Keywords
anterior cruciate ligament - rupture - anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction -
return to sport
Introduction
Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction aims to restore knee joint stability,
to recover functional and sportive capacity to prelesion levels and to prevent meniscal
injuries and secondary osteoarthritis.[1] However, knee function restoration depends not only on the surgical technique, but
also on anatomical and biomechanical factors and the interaction of the nervous and
musculoskeletal systems.[1]
[2]
In addition to its mechanical functions, the ACL acts as a proprioceptive sensitive
organ due to the presence of mechanoreceptors around its fibers, which maintain knee
joint stability by stimulating coordinated muscle contractions.[2]
[3] Histological studies revealed the existence of residual mechanoreceptors in the
remnant tissue of the injured ligament, in addition to the high healing potential
due to the vascular support provided by the intact synovial sheath. As such, it is
believed that the preservation of ACL remnant fibers may help the biological process
of graft healing and accelerate the synovial covering of the reconstructed ligament.[1]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
Tie et al[1] published a systematic review in 2016 comparing the remnant-preserving with the
conventional technique. There was no difference between groups regarding joint stability,
but the authors demonstrated a lower percentage of tibial tunnel increase when the
remnant was spared. Despite satisfactory clinical outcomes in recent studies,[1]
[6]
[9]
[10] the literature is not clear on if the preservation or resection of this tissue may
influence the risk of knee functional complications and the return to sportive activities.
Therefore, the present study aimed to compare the results from ACL reconstruction
with the remnant-preserving technique with the conventional technique regarding return
to physical activities, lesion recurrence and pain.
Materials and Methods
This is a retrospective transversal study, approved by the Ethics and Research Committee
under the number CEP/UNIFESP n: 1107/2016.
The study included 83 adult patients > 18 years old in a consecutive series from 2010
to 2014. The mean follow-up time was 4.2 years (ranging from 2 to 7 years). A total
of 34 patients were submitted to ACL reconstruction with remnant preservation, and
49 patients were submitted to the conventional reconstruction. Subjects with a history
of previous knee or other joint surgery, total thickness chondral lesion grades 3
or 4 according to the International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS), meniscectomy
over two-thirds of the meniscus, concurrent lesion in other knee ligaments (except
for medial collateral ligament [MCL], grade 1) and/or contralateral leg surgery or
injury were excluded.
The ACL reconstruction with remnant-preserving technique was performed for partial
ACL lesions through selective reconstruction with a single band (single bundle augmentation
[SBA]), which consists in preserving the distal and proximal attachments of the remnant
stump, and positioning the graft at the anatomical site (footprint) of the ruptured
band ([Figure 1A] and [1B]).[7]
[8] The ACL reconstruction technique with no remnant preservation was performed through
meticulous cleaning of the intercondylar area, removing all ACL remnant tissue.
Fig. 1 (A) Selective anterior cruciate ligament posterolateral (PL) band reconstruction.
(B) Selective anterior cruciate ligament anteromedial (AM) band reconstruction. CFL:
lateral femoral condyle.
The data of the patients were collected from medical records and surgical description;
additional and follow-up data were obtained from personal or phone contact by two
authors of the study, using an interview script and a standardized filling form. Analyzed
outcomes included: physical activity level (4-point scale: [1] professional athlete,
[2] amateur athlete [> 3/week], (3) recreational athlete [1–2/week], [4] sedentary),
sports return rate, ACL rerupture defined as documented lesion requiring revision
surgery and numeric pain scale rate (NPSR; ranging from 0 to 10 points).
All statistical analyses were performed using the commercially available STATA software[11] (STATA, version 13; StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA). Alpha level (type I
error) was defined as 0.05. Normality was assumed based on histograms inspection and
the Shapiro-Wilk test. Mean and standard deviation (SD) were calculated for continuous
variables (95% confidence interval [CI]); dichotomic and categorical data were shown
in frequency (percentage) (95%CI). The chi-squared test was used to compare sample
variables and the nonpaired t-test compared continuous variables of normal distribution
between groups. The nonparametric Mann-Whitney test compared continuous variables
of non-normal distribution. All tests considered a 95% CI.
