Patient and surgical characteristics that affect revision risk in dynamic intraligamentary stabilization of the anterior cruciate ligament

Four-year comparative analysis of return to sport and psychological recovery following ACL revision: Artificial ligament vs. anterior tibial tendon allograft

Background

Research on return to sport and psychological recovery in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision remains scarce. The clinical efficacy of artificial ligament in ACL revision requires further exploration. Our objectives were (1) to compare the midterm clinical outcomes of artificial ligament versus allogenic tendon graft in ACL revision and (2) to analyze the effects of employing artificial ligament on return to sport and psychological recovery in ACL revision.

Methods

This cohort study included the cases receiving ACL revision from 2014 to 2021 in Sports Medicine Department of Huashan Hospital. The grafts used were Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System (LARS) and ATT allograft. We recorded patients' baseline data. The final follow-up assessment included subjective scales, physical examination, and return to sport status. We recorded the rates and timings of return to sport. Subjective scales included the 2000 International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, Lysholm Knee Scaling Score (LKSS), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Tegner activity score, Marx activity rating score, and Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI). Anterior knee stability was assessed using the KT-1000 arthrometer.

Results

Fifty cases (LARS group: 27; ATT group: 23) enrolled and 45 (LARS group: 23; ATT group: 22) completed evaluations with a median follow-up period of 49 months. At recent follow-up, LARS group outperformed in knee stability (1.0 ± 1.9 mm vs. 2.6 ± 3.0 mm, P = 0.039), confidence (86.7 ± 12.4 vs. 69.4 ± 18.6, P < 0.001), emotion (82.7 ± 11.3 vs. 70.7 ± 16.2, P < 0.001), KOOS knee function (78.7 ± 8.8 vs. 69.5 ± 11.0, P = 0.003), quality of life (79.1 ± 16.1 vs. 66.4 ± 19.5, P = 0.014), Tegner score (6.3 ± 1.9 vs. 5.2 ± 2.1, P < 0.001), and Marx activity score (10.7 ± 3.7 vs. 7.9 ± 4.0, P = 0.012). The LARS group had significantly higher return rates: recreational (91.3 % vs. 63.6 %, P = 0.026), knee cutting and pivoting (87.0 % vs. 59.1 %, P = 0.035), competitive (78.3 % vs. 45.5 %, P = 0.023), and pre-injury (56.5 % vs. 27.3 %, P = 0.047). For return timings, the LARS group was earlier at recreational (11.2 ± 3.9 vs. 27.8 ± 9.0 weeks, P < 0.001), knee cutting and pivoting (17.2 ± 5.8 vs. 35.6 ± 13.8 weeks, P < 0.001), competitive (24.8 ± 16.2 vs. 53.2 ± 22.0 weeks, P < 0.001), and pre-injury levels (32.8 ± 11.0 vs. 72.8 ± 16.9 weeks, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

In ACL revision, using LARS demonstrated improved joint stability and functionality compared to using allogenic ATT four years postoperative. Patients accepting the LARS procedure exhibited higher rates and earlier timings of return to various levels of sport, indicating enhanced confidence and emotional resilience.

The translational potential of this article

In ACL revision, the choice of artificial ligament to shorten recovery time, thereby enabling patients to return to sport more quickly and effectively, is thought-provoking. The research value extends beyond mere graft selection, guiding future clinical trials and studies. This research enhances our understanding of the application value of artificial ligament in ACL revision, emphasizing the importance of psychological recovery and updating our perceptions of return to sport levels post-revision. It stimulates exploration into personalized rehabilitation programs and treatment strategies, aiming to optimize clinical outcomes and meet the real-world needs of patients with failed ACL reconstruction.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Augmented With Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization Is Equivalent to Hamstring Autograft Reconstruction at Short- and Mid-Term Follow-Up: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To compare clinical outcomes, knee stability and complications, failure, and revision rates after anterior cruciate ligament repair (ACLr) with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) versus anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with hamstring autograft for primary ACL ruptures at short and mid-term follow-up.

METHODS

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant systematic review of PubMed/MEDLINE and Scopus was performed. Studies that evaluated patients undergoing ACLr with DIS or ACLR with hamstring autograft were considered for inclusion. Studies were excluded if patients were affected by concomitant meniscal, ligamentous, or chondral injuries needing surgical treatment, because of their potential confounding effect on postoperative outcomes. The Risk of Bias-2 tool was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies. The quality of available evidence was rated according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation recommendations. The study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (ID: CRD42023394558).

RESULTS

Five randomized controlled trials comparing the outcomes of ACLr with DIS versus ACLR with hamstring autograft met the inclusion criteria. No major differences in terms of patient-reported outcomes (International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form, Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, visual analog scale satisfaction) or rates of complications, revisions, and failures were found in included studies at all time points. Repair showed greater International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form scores at 5 years in one study, whereas ACLR displayed significantly increased knee stability at 6 months and 5 years in 2 different studies, although the clinical relevance of these differences is doubtful.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that ACLr with DIS is not inferior to ACLR with hamstring autograft in terms of rates of clinical outcomes, knee stability, risk of failure, complications, and revision surgery. Therefore, ACLr with DIS may be a viable alternative to ACLR with hamstring autograft in selected patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, systematic review of Level I studies.

Difference of Knee Strength Recovery Between Revision and Primary ACL Reconstruction

Different grafting procedures are available to restore knee stability after revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. We compared knee strength recovery between ACL revision surgery and primary reconstruction. One hundred and ten patients with ACL revision surgery were matched with 110 patients with primary reconstruction based on the graft procedure. The isokinetic knee strength had been assessed for the first 9 months post-surgery. Knee laxity, function, and activity score were also evaluated. Limb symmetry index for knee extensor and flexor strength was not different at 4-, 6- and 9-months post-surgery between revision surgery and primary reconstruction. These results depended on ipsilateral or contralateral graft choice. Ipsilateral hamstring tendon (HT) and contralateral bone-patellar-tendon-bone (BPTB) graft procedures were similar for a revision of a BPTB graft failure. Contralateral HT procedure was better than ipsilateral BPTB procedure for a revision of a HT graft failure. The early recovery of isokinetic knee strength after ACL revision surgery regardless of the HT or BPTB procedures, was similar to the recovery after primary ACL reconstruction with the same graft technique. These results apparently depended on a temporary quadriceps arthrogenic muscle inhibition and on a persistent donor site morbidity, concerning the new and the previous grafts, respectively.

Return to Sports After ACL Augmentation With Anterolateral Reconstruction (ALR) Harvesting Gracilis Only Compared With ACL Reconstruction With ALR Harvesting Both Hamstring Tendons

BACKGROUND

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair (ACL-Rp) is known to be a valuable alternative to ACL reconstruction (ACL-Rc) in selected indications. The majority of the ACL-Rp techniques recommend the use of a synthetic brace. The use of the gracilis allows both a biological internal brace and anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALR).

PURPOSE

The primary objective was to compare the early ability to return to sports between patients who underwent ACL-Rp using a gracilis autograft as an internal brace augmentation with ALR and patients who underwent the conventional ACL-Rc with ALR technique sacrificing both the gracilis and the semitendinosus. The secondary objective was to compare the failure rate, clinical scores, and return to sports at a minimum follow-up of 2 years.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was undertaken. A total of 49 patients who underwent ACL-Rp with ALR between December 2018 and May 2019 were propensity matched at a 1:1 ratio to those who underwent ACL-Rc with ALR during the same period. The decision to perform ACL-Rp with ALR was based on preoperative selection and intraoperative arthroscopic findings: proximal avulsion tear, partial ACL tear, low- to midlevel sports participation, and good tissue quality. The ability to return to sports was assessed using isokinetic tests and the Knee Santy Athletic Return to Sport test functional test at 6 months postoperatively. At the final follow-up, knee laxity parameters, return to sports, and clinical outcome (Lysholm score, Tegner Activity Scale score, International Knee Documentation Committee score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury score) were recorded.

