Posterior wall blowout on computed tomography after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Background: During anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, even when a posterior wall of the femoral bone tunnel is identified, computed tomography (CT) occasionally demonstrates a breach of the posterior femoral cortex of the femoral bone tunnel, i.e., posterior wall blowout, after ACL reconstruction (posterior wall blowout-like phenomenon). This study aimed to investigate the influence of the posterior wall blowout-like phenomenon on clinical outcomes after ACL reconstruction using hamstring tendon.

Methods: A total of 105 patients who underwent CT examination two weeks after ACL reconstruction were enrolled. A cortical suspension device was used for femoral side fixation in all cases. Posterior wall was identified in all cases during the surgery. The side-to-side difference in anterior knee laxity, pivot shift test, Lysholm knee score, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective form, and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) were evaluated one year after the surgery. A second CT examination was performed 6-12 months after the surgery, if a posterior wall blowout-like phenomenon was identified in the first CT examination.

Results: Two weeks after the surgery, 16 of the 105 patients showed a posterior wall blowout-like phenomenon. Twelve of the 16 cases demonstrated a regenerated posterior femoral cortex of the femoral bone tunnel on their second CT images. There were no significant differences between the posterior wall blowout-like phenomenon group and the normal posterior wall group in terms of a side-to-side difference in anterior knee laxity (0.4 ± 1.5 mm and 0.1 ± 1.6 mm, respectively), pivot shift test, Lysholm knee score, IKDC score, and KOOS at one year after surgery. The length and diameter of the femoral bone tunnel were not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusions: Posterior wall blowout-like phenomenon after ACL reconstruction using a cortical suspension device did not negatively influence clinical outcomes.

Level Of Evidence: III - retrospective comparative clinical study.