Abstract
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.