RESULTS

The ACL-Rp group had significantly less hamstring strength deficit when compared with their counterparts who underwent ACL-Rc (0.2% vs 10.2% in concentric, P < .001; 2.5% vs 14% in eccentric, P < .001). The mean Knee Santy Athletic Return to Sport test score was significantly higher in the ACL-Rc group (69.7% ± 16.6% [range, 19%-100%] vs 61% ± 16.8% [range, 19%-100%]; P = .001). In the ACL-Rp group, 61% (30/49) of the patients were authorized to return to pivot sports versus 41% (20/49) in the ACL-Rc group (P = .04). At a mean final follow-up of 31.4 ± 3.5 months, no significant differences were demonstrated between groups with respect to clinical scores and knee laxity parameters. There was a trend for a higher failure rate in the ACL-Rp group without any significance (ACL-Rp: 6.1% [3/49] vs ACL-Rc: 0%; P = .08).

CONCLUSION

At 6 months after operation, harvesting only the gracilis with this ACL-Rp and augmentation with ALR technique was linked to a better early ability to return to sports compared with the ACL-Rc with ALR technique harvesting both the gracilis and semitendinosus. This technique had a limited effect on early flexion strength and provided a satisfactory rerupture rate.

Early Complication Analysis of Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization versus Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

PURPOSE

Both dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) and reconstruction (RECO) are common treatment methods for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture. We report short term outcomes after DIS (Ligamys, Mathys, Bettlach, Switzerland) and RECO using semitendinosus tendon. We compared postoperative complications, deficits of range-of-motion (ROM), and revision rates between the two treatment options.

METHODS

A total of 690 patients (437 male, 253 female), after either DIS or RECO, were included. Of these, 147 patients (21%) received DIS and 543 (79%) underwent RECO. Follow-up examination focused on clinical examination, complications and revision rates. Anteroposterior instability and ROM deficits were analyzed in order to evaluate our policy of early intervention for all cases of ROM restrictions.

RESULTS

Relevant ROM restrictions occurred at a significantly higher rate after DIS than after RECO (4.8% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.008). Flexion was more restricted after DIS than RECO (110° vs. 124°, p < 0.001). Extension deficits also occurred more frequently after DIS compared to RECO (49.7% vs. 24.5%; p < 0.001). Total revision surgery rate was 9.1%, with patients after DIS being significantly more frequently affected (20.4% vs. 6.1%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate a significantly higher risk for ROM restriction after DIS compared to RECO, resulting in a significantly higher revision rate.

Graft failure and revision rate after ACL repair with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization. One-year results of a prospective case series of 155 patients

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to assess graft failure, revision rate, and functional outcomes after treatment of acute ACL rupture with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) Ligamys device one year post surgery. Additionally, differences in functional outcome between patients with and without anteroposterior laxity were assessed. It was hypothesized that the failure rate of DIS was non-inferior to that of previously reported ACL reconstruction (10%).

METHODS

In this prospectively designed multicenter study, including patients with an acute ACL rupture, DIS was performed within 21 days after rupture. Primary outcome was failure of the graft at 1 year post surgery, defined as 1) re-rupture of the graft, 2) revision of DIS, or 3) a > 3 mm side-to-side difference in anterior tibial translation compared to the non-operated knee (∆ATT), measured by the KT1000 device. Additional analysis was performed using a 5 mm threshold. The subjective International Knee Documentation Committee Score (IKDC) and Numerical Rating Scales (NRS) for pain and confidence were used to evaluate functional outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 155 patients were included with a mean age at surgery of 27.8 years (SD 9.4). The mean interval from rupture to DIS was 16.4 days (SD 5.2). At a median follow-up of 13 months (IQR 12-18) the failure rate of the graft was 30.2% (95%CI:22.0-39.4); 11 patients (7%) required secondary reconstructive surgery and of the 105 patients who attended ATT measurement, 24 patients (23%) had an ∆ATT > 3 mm. Secondary analysis, based on a 5 mm threshold, revealed a failure rate of 22.4% (95%CI: 15.2; 31.1). A total of 39 patients (25%) reported at least one complication, comprising mainly arthrofibrosis, traumatic re-rupture and pain. In these patients, removal of the monoblock was performed in 21 cases (13.5%). At follow-up no significant differences in functional outcomes between patients with ∆ATT > 3 mm and stable ATT were observed.

CONCLUSION

This prospective multicenter study found a high failure rate at one year follow-up of 30% (7% revision surgery and 23% > 3 mm side-to-side difference in anterior tibial translation) in patients treated by primary repair of the ACL with DIS, and did therefore not demonstrate non-inferiority to ACL reconstruction. For patients who did not require secondary reconstructive surgery, this study found good functional outcomes, also in case of persistent anteroposterior knee laxity (∆ATT > 3 mm).

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Clinical outcomes in dynamic intraligamentary stabilization technique for anterior cruciate ligament tear: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To compare the clinical outcome between dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in ACL tears.

METHODS

PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched to identify published articles on clinical studies comparing DIS versus ACL reconstruction. The results of the eligible studies were analyzed in terms of anteroposterior knee laxity translation (ΔATT) between the injured and contralateral knees, and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm score, Tegner score, and ipsilateral ACL failure, implant removal, and ACL revision.

RESULTS

Five clinical studies including 429 patients with ACL tears met the inclusion criteria. DIS showed statistically comparable outcomes of ΔATT (P = .12), IKDC (P = .38), Tegner (P = .82), ACL failure (P = .50), ACL revision (P = .29) with ACL reconstruction. A significantly higher rate of implant removal (odds ratio for DIS vs ACL reconstruction, 7.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.72-22.00; P = .0001) but statistically higher Lysholm score (mean difference between DIS and ACL reconstruction, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.24-2.93; P = .02) were found in DIS group.

CONCLUSION

Five clinical studies including 429 patients with ACL tears met the inclusion criteria. DIS showed statistically comparable outcomes of ΔATT (P = .12), IKDC (P = .38), Tegner (P = .82), ACL failure (P = .50), ACL revision (P = .29) with ACL reconstruction. A significantly higher rate of implant removal (odds ratio for DIS vs ACL reconstruction, 7.73; 95% CI, 2.72-22.00; P = .0001) but statistically higher Lysholm score (mean difference between DIS and ACL reconstruction, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.24-2.93; P = .02) were found in DIS group.

Return to Sports: A Risky Business? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis of Risk Factors for Graft Rupture Following ACL Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The risk of sustaining a graft rupture after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is high. Contributing risk factors are, however, still not clearly identified.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review was to identify and quantify risk factors for graft rupture after ACLR.

METHODS

A systematic review with meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42020140129) based on PRISMA guidelines was performed. MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE were searched from inception to September 2021. Prospective and retrospective studies addressing risk factors for graft rupture after ACLR in males/females of all ages were considered. Meta-analyses using a random effect model (effect measure: odds ratio [OR] with 95% confidence interval [CI]) were performed. The GRADE tool was used to assess evidence quality.

