Predictors of Knee Arthrofibrosis and Outcomes after Arthroscopic Lysis of Adhesions following Ligamentous Reconstruction: A Retrospective Case–Control Study with Over Two Years' Average Follow-Up

Blake M. Bodendorfer; Laura E. Keeling; Evan M. Michaelson; Henry T. Shu; Nicholas A. Apseloff; James D. Spratt; Patrick S. Malone; Evan H. Argintar

doi:10.1055/s-0038-1655741

The Journal of Knee Surgery, Table of Contents

J Knee Surg 2019; 32(06): 536-543
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1655741

Original Article

Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Predictors of Knee Arthrofibrosis and Outcomes after Arthroscopic Lysis of Adhesions following Ligamentous Reconstruction: A Retrospective Case–Control Study with Over Two Years' Average Follow-Up

Authors

Blake M. Bodendorfer

¹Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia
Laura E. Keeling

¹Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, District of Columbia
Evan M. Michaelson

²School of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia
Henry T. Shu

³Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, District of Columbia
Nicholas A. Apseloff

²School of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia
James D. Spratt

²School of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia
Patrick S. Malone

²School of Medicine, Georgetown University, Washington, District of Columbia
Evan H. Argintar

³Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, MedStar Washington Hospital Center, Washington, District of Columbia

Abstract

Arthrofibrosis can be a devastating complication after ligamentous knee reconstruction. Beyond early range of motion (ROM), manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) and arthroscopic lysis of adhesions (LOAs) are the most frequently employed interventions for the condition. There is a paucity of data regarding predictive factors of arthrofibrosis requiring MUA and LOA, and even less data regarding changes in validated patient-reported outcome measures following the procedure. A retrospective case–control study was performed at an academic, urban Level I trauma center of patients that developed arthrofibrosis requiring MUA and LOA following ligamentous reconstruction. The indication for LOA was failure to achieve a 90° arc of ROM by 6 weeks. Seventeen cases and 141 controls were identified. Follow-up for cases was 26.9 ± 17.1 months (mean ± standard deviation). Time from initial reconstruction to LOA was 75.2 ± 27.9 days. Cases had higher body mass indices by a mean of 2.9 (p = 0.024). The most significant risk factors for stiffness were concomitant anterior cruciate ligament, posterior cruciate ligament, and posterolateral corner/lateral collateral ligament injury (odds ratio [OR], 17.08), knee dislocation (OR, 12.84), and use of an external fixator (OR, 12.81, 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.03–54.20) (all p < 0.0026). Mean Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Indices, and International Knee Documentation Committee scores improved by 47.5, 50.5, and 47.3% (all p < 0.0038), respectively. All patients reported improvement in pain, with maximum daily pain scores improving by a mean of 4.1 points on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (p < 0.001). Mean ROM arc improved by 38.8° (p < 0.001). All 17 cases were satisfied with the procedure. Twelve cases (70.59%) reported a full return to preinjury level of activity. No factors were identified that predicted success from the procedure, likely due to inadequate sample size. Arthrofibrosis following knee injury and ligamentous reconstruction can be predicted by the severity of injury and early intervention with MUA and arthroscopic LOA can lead to a satisfactory outcome for the patient.

Keywords

arthrofibrosis - lysis of adhesions - manipulation under anesthesia - ligamentous reconstruction - knee

Full Text

References

References
1 Garrett Jr WE, Swiontkowski MF, Weinstein JN. , et al. American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery practice of the orthopaedic surgeon, part II: certification examination case mix. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006; 88 (03) 660-667
2 Levy BA, Fanelli GC, Whelan DB. , et al; Knee Dislocation Study Group. Controversies in the treatment of knee dislocations and multiligament reconstruction. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2009; 17 (04) 197-206
3 Hooper GJ, Walton DI. Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament using the bone-block iliotibial-tract transfer. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1987; 69 (08) 1150-1154
4 Noyes FR, Berrios-Torres S, Barber-Westin SD, Heckmann TP. Prevention of permanent arthrofibrosis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction alone or combined with associated procedures: a prospective study in 443 knees. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2000; 8 (04) 196-206
5 Mook WR, Miller MD, Diduch DR, Hertel J, Boachie-Adjei Y, Hart JM. Multiple-ligament knee injuries: a systematic review of the timing of operative intervention and postoperative rehabilitation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 (12) 2946-2957
6 Hanley J, Westermann R, Cook S. , et al. Factors associated with knee stiffness following surgical management of multiligament knee injuries. J Knee Surg 2017; 30 (06) 549-554
7 Freedman KB, D'Amato MJ, Nedeff DD, Kaz A, Bach Jr BR. Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis comparing patellar tendon and hamstring tendon autografts. Am J Sports Med 2003; 31 (01) 2-11
8 Werner BC, Cancienne JM, Miller MD, Gwathmey FW. Incidence of manipulation under anesthesia or lysis of adhesions after arthroscopic knee surgery. Am J Sports Med 2015; 43 (07) 1656-1661
9 Sisto DJ, Warren RF. Complete knee dislocation. A follow-up study of operative treatment. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1985; (198) 94-101
10 Shapiro MS, Freedman EL. Allograft reconstruction of the anterior and posterior cruciate ligaments after traumatic knee dislocation. Am J Sports Med 1995; 23 (05) 580-587
11 Schenck Jr R. Classification of knee dislocations. Oper Tech Sports Med 2003; 11: 193-198
12 Manske RC, Hosseinzadeh P, Giangarra CE. Multiple ligament knee injury: complications. N Am J Sports Phys Ther 2008; 3 (04) 226-233
13 Stannard JP, Nuelle CW, McGwin G, Volgas DA. Hinged external fixation in the treatment of knee dislocations: a prospective randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96 (03) 184-191
14 Levy BA, Krych AJ, Shah JP, Morgan JA, Stuart MJ. Staged protocol for initial management of the dislocated knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2010; 18 (12) 1630-1637
15 Wascher DC, Becker JR, Dexter JG, Blevins FT. Reconstruction of the anterior and posterior cruciate ligaments after knee dislocation. Results using fresh-frozen nonirradiated allografts. Am J Sports Med 1999; 27 (02) 189-196
16 Roman PD, Hopson CN, Zenni Jr EJ. Traumatic dislocation of the knee: a report of 30 cases and literature review. Orthop Rev 1987; 16 (12) 917-924
17 Tzurbakis M, Diamantopoulos A, Xenakis T, Georgoulis A. Surgical treatment of multiple knee ligament injuries in 44 patients: 2-8 years follow-up results. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2006; 14 (08) 739-749
18 Harner CD, Waltrip RL, Bennett CH, Francis KA, Cole B, Irrgang JJ. Surgical management of knee dislocations. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86-A (02) 262-273
19 Bellamy N. WOMAC: a 20-year experiential review of a patient-centered self-reported health status questionnaire. J Rheumatol 2002; 29 (12) 2473-2476
20 Collins NJ, Misra D, Felson DT, Crossley KM, Roos EM. Measures of knee function: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS), Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living Scale (KOS-ADL), Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Activity Rating Scale (ARS), and Tegner Activity Score (TAS). Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2011; 63 (Suppl. 11) S208-S228
21 Roos EM, Lohmander LS. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 64
22 Irrgang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL. , et al; International Knee Documentation Committee. Responsiveness of the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med 2006; 34 (10) 1567-1573
23 Escobar A, Quintana JM, Bilbao A, Aróstegui I, Lafuente I, Vidaurreta I. Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after total knee replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007; 15 (03) 273-280
24 Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G. , et al. Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state. Ann Rheum Dis 2005; 64 (01) 34-37
25 Gittings D, Hesketh P, Dattilo J, Zgonis M, Kelly J, Mehta S. Arthroscopic lysis of adhesions improves knee range of motion after fixation of intra-articular fractures about the knee. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2016; 136 (12) 1631-1635
26 Cosgarea AJ, DeHaven KE, Lovelock JE. The surgical treatment of arthrofibrosis of the knee. Am J Sports Med 1994; 22 (02) 184-191
27 Sassoon AA, Adigweme OO, Langford J, Koval KJ, Haidukewych GJ. Manipulation under anesthesia: a safe and effective treatment for posttraumatic arthrofibrosis of the knee. J Orthop Trauma 2015; 29 (12) e464-e468
28 Bodendorfer BM, Kotler JA, Zelenty WD, Termanini K, Sanchez R, Argintar EH. Outcomes and predictors of success for arthroscopic lysis of adhesions for the stiff total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2017; 40 (06) e1062-e1068
29 Schwarzkopf R, William A, Deering RM, Fitz W. Arthroscopic lysis of adhesions for stiff total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2013; 36 (12) e1544-e1548