Results
In total, 71 patients (85.5%) were male, with a mean age of 31.8 (±8.3) years old.
The right side was the most affected (65%). There were no statistically significant
differences in the demographics of the patients. Regarding time to return to sports,
difference at physical activity level at the prelesion and postoperative period, reconstructed
ACL relesion rate and postoperative NPSR, there were no statistically significant
differences between groups ([Table 1]).
Table 1
|
Conventional Group
(n = 49)
|
Remnant Group
(n = 34)
|
p-value
|
|
Age (years old) (mean ± standard deviation)
|
32.3 (±9.0)
|
31.2 (±7.52)
|
0.88
|
|
Side
|
34 right/15 left
|
20 right/14 left
|
0.18
|
|
Time to return to physical activities
(months; mean ± standard deviation)
|
8.3 (±3.6)
|
10 (±5.0)
|
0.19
|
|
Difference in physical activity level
(Prelesion and postoperative; mean ± standard deviation)
|
−0.44 (±0.9)
|
−0.46 (±0.9)
|
0.74
|
|
Rerupture of neo ACL
|
1
|
3
|
0.15
|
|
Postoperative numeric pain scale rate (mean ± standard deviation)
|
1.6 (±2.1)
|
1.2 (±2.5)
|
0.78
|
There were no statistically significant differences between groups when the prelesion
and postoperative physical activity levels were compared ([Table 2]). However, there was a statistically significant difference at the intergroup analysis
of prelesion and postoperative physical activity levels for both groups, demonstrating
a reduced level of physical activity at the postoperative period ([Table 3]).
Table 2
|
Physical activity frequency
|
Conventional Group
(n = 49)
|
Remnant Group
(n = 34)
|
p-value
|
|
Pre-lesion (n):
|
|
|
0.24
|
|
(1) professional athlete
|
1
|
1
|
|
(2) amateur athlete (> 3/week)
|
24
|
12
|
|
(3) recreational athlete (1-2 /week)
|
19
|
20
|
|
(4) sedentary
|
5
|
1
|
|
Postoperative (n):
|
|
|
0.37
|
|
(1) professional athlete
|
0
|
1
|
|
(2) amateur athlete (>3 /week)
|
14
|
6
|
|
(3) recreational athlete (1- 2/week)
|
19
|
17
|
|
(4) sedentary
|
16
|
10
|
Table 3
|
Physical activity frequency
|
Conventional Group
(N = 49)
|
Remnant Group
(N = 34)
|
|
Prelesion (mean ± standard deviation)
|
2.5 (±0.7)
|
2.6 (±0.6)
|
|
Postoperative (mean ± standard deviation)
|
3.0 (±0.7)
|
3.0 (±0.7)
|
|
p-value
|
< 0.01*
|
< 0.01*
|
Most athletes played football. From the 44 patients who played football before surgery,
25 (56.8%) belonged to the remnant-preserving group, and 19 (43.2%) were from the
control group. After surgery, with a mean follow-up time of 4.2 years, 18 (72%) patients
from the remnant group resumed playing football, compared with 10 (52.6%) from the
control group. However, there was no statistically significant difference when both
groups were compared (p = 0.97).
Discussion
Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a remnant-preserving technique has
been studied in recent years. However, studies remain controversial and little is
known about the rate of return to physical activity when the remnant-preserving technique
is compared to the conventional technique. The present study analyzed retrospectively
ACL reconstruction techniques with and without remnant tissue preservation regarding
the return of the patients to their physical activity level prior to the injury. No
statistically significant difference was observed between the groups in any of the
evaluated outcomes: prelesion and postoperative physical activity frequency, return
to sports rate, reconstructed ACL reinjury rate and pain during a mean postoperative
follow-up period of 4.2 years. However, in an intragroup analysis, both groups showed
a statistically significant decrease in the physical activity frequency during the
postoperative period when compared to the prelesion period.