RESULTS

Following full-text screening of 310 relevant papers, 117 were eventually included, incorporating up to 133,000 individuals in each meta-analysis. Higher Tegner activity level (≥ 7 vs < 7) at primary injury (OR 3.91, 95% CI 1.69-9.04), increased tibial slope (degrees) (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.26-3.86), lower psychological readiness to return to sport (RTS) (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.32-3.61), early surgery (< 12 vs ≥ 12 months) (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.58-2.22), RTS (pre-injury level) (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.21-2.91) and family history of ACL injury (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.34-2.31) were all associated with increased odds of graft rupture. Higher age (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.39-0.59), female sex (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79-0.98), fewer self-reported knee symptoms pre-reconstruction (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.95) and concomitant cartilage injuries (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62-0.79) instead decreased the odds. Meta-analysis revealed no association between body mass index, smoking, joint laxity, RTS time, knee kinematics, muscle strength or hop performance and graft rupture.

CONCLUSION

Conspicuous risk factors for graft rupture were mainly sports and hereditary related. Few studies investigated function-related modifiable factors or included sports exposure data.

Comparable Instrumented Knee Joint Laxity and Patient-Reported Outcomes After ACL Repair With Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization or ACL Reconstruction: 5-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Technical innovation has led to the renaissance of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair in the past decade.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The present study aimed to compare instrumented knee joint laxity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after ACL repair with those after primary ACL reconstruction for acute isolated ACL tears. It was hypothesized that ACL repair would lead to comparable knee joint stability and PROs at 5 years postoperatively in comparison with ACL reconstruction.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

A total of 85 patients with acute ACL tears were randomized to undergo either ACL repair using dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) or primary ACL reconstruction with a semitendinosus tendon autograft. The primary outcome was the side-to-side difference in anterior tibial translation (ΔATT) assessed by Rolimeter testing at 5 years postoperatively. Follow-up examinations were performed at 1, 2, and 5 years. PROs were assessed using the Tegner activity scale, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, and the Lysholm score. Furthermore, the rates of recurrent instability, other complications, and revision surgery were recorded. A power analysis was performed a priori, and the Friedman test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Bonferroni correction were applied for statistical comparisons with significance set at P < .05.

RESULTS

The mean age at inclusion was 28.3 ± 11.5 years in the ACL repair group and 27.1 ± 11.5 years in the ACL reconstruction group. At 5 years postoperatively, a total of 64 patients (ACL repair: n = 34 of 43 [79%]; ACL reconstruction: n = 30 of 42 [71%]) were available for follow-up. At 5 years, ΔATT was 1.7 ± 1.6 mm in the ACL repair group and 1.4 ± 1.3 mm in the ACL reconstruction group (P = .334). Preinjury PROs were restored as soon as 1 year after surgery and plateaued until 2 and 5 years postoperatively in both groups. At the 5-year follow-up, the mean Lysholm score was 97.0 ± 5.4 versus 94.5 ± 5.5 (P = .322), respectively, and the mean IKDC subjective score was 94.1 ± 9.9 versus 89.9 ± 7.8 (P = .047), respectively, in the ACL repair group versus ACL reconstruction group. At 5 years postoperatively, 12 patients in the ACL repair group (35%; age <25 years: n = 10/12; Tegner score ≥7: n = 10/12) had recurrent instability, of whom 10 underwent single-stage revision ACL reconstruction. In the ACL reconstruction group, there were 6 patients with recurrent instability (20%; age <25 years: n = 6/6; Tegner score ≥7: n = 5/6); however, in 5 patients, staged revision was required. Differences between both groups regarding recurrent instability (P = .09) or ACL revision surgery (P = .118) were not statistically significant. Recurrent instability was associated with age <25 years and Tegner score >7 in both groups.

CONCLUSION

At 5 years after ACL repair with DIS, instrumented knee joint laxity and PROs were comparable with those after ACL reconstruction. Although no significant difference was found between repair and reconstruction, a critical appraisal of the rates of recurrent instability (35% vs 20%, respectively) and revision surgery (38% vs 27%, respectively) is needed. Young age and a high preinjury activity level were the main risk factors for recurrent instability in both groups. However, single-stage revision ACL reconstruction was possible in each case in the ACL repair group. Although ACL reconstruction remains the gold standard in the treatment of ACL tears, the present study supports the use of ACL repair with DIS as a feasible option to treat acute ACL tears in patients aged ≥25 years with low to moderate activity levels (Tegner score <7).

REGISTRATION

DRKS00015466 (German Clinical Trials Register).

Failure of primary ACL repair with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization may result in a high risk of two-stage ACL reconstruction: a case series of ten patients

PURPOSE

Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization (DIS) is a technique for the repair of acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential challenges of ACL reconstruction (ACLR) following failure of DIS.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with failure of primary ACL repair performed with DIS was undertaken. Failure was defined as abnormal knee laxity (positive Lachman and/or pivot shift) and/or severely restricted range of motion. Medical and surgical records were reviewed and preoperative standard anteroposterior and lateral X-rays were assessed.

RESULTS

Between July 2015 and May 2022, 10 patients (3 males, 7 females, median age 28 years, range 18-52 years) with failure of DIS were referred to and surgically treated at a single centre. In four patients, single-stage ACLR was performed following the removal of the tibial monoblock. In six patients, arthrofibrosis and excessive tibial tunnel enlargement following the removal of the monoblock prevented single-stage ACLR. These patients underwent arthroscopic arthrolysis and tibial tunnel bone grafting as a first-stage revision procedure.

CONCLUSION

In the present case series, single-stage ACLR was performed in only four (40%) of ten patients following failure of ACL repair with DIS. Arthrofibrosis and excessive tibial tunnel enlargement following the removal of the monoblock prevented single-stage ACLR in six (60%) patients. It is important for clinicians to inform patients that, in the event of failure of ACL repair with DIS, they may run a high risk of undergoing two-stage ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, Case Series.

Acute Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture: Repair or Reconstruction? Five-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

High-level evidence for short-term outcomes of contemporary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) suture repair (ACLSR) in comparison with those of ACL reconstruction (ACLR) is scarce. High-level evidence for mid- and long-term results is lacking, whereas outcomes of ACLSR in several historical studies were shown to deteriorate at midterm follow-up after initial good short-term outcomes.

HYPOTHESIS

Contemporary ACLSR is noninferior to ACLR in the treatment of acute ACL rupture in terms of patient self-reported outcomes at 5 years postoperatively.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

A total of 48 patients were enrolled in the study and, after stratification and randomization, underwent either dynamic augmented (DA) ACLSR or anatomic single-bundle ACLR. The primary outcome measure was the International Knee Documentation Committee 2000 (IKDC) subjective score (IKDCs). Furthermore, the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Tegner Activity Scale score (TAS), visual analog scale score for satisfaction (VASs), IKDC physical examination score (IKDCpe), limb symmetry index for quadriceps (LSIq) and hamstrings (LSIh) strength and jump test battery (LSIj), Kellgren-Lawrence grade of osteoarthritis (OA), and rate of adverse events were recorded. Analyses were based on an intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

The lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the median IKDCs of the DA ACLSR group (n = 23; 75.9) was lower than the prespecified noninferiority margin (n = 21; 86.6). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. However, the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the DA ACLSR group (100.0) was higher than the median IKDCs of the ACLR group (96.6), rendering the result for noninferiority inconclusive. No statistical difference was found between groups for median IKDCs (repair, 90.2; reconstruction, 96.6). Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were found for any of the secondary outcome measures for the DA ACLSR compared with the ACLR group: KOOS Symptoms, 92.9 versus 96.4; KOOS Pain, 100 versus 97.2; KOOS Activities of Daily Living, 100 versus 100; KOOS Sport and Recreation, 85.0 versus 100; TAS score, 7.0 versus 6.5; VASs, 9.2 versus 8.7; IKDCpe, 81.8% versus 100%; LSIq, ≥91.6 versus ≥88.2; LSIh, ≥95.1 versus ≥90.7; LSIj, ≥94.2 versus ≥97.6; OA grade 0, 90.9% versus 77.8%; clinical ACL failure rate, 20.8% versus 27.2%; and repeat surgery rate, 37.5% versus 20.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

It remains inconclusive whether the effectiveness of DA ACLSR is noninferior to that of ACLR in terms of subjective patient-reported outcomes as measured using the IKDCs. Although DA ACLSR may be a viable treatment option for patients with acute ACL rupture, caution must be exercised when considering this treatment for young, active patients, corresponding to the present study population.

