What Is the Best Treatment for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries in Skeletally Immature Individuals?

Published on 11/03/2015 by admin

Filed under Orthopaedics

Last modified 11/03/2015

Print this page

rate 1 star rate 2 star rate 3 star rate 4 star rate 5 star
Your rating: none, Average: 0 (0 votes)

This article have been viewed 1703 times

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.17 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.1113 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.4,5,1418

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.2023 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.2428

A physical examination in this clinical setting should include a careful examination for ACL insufficiency. The examination should consist of a careful and gentle Lachman test for anteroposterior instability with the knee at 20 to 30 degrees of flexion, an anterior drawer test at 90 degrees if the patient’s pain and tense effusion will allow, and finally, a gentle examination for a positive pivot shift.

Again, a high index of suspicion is necessary. Except in the incidence of tibial or femoral bony avulsion, there is no need for urgent surgical reconstruction (Level of Evidence V). The patient can be instructed to ice the knee, start active range-of-motion exercises and strengthening, and be re-evaluated in 2 to 3 weeks when the physical examination will be more reliable and easier to perform because the patient will be more comfortable and the majority of the hemarthrosis will be resorbed.

TREATMENT

Operative Treatment

Given the unique anatomic aspects of the growing child, nontraditional surgical methods have been used in an attempt to prevent knee instability whereas at the same time preventing or reducing the risk for growth disturbance.

These surgical methods can be divided into the following categories:

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.3537 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.35,36,3843

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).

Buy Membership for Orthopaedics Category to continue reading. Learn more here