Purpose Quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft ACL reconstruction was hypothesized to possess less anterior knee laxity, pivot shift laxity, and lower failure rates than hamstring tendon (HT) autografts. Methods Terms "hamstring tendon autograft" and "ACL reconstruction" or "quadriceps tendon autograft" and "ACL reconstruction" were searched in Embase and PubMed. Inclusion criteria required that studies included patients treated for primary ACL injury with reconstruction using either a QT autograft (Group 1) or a HT autograft (Group 2) and instrumented anterior knee laxity assessment. Extracted information included surgical fixation method, graft type, graft thickness or diameter, single vs. double bundle surgical method, publication year, time between the index knee injury and surgery, % women, initial and final subject number, subject age, follow-up length, side-to-side anterior knee laxity difference, Lysholm Score, Subjective IKDC score, anterior knee laxity side-to-side difference grade, ipsilateral pivot shift laxity grade, and failure rate. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies was used to evaluate study methodological quality. ResultsThe QT group (Group 1) had 17 studies and the HT group (Group 2) had 61 studies. Overall, Group 2 had greater pivot shift laxity (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.05-1.59, p = 0.005). Group 2 suspensory femoral fixation had greater pivot shift laxity (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.01-1.58, p = 0.02) than Group 1 compression femoral fixation. Group 2 compression femoral fixation also had more anterior knee laxity (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.03-1.52, p = 0.01) than Group 1 compression femoral fixation and higher failure rates based on initial (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.18-2.4, p = 0.002) and final (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.32-2.71, p = 0.0003) subject number. Failure rate for HT compression femoral fixation was greater than suspensory femoral fixation based on initial (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.52-2.84, p < 0.0001) and final (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.63-3.16, p < 0.0001) subject number. Conclusions Overall, QT autografts had less pivot shift laxity and lower failure rates based on final subject number than HT autografts. Compression QT autograft femoral fixation had lower pivot shift laxity than suspensory HT autograft femoral fixation. Compression QT autograft femoral fixation had less anterior knee laxity and lower failure rates than compression HT autograft femoral fixation. Suspensory HT autograft femoral fixation had lower failure rates than compression HT autograft femoral fixation. Greater knee laxity and failure rates may be related to a combination of HT autograft diameter and configuration (tissue quality and dimensions, strands, bundles, and suturing method) variability and fixation mode. Level of evidence Level IV.

Purpose This clinical concepts paper discusses the essential elements of cruciate ligament recuperation, micro-trauma repair, and remodeling. Methods Cruciate ligament mechanobiology and tissue heterogeneity, anatomy and vascularity, and synovial membrane and fluid functions are discussed in relationship to deficiency-induced inflammatory responses, nervous and immune system function, recuperation, repair and remodeling, and modern threats to homeostasis. Results Cruciate ligament surgical procedures do not appreciate the vital linked functions of the central, peripheral, and autonomic nervous systems and immune system function on knee ligament injury recuperation, micro-trauma repair, and remodeling. Enhanced knowledge of these systems could provide innovative ways to decrease primary non-contact knee injury rates and improve outcomes following reconstruction or primary repair. Conclusions Restoration of knee joint homeostasis is essential to cruciate ligament recuperation, micro-trauma repair, and remodeling. The nervous and immune systems are intricately involved in this process. Varying combinations of high-intensity training, under-recovery, technostress, and environmental pollutants (including noise) regularly expose many athletically active individuals to factors that abrogate the environment needed for cruciate ligament recuperation, micro-trauma repair, and remodeling. Current sports training practice, lifestyle psychobehaviors, and environmental factors combine to increase both primary non-contact knee injury risk and the nervous and immune system dysregulation that lead to poor sleep, increased anxiety, and poorly regulated hormone and cytokine levels. These factors may create a worst-case scenario leading to poor ligament recuperation, micro-trauma repair, and remodeling. Early recognition and modification of these factors may decrease knee ligament injury rates and improve cruciate ligament repair or reconstruction outcomes. Level of evidence V.

No abstract

The etiology of failure following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) leading to revision surgery are multifactorial, including infection, instability, loosening, contracture, and wear. Although the majority of patients have successful outcomes following revision TKA, postoperative complications are still increased in these patients when compared to primary patients. For this reason, there has been a continued search to identify options, including prosthesis types, to potentially improve outcomes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine if the clinical results achieved following revision TKA are comparatively similar to primaries using the same implant design. Specifically, we compared (1) Knee Society Functional and Range-of-Motion Knee Scores and (2) component survivorship. This was a retrospective analysis of 100 patients undergoing revision TKA due to an aseptic etiology, who were matched to a cohort of 100 patients who underwent primaries with the same prosthesis. There were no differences in the groups with respect to age at surgery, sex, and body mass index. The mean follow-up was 57 months in the revision group (range 24–105 months) and 67 months in the primary TKA group (range 55–123 months). American Knee Society Scores (KSS) and range of motion measurements recorded preoperatively and at the most recent postoperative visit were compared between both cohorts in order to compare postoperative outcomes. A p value of 0.05 was used for significance. The average improvement between the pre- and postoperative KSS function scores in both groups was similar, with both cohorts demonstrating a 28-point improvement. At 2-year follow-up, all-cause survivorship of the aseptic revision surgeries was 87%. Patients undergoing revision TKA for aseptic loosening can potentially expect similar improvements in clinical function scores and survivorship compared to primary TKA when controlling for implant type.