Chapter 31 What Is the Best Treatment for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries in Skeletally Immature Individuals?
Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury in a growing child is being diagnosed with some degree of frequency, probably because of increased skill in diagnostic ability including specialized imaging studies such as magnetic resonance imaging.1–7 The true incidence of ACL injury in the skeletally immature athlete is unknown. In a series of 1000 consecutive ACL injuries treated at the Cleveland Clinic, 5 patients were younger than 12 years.8
From insurance claim data in the United States for youth soccer leagues, the overall incidence rate is about 0.01% with 550 claims for ACL injury out of 6 million children and youths who were insured during the time period.9 Girls have been noted to be 2 to 9 times more likely to sustain this injury than boys.10
NATURAL HISTORY OF ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT INJURY IN CHILDREN
In adults, chronic ACL insufficiency leads to intra-articular damage. Meniscal tears and chondral damage occur in individuals who continue to participate in sports and recreational activities without the benefit of a stable knee.11–13 What is the evidence? A number of Level II and III studies confirm the same dismal prognosis in children with open physes; namely, if the ACL is left untreated, the patient has a markedly increased risk for development of meniscal tears and chondral damage leading to eventual osteoarthritis.4,5,14–18
Level III studies by Graf and colleagues,4 McCarroll and coworkers,5 and Angel and Hall1 all report on the high incidence of meniscal tears and the inability to resume preinjury activity levels. Level II studies by Aichroth and investigators,14 Pressman and researchers,18 and Kannus and Jarvinen19 have confirmed the results of these earlier studies.
MAKING THE DIAGNOSIS
Since the early 1990s, the orthopedic literature has discussed in depth the possibility of an ACL disruption in the growing child. Before these detailed descriptions, it was generally believed that children did not tear the ACL with the exception of the pediatric equivalent, namely, the tibial eminence fracture.20–23 With that background, it is important for the physician to have a high index of suspicion in a child presenting with a presumed hemarthrosis (swollen knee) after a knee injury.
In a number of series of knee injuries in the pediatric population, the incidence rate of ACL disruption has been reported to be as low as 10% and as high as 65% in series with the number of patients ranging from 35 to 138 patients.24–28
DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING
The decision to order magnetic resonance imaging still remains somewhat controversial. However, in 2007, it is recommended for patients with suspected ACL tears to be evaluated for meniscal tear and osteochondral lesions (such as a fracture or a “bone bruise”) (Fig. 31-1) (Level of Evidence V).
TREATMENT
Special Considerations in the Growing Child
Children with open growth plates may present challenges to the treating orthopedic surgeon familiar with reconstruction techniques used in adults. Most ACL reconstructions in adults use autograft tendon (hamstring or patellar tendon) to replace the torn ACL. The surgical technique involves a central drill hole in the proximal tibia and another in the distal femur to place the tendon graft to closely resemble the anatomic location of the normal ACL. Utilizing this surgical technique in a growing child may result in a growth arrest or altered growth in either the proximal tibia or the distal femur. Growth disturbances using conventional surgical techniques have been reported in both animal models29–31 and clinical series of reconstructions in pediatric patients.32–34
Is There a Place for Nonoperative Treatment?
A number of commercially available knee orthoses are available that theoretically prevent the knee instability seen in patients with chronic ACL insufficiency. Unfortunately, no evidence has been presented to show they prevent the dreaded consequences of further meniscal damage and chondral change despite the claims of rendering the knee more stable16–18 (Level of Evidence IV). Also, few growing children are willing to alter their active lifestyle and give up change-of-direction sports.
Operative Treatment
These surgical methods can be divided into the following categories:
Extra-articular Surgical Reconstruction.
Extra-articular surgical reconstruction was popular in adults in the 1970s. Unfortunately, the location of the graft in a nonanatomic location was unsuccessful in controlling anterior translation of the tibia on the femur. Nevertheless, these extra-articular reconstructions have been proposed as a “temporizing” procedure in the skeletally immature patient2,4, 5 (Level of Evidence IV). No evidence suggests that they will act any more efficiently than reported previously.
Physis-Sparing Reconstructions.
In an attempt to avoid crossing the physis with the graft, a number of grafts have been used with variations on a theme. The graft avoids the proximal tibial physis by using a drill hole in the proximal epiphysis only.35–37 In addition, the distal femoral physis is avoided by placing the graft in an “over-the-top” position through the posterior capsule35,37 or by a drill hole into the epiphysis only36 (Fig. 31-2). Only Level III and IV studies have documented the efficacy of these surgical treatments, with the longest follow-up being 5 years.35,36,38–43
A variation of the combined intra-articular and extra-articular reconstruction popularized by McIntosh and Darby has been proposed by Kocher37 in prepubescent skeletally immature children and adolescents to provide knee stability whereas at the same time avoiding the dreaded iatrogenic complication of growth disturbance seen with drill holes through either the proximal tibial or the distal femoral physis, or both (Level of Evidence IV) (Fig. 31-3).