Revision Multiligament Knee Reconstruction

Clinical Outcomes and Proposed Treatment Algorithm

Jarret M. Woodmass, Michael P. O'Malley, Aaron Krych, Patrick J. Reardon, Nick R. Johnson, Michael J. Stuart, Bruce A Levy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To (1) assess clinical outcomes of revision multiligament knee injury (MLKI) reconstruction at a minimum of 2 years' follow-up and (2) present a standardized treatment algorithm used in treating revision MLKI patients. Methods: A retrospective review of our institution's MLKI database was performed to identify all patients who underwent revision MLKI reconstructions (≥2 ligaments reconstructed) after implementation of a standardized treatment algorithm in 2000 and had a minimum of 2 years' follow-up. Patient demographic information, injury description (mechanism of injury, neurovascular status, knee dislocation grade, associated chondral or meniscal injury), surgical technique (repair vs reconstruction, staged vs nonstaged, concomitant procedures), mechanism of failure, knee stability, and range of motion, as well as International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm scores, were obtained. Results: We assessed 23 patients (8 female and 15 male patients), with an average age of 26.7 ± 11.5 years at primary surgery and 30.8 ± 11.0 years at revision surgery. The mean follow-up period was 7.5 ± 5.3 years. Of the 23 patients, 10 (43.4%) underwent staged revision procedures: isolated bone grafting in 3, osteotomy in 4, hardware removal with osteochondral allograft in 1, hardware removal with bone grafting in 1, and meniscus repair for a locked knee in 1. The average International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm scores were 74.5 ± 22.3 and 79.4 ± 20.2, respectively. High-energy injury and increasing age at revision surgery were the only risk factors found to be associated with significantly worse outcomes (P < .05). Conclusions: Patients with recurrent instability after MLKI reconstruction present with many concomitant pathologies, including limb malalignment, bone tunnel widening, retained hardware, meniscal incompetence, and cartilage defects. Revision MLKI reconstruction can provide these patients with modest functional outcomes when a standardized treatment algorithm is used focusing on identification and treatment of the concomitant pathology, often in a staged manner. Level of Evidence: Level IV, case series.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalArthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2017

Fingerprint

Knee Injuries
Knee
Bone Transplantation
Reoperation
Bone Malalignment
Documentation
Cartilage
Wounds and Injuries
Knee Dislocation
Pathology
Intraoperative Complications
Therapeutics
Osteotomy
Articular Range of Motion
Ligaments
Allografts
Extremities
Demography
Databases

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

Revision Multiligament Knee Reconstruction : Clinical Outcomes and Proposed Treatment Algorithm. / Woodmass, Jarret M.; O'Malley, Michael P.; Krych, Aaron; Reardon, Patrick J.; Johnson, Nick R.; Stuart, Michael J.; Levy, Bruce A.

In: Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery, 01.01.2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{30a09d580cf145f3b7834b661aa6eeb0,
title = "Revision Multiligament Knee Reconstruction: Clinical Outcomes and Proposed Treatment Algorithm",
abstract = "Purpose: To (1) assess clinical outcomes of revision multiligament knee injury (MLKI) reconstruction at a minimum of 2 years' follow-up and (2) present a standardized treatment algorithm used in treating revision MLKI patients. Methods: A retrospective review of our institution's MLKI database was performed to identify all patients who underwent revision MLKI reconstructions (≥2 ligaments reconstructed) after implementation of a standardized treatment algorithm in 2000 and had a minimum of 2 years' follow-up. Patient demographic information, injury description (mechanism of injury, neurovascular status, knee dislocation grade, associated chondral or meniscal injury), surgical technique (repair vs reconstruction, staged vs nonstaged, concomitant procedures), mechanism of failure, knee stability, and range of motion, as well as International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm scores, were obtained. Results: We assessed 23 patients (8 female and 15 male patients), with an average age of 26.7 ± 11.5 years at primary surgery and 30.8 ± 11.0 years at revision surgery. The mean follow-up period was 7.5 ± 5.3 years. Of the 23 patients, 10 (43.4{\%}) underwent staged revision procedures: isolated bone grafting in 3, osteotomy in 4, hardware removal with osteochondral allograft in 1, hardware removal with bone grafting in 1, and meniscus repair for a locked knee in 1. The average International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm scores were 74.5 ± 22.3 and 79.4 ± 20.2, respectively. High-energy injury and increasing age at revision surgery were the only risk factors found to be associated with significantly worse outcomes (P < .05). Conclusions: Patients with recurrent instability after MLKI reconstruction present with many concomitant pathologies, including limb malalignment, bone tunnel widening, retained hardware, meniscal incompetence, and cartilage defects. Revision MLKI reconstruction can provide these patients with modest functional outcomes when a standardized treatment algorithm is used focusing on identification and treatment of the concomitant pathology, often in a staged manner. Level of Evidence: Level IV, case series.",
author = "Woodmass, {Jarret M.} and O'Malley, {Michael P.} and Aaron Krych and Reardon, {Patrick J.} and Johnson, {Nick R.} and Stuart, {Michael J.} and Levy, {Bruce A}",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.arthro.2017.09.022",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery",
issn = "0749-8063",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Revision Multiligament Knee Reconstruction

T2 - Clinical Outcomes and Proposed Treatment Algorithm

AU - Woodmass, Jarret M.

