Purpose: The aim of this study was to follow up, clinically and radiographically, skeletally immature patients who underwent ACL reconstruction with an all-epiphyseal “over-the-top” technique. Methods: Twenty athletes aged between 8 and 13 years were enrolled and retrospectively evaluated. The subjects underwent surgical ACL reconstruction between 2009 and 2013. The surgical technique consisted of a single-bundle all-epiphyseal ACL reconstruction with an extra-articular lateral tenodesis. The mean follow-up was 54 months [34–123] after surgery. Clinically, the patients were evaluated pre- and post-operatively with Lysholm and KOOS scores; sport activity level was evaluated using the pre-injury, pre-operative and post-operative Tegner scores. Objective IKDC was calculated post-operatively. The joint laxity was evaluated by KT1000 and Rolimeter arthrometers. Panoramic AP standing radiographs of the lower limbs and lateral knee radiographs were also taken at the follow-up to evaluate limb length discrepancies (LLD) and axial malalignment. Normally distributed parameters were presented as mean ± standard deviation, while the non-normally distributed parameters were presented as median [25° percentile, 75° percentile]. Results: Clinical scores showed significant (P < 0.01) improvement: Lysholm and KOOS scores improved from 40 [22; 65] and 59 [42, 73], respectively, to 100 [95; 100] and 99 [97;100] after surgery. Tegner score improved from 2 [2; 2] pre-operatively to 7 [3; 9] at follow-up (P < 0.01). At follow-up, IKDC score was A for 19 patients and one who scored B. All patients returned to sport activity and had good stability at follow-up: the KT1000 showed a median side-to-side difference of 0.0 mm [− 0.4; 1.0] for the standard force evaluation and 0.0 mm [− 1.0; 0.8] for manual-maximum test. The Rolimeter showed median side-to-site difference of 0.0 mm [− 1.0; 0.8]. Three minor leg length discrepancies and axial deviations were observed at the radiograph: one patient had 0.6 cm lengthening and 4° of varus, one had 1 cm lengthening, and one had 3° of varus (in comparison with the non-operated limb). No re-injury was observed. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that the modified all-epiphyseal single-bundle “over-the-top” technique is a viable and safe option for ACL reconstruction in pediatric subjects. These results support once more that not only ACL reconstruction is a safe procedure in skeletally immature patients, but also it is highly recommended for those who want to pursue an active and sportive life. Level of evidence: Case series, IV.

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with an all-epiphyseal “over-the-top” technique is safe and shows low rate of failure in skeletally immature athletes

Roberti di Sarsina, Tommaso;Macchiarola, Luca;Signorelli, Cecilia;Raggi, Federico;Marcheggiani Muccioli, Giulio Maria;Zaffagnini, Stefano
2019

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to follow up, clinically and radiographically, skeletally immature patients who underwent ACL reconstruction with an all-epiphyseal “over-the-top” technique. Methods: Twenty athletes aged between 8 and 13 years were enrolled and retrospectively evaluated. The subjects underwent surgical ACL reconstruction between 2009 and 2013. The surgical technique consisted of a single-bundle all-epiphyseal ACL reconstruction with an extra-articular lateral tenodesis. The mean follow-up was 54 months [34–123] after surgery. Clinically, the patients were evaluated pre- and post-operatively with Lysholm and KOOS scores; sport activity level was evaluated using the pre-injury, pre-operative and post-operative Tegner scores. Objective IKDC was calculated post-operatively. The joint laxity was evaluated by KT1000 and Rolimeter arthrometers. Panoramic AP standing radiographs of the lower limbs and lateral knee radiographs were also taken at the follow-up to evaluate limb length discrepancies (LLD) and axial malalignment. Normally distributed parameters were presented as mean ± standard deviation, while the non-normally distributed parameters were presented as median [25° percentile, 75° percentile]. Results: Clinical scores showed significant (P < 0.01) improvement: Lysholm and KOOS scores improved from 40 [22; 65] and 59 [42, 73], respectively, to 100 [95; 100] and 99 [97;100] after surgery. Tegner score improved from 2 [2; 2] pre-operatively to 7 [3; 9] at follow-up (P < 0.01). At follow-up, IKDC score was A for 19 patients and one who scored B. All patients returned to sport activity and had good stability at follow-up: the KT1000 showed a median side-to-side difference of 0.0 mm [− 0.4; 1.0] for the standard force evaluation and 0.0 mm [− 1.0; 0.8] for manual-maximum test. The Rolimeter showed median side-to-site difference of 0.0 mm [− 1.0; 0.8]. Three minor leg length discrepancies and axial deviations were observed at the radiograph: one patient had 0.6 cm lengthening and 4° of varus, one had 1 cm lengthening, and one had 3° of varus (in comparison with the non-operated limb). No re-injury was observed. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that the modified all-epiphyseal single-bundle “over-the-top” technique is a viable and safe option for ACL reconstruction in pediatric subjects. These results support once more that not only ACL reconstruction is a safe procedure in skeletally immature patients, but also it is highly recommended for those who want to pursue an active and sportive life. Level of evidence: Case series, IV.
2019
Roberti di Sarsina, Tommaso; Macchiarola, Luca; Signorelli, Cecilia; Grassi, Alberto; Raggi, Federico; Marcheggiani Muccioli, Giulio Maria; Zaffagnini, Stefano
File in questo prodotto:
Eventuali allegati, non sono esposti

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11585/667474
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 13
  • Scopus 29
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 26
social impact