Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/enganabound
PII: S1060-1872(15)00113-6
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.otsm.2015.08.006
Reference: YOTSM50529
To appear in:
Oper Tech Sports Med
Cite this article as: Rachel M. Frank MD, Annemarie K. Tilton BS, Kirk A. Campbell M.D.,
Bernard R. Bach Jr. MD, Managing Perioperative Extensor Mechanism Injuries and the
Patellar Defect after ACL Reconstruction,
Oper Tech Sports Med , http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.otsm.2015.08.006
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a
service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The
manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting galley proof
before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply
to the journal pertain.
Title: Managing Perioperative Extensor Mechanism Injuries and the Patellar Defect after ACL
Reconstruction
Corresponding Author: Dr. Kirk A. Campbell, M.D.
Corresponding Author's Institution: New York University Hospital for Joint Diseases
Managing Perioperative Extensor Mechanism Injuries and the Patellar Defect after ACL
Reconstruction
Abstract:
Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are a common and potentially devastating injury for an
athlete. ACL reconstruction is a safe, highly effective procedure that has been shown to result in
excellent clinical and functional outcomes, but complications still do arise. Although extremely
unusual, perioperative extensor mechanism injuries after ACL reconstruction are a serious and
potentially complex complication. An overview of some of the technical aspects of managing the
extensor mechanism in ACL reconstructions, types of injuries and their management, as well as a
comprehensive review of the literature on the management of the patellar defect following ACL
1
Introduction:
Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are the most common ligamentous injury of the knee,
often requiring reconstruction in order to restore knee stability, function and prevent cartilage
damage.1-34 When performing ACL reconstruction (ACLR), surgeons face several graft and
technique options, such as autograft versus allograft or the transtibial versus the medial portal
hamstring, and quadriceps tendon. Allograft options include BPTP, hamstring tendon, Achilles
BPTB autograft is the most common graft used in the young, athletic patient population.6-89
Tissue strength, ease of graft harvest, bone-to-bone healing and lower rates of retear compared to
allograft in young patients have contributed to the popularity of BPTB grafts for ACLR.5, 10
Subjective and objective outcomes are excellent with BPTB autograft with high return to play
rates, low overall failure rates, and low complication rates.9, 11-15 Nevertheless, concerns over
BPTB autograft remain, including anterior knee pain, and the potential for extensor mechanism
disruption or patella fracture. While reported rates of intraoperative and post-operative patellar
fractures are relatively unusual, ranging from 0.2 to 3%,16, 17 they can be a devastating
complication.
In this review article, some of the technical aspects of ACLR with BPTB autograft that may be
associated with postoperative extensor mechanism injuries and pearls for avoiding these
2
discussing management of the patellar defect following ACLR with BPTB autograft will be
provided.
Technical Considerations
While there are several techniques available for performing ACLR with BTPB, classically, the
central one-third of the ipsilateral patellar tendon (Figure 1) is harvested with approximately
10mm tendon width and 10mm width of bone plugs from the patella and the tibia.8, 18 Upon
exposing the patellar tendon, the paratenon is sharply incised in line with its fibers to allow full
exposure of the patellar tendon, and to allow for subsequent defect closure (Figures 2-3). The
central one-third of the tendon is harvested sharply (Figure 4), while bone plugs from the patella
and the tibia are harvested with the combination of a sagittal saw and a ¼ and 3/8” curved
osteotomes (Figure 5). Care must be taken while performing the bone plug harvest, particularly
along the patella, in order to avoid intraoperative patella fracture and/or penetration of the
saw/osteotome through the articular surface of the patella. It is critical to avoid creating extra
cortical disruptions, even micro-perforations, as such disruptions can create stress risers in the
patella that may result in a postoperative fracture. Initiating the saw penetration into the
cancellous bone is best done started at the respective tendo-osseous junctions of the graft.
authors have described the intraoperative management of patella fractures in the setting of
ACLR.15, 19 There are generally two types of patella fractures associated with BPTB ACLR: a
3
resulting from post-operative trauma.19 Vertical patella fractures can be recognized on
arthroscopy by the appearance of creased cartilage.19 Options for patella fracture repair include
tension band wiring, large fragment screw fixation, or cannulated screw fixation with or without
tension band augmentation.15 Regardless of preferred method, patella fractures must be rigidly
Following appropriate BPTB harvest for ACLR, there is an approximately 9-10mm defect in the
middle third of the native patellar tendon, as well as bone defects in the proximal anterior tibia
and distal anterior patella.20 The bone defects are typically 20 to 25mm in length and
approximately 10mm in width and depth (Figure 6). The patella plug is smaller and is typically
cut such that a trapezoidal bone graft is produced.. Following ACLR per surgeon preference,
various closure techniques for both the patellar tendon defect as well as the bone defects can be
employed, and no one single technique has been proven to be superior. With respect to the soft
tissue defect, options include repairing both the patellar tendon and paratenon defects, repairing
only the patellar tendon defect, repairing only the paratenon defect, or leaving both the patellar
tendon rupture is another devastating complication, and Milankov et al showed that it occurred in
0.18% of their 2215 ACLR at a mean of 8 months post-operatively.21 Great care should be taken
when harvesting the patella tendon to ensure that there is adequate patella tendon width, typically
a width of 30mm is desired prior to harvesting a 10mm tendon width, so that a sufficient amount
of tendon remains both medially and laterally. If the patella tendon is found to be less than
30mm then consideration should be given for an alternate graft source, such as hamstring or
quadriceps autograft, or an allograft. Leaving behind a thin strip of tendon medially or laterally
4
could potentially result in a patella tendon rupture. Alternatively, the patient may sustain an
injury during the post-operative period that could result in a patella tendon rupture. In terms of
repairing the patella tendon rupture, there are a variety of different techniques that could be used
and are generally based on the location of the tear (proximal, intra-substance or distal); these
include the use of drill holes and suture repair and/or suture anchor repair based on the surgeon’s
preference. In terms of the bony defects, both the patellar and tibial defects can be grafted, either
defect can be grafted in isolated, or the surgeon can choose to not graft the defects.
Our preference is as follows: 1) to loosely approximate the patellar tendon defect with the knee
in 70 to 90 degrees of flexion with interrupted 0-vicryl sutures (Figure 7); 2) to graft both the
patellar and tibial defects with autograft, utilizing bone collected during tibial and femoral tunnel
reaming as well as any extra bone saved during the graft preparation (Figures 8-9); and 3) to
close the paratenon defect with a running 2-0 vicryl suture (Figure 10). Closing the soft tissue
defect with the knee in flexion reduces the potential for overconstraining or shortening the
extensor mechanism. If there is insufficient bone to fill both the patellar and the tibial defects, we
recommend prioritizing grafting of the patella defect to minimize the risk of fracture; the tibial
defect is much less likely to fracture given the surrounding bone stock.
5
Evidence Based Decision-Making:
Clinical Evidence
While the authors prefer to repair the patellar tendon defect, close the paratenon, and graft the
bony defects following patellar tendon harvest for ACLR, there is substantial controversy in the
literature over the clinical implications of closing, or not closing, the patellar tendon defect. The
impact of the patellar tendon defect on the extensor mechanism function following BPTB harvest
is unclear. Adriani et al evaluated the intrinsic healing potential of the patellar tendon and the
tendon for ACLR in patients who underwent closure (n=25) versus those who did not undergo
closure of the tendon defect site (n=36).22 On ultrasound evaluation one year after surgery, the
open group had more scar tissue in the defect site compared to the closed group, which had
normal appearing tendon tissue in the defect site. Interestingly, the clinical, radiographic and
isokinetic findings did not differ between the open and closed groups at six months after surgery.
