Gait Mechanics After ACL Reconstruction Differ According to Medial Meniscal Treatment
Authors: Capin Jacob J. , Khandha Ashutosh , Zarzycki Ryan , Manal Kurt , Buchanan Thomas S. , Snyder-Mackler Lynn 
Published: July 2018

Background:

Knee osteoarthritis risk is high after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and arthroscopic meniscal surgery, and higher among individuals who undergo both. Although osteoarthritis development is multifactorial, altered walking mechanics may influence osteoarthritis progression. The purpose of this study was to compare gait mechanics after ACLR among participants who had undergone no medial meniscal surgery, partial medial meniscectomy, or medial meniscal repair.

Methods:

This was a secondary analysis of data collected prospectively as part of a clinical trial. Sixty-one athletes (mean age of 21.4 ± 8.2 years) who had undergone primary ACLR participated in the study when they achieved impairment resolution (5.3 ± 1.7 months postoperatively), including minimal to no effusion, full knee range of motion, and ≥80% quadriceps-strength symmetry. Participants were classified by concomitant medial meniscal treatment: no involvement or nonsurgical management of a small, stable tear; partial meniscectomy; or meniscal repair. Participants underwent comprehensive walking analyses. Joint contact forces were estimated using a previously validated, electromyography-driven musculoskeletal model. Variables were analyzed using a mixed-model analysis of variance with group and limb comparisons (α = 0.05); group comparisons of interlimb differences in measurements (surgical minus contralateral limb) were performed to determine significant interactions.

Results:

The participants in the partial meniscectomy group walked with a higher peak knee adduction moment (pKAM) in the surgical versus the contralateral limb as compared with those in the meniscal repair group and those with no medial meniscal surgery (group difference for partial versus repair: 0.10 N-m/kg-m, p = 0.020; and for partial versus none: 0.06 N-m/kg-m, p = 0.037). Participants in the repair group walked with a smaller percentage of medial to total tibiofemoral loading in the surgical limb compared with both of the other groups (group difference for repair versus partial: −12%, p = 0.001; and for repair versus none: −7%, p = 0.011). The participants in the repair group loaded the medial compartment of the surgical versus the contralateral limb 0.5 times body weight less than did the participants in the partial meniscectomy group.

Conclusions:

Participants in the partial meniscectomy group walked with higher pKAM and shifted loading toward the medial compartment of the surgical limb, while participants in the repair group did the opposite, walking with lower pKAM and unloading the surgical limb relative to the contralateral limb. These findings may partially explain the conflicting evidence regarding pKAM after ACLR and the elevated risk for osteoarthritis (whether from overloading or underloading) after ACLR with concomitant medial meniscectomy or repair.

Level of Evidence:

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.