Primary stability of single-stage revision reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament in case of failure of dynamic intraligamentary stabilization depends on implant position during ACL repair

INTRODUCTION

The object of this study was to evaluate the primary stability of tibial interference screw (IFS) fixation in single-stage revision surgery of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in the case of recurrent instability after ACL repair with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS), dependent on the implant position during DIS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Tibial aperture fixation in ACL reconstruction (ACL-R) was performed in a porcine knee model using an IFS. Native ACL-R was performed in the control group (n = 15). In the intervention groups DIS and subsequent implant removal were performed prior to single-stage revision ACL-R. A distance of 20 mm in group R-DIS1 (n = 15) and 5 mm in group R-DIS2 (n = 15) was left between the joint line and the implant during DIS. Specimens were mounted in a material-testing machine and load-to-failure was applied in a worst-case-scenario.

RESULTS

Load to failure was 454 ± 111 N in the R-DIS1 group, 154 ± 71 N in the R-DIS2 group and 405 ± 105 N in the primary ACL-R group. Load-to-failure, stiffness and elongation of the group R-DIS2 were significantly inferior in comparison to R-DIS1 and ACL-R respectively (p < 0.001). No significant difference was found between load-to-failure, stiffness and elongation of R-DIS1 and the control group.

CONCLUSION

Primary stability of tibial aperture fixation in single-stage revision ACL-R in case of recurrent instability after DIS depends on monobloc position during ACL repair. Primary stability is comparable to aperture fixation in primary ACL-R, if a bone stock of 20 mm is left between the monobloc and the tibial joint line during the initial procedure.

Suture tape augmentation ACL repair, stable knee, and favorable PROMs, but a re-rupture rate of 11% within 2 years

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to investigate clinical and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair using the suture tape augmentation (STA) technique.

METHODS

This prospective interventional case series included 35 patients who underwent STA ACL repair and were all followed up for 2 years. The ACL rupture was between 4 and 12 weeks old and per-operatively confirmed repairable. The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), and Lysholm and Tegner scores were collected together with return to work (RTW), return to sport (RTS), re-rupture, and re-intervention rate. Lachman testing was performed and ACL healing was evaluated on MRI using a grading scale based on the ACL's morphology and signal intensity with grade 1 representing good ACL healing and grade 3 representing poor ACL healing.

RESULTS

The number of patients who returned to their pre-rupture level for IKDC, Lysholm, and Tegner scores at 2 years of follow-up are 17/26 (65.4%), 13/25 (52.0%), and 18/27 (66.7%) patients, respectively. Median RTW and RTS periods were 5.5 weeks (range 0-32 weeks) and 6 months (range 2-22 months), respectively. The Lachman side-to-side difference decreased significantly (P < 0.001) to less than 3 mm after surgery and remained stable. Four patients [11.4%, 95% CI (3.2, 26.7)] suffered from a re-rupture and three other patients [8.6%, 95% CI (1.8, 23.1)] needed a re-intervention for another reason than re-rupture. MRI follow-up of 31 patients showed overall grade 1 ACL healing in 14 (45.2%) patients, grade 2 ACL healing in 11 (35.5%) patients, and grade 3 ACL healing in 6 (19.4%) patients. A higher risk of re-rupture was associated with grade 3 ACL healing at 6 months post-operatively and a pre-operative Tegner score of  ≥  7.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that treatment of the acute, repairable ACL with the STA technique leads to a stable knee and favorable patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, the re-rupture rate of 11.4% within the 2-year follow-up is a concern.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Distal remnant length can be measured reliably and predicts primary repair of proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears

PURPOSE

To assess the reliability and predictive value of quantifying anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear location on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and assess the predictive value of tear location on the eligibility for arthroscopic primary repair of proximal ACL tears.

METHODS

In this case-control study, all adult patients undergoing acute ACL surgery between 2008 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. All patients were treated with the treatment algorithm of undergoing primary repair when proximal tears with sufficient tissue quality were present intraoperatively, and otherwise underwent single-bundle ACL reconstruction. Sagittal MRI images were reviewed to measure proximal and distal remnant lengths along the anterior aspect of the torn ligament, and tear location was calculated as distal remnant divided by total remnant length. Interobserver and intraobserver reliability for remnant measurements were calculated. Then, receiver operating curve analysis (ROC) was performed to calculate the optimal cut-off for the possibility of primary repair with the different measurements.

RESULTS

Two hundred and forty-eight patients were included, of which 151 underwent repair (61%). Inter- and intraobserver reliability ranged between 0.92 and 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-0.98] and 0.91-0.97 (95% CI 0.78-0.98, respectively). All patients with a tear location of  ≥ 80% on MRI could undergo repair, whereas all patients with tear location of < 60% required reconstruction. The positive predictive value of a proximal quarter tear (≥ 75%) on primary repair was 94%. Older age was correlated with more proximal tear location (p < 0.001), but there was no correlation between tear location and gender, BMI, or timing of surgery (all n.s).

CONCLUSION

This study showed that tear location could reliably be quantified on MRI by assessing distal and proximal remnant lengths. Tear location in the proximal quarter of the ACL was found to have a positive predictive value for repairability of 94%. These findings may assist orthopaedic surgeons in evaluating which patients are eligible for primary ACL repair preoperatively.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Occurrence of inadequate ACL healing after Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization and functional outcome-a multicentre case series

Introduction

Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization (DIS) is a technique for preservation, anatomical repair and stabilization of a freshly injured anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the short-term re-operation rate when compared to traditional autograft reconstruction.

Methods

Four, from the developer independent, centres enrolled patients that underwent ACL repair by DIS, according to the specific indications given by MRI imaging at a minimum follow-up of 12 months. The re-operation rate was recorded as primary outcome. Secondary outcome measures were the postoperative antero-posterior knee laxity (using a portable Rolimeter®), as well as the Tegner, Lysholm and IKDC Scores.

Results

A total of 105 patients were investigated with a median follow-up of 21 months. Thirteen patients were lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 92 patients 15 (16.3%) had insufficient functional stability and required subsequent ACL reconstruction. These patients were excluded from further analysis, leaving 77 consecutive patients for a 12 months follow-up. The median age at time of surgery was 30 years for that group. At time of follow-up a median antero-posterior translation difference of 2 mm was measured. None of these patients reported subjective insufficiency (giving way), but in 14 patients (18.2%), the difference of antero-posterior translation was more than 3 mm. We found a median Tegner Score of 5.5, a median Lysholm Score of 95.0 and a median IKDC Score of 89.4.

Conclusion

The main finding of this multicentre study is a relevant re-operation rate of 16.3%. Another 18.2% showed objective antero-posterior laxity (≥ 3 mm) during testing raising the suspicion of postoperative non-healing. The failure rate of DIS in this study is higher than for reconstruction with an autologous tendon graft. However, our successfully treated patients had a good clinical and functional outcome based on antero-posterior knee laxity and clinical scores, comparable to patients treated by autograft reconstruction.