The authors concluded that the extensor mechanism is not significantly affected by defect
BPTB graft harvest for ACLR. Two-year follow-up results demonstrated no difference between
groups in functional outcomes, pain, healing on ultrasound, or joint stability. Together, these
results suggest that the extensor mechanism is not necessarily compromised after patellar tendon
harvest without defect closure, and closing of the defect does not improve outcomes.23 In another
randomized controlled trial conducted by Cerullo et al, 50 patients were randomly assigned to
undergo defect closure or no closure following ACLR with BPTB autograft. At final follow-up,
the authors reported no clinically significant differences between the two groups. However, they
did report increased patellar tendon scar formation in the closure group on follow-up computed
6
tomography (CT) imaging, and ultimately, the authors recommended leaving the defect open.24
The clinical implications of the CT study findings are unclear, and certainly additional research
In 1993, Shaffer and Tibone conducted a prospective clinical study of 36 patients undergoing
ACLR with BPTB autograft in order to assess the impact of graft closure on patellar tendon
length. The graft harvest site defect was closed in half the patients and left open in the other half
negligible tendon shortening in the closure group, and further, no patients in either group
evaluated the radiographic appearance of 114 patients after undergoing ACLR with BPTB
autograft and patellar tendon closure. The patellar tendon defect was left open in 59 patients, and
the defect was sutured closed in the remaining 55 patients. In all patients, the paratenon was
approximated. Pre- and postoperative lateral knee radiographs were taken in all patients, and pre-
and postoperative patellar tendon lengths were measured. The authors found no significant
shortening in the tendon length in the closed versus open groups.26 A study by Hantes et al also
investigated patellar tendon shortening following BPTB autograft with defect closure in 16
patients, and compared their findings to 32 patients who underwent ACLR with hamstring
tendon autograft. The authors found that there was approximately 10% shortening of the patellar
tendon and 6% incidence of patella baja following BPTB autograft with defect closure.
Interestingly, the functional outcomes in the BPTB group were not significantly different from
those in the hamstring autograft group, which experienced minor tendon shortening and 0%
7
Certainly, closure of the defect in the native patellar tendon can potentially lead to complications,
including patella baja, decreased patellar tendon length, suture irritation, and/or increased
operative time.28-30 However, there are also potential benefits of closure of the graft harvest site,
including biological graft coverage of the void from graft harvest, possible increased strength of
the remaining patellar tendon, and decreased risk of post-operative patellar tendon rupture or
extensor lag.20 Further, complications resulting from bone defect sites left un-grafted have been
reported, including anterior knee pain especially while kneeling, as well as patella fracture.31
The potential relationship between defect closure, functional outcomes and postoperative pain
are unclear. A recent systematic review by Frank et al evaluated 4 studies with a total of 221
patients following ACLR with BPTB autograft with or without defect closure. Results showed
no differences in clinical outcomes or pain scores between patients whose defects were closed
versus those who were left open. Imaging findings were variable with 2 studies showing no
difference between groups, one showing improved quality of the patellar tendon defect tissue
following repair, and one study showing excessive scar formation with defect repair.32
Cadaveric Evidence
Several cadaveric studies have attempted to look at the impact of patellar tendon defect closure
between cadaveric knees with or without side-to-side repair of the patellar defect after graft
harvest. Patellofemoral joint pressures were compared at 30, 60 and 90 degrees of knee flexion
with loads varying from 647 to 1923 N. The authors found no statistically significant differences
in patellofemoral joint pressures with and without defect closure after graft harvest for BPTB
8
graft. This suggests that both closure or nonclosure of the patellar tendon defect site is likely
cadaveric study by Sobieraj et al investigated the effects of defect closure on the strength and
stiffness of the remaining donor patellar tendon. BPTB grafts were harvested from 7 matched-
pairs of fresh frozen cadaver patellar tendons from human cadaveric knee specimens from
donors under 50 years of age with no prior history of surgery or fracture. Half of the specimens
underwent defect closure prior to biomechanical testing. The authors found no differences in the
mechanical properties between tendons that underwent defect closure and those that were left
open.20
Imaging Evidence
Patellar tendon reconstitution over time following graft harvest has been shown in several
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies, indicating that the patellar tendon potentially can
regenerate and remodel following graft harvest.34, 35 Coupens et al evaluated MRIs of 20 patients
at variable follow-up intervals (6 weeks to 18 months) after undergoing ACLR with BPTB
autograft. All patients underwent defect closure at the time of surgery. At all time points,
imaging showed a significant increase in tendon thickness without an increase in tendon width.
