Abstract
Background. The number of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions increases every year, which causes an increase in revision interventions due to ACL graft failure. When studying the literature, we identify many factors that together influence the outcome of revision ACL reconstruction, but are not always taken into account by surgeons.
Aim of the review — is to perform a systematic review of studies that evaluated the outcomes of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions and to identify optimal solutions to the most common problems encountered in preoperative planning.
Methods. Information search was performed in the eLIBRARY, PubMed, and Scopus databases for the period from 2013 to 2022. Studies describing the main aspects of revision ACL reconstruction were selected for analysis. Inclusion criteria were the following: mean patient follow-up period of no less than 12 months, number of observations of no less than 10 cases. After evaluation of 898 articles, 22 articles were included in the systematic review.
Results. Five main factors that should be taken into account in preoperative planning of revision ACL reconstruction have been identified: choice of the graft, necessity of reconstruction of the anterolateral complex, correction of tibial plateau deformity in the sagittal plane, determination of indications for one- or two-stage intervention, method of bone defect replacement in two-stage surgical treatment.
Conclusion. The patient’s autogenous tissues should be preferred when choosing a graft. Correction of excessive anteroposterior tibial plateau inclination angle is performed only at the second revision intervention if the inclination angle exceeds 12º. Reconstruction of the anterolateral complex should be performed in young, active patients who are involved in pivot sports and in case of severe anterior instability. When determining the possibility of performing revision ACL reconstruction in one or two stages, the canal diameter is not a crucial parameter, as it is necessary to take into account the possibility of fusion of the canals from the previous surgery with the newly created ones. If the canals have correct entry points, one-stage revision reconstruction can be performed with the canal width not exceeding 10 mm and depending on the expected diameter and type of the prepared tendon graft. Bone grafting of the secondary dilated canals in two-stage intervention can be carried out using any material, but allogenous bone or synthetic grafts have certain advantages.