Risk Factors for Requiring a Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Case-Control Study

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is considered as a successful orthopaedic procedure that attempts to help patients return to their preinjury level of activity. However, some patients may need to undergo revision surgery, and this potentially may be associated with certain surgery-specific or patient risk factors. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess the potential role of (1) demographics, (2) family history, (3) graft choice, (4) sport, and (5) mechanism of injury (contact vs. noncontact) in the risk for needing a revision ACL for improved clinical outcomes. All patients who had undergone a primary ACL reconstruction between 2012 and 2016 were identified from at a single institution. About 312 patients who had a mean age of 24 years (range, 9-62 years) and a mean follow-up of 4 years (range, 1-10). Patients were further evaluated to identify those who had a revision. There were 19 patients (6.1%) with a mean age of 22 years (range, 13-38 years) and a mean follow-up of 5 years (range, 1-10) that required a revision reconstruction. Gender ratios (p = 0.56) and mean age (p = 0.44) were similar among the cohorts. Family history of ACL reconstruction had no association with revision risk (p = 0.57). Those with tibialis anterior allografts (37 vs. 4%; p = 0.0001) and hamstring allografts (16 vs. 1%; p = 0.0001) were far more likely to undergo a revision. Bone-tendon-bone (BTB) patella autografts were less likely (26 vs. 73%; p = 0.0001). Sport did not play a role in revision with those injured playing basketball (p = 0.61), football (p = 0.52), lacrosse (p = 0.52), soccer (p = 0.83), and volleyball (p = 0.61). There were a greater percentage of contact injuries that required revision (95 vs. 77%; p = 0.07). Graft selection played a significant role in requiring revision surgery with allografts portending to higher revision rates and BTB patella autografts conferring a lower risk.

Risk factors for postoperative graft laxity without re-injury after double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in recreational athletes

BACKGROUND

Although high activity is a risk factor for graft failure after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, the risk factors for postoperative laxity after ACL reconstruction in recreational athletes are unknown.

METHODS

We enrolled 91 patients (40 males, 51 females; mean age 29.2 years; mean follow-up 4.3 years) who scored ≤ 6 on the Tegner activity scale, underwent double-bundle ACL reconstruction between 2010 and 2018, and did not experience re-injury. In the stable group (75 patients, <3.0 mm side-to-side difference (SSD) in anterior translation, grade 0 or 1 pivot shift 1 year after surgery) and unstable group (16 patients, ≥3.0 mm SSD, ≥grade 2 pivot shift), multivariate logistic regression analyses adjusted for factors showing P ≤ 0.3 on univariate analysis assessed risk factors for graft laxity. Lysholm score and graft intensity on MRI (Howell grade) were compared at final follow-up.

RESULTS

Mean SSD in anterior translation was 0.7 mm (stable group) and 3.3 mm (unstable group). Pivot shift grades were 0 (88%) and 1 (12%) in the stable group, and 0 (12.5%), 1 (50%), and 2 (37.5%) in the unstable group. Multivariate regression analyses showed that younger age and knee hyperextension were significant risk factors for graft laxity (P = 0.018 and 0.0016; cutoffs 18 years old and 8°, respectively). Lysholm scores in both groups were comparable, but graft intensity on MRI demonstrated significantly worse Howell grade in the unstable group (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Younger age and knee hyperextension were risk factors for postoperative graft laxity without re-injury in recreational athletes.

Efficacy of Nonaugmented, Static Augmented, and Dynamic Augmented Suture Repair of the Ruptured Anterior Cruciate Ligament: A Systematic Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Anterior cruciate ligament suture repair (ACLSR) was abandoned late last century in favor of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) because of overall disappointing results. However, in recent years there has been renewed and increasing interest in ACLSR for treatment of ACL ruptures. Several contemporary ACLSR techniques are being used, but any difference in effectiveness is unclear.

HYPOTHESIS

Contemporary nonaugmented (NA), static augmented (SA), and dynamic augmented (DA) ACLSR leads to (1) comparable outcomes overall and (2) comparable outcomes between proximal third, middle third, and combined ACL rupture locations (a) within and (b) between ACLSR technique categories.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

An electronic search was performed in the MEDLINE and Embase databases for the period between January 1, 2010, and August 7, 2019. All articles describing clinical and patient-reported outcomes for ACLSR were identified and included, and outcomes for NA, SA, and DA ACLSR categories were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 31 articles and 2422 patients were included. The majority of articles (65%) and patients (89%) reported outcomes of DA ACLSR. Overall, there was high heterogeneity in study characteristics and level as well as quality of evidence (19 level 4; 7 level 3; 3 level 2; and 2 level 1). Most studies indicated excellent patient-reported outcomes. Overall, the variability in (and the maximum of) the reported failure rate was high within all ACLSR categories. The variability in (and the maximum of) the reported rate of all other complications was highest for DA ACLSR. Regarding ACL rupture location, the failure rate was highest in proximal ACL ruptures within the SA and DA ACLSR categories; rates of all other reported complications were highest in combined ACL ruptures within the DA ACLSR category. However, no studies in the NA category and only 1 study in the SA ACLSR category evaluated combined ACL ruptures. The majority of studies comparing ACLSR and ACLR found no differences in outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The amount of high-quality evidence for contemporary ACLSR is poor. This makes it difficult to interpret differences among ACLSR categories and among ACL rupture locations and, though promising, to establish the role of ACLSR in the treatment of ACL ruptures. More high-quality large randomized clinical trials with longer follow-up comparing ACLSR and ACLR are needed.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries in Skeletally Immature Patients: A Meta-analysis Comparing Repair Versus Reconstruction Techniques

BACKGROUND

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery remains challenging in the skeletally immature patient. Despite the widespread use of physeal-sparing reconstruction techniques, there has been renewed interest in the ACL repair. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature to better understand outcomes following all-epiphyseal (AE) reconstruction to extraphyseal reconstruction, while also evaluating ACL repair outcomes in skeletally immature patients.

METHODS

Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, all studies in the literature from January 1970 to August 2019 reporting on skeletally immature patients undergoing ACL surgery were identified. Inclusion criteria were pediatric patients with open physes indicative of skeletal immaturity sustaining complete ACL ruptures treated with AE reconstruction, extraphyseal reconstruction or ACL repair. Chronologic age, bone age, postoperative outcomes scores, return to sport rate, and the incidence of complications, namely reruptures, were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies comprising 443 patients were identified. No significant difference in chronologic age or postoperative outcome scores at final follow-up were appreciated between patients undergoing AE versus extraphyseal reconstruction. Return to activity rate was significant greater following extraphyseal reconstruction when compared with AE reconstruction. The incidence of any limb-length discrepancies and limb discrepancies measuring ≥10 mm were significant higher following AE reconstruction, while rerupture rates were more common following AE reconstruction.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing AE reconstruction possessed significantly lower return to activity rates, higher incidences of limb-length discrepancies and more commonly experienced ACL reruptures when compared with patients undergoing extraphyseal reconstruction. Further investigations analyzing results following ACL repair in skeletally immature patients are warranted to allow for the comparison of outcomes with current physeal-sparing reconstruction techniques.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV-systematic review-therapeutic study.