Interestingly, MRI signal intensity was high during the early follow-up period, indicating scar
tissue, and signal intensity decreased at later follow-up, suggesting more normal patellar tendon
tissue at minimum 18 months post-operatively. Similar results were reported by Nixon et al, who
showed that defect tissue returned to the appearance of normal patellar tendon tissue on MRI at 2
years following ACLR with BPTB autograft. In addition, in their study, patellar tendon biopsies
were taken from 8 patients who underwent second-look arthroscopy. Compared to the time of the
9
index ACLR, both the size of the defect on histology and signal intensity on MRI in the graft site
Summary
BPTB autograft provides a commonly used and highly effective graft choice for ACLR.
Unfortunately, there is no consensus on the best patellar tendon defect closure technique or the
effect of closure on the extensor mechanism. Further, currently available data is inconsistent on
the impact of defect closure on scar formation. Results suggest clinically favorable results from
either technique. It is our preference to perform closure of the patellar tendon defect and the
paratenon, as well as perform bone grafting of the patellar and tibial defects with autograft at the
time of surgery, in order to preserve biology, and potentially reduce the incidence of post-
operative anterior knee pain (especially with kneeling) and patella fracture. Bone graft comes
from the bone collected at the time of tibial and femoral tunnel reaming. We then prefer to
loosely reapproximate the patellar tendon with the knee flexed to 80 degrees, in order to reduce
the likelihood of overconstraining the patella. Finally, we advocate for closing the patellar
tendon defect with vicryl suture, in order to preserve biology to the tendon itself. These
preferences are based on the experience of the senior author, who has performed over 2300
ACLR procedures with BPTB grafts, and who has noticed subjectively inferior outcomes in
patients in whom the patellar tendon defect is left unrepaired. To protect the donor site (ie, the
patella), we advocate for using a long-leg hinged knee brace locked in extension for 6 weeks,
while allowing full active and passive range-of-motion, and without weight-bearing restrictions.
10
References
1. Mall NA, Chalmers PN, Moric M, et al.: Incidence and trends of anterior cruciate
ligament reconstruction in the United States. Am J Sports Med 2014;42:2363-2370.
2. Dragoo JL, Braun HJ, Durham JL, Chen MR, Harris AH: Incidence and risk factors for
injuries to the anterior cruciate ligament in National Collegiate Athletic Association football:
data from the 2004-2005 through 2008-2009 National Collegiate Athletic Association Injury
Surveillance System. Am J Sports Med 2012;40:990-995.
3. Swenson DM, Collins CL, Best TM, Flanigan DC, Fields SK, Comstock RD:
Epidemiology of knee injuries among U.S. high school athletes, 2005/2006-2010/2011. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 2013;45:462-469.
4. Fithian DC, Paxton LW, Goltz DH: Fate of the anterior cruciate ligament-injured knee.
Orthop Clin North Am 2002;33:621-636, v.
5. Reinhardt KR, Hetsroni I, Marx RG: Graft selection for anterior cruciate ligament
reconstruction: a level I systematic review comparing failure rates and functional outcomes.
Orthop Clin North Am 2010;41:249-262.
