K., Slauterbeck, James R., Smith, Matthew V. , Spang, Jeffrey T. , Svoboda, LTC Steven J., Taft, Timothy N., Tenuta, Joachim J., Tingstad, Edwin M., Vidal, Armando F. , Viskontas, Darius G., White, Richard A., Wolcott, Michelle L., Wolf, Brian R. , York, James J. , Svoboda, Steven J. , Brophy, Robert H. , McCarty, Eric C , Group, MARS, Allen, Christina R. , DeBerardino, Thomas M. , Spindler, Kurt P , Stuart, Michael J., Campbell, John D., David, Tal S. , Giffin, J. Robert , Johnson, David C., Jones, Morgan H. , McAllister, David R. , Owens, Brett D. , Shea, Kevin G. , Sherman, Orrin H. , Williams, James S.

The American Journal of Sports Medicine | July 14, 2021 | Volume: 49 | Issue: 10 | Pages: 2589-2598

10.1177/03635465211027170 Get It

Background: Although graft choice may be limited in the revision setting based on previously used grafts, most surgeons believe that graft choice for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is an important factor related to outcome. Hypothesis: In the ACL revision setting, there would be no difference between autograft and allograft in rerupture rate and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 6-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients who had revision surgery were identified and prospectively enrolled in this cohort study by 83 surgeons over 52 sites. Data collected included baseline characteristics, surgical technique and pathology, and a series of validated PRO measures. Patients were followed up at 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of PRO instruments. Incidence of additional surgery and reoperation because of graft failure were also recorded. Multivariable regression models were used to determine the predictors (risk factors) of PROs, graft rerupture, and reoperation at 6 years after revision surgery. Results: A total of 1234 patients including 716 (58%) men were enrolled. A total of 325 (26%) underwent revision using a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autograft; 251 (20%), soft tissue autograft; 289 (23%), BTB allograft; 302 (25%), soft tissue allograft; and 67 (5%), other graft. Questionnaires and telephone follow-up for subsequent surgery information were obtained for 809 (66%) patients, while telephone follow-up was only obtained for an additional 128 patients for the total follow-up on 949 (77%) patients. Graft choice was a significant predictor of 6-year Marx Activity Rating Scale scores ( P = .024). Specifically, patients who received a BTB autograft for revision reconstruction had higher activity levels than did patients who received a BTB allograft (odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.25-2.94). Graft rerupture was reported in 5.8% (55/949) of patients by their 6-year follow-up: 3.5% (16/455) of patients with autografts and 8.4% (37/441) of patients with allografts. Use of a BTB autograft for revision resulted in patients being 4.2 times less likely to sustain a subsequent graft rupture than if a BTB allograft were utilized ( P = .011; 95% CI, 1.56-11.27). No significant differences were found in graft rerupture rates between BTB autograft and soft tissue autografts ( P = .87) or between BTB autografts and soft tissue allografts ( P = .36). Use of an autograft was found to be a significant predictor of having fewer reoperations within 6 years compared with using an allograft ( P = .010; OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.87). Conclusion: BTB and soft tissue autografts had a decreased risk in graft rerupture compared with BTB allografts. BTB autografts were associated with higher activity level than were BTB allografts at 6 years after revision reconstruction. Surgeons and patients should consider this information when choosing a graft for revision ACL reconstruction.