Good to Excellent Functional Short-Term Outcome and Low Revision Rates Following Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Using Suture Augmentation

The aim of this study was to evaluate the functional outcome of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair using suture augmentation (SA) in 93 consecutive patients (67 female) with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Patients’ outcomes were determined using International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm score (LS) and Tegner score (TS). Knee-laxity was assessed using the KT-1000 arthrometer. Eighty-eight patients (67 female, mean age 42 years ± standard deviation (SD) 13) were available for follow-up after a mean time of 21 months (range 12–39). Three patients (3%) underwent revision surgery and were excluded from functional analysis. The mean IKDC score was 87.4 ± 11, mean LS was 92.6 ± 11, mean pre-traumatic TS was 6 ± 2 and mean postoperative TS was 6 ± 2, with a mean difference (TS_Diff) of 1 ± 1. The interval from injury to surgery had no significant impact on the postoperative IKDC (p = 0.228), LS (p = 0.377) and TS_Diff (p = 0.572). Patients’ age (>40 years), BMI (>30) and coexisting ligament or meniscal injuries did not seem to influence postoperative functional results. Primary ACL repair using SA provides good to excellent functional outcomes with a low probability of revision surgery at a minimum of 12 months.

Repair With Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization Versus Primary Reconstruction of Acute Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears: 2-Year Results From a Prospective Randomized Study

BACKGROUND

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair has once again become a focus of research because of the development of new techniques.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose was to compare the functional results and recurrent instability rates in patients undergoing ACL repair with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) versus primary ACL reconstruction (ACLR) for acute isolated ACL tears. The hypothesis was that functional results and knee joint stability after ACL repair with DIS would be comparable with that after ACLR.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized clinical trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

A total of 85 patients with acute ACL tears were randomized to undergo either ACL repair with DIS or primary ACLR. The preinjury activity level and function were recorded. Follow-up examinations were performed at 6 weeks and 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Anterior tibial translation (ATT) was evaluated using Rolimeter testing. The Tegner activity scale, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective form, and Lysholm knee scoring scale scores were obtained. Clinical failure was defined as ΔATT >3 mm in combination with subjective instability. Recurrent instability and other complications were recorded.

RESULTS

There were 83 patients (97.6%) who were successfully followed until 2 years. ATT was significantly increased in the DIS group compared with the ACLR group (ΔATT, 1.9 vs 0.9 mm, respectively; P = .0086). A total of 7 patients (16.3%) in the DIS group had clinical failure and underwent single-stage revision. In the ACLR group, 5 patients (12.5%) had failure of the reconstruction procedure; 4 of these patients required 2-stage revision. The difference in the failure rate was not significant (P = .432). There were 4 patients (3 in the DIS group and 1 in the ACLR group) who showed increased laxity (ΔATT >3 mm) without subjective instability and did not require revision. Recurrent instability was associated with young age (<25 years) and high Tegner scores (>6) in both groups. No significant differences between ACL repair with DIS and ACLR were found for the Tegner, IKDC, and Lysholm scores at any time.

CONCLUSION

Whereas ATT measured by Rolimeter testing was significantly increased after ACL repair with DIS, clinical failure was similar to that after ACLR. In addition, functional results after ACL repair with DIS for acute tears were comparable with those after ACLR. The current study supports the use of ACL repair with DIS as an option to treat acute ACL tears.

REGISTRATION

DRKS00015466 (German Clinical Trials Register).

Return to Sports after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: a Matched-Pair Analysis of Repair with Internal Brace and Reconstruction Using Hamstring or Quadriceps Tendons

PURPOSE

 The purpose of this study was to evaluate sports activity before anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and after surgical treatment of ACL rupture comparing ACL repair with an Internal Brace to ACL reconstruction using either a hamstring (HT) or quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft.

METHODS

 Between 12/2015 and 10/2016, we recruited 69 patients with a mean age of 33.4 years for a matched-pair analysis. Twenty-four patients who underwent Internal Brace reconstruction were matched according to age (± 5 years), gender, Tegner activity scale (± 1), BMI (± 1) and concomitant injuries with 25 patients who had undergone HT reconstruction and 20 patients who had undergone QT reconstruction. The minimum follow-up was 12 months.

RESULTS

 Overall, the return-to-sports rate was 91.3 %. There were no significant differences (p ≥ 0.05) in the number of sports disciplines and the time before return to sports within or among the groups. Overall and within the groups, the level of sports participation did not change significantly (p ≥ 0.05) postoperatively. The patients' sense of well-being was excellent after either ACL repair with an Internal Brace or ACL reconstruction with autologous HT or QT.

CONCLUSION

 At short-term follow-up, ACL repair using an Internal Brace enables sports activity and provides a sense of well-being similar to that of classic ACL reconstruction using hamstring or quadriceps tendon autografts in a selected patient population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III Retrospective comparative study.

Arthroscopic primary repair of proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears seems safe but higher level of evidence is needed: a systematic review and meta-analysis of recent literature

PURPOSE

To assess the outcomes of the various techniques of primary repair of proximal anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears in the recent literature using a systematic review with meta-analysis.

METHODS

PRISMA guidelines were followed. All studies reporting outcomes of arthroscopic primary repair of proximal ACL tears using primary repair, repair with static (suture) augmentation and dynamic augmentation between January 2014 and July 2019 in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane were identified and included. Primary outcomes were failure rates and reoperation rates, and secondary outcomes were patient-reported outcome scores.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies and 1,101 patients (mean age 31 years, mean follow-up 2.1 years, 60% male) were included. Nearly all studies were retrospective studies without a control group and only one randomized study was identified. Grade of recommendation for primary repair was weak. There were 9 out of 74 failures following primary repair (10%), 6 out of 69 following repair with static augmentation (7%) and 106 out of 958 following dynamic augmentation (11%). Repair with dynamic augmentation had more reoperations (99; 10%), and more hardware removal (255; 29%) compared to the other procedures. All functional outcome scores were > 85% of maximum scores.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review with meta-analysis found that the different techniques of primary repair are safe with failure rates of 7-11%, no complications and functional outcome scores of > 85% of maximum scores. There was a high risk of bias and follow-up was short with 2.1 years. Prospective studies comparing the outcomes to ACL reconstruction with sufficient follow-up are needed prior to widespread implementation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Risk Factors for Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and Frequency With Which Patients Change Surgeons

Background:

Revision surgery is a known complication after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR), but the proportion of patients who seek a different surgeon for their revision procedure is unknown.

Purpose:

To determine the rate and risk factors for revision ACLR in New Zealand and to find the proportion of patients undergoing revision ACLR who see a different surgeon compared with their primary procedure as well as the factors that may influence this decision.

Study Design:

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

Data from New Zealand’s single government insurer, the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), were analyzed. All primary ACLR procedures performed between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2014 were evaluated, and revision ACLR procedures performed between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2016, were evaluated to allow for a minimum 2-year follow-up period. Cases undergoing subsequent revision were divided into those with the same or a different surgeon compared with the primary procedure. Risk factors for revision and change of surgeons were assessed, including age, sex, time from injury to surgery, time between primary and revision procedures, surgeon volume, and ethnicity.

Results:

A total of 15,212 primary ACLR procedures were recorded in 14,926 patients. The mean patient age was 29.2 years, and 61% were male patients. There were 676 subsequent revision procedures and 510 contralateral procedures during the study period, resulting in a 5-year survival rate of 95.5% for the ACL graft and 96.5% for the contralateral ACL. Risk factors for revision surgery included male sex, age <20 years, and <1 year from injury to surgery. Of the revision procedures, 44.5% (n = 301) were performed by a different surgeon compared with primary ACLR. For primary ACLR procedures performed by low-volume surgeons, 75.0% of patients requiring revision ACLR changed surgeons, compared with 21.5% for high-volume surgeons (≤10 vs >50 primary ACLR/y; hazard ratio, 10.70 [95% CI, 6.01-19.05]; P < .001). Other factors associated with change of surgeons included older age, longer time between primary and revision surgery, and Asian and Maori ethnicities.

