Arthroscopic Lysis of Adhesions for Arthrofibrosis After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

• Published in: The American journal of sports medicine 2023-10, Vol.51 (12), p.3149-3153
• Main Authors: Lamba, Abhinav, Holliday, Charles L., Marigi, Erick M., Reinholz, Anna K., Wilbur, Ryan R., Song, Bryant M., Hevesi, Mario, Krych, Aaron J., Stuart, Michael J., Levy, Bruce A.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction - methods; Humans; Intervention; Joint Diseases - etiology; Joint Diseases - surgery; Knee Joint; Ligaments; Lysholm Knee Score; Patients; Retrospective Studies; Sports medicine; Tissue Adhesions - etiology; Tissue Adhesions - surgery; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 0363-5465; 1552-3365; 1552-3365
• DOI: 10.1177/03635465231195366

Background: Arthrofibrosis (AF) after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) remains a challenge. There is a paucity of data on arthroscopic interventions for AF after ACLR. Purpose: To (1) describe the patient, injury, and surgical characteristics and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of those requiring an arthroscopic intervention for loss of motion after ACLR and (2) compare outcomes between patients undergoing an early intervention (within 3 months) versus those undergoing a late intervention (after 3 months). Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Patients with a history of ACLR and a subsequent operative procedure for postoperative AF at a single institution between 2000 and 2018 were retrospectively identified. Arthroscopic interventions included lysis of adhesions, capsular release with or without manipulation under anesthesia, and excision of cyclops lesions. Patients were excluded if they had a knee dislocation or multiple-ligament injury, a periarticular fracture, or less than 2-year follow-up from the arthroscopic intervention. PROs including the Tegner activity score, visual analog scale pain score, and International Knee Documentation Committee score as well as knee range of motion (ROM) were recorded. Results: A total of 40 patients were included with a mean age of 27.2 years (range, 11.0-63.8 years) at surgery and a mean follow-up of 10.0 years (range, 2.9-20.7 years). The mean preoperative flexion and extension were 102° (range, 40°-150°) and 8° (range, 0°-25°), respectively. The mean postoperative flexion and extension were 131° (range, 110° to 150°) and 0° (range, –10° to 5°), respectively. After the arthroscopic intervention, the mean ROM improved from 94° (range, 40°-140°) preoperatively to 131° (range, 107°-152°) at final follow-up (P < .001), and the visual analog scale pain score improved from 3.0 preoperatively to 1.2 postoperatively (P = .001). Overall, 13 patients (32.5%) underwent an intervention within 3 months and 27 (67.5%) after 3 months. The early intervention group had a higher postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee score compared with the late intervention group (86.8 vs 71.7, respectively; P = .035). Conclusion: An arthroscopic intervention for AF after ACLR successfully improved knee ROM and pain. Patients who underwent either early or late surgery obtained satisfactory motion and function, although improved PROs were observed when the intervention occurred within 3 months o