6. Erickson BJ, Harris JD, Heninger JR, et al.: Performance and return-to-sport after ACL
reconstruction in NFL quarterbacks. Orthopedics 2014;37:e728-734.
7. Nedeff DD, Bach BR: Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using
patellar tendon autografts. Orthopedics 2002;25:343-357; quiz 358-349.
8. Bach BR, Tradonsky S, Bojchuk J, Levy ME, Bush-Joseph CA, Khan NH:
Arthroscopically assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using patellar tendon
autograft. Five- to nine-year follow-up evaluation. Am J Sports Med 1998;26:20-29.
9. Namdari S, Scott K, Milby A, Baldwin K, Lee GC: Athletic performance after ACL
reconstruction in the Women's National Basketball Association. Phys Sportsmed 2011;39:36-41.
10. Kaeding CC, Pedroza AD, Reinke EK, Huston LJ, Spindler KP, Consortium M: Risk
Factors and Predictors of Subsequent ACL Injury in Either Knee After ACL Reconstruction:
Prospective Analysis of 2488 Primary ACL Reconstructions From the MOON Cohort. Am J
Sports Med 2015.
11. Frank RM, McGill KC, Cole BJ, et al.: An institution-specific analysis of ACL
reconstruction failure. J Knee Surg 2012;25:143-149.
12. Kraeutler MJ, Bravman JT, McCarty EC: Bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft versus
allograft in outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of 5182
patients. Am J Sports Med 2013;41:2439-2448.
13. Barber FA, Cowden CH, Sanders EJ: Revision rates after anterior cruciate ligament
reconstruction using bone-patellar tendon-bone allograft or autograft in a population 25 years old
and younger. Arthroscopy 2014;30:483-491.
14. Andernord D, Björnsson H, Petzold M, et al.: Surgical Predictors of Early Revision
Surgery After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Results From the Swedish National
Knee Ligament Register on 13,102 Patients. Am J Sports Med 2014;42:1574-1582.
15. Heard WM, Chahal J, Bach BR: Recognizing and managing complications in ACL
reconstruction. Sports Med Arthrosc 2013;21:106-112.
16. Stein DA, Hunt SA, Rosen JE, Sherman OH: The incidence and outcome of patella
fractures after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2002;18:578-583.
11
17. Lee GH, McCulloch P, Cole BJ, Bush-Joseph CA, Bach BR: The incidence of acute
patellar tendon harvest complications for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy
2008;24:162-166.
18. Bach BR, Jones GT, Sweet FA, Hager CA: Arthroscopy-assisted anterior cruciate
ligament reconstruction using patellar tendon substitution. Two- to four-year follow-up results.
Am J Sports Med 1994;22:758-767.
19. Berg EE: Management of patella fractures associated with central third bone-patella
tendon-bone autograft ACL reconstructions. Arthroscopy 1996;12:756-759.
20. Sobieraj MC, Egol AJ, Kummer FJ, Strauss EJ: Mechanical effects of defect closure
following BPTB graft harvest for ACL reconstruction. Int J Sports Med 2014;35:438-442.
21. Milankov M, Kecojević V, Rasović P, Kovacević N, Gvozdenović N, Obradović M:
Disruption of the knee extensor apparatus complicating anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Acta Chir Iugosl 2013;60:13-21.
22. Adriani E, Mariani PP, Maresca G, Santori N: Healing of the patellar tendon after
harvesting of its mid-third for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and evolution of the
unclosed donor site defect. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1995;3:138-143.
23. Brandsson S, Faxén E, Eriksson BI, et al.: Closing patellar tendon defects after anterior
cruciate ligament reconstruction: absence of any benefit. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc
1998;6:82-87.
24. Cerullo G, Puddu G, Gianní E, Damiani A, Pigozzi F: Anterior cruciate ligament patellar
tendon reconstruction: it is probably better to leave the tendon defect open! Knee Surg Sports
Traumatol Arthrosc 1995;3:14-17.