AU - O'Malley, Michael P.

AU - Krych, Aaron

AU - Reardon, Patrick J.

AU - Johnson, Nick R.

AU - Stuart, Michael J.

AU - Levy, Bruce A

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - Purpose: To (1) assess clinical outcomes of revision multiligament knee injury (MLKI) reconstruction at a minimum of 2 years' follow-up and (2) present a standardized treatment algorithm used in treating revision MLKI patients. Methods: A retrospective review of our institution's MLKI database was performed to identify all patients who underwent revision MLKI reconstructions (≥2 ligaments reconstructed) after implementation of a standardized treatment algorithm in 2000 and had a minimum of 2 years' follow-up. Patient demographic information, injury description (mechanism of injury, neurovascular status, knee dislocation grade, associated chondral or meniscal injury), surgical technique (repair vs reconstruction, staged vs nonstaged, concomitant procedures), mechanism of failure, knee stability, and range of motion, as well as International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm scores, were obtained. Results: We assessed 23 patients (8 female and 15 male patients), with an average age of 26.7 ± 11.5 years at primary surgery and 30.8 ± 11.0 years at revision surgery. The mean follow-up period was 7.5 ± 5.3 years. Of the 23 patients, 10 (43.4%) underwent staged revision procedures: isolated bone grafting in 3, osteotomy in 4, hardware removal with osteochondral allograft in 1, hardware removal with bone grafting in 1, and meniscus repair for a locked knee in 1. The average International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm scores were 74.5 ± 22.3 and 79.4 ± 20.2, respectively. High-energy injury and increasing age at revision surgery were the only risk factors found to be associated with significantly worse outcomes (P < .05). Conclusions: Patients with recurrent instability after MLKI reconstruction present with many concomitant pathologies, including limb malalignment, bone tunnel widening, retained hardware, meniscal incompetence, and cartilage defects. Revision MLKI reconstruction can provide these patients with modest functional outcomes when a standardized treatment algorithm is used focusing on identification and treatment of the concomitant pathology, often in a staged manner. Level of Evidence: Level IV, case series.

AB - Purpose: To (1) assess clinical outcomes of revision multiligament knee injury (MLKI) reconstruction at a minimum of 2 years' follow-up and (2) present a standardized treatment algorithm used in treating revision MLKI patients. Methods: A retrospective review of our institution's MLKI database was performed to identify all patients who underwent revision MLKI reconstructions (≥2 ligaments reconstructed) after implementation of a standardized treatment algorithm in 2000 and had a minimum of 2 years' follow-up. Patient demographic information, injury description (mechanism of injury, neurovascular status, knee dislocation grade, associated chondral or meniscal injury), surgical technique (repair vs reconstruction, staged vs nonstaged, concomitant procedures), mechanism of failure, knee stability, and range of motion, as well as International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm scores, were obtained. Results: We assessed 23 patients (8 female and 15 male patients), with an average age of 26.7 ± 11.5 years at primary surgery and 30.8 ± 11.0 years at revision surgery. The mean follow-up period was 7.5 ± 5.3 years. Of the 23 patients, 10 (43.4%) underwent staged revision procedures: isolated bone grafting in 3, osteotomy in 4, hardware removal with osteochondral allograft in 1, hardware removal with bone grafting in 1, and meniscus repair for a locked knee in 1. The average International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm scores were 74.5 ± 22.3 and 79.4 ± 20.2, respectively. High-energy injury and increasing age at revision surgery were the only risk factors found to be associated with significantly worse outcomes (P < .05). Conclusions: Patients with recurrent instability after MLKI reconstruction present with many concomitant pathologies, including limb malalignment, bone tunnel widening, retained hardware, meniscal incompetence, and cartilage defects. Revision MLKI reconstruction can provide these patients with modest functional outcomes when a standardized treatment algorithm is used focusing on identification and treatment of the concomitant pathology, often in a staged manner. Level of Evidence: Level IV, case series.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85038875089&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85038875089&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.09.022

DO - 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.09.022

M3 - Article

JO - Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery

JF - Arthroscopy - Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery

SN - 0749-8063

ER -