Revision ACL reconstruction in pediatric and adolescent patients yields low rates of graft failure and good functional scores, but low rates of return to sport: A systematic review

Nikolaos K Paschos,Kristen Reikersdorfer,Christopher Jayne,Colleen McGauley,Jon Brodeur,Giovanna Medina,Mark Cote

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2024.08.014

2024-08-27

Abstract:Purpose: To evaluate outcomes following revision ACL reconstruction in pediatric and adolescent patients in terms of graft failure rate and functional patient outcomes. Methods: A systematic review of Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, Ovid, and PubMed databases was performed for all original clinical studies that reported outcomes of pediatric and adolescent patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction. Non-English studies and studies not reporting both graft failure rates and an additional outcome measure were excluded. We evaluated patient demographics, injury mechanisms, surgical technique characteristics, concomitant injuries, failure rates, patient-reported outcome measures (PROM), complications, and return to sports rates. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed with the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). Results: Five studies with a total of 239 knees in 234 patients were included. Failure of the revision ACLR ranged from 9% to 21%. Return to previous level of activity ranged between 27% and 68%. PROMs were variable, with good Lysholm score (range 84.5 to 93.7), moderate Tegner activity score (range 5.5 to 9), and good IKDC scores (range 79.9 to 80.0). Allograft was used in 48% of revisions, followed by bone patellar tendon bone (BPTB) autograft in 34%, and hamstrings (HS) autograft in 14%. Meniscus injury and cartilage injury was present in 53.1% to 92.5% and 5.5% to 59.4% of knees, respectively. Gwet's AC1 coefficient was 0.89, indicating a high degree of interrater reliability. The average MINOR score was 6 and heterogeneity was low (I2=9%). The included studies did not present with sufficient detail to disaggregate clinical outcomes by patient sex. Conclusions: Revision ACLR yields a graft failure ranging from 9 to 20%. Revision patients experience good PROMs but low rates of return to pre-injury level of sport. Further, revision ACLR was associated with high rates of intraarticular damage and relatively low rates of meniscal repair at the time of second surgery. Level of evidence: IV, systematic review of level IV evidence.