25. Shaffer BS, Tibone JE: Patellar tendon length change after anterior cruciate ligament
reconstruction using the midthird patellar tendon. Am J Sports Med 1993;21:449-454.
26. Krosser BI, Bonamo JJ, Sherman OH: Patellar tendon length after anterior cruciate
ligament reconstruction.A prospective study. Am J Knee Surg 1996;9:158-160.
27. Hantes ME, Zachos VC, Bargiotas KA, Basdekis GK, Karantanas AH, Malizos KN:
Patellar tendon length after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparative magnetic
resonance imaging study between patellar and hamstring tendon autografts. Knee Surg Sports
Traumatol Arthrosc 2007;15:712-719.
28. Shino K, Nakagawa S, Inoue M, Horibe S, Yoneda M: Deterioration of patellofemoral
articular surfaces after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 1993;21:206-
211.
29. Rosenberg TD, Franklin JL, Baldwin GN, Nelson KA: Extensor mechanism function
after patellar tendon graft harvest for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med
1992;20:519-525; discussion 525-516.
30. McCarroll JR: Fracture of the patella during a golf swing following reconstruction of the
anterior cruciate ligament. A case report. Am J Sports Med 1983;11:26-27.
31. Ferrari JD, Bach BR: Bone graft procurement for patellar defect grafting in anterior
cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 1998;14:543-545.
32. Frank RM, Mascarenhas R, Haro M, et al.: Closure of patellar tendon defect in anterior
cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft: systematic review of
randomized controlled trials. Arthroscopy 2015;31:329-338.
33. Eilerman M, Thomas J, Marsalka D: The effect of harvesting the central one-third of the
patellar tendon on patellofemoral contact pressure. Am J Sports Med 1992;20:738-741.
12
34. Coupens SD, Yates CK, Sheldon C, Ward C: Magnetic resonance imaging evaluation of
the patellar tendon after use of its central one-third for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
Am J Sports Med 1992;20:332-335.
35. Nixon RG, SeGall GK, Sax SL, Cain TE, Tullos HS: Reconstitution of the patellar
tendon donor site after graft harvest. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1995:162-171.
Figure/Table Legend:
Figure 1 – Intraoperative photograph of a right knee undergoing ACLR with a BPTB autograft,
demonstrating the incision from the distal aspect of the patella to the level of the tibial tubercle
Figure 2 - Intraoperative photograph of a right knee undergoing ACLR with a BPTB autograft,
demonstrating identification and incision of the paratenon in line with its fibers
Figure 3 - Intraoperative photograph of a right knee undergoing ACLR with a BPTB autograft,
demonstrating the appearance of the patellar tendon after the paratenon has been incised
Figure 4 - Intraoperative photograph of a right knee undergoing ACLR with a BPTB autograft,
demonstrating harvesting of the central third of the patellar tendon sharply with a knife, in line
Figure 5 - Intraoperative photograph of a right knee undergoing ACLR with a BPTB autograft,
demonstrating the harvested graft with bone plugs from the patella and tibia
Figure 6 - Intraoperative photograph of a right knee undergoing ACLR with a BPTB autograft,
demonstrating the defect sites at the patella and the tibia prior to bone grafting
Figure 7 - Intraoperative photograph of a right knee undergoing ACLR with a BPTB autograft,
demonstrating loose approximation of the patellar tendon defect with interrupted vicryl sutures
Figure 8 - Intraoperative photograph of a right knee undergoing ACLR with a BPTB autograft,
demonstrating grafting of the patellar defect with autograft harvested during the procedure
13
Figure 9 - Intraoperative photograph of a right knee undergoing ACLR with a BPTB autograft,
demonstrating grafting of the patellar and tibial defects with autograft harvested during the
procedure
Figure 10 - Intraoperative photograph of a right knee undergoing ACLR with a BPTB autograft,
14
Figure 1
Figure 2a
Figure 2B
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10a
Figure 10B