Conclusion:

A significant proportion of patients change surgeons when requiring revision ACLR. In the absence of formal follow-up systems such as registries, surgeons, particularly those with a low volume of ACLRs, may underestimate their personal revision rate.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Outcomes: An Updated Systematic Review of Recent Literature

PURPOSE

To critically review recent literature on outcomes following primary surgical repair of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL).

METHODS

In December 2018, a search of the MEDLINE database was conducted for English language articles reporting clinical outcomes of ACL repair from 2003 to 2018. Included studies were evaluated for patient demographics, patient-reported outcome measures, return to sports/work, patient satisfaction, and postoperative complications. Subgroup analysis was conducted for studies that included patients with only type 1/proximal ACL ruptures.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies satisfied the inclusion criteria, comprising 2,401 patients (52.3% male, 35.7% female, 12.0% unspecified gender) with mean age ranging from 6.0 to 43.3 years. Most studies were conducted in Europe (82.1%), were level of evidence IV (60.7%), and were designed as case series (57.1%). Fourteen investigations (50.0%) used primary suture repair and 14 (50.0%) used dynamic intraligamentary stabilization. Preoperative ranges for Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee Score subjective, and Tegner scores were 28 to 100, 94.1 to 100, and 2 to 9, respectively. Postoperative ranges for the same measures were 80 to 100, 54.3 to 98, and 3.67 to 7, respectively. Time to return to sport/work ranged from 3.1 ± 3.3 to 17.4 ± 1.5 weeks. Frequency of rerupture, revision ACL surgery, and overall reoperations were as high as 23.1%, 33.3%, and 51.5%, respectively. Overall ACL repair survivorship ranged from 60.0% to 100.0%. In subgroup analysis for proximal ruptures treated with repair, the rates of revision ACL reconstruction (ACLR) and total reoperations were as high as 12.9% and 18.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on our cumulative findings across 2,401 patients from the 28 included studies, it appears that ACLR results in better survivorship and patient-perceived postoperative improvement when compared with ACL repair. At present, ACLR appears to remain the superior treatment strategy in the vast majority of cases.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level II to IV studies.

Dynamic intraligamentary stabilization of anterior cruciate ligament repair: hardware removal has no effect on knee laxity at 2-year follow-up

INTRODUCTION

Dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) stabilizes the knee joint during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) healing. After 6 months, tibial hardware removal is offered to the patients if local discomfort at the implant site is present.

AIM

This study compared knee laxity and functional scores 2 years after DIS between patients with and without hardware removal. It is hypothesized that it does not affect ACL healing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data from 173 patients with either hardware removal (n = 47) or no additional intervention (n = 126). Inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score was applied to balance the groups for baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was the side-to-side difference in knee laxity measured with the rolimeter at manual maximum force (Δ-Lachman). Secondary outcomes were the pivot-shift test and subjective scores.

RESULTS

Mean age was 34 years in both groups, and female gender was 47% (hardware removal group) and 50% (control group), respectively. No significant differences were found for Δ-Lachman (p = 0.09), pivot-shift test (p = 0.41), and subjective scores (p > 0.10) two years after DIS.

CONCLUSION

Knee laxity 2 years after DIS in patients with tibial hardware removal and patients without hardware removal was not significantly different. The groups were also similar regarding all the assessed functional scores. This study confirms the hypothesis that the healing ACL resumes its stabilizing role, and the hardware can be removed beginning 6 months after surgery without adverse consequences for joint stability.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Case-control study, Level III.

Acute Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture: Repair or Reconstruction? Two-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Contemporary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) suture repair techniques have been subject to renewed interest in recent years. Although several clinical studies have yielded good short-term results, high-quality evidence is lacking in regard to the effectiveness of this treatment compared with ACL reconstruction.

HYPOTHESIS

Dynamic augmented ACL suture repair is at least as effective as anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction for the treatment of acute ACL rupture in terms of patient self-reported outcomes at 2 years postoperatively.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

After stratification and randomization, 48 patients underwent either dynamic augmented ACL suture repair or ACL reconstruction with a single-bundle, all-inside, semitendinosus technique. The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score at 2 years postoperatively was the primary outcome measure. Patient-reported outcomes (IKDC subjective score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Tegner score, visual analog scale for satisfaction), clinical outcomes (IKDC physical examination score, leg symmetry index for the quadriceps, hamstrings strength, and jump test battery), and radiological outcomes as well as adverse events including reruptures were recorded. Analyses were based on an intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

The lower limit for the median IKDC subjective score of the repair group (86.2) fell within the prespecified noninferiority margin, confirming noninferiority of dynamic augmented ACL suture repair compared with ACL reconstruction. No statistical difference was found between groups for median IKDC subjective score (repair, 95.4; reconstruction, 94.3). Overall, 2 reruptures (8.7%) occurred in the dynamic ACL suture repair group and 4 reruptures (19.0%) in the ACL reconstruction group; further, 5 repeat surgeries-other than for revision ACL surgery-took place in 4 patients from the dynamic ACL suture repair group (20.8%) and in 3 patients from the ACL reconstruction group (14.3%).

CONCLUSION

Dynamic augmented ACL suture repair is not inferior to ACL reconstruction in terms of subjective patient-reported outcomes as measured with the IKDC subjective score 2 years postoperatively. However, for reasons other than revision ACL surgery due to rerupture, a higher number of related adverse events leading to repeat surgery were seen in the dynamic augmented ACL suture repair group within 2 years postoperatively.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Dynamic augmented ACL suture repair might be a viable treatment option for patients with an acute ACL rupture.

REGISTRATION

NCT02310854 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Dynamic intraligamentary stabilization for ACL repair: a systematic review

PURPOSE

It was the aim to assess all published original research dealing with dynamic repair of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and to provide a semi-quantitative analysis of clinical outcome reports.

METHODS

Both OVIS and MEDLINE databases were utilized for allocation of articles. All preclinical and clinical studies related to dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) were identified. Results were tabulated and semi-quantitative analysis performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-three articles related to DIS were identified. The predominant level of evidence ranged between II and IV, with only one level I study. Reported failure rates ranged between 4% and 13.6%. Most clinical studies only reported revision rates without referring to failure of restoring stability. Highest success was achieved with proximal ACL ruptures. Both the level of physical activity and  patient age have been found to influence the risk of failure.

CONCLUSION

There is sufficient evidence to support that DIS repair may be an effective modality for the treatment of acute proximal tears of the ACL. However, comparative studies are lacking. Upcoming studies should compare the technique to ACL reconstruction with failure as an endpoint. Comparison to rigid methods of proximal fixation is also necessary to justify the need for dynamic fixation. Overall, there is evidence to suggest the potential space for ACL repair in the decision tree for individualized treatment planning. The best outcome will be in the hands of the best patient selectors.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Improved results of ACL primary repair in one-part tears with intact synovial coverage

PURPOSE

It was the aim to assess the influence of synovial sheath disruption on early failure of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair. It was hypothesized that more-part ACL tears with disruption of the synovial sheath are associated with a higher risk of failure after primary ACL repair.