Football was the most practiced athletic activity before the injury (53%), a fact
that may be justified for being the most popular sport in our country and due to the
great knee joint biomechanical requirement. In the subgroup analysis evaluating only
soccer players, there was no difference in the rate of return to sports despite the
theoretical basis of the previously reported synergistic association between an accelerated
rehabilitation after ACL reconstruction and remnant tissue preservation.[7]
[8]
[12]
[13] The mechanical protection of the graft by the remnant stump in the early postoperative
period seems to be responsible for the optimized rehabilitation in subjects submitted
to the remnant-preserving technique, without relying solely on the initial graft incorporation
phase.[7]
[8]
[13] In addition, proprioceptive innervation would also potentiate return to sports,
since subjects with intact remnant fibers appear to have greater joint position sense,
resulting in greater limb control at pivoting activities.[7]
[8]
[13] However, the present work could not confirm this theoretical superiority of the
remnant-preserving group regarding return to sports; further clinical studies with
better methodological refinement are required to ascertain these findings.
The theoretical basis for ACL remnant stump preservation is the presence of mechanoreceptors,
functional proprioceptive fibers, and subsynovial and intrafascicular vascularization,
which are identifiable by conventional histopathology and immunohistology techniques.[2]
[14]
[15] Therefore, it would be logical to think that the conventional graft added to the
remaining fibers containing mechanoreceptors and subsynovial vascularization would
provide greater advantages over the conventional technique.[7]
[8] Despite this probable advantage, postoperative clinical evaluation studies have
not shown statistically significant differences between these techniques.[9]
[16]
[17] Recently, a systematic review of randomized clinical trials[18] showed that remnant tissue preservation is not clinically superior to the conventional
technique in terms of physical function (assessed by the International Knee Documentation
Committee [IKDC] score), ligament stability tests (Lachman and Pivot-shift), knee
range of motion, and adverse events, such as cyclops-type injury. Another systematic
review published by Tie et al[1] demonstrated a similarity between ACL reconstruction with and without remnant tissue
preservation regarding knee anterior stability and functional recovery. Remnant tissue
preservation resulted in a lesser widening of the tibial tunnel.
Few studies have effectively evaluated the return of the patients to the preinjury
physical activity level by comparing ACL remnant preservation or resection. Takazawa
et al[19] performed a case-control study and, when assessing physical activity levels using
the Tegner score, did not observe any difference between groups with or without remnant
tissue preservation after 1 year of postoperative follow-up; however, in the group
with remnant tissue preservation, the reinjury rate was lower and anterior stability
improved significantly. Our study found no differences between groups regarding return
to sports or reinjury, but it showed a significant decrease in physical activity frequency
in the postoperative period when compared to the preinjury period, regardless of the
technique used. Return to sports after ACL reconstruction is a concern, especially
when comparing preinjury activity levels. Most of the studies analyzing these data
include elite athletes, obtaining better results compared with patients who practice
sports at the recreational level. While studies involving the sportive elite report
an 80% rate of return to sports and a 65% rate of return to the same preinjury level,
researches involving mostly subjects involved in recreational activity, such as ours,
represent the majority of patients undergoing ACL reconstruction; in addition, they
are required to understand the evolution of these patients, which is usually less
favorable.[20]
[21]
The main limitations of the present study were the small sample size, the retrospective
design with data collection by telephone contact and the insufficient follow-up time
to assess long-term outcomes. Despite these methodological constraints, the present
study is one of the few to assess return to sports after ACL reconstruction with and
without remnant tissue preservation. Therefore, prospective studies with greater methodological
rigor are required to prove the benefits and disadvantages of this technique of ACL
reconstruction with remnant tissue preservation, especially with emphasis on the return
of the patients to previous physical activity levels.
Conclusion
Our findings did not show any difference between patients undergoing ACL reconstruction
with and without remnant tissue preservation regarding return to sports, frequency
of physical activity and pain. There was no difference between the groups regarding
injury recurrence rate. Future prospective studies are required to clarify the real
influence of ACL remnant tissue preservation on return to preinjury physical activity
levels.
