Travmatologiâ i Ortopediâ Rossii (Jul 2024)

Peroneus longus tendon autograft for one-stage revision acl reconstruction: mid-term results

  • Anton S. Gofer,
  • Aleksandr A. Alekperov,
  • Mikhail B. Gurazhev,
  • Artem K. Avdeev,
  • Vitaly L. Lukinov,
  • Dmitriy V. Rubtsov,
  • Vitaliy V. Pavlov,
  • Andrey A. Korytkin

DOI
https://doi.org/10.17816/2311-2905-17520
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 30, no. 2
pp. 82 – 96

Abstract

Read online

Background. The results of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) are usually worse than the primary ACLR. The positive outcome of the revision ACLR is significantly influenced by the following factors: anatomical position of bone tunnels, correct choice of graft, its preparation and fixation method. Equally important is to choose the accurate indications for additional extraarticular interventions. The aim of the study is to evaluate the role of a peroneus longus tendon (PLT) autograft in one-stage revision ACL reconstruction and to compare the obtained data with the results of primary ACLR. Methods. The comparison was carried out between the RACL-PLT group (n = 29) and the PACL-HT group (n = 82), which underwent single-stage revision ACLR with a PLT autograft and primary ACLR with a hamstring tendons (HT) autograft, respectively. Subjective and objective evaluation was performed on the KOOS, IKDC, and Lysholm Knee scales. Also, in the RACL-PLT group, the position of the central entry points into the primary and revision tunnels was determined. Results. We observed no statistically significant differences during the objective assessment of knee joint stability between the groups (p0.999). During the subjective assessment on the KOOS, IKDC and Lysholm Knee scales, significantly higher results were obtained in the PACL-HT group (p0.001). The position of the central entry points into the revision tunnels corresponded to the normative values in all cases. Conclusions. The analysis of the use of a PLT autograft in revision ACLR, as well as the achievement of the anatomical position of the revision tunnels showed: 12 months after surgery, the results of an objective assessment between the revision and primary ACLR are comparable; the results of a subjective assessment are statistically significantly different. However, the differences in indicators do not reach a minimal clinically important difference.

Keywords