METHODS

A cohort study was conducted comprising patients with primal ACL tears undergoing primary ACL repair and dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS). The patients were stratified into three groups: A-one-part rupture with intact synovial membrane (n = 50), B-two-part ruptures resultant to separation of the ACL into two main bundles with synovial membrane tearing (n = 52) and C-more parts involving multilacerated ruptures with membrane disruption (n = 22). Failure was defined as a retear or residual laxity (anterior posterior translation > 5 mm compared to healthy knee). Adjustment for potential risk factors was performed using a multivariate logistic-regression model.

RESULTS

The overall failure rate was 17.7% throughout the mean follow-up period of 2.3 ± 0.8 years. The failure rate in patients with one-part ACL tears with an intact synovial membrane was 4% (n = 2) (Group A), which was significantly lower than the failure rates in groups B and C, 26.9% (n = 14) (p = 0.001) and 27.3% (n = 6) (p = 0.003), respectively. Disruption of the synovial sheath in two- or more-part tears was identified as an independent factor influencing treatment failure in primary ACL repair (OR 8.9; 95% CI 2.0-40.0).

CONCLUSION

The integrity of the ACL bundles and synovial sheath is a factor that influences the success of ACL repair. This needs to be considered intra-operatively when deciding about repair.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Surgeon experience with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization does not influence risk of failure

PURPOSE

Studies on dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) of acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures reported failure rates similar to those of conventional ACL reconstruction. This study aimed to determine whether surgeon experience with DIS is associated with revision rates or patient-reported outcomes. The hypothesis was that more experienced surgeons achieved better outcomes following DIS due to substantial learning curve.

METHODS

The authors prospectively enrolled 110 consecutive patients that underwent DIS and evaluated them at a minimum of 2 years. The effects of independent variables (surgeon experience, gender, age, adjuvant procedures, tear location, preinjury Tegner score, time from injury to surgery, and follow-up) on four principal outcomes (revision ACL surgery, any re-operation, IKDC and Lysholm score) were analyzed using univariable and multivariable regressions.

RESULTS

From the 110 patients enrolled, 14 patients (13%) were lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 96 patients, 11 underwent revision ACL surgery, leaving 85 patients for clinical assessment at a mean of 2.2 ± 0.4 years (range 2.0-3.8). Arthroscopic reoperations were performed in 26 (27%) patients, including 11 (11%) revision ACL surgeries. Multivariable regressions revealed: (1) no associations between the reoperation rate and the independent variables, (2) better IKDC scores for 'designer surgeons' (b = 10.7; CI 4.9-16.5; p < 0.001), higher preinjury Tegner scores (b = 2.5, CI 0.8-4.2; p = 0.005), and younger patients (b = 0.3, CI 0.0-0.6; p = 0.039), and (3) better Lysholm scores for 'designer surgeons' (b = 7.8, CI 2.8-12.8; p = 0.005) and preinjury Tegner score (b = 1.9, CI 0.5-3.4; p = 0.010).

CONCLUSION

Surgeon experience with DIS was not associated with rates of revision ACL surgery or general re-operations. Future, larger-scaled studies are needed to confirm these findings. Patients operated by 'designer surgeons' had slightly better IKDC and Lysholm scores, which could be due to better patient selection and/or positively biased attitudes of both surgeons and patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prospective comparative study.

Anterior cruciate ligament repair - past, present and future

Background

This article provides a detailed narrative review on the history and current concepts surrounding ligamentous repair techniques in athletic patients. In particular, we will focus on the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) as a case study in ligament injury and ligamentous repair techniques. PubMed (MEDLINE), EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases for papers relating to primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were searched by all participating authors. All relevant historical papers were included for analysis. Additional searches of the same databases were made for papers relating to biological enhancement of ligament healing.

Current standard

The poor capacity of the ACL to heal is one of the main reasons why the current gold standard surgical treatment for an ACL injury in an athletic patient is ACL reconstruction with autograft from either the hamstrings or patella tendon. It is hypothesised that by preserving and repairing native tissues and negating the need for autograft that primary ACL repair may represent a key step change in the treatment of ACL injuries.

History of primary ACL repair

The history of primary ACL repair will be discussed and the circumstances that led to the near-abandonment of primary ACL repair techniques will be reviewed.

New primary repair techniques

There has been a recent resurgence in interest with regards to primary ACL repair. Improvements in imaging now allow for identification of tear location, with femoral-sided injuries, being more suitable for repair. We will discuss in details strategies for improving the mechanical and biological environment in order to allow primary healing to occur.

In particular, we will explain mechanical supplementation such as Internal Brace Ligament Augmentation and Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilisation techniques. These are novel techniques that aim to protect the primary repair by providing a stabilising construct that connects the femur and the tibia, thus bridging the repair.

Bio enhanced repair

In addition, biological supplementation is being investigated as an adjunct and we will review the current literature with regards to bio-enhancement in the form platelet rich plasma, bio-scaffolds and stem cells. On the basis of current evidence, there appears to be a role for bio-enhancement, however, this is not yet translated into clinical practice.

Conclusions

Several promising avenues of further research now exist in the form of mechanical and biological augmentation techniques. Further work is clearly needed but there is renewed interest and focus for primary ACL repair that may yet prove the new frontier in ligament repair.

ACL suturing using dynamic intraligamentary stabilisation showing good clinical outcome but a high reoperation rate: a retrospective independent study

PURPOSE

Most of the clinical outcome studies dealing with ACL repair are from the developer's perspective. It is a fact that these developer-initiated studies tend to interpret the results rather in favour than against their developed technique or product. Hence, it was the purpose of the present independent investigator-initiated study to investigate the clinical and radiological outcomes as well as failure rate of patients who underwent an ACL suture using dynamic intraligamentary stabilisation device in a specialised independent knee clinic.

METHODS

A retrospective study was performed on prospectively collected data of 26 patients (28 ± 9 years, range 18-50 years; male/female = 17:9) who underwent biologically augmented ACL suture using dynamic intraligamentary stabilisation. Mean time from ACL injury was 15 ± 5 days (range 4-25 days). In addition, in seven (27%) patients a medial meniscus refixation and in four (15%) patients a lateral meniscus refixation was done for associated meniscal lesions. All patients were clinically and radiologically followed up at 6 weeks, 3 and 12 months after ACL surgery using the Tegner and Lysholm score as well as IKDC score. Adverse events such as ACL failure, arthrofibrosis, pain > 3 on a visual analogue scale as well as the need and type of revision surgery were noted.

RESULTS

Four patients (15%) suffered from an ACL retear due to another adequate trauma during follow-up time. In six patients (23%), an arthrofibrosis (extension deficit of > 10° or flexion deficit > 20°) was noted. In five of those six patients, an arthroscopic arthrolysis was performed. Three patients also complained about pain VAS > 3. In nine (35%) patients, superfluous ACL scar tissue and the DIS device including the polyethylene suture and the DIS screw were removed, and in another two (8%) patients, the DIS screw only was removed. In two patients, a partial meniscectomy was performed due to a non-healed meniscal suture. The median Tegner score was 8 (range 6-10) before injury and 7 (range 3-10) at last follow-up (p < 0.001). The mean Lysholm score before surgery was 28 ± 14 and 94 ± 11 at last follow-up (p < 0.001). At last follow-up, 14 patients (66%) showed a normal total IKDC score (A) and 4 patients (19%) were nearly normal (B) and 2 patients (10%) were slightly abnormal (C) and one patient (5%) was entirely abnormal (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

ACL suturing using the dynamic intraligamentary stabilisation device showed satisfying clinical results at 12-month follow-up. However, a retear rate of 15% and a reoperation rate of 35% due to retear or arthrofibrosis appear rather high. These results highlight the importance of adequate patient selection and the delicacy of the surgical procedure.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective case series, Level IV.