Despite the general success of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions (ACL-R), there are still studies reporting a high failure rate. Orthopedic surgeons are therefore increasingly confronted with the treatment of ACL retears, which are often accompanied by other lesions, such as meniscus tears and cartilage damage and which, if overlooked, can lead to poor postoperative clinical outcomes. The literature shows a wide variety of causes for ACL-R failure. Main causes are further trauma and possible technical errors during surgery, among which the position of the femoral tunnel is thought to be one of the most important. A successful postoperative outcome after ACL-revision surgery requires good preoperative planning, including a thorough evaluation of patient's medical history, e.g. instability during daily or sports activity, increased general joint laxity, and hints for a low-grade infection. A careful clinical examination should be performed. Additionally, comprehensive imaging is necessary. Besides a magnetic resonance imaging, a CT scan is helpful to determine location of tunnel apertures and to analyze for tunnel enlargement. A lateral knee radiograph is helpful to determine the tibial slope. The range of surgical options for the treatment of ACL-R failure is broad today. Orthopedic surgeons and experts in Sports Medicine must deal with various possible associated injuries of the knee or unfavorable anatomical conditions for ACL-R. The aim of this review was to highlight predictors and reasons of failures of ACL-R as well as describe diagnostic procedures to individualize treatment strategies for improved outcome after revision ACL-R.

The menisci and articular cartilage of the knee have a close embryological, anatomical and functional relationship, which explains why often a pathology of one also affects the other. Traumatic meniscus tears should be repaired, when possible, to protect the articular cartilage. Traumatic articular cartilage lesions can be treated with success using biological treatment options such as microfracture or microdrilling, autologous chondrocyte transplantation (ACT), or osteochondral transplantation (OCT) depending on the depth and area of the lesion. Degenerative cartilage and meniscus lesions often occur together, and osteoarthritis is already present or impending. Most degenerative meniscus lesions should be treated first conservatively and, after failed conservative treatment, should undergo arthroscopic partial meniscus resection. Degenerative cartilage lesions should also be treated conservatively initially and then surgically; thereby treating the cartilage defect itself and also maintaining the axis of the leg if necessary. Tears of the meniscus roots are devastating injuries to the knee and should be repaired e.g. by transtibial re-fixation. The clinical role of ‘ramp’ lesions of the meniscus is still under investigation. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:652-662. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200016

Objective: This single-blind randomized controlled crossover pilot trial investigated whether hard or soft knee orthotics affect the back in action (BIA) test battery performance. Methods: Twenty-four healthy participants (13 males, 11 females) were randomly assigned into three equal groups differentiated through the order of device use. The data were collected in a laboratory setting. BIA test battery (balance tests, vertical jumps, and parkour hop tests) was run with a rigid orthotic device, a soft brace, or no aid in a crossover order. Analysis of Variance repeated measures and Friedman Test were used to calculate depended-group differences. Results: No significant or clinically relevant effect or differences was observed between running the BIA with a soft brace, rigid orthosis, or no aid (p = 0.53–0.97) for all included tests. No adverse events have been observed. Conclusion: Soft and rigid knee braces do not affect performance in healthy participants. Missing experience with the devices might explain a few influences on feedback mechanisms. There is no disadvantage to be expected regarding healthy participants running back to sports.

A randomized crossover trial was designed to investigate the influence of muscle activation and strength on functional stability/control of the knee joint, to determine whether bilateral imbalances still occur six months after successful anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), and to analyze whether the use of orthotic devices changes the activity onset of these muscles. Furthermore, conclusions on the feedforward and feedback mechanisms are highlighted. Therefore, twenty-eight patients will take part in a modified Back in Action (BIA) test battery at an average of six months after a primary unilateral ACLR, which used an autologous ipsilateral semitendinosus tendon graft. This includes double-leg and single-leg stability tests, double-leg and single-leg countermovement jumps, double-leg and single-leg drop jumps, a speedy jump test, and a quick feet test. During the tests, gluteus medius and semitendinosus muscle activity are analyzed using surface electromyography (sEMG). Motion analysis is conducted using Microsoft Azure DK and 3D force plates. The tests are performed while wearing knee rigid orthosis, soft brace, and with no aid, in random order. Additionally, the range of hip and knee motion and hip abductor muscle strength under isometric conditions are measured. Furthermore, patient-rated outcomes will be assessed.

Background: The elements of previously designed questionnaires do not take into consideration the burdens encountered in an inpatient hospital setting. The purpose of this study is to validate elements of a non-compliance survey in an in-hospital setting and discuss aspects of compliance with telerehabilitative physiotherapy in the early postoperative period. Methods: A literature search was conducted to identify elements that prevent patients from performing their prescribed physical therapy exercises. These items were then evaluated by the expert review technique as described by Ikart. Afterwards, the synthesized survey was handed out to patients for the assessment of the quality of its items. Results: The results of the expert review technique identified some conceptual and grammatical problems. This led to the adjustment of some of the elements. The quality of the resulting questionnaire was deemed to be good, as patients were able to fully understand the concepts and answer accordingly. A statistical analysis was conducted to evaluate the responses. Conclusions: The items of this second questionnaire have proven to be reliable to assess the compliance of patients in an in-hospital setting. These items will be added to the cross-culturally adapted items of a previous questionnaire.