Purpose. The aim of the present study was to investigate the relationship between generalised ligament laxity and requirement for revision ACL reconstruction. Materials and methods. 126 patients undergoing primary ACL reconstruction were included in the study along with 35 patients undergoing revision ACL surgery. 62 patients without any knee ligament injury formed an age and sex matched the control group. The Beighton score was used to quantify the ligamentous laxity in all cases with a score more than 4 classified as having generalised ligamentous laxity. The revision ACL patients were evaluated to identify technical errors at the time of the primary procedure or subsequent traumatic injury that could have contributed to primary graft failure. Results. The primary ACL surgery group was associated with an increased generalised ligamentous laxity compared to the control group and this was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Similarly the revision surgery group was also associated with increased generalised ligamentous laxity compared to the control group (p < 0.05). The revision ACL surgery group was also associated with increased generalised ligamentous laxity when compared to the primary ACL surgery group but this did not quite achieve statistical significance (p = 0.058). There was a subgroup within the revision cohort, who had a failure of the original surgery due to biological failure of the primary graft. The incidence of generalised ligament laxity in this group was significantly higher than the primary surgery group (p < 0.05). Conclusion. The findings of the study suggest a clear relationship between generalised ligamentous laxity and ACL injury. The study also highlights a link between generalised ligamentous laxity and requirement for revision ACL surgery. Based on the results of our study we feel that in the presence of GLL an autogenous graft may not be the best mode of reconstruction for either primary of revision ACL reconstruction. A case could be made for preferring allografts over autografts for these patients to reduce the rate of graft failure. Further prospective studies comparing allograft and autorgraft failure rates in patients undergoing primary and revision ACL are required to confirm our observations

Purpose: To investigate the validity of previous observations that meniscal repair has a better success rate when associated with ACL reconstruction. Methods and Results: The case notes of 170 patients who underwent meniscal repair between May 1999 and May 2007 were analysed for causes of re-operation and relation to status of the ACL. Mean age at the time of surgery was 28 years. 41 patients underwent re-operation at a mean time interval of 21 months (range 2 weeks - 87 months). 79 patients (Group A) had isolated meniscal tears. 44 patients (Group B) had meniscal repair at the same time as elective ACL reconstruction and underwent brace-free, accelerated rehabilitation. 47 patients (Group C) had meniscal repair in association with ACL disruption and underwent staged ligament reconstruction. In Group A, 23 patients underwent re-operation (Indications; meniscal symptoms 21, stiffness 1, infection 1). Nineteen repairs (23.8%) were found to have failed. In Group B, 15 patients underwent re-operation (Indications; meniscal symptoms 12, stiffness 1, revision ACL 2). Twelve (27.2%) repairs were found to have failed. In Group C, Nine (19.6%) repairs were found to have failed. 6 at the time of staged ACL reconstruction and 3 subsequently, at further arthroscopy. There was no statistical difference between the groups with respect to the incidence of failed meniscal repairs. Analysis of possible predictive factors including age, gender, location of lesion and the type of repair did not show statistical significance. Conclusions: Reoperation rate following meniscal repair is high. Meniscal repair for tears associated with ACL disruption in this group did not appear to have a higher success rate compared to isolated tears. This raises questions regarding the current practice of ignoring meniscal repair and instituting brace-free, early, aggressive rehabilitation following concomitant ACL reconstruction

Purpose. Patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) deficiency and symptomatic medial compartment osteoarthritis (OA) present a challenge in management. These are often younger than typical primary OA patients and aspire to remain athletically active beyond simple ADLs. Combined ACL reconstruction and valgus tibial osteotomy (ACLHTO) is a well documented surgical option for patients deemed wither too young or too active for total knee arthroplasty. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is an established surgical treatment for symptomatic medial osteoarthritis of the knee refractory to conservative management. A commonly cited contraindications is symptomatic ACL deficiency because of previous reports detailing premature failure through loosening of the tibial component. Improved results and endoscopic ACL reconstructive procedures have led to an enticing concept of combining ACL reconstruction with medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (ACLUKR) for those ACL-deficient medial osteoarthritic (OA) knees. We sought to compare the outcomes in 2 cohorts of patients who underwent either ACLHTO or ACLUKR for this clinical problem. Method. Patients presenting with symptomatic bone on bone medial compartment OA and concomitant ACL deficiency (clinical or asymptomatic) were evaluated for surgery after exhausting non operative management. Patients who were under 40 or had plans to return to high impact loading sports and/or who had more moderate OA were offered combined ACL – medial opening wedge tibia osteotomy as a surgical procedure of choice. Patients were considered for combined ACL Oxford replacement if they were primarily seeking pain relief and were not engaged or aspiring to return to high impact or pivoting sports. All cases but one were concurrent ACL with either HTO or UKR with autogenous hamstring grafts used in all but 2 cases. Results. Thirty of 34 consecutive cases were available for follow-up for a rate of 88%. The median ages for 14 cases of ACLUKR was 51 (range 43 60) whereas 16 patients with ACLHTO had median age 43.4 (range 32 −59). Median FU was 4.65 yrs with minimum 2 year follow up (range 2–8.3). Three of the cases were revision ACL cases all from previous Gore-Tex reconstructions. All but the first patient had concomitant ACL and Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement at 1 surgical sitting and are the subject of this report. The first patient had an autogenous patella bone tendon bone graft performed 6 months prior to the UKA. There were similar change scores for patients in both groups. For ACLUKR, WOMAC pain improvements from 48.1 10.2 SD preoperatively to 79.0 17 SD postop. For ACLHTO, WOMAC improvements from 55.1 13.2 SD preoperatively to 85.0 17 SD postop. To date there have been no cases of infection or bearing dislocation in the ACLUKR group. One patient in the ACLHTO group was revised to TKR for ongoing pain and postoperative flexion contracture. Patient activities ranged from ambulation to vigorous hiking, tennis, and downhill skiing in the UKR group whereas a few in the ACLHTO group were also running mid distances. Overall satisfaction was similar in both groups. Conclusion. ACL reconstruction can safely be combined with medial UKR. The procedure has been used in younger patients with a view toward bone preservation while anticipating need for future revision. Both cohorts showed similar improvements and can be considered. The choice should be geared toward patient athletic demand. While short term results are encouraging though longer term data are necessary to thoroughly evaluate the role of this procedure in patients with medial compartment osteoarthritis and ACL deficiency