Changes in gait pattern and early functional results after ACL repair are comparable to those of ACL reconstruction

Editorial Commentary: Noninferiority of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair With Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization at Short- to Mid-Term Follow-Up Does Not Justify Superseding Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction as the "Gold Standard" for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery

With advances in surgical technology, including the introduction of some kind of mechanical augmentation, there has been a resurgence of interest in primary repair of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). If successful, ACL repairs may provide several advantages over reconstruction resulting from the preservation of the native anatomy and proprioception. Recently, augmentation of ACL repair using dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) has been proposed, to create an optimal biomechanical environment for healing. In the DIS technique, an additional nonresorbable cord is placed along the ACL and attached to a dynamic spring fixed in the proximal tibia, keeping the tibia in a posterior drawer position at every degree of flexion. The analyzed randomized controlled trials comparing ACL repair with DIS to ACL reconstruction found overall similar failure and revision rates, whereas the few observed statistically significant differences in functional scores or knee stability favoring either of the techniques were clearly not clinically relevant. Of course, repair of a torn ACL should be limited to a specific subset of patients presenting with an acute femoral avulsion tear with minimal retraction and good tissue quality. However, the present short- to mid-term results do not justify ACL reconstruction to be superseded by ACL repair with DIS as the "gold standard" for surgical treatment of ACL tears in the future, even in this subset of patients.

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.

Acute anterior cruciate ligament rupture: can repair become an alternative to reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies

PURPOSE

To perform a meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair and ACL reconstruction for acute ACL rupture.

METHOD

We searched Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases to seek relevant studies. Clinical outcomes included failure rate, hardware removal rate, anteroposterior (AP) knee laxity, and patient-reported outcomes. In addition, subgroup analysis was carried out according to repair techniques, rupture locations, and study designs. Funnel plots were used to detect publication bias. All statistical analysis was performed using STATA (version 14.2, StataCorp).

RESULTS

A total of 10 articles were included in this study, comprising 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 cohort studies, involving a total of 549 patients. We found no statistical differences between the ACL repair and ACL reconstruction in the following outcomes: failure rate, AP knee laxity, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome (KOOS) Score, and Tegner score. However, the ACL repair group had a higher hardware removal rate. Except for AP knee laxity results on different repair techniques, there was no statistical difference in other subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSION

Compared with ACL reconstruction, ACL repair shows similar results in clinical outcomes, and it is promising to be an effective alternative treatment for acute ACL rupture. Larger samples and higher-quality studies are needed to support our results and further explore the advantages of ACL repair in other aspects.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Leads to Improved Patient-Reported Outcomes Compared to Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Introduction Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears occur frequently in young athletes, and ligament repair and reconstruction are surgical treatments. Although there are suggested benefits for both approaches, there is a lack of direct comparisons between ACL repair and reconstruction.This study aims to compare the mid-term functional outcomes and quality of life measures between patients that have undergone ACL repair versus reconstruction. Methods A retrospective review was conducted for demographic and operative report data of patients who underwent an ACL repair or reconstruction between 2012 and 2018. Patients were contacted over the phone and underwent a Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) survey evaluating pain interference, mobility, and function. Patients were excluded from the study if there was an incomplete operative note, missing contact information, or failure to answer phone calls. Results A total of 74 eligible patients were included, with n = 54 in the ACL reconstruction group (73.0%) and n = 20 in the ACL repair group (27.0%). Reconstruction patients had a PROMIS (median (IQR)) physical function score of 22.50 (16.00-59.00), as compared to repair patients' physical function score of 60.00 (21.50-60.00). There was a significant difference favoring repair (p = 0.040). In addition, ACL reconstruction patients had a significantly higher rate of additional procedures, with 63.0% of reconstruction patients receiving an additional operation as compared to 30.0% of repair patients (p = 0.017). The surgery type did not show a significant effect on physical function scores, while additional procedures remained significant in the linear regression analysis. Conclusion Although ACL repair is associated with improved physical function scores as compared to reconstruction in the univariate analysis, surgery type did not show significance when controlling for other variables. Further studies are necessary to compare patients with similar injuries to account for differences in additional procedures, but the results remain promising in assisting with patient-driven treatment decisions.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Modern Augmented ACL Repair and Autograft ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Studies With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

Background

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been the gold standard for primary ACL rupture since the 1990s. In the past decade, ACL repair has received renewed attention and increased research.

Purpose

To compare the clinical outcomes of modern augmented ACL repair versus autograft reconstruction for ACL ruptures.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

A search of the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted for prospective or retrospective comparative studies published between January 1, 2010, and January 3, 2023, with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and methodological quality assessment. Sensitivity analysis was performed to maintain the stability of results.

Results

Nine studies were included (minimum follow-up period, 24-60 months). The total sample size was 833 patients (augmented repair group: 358 patients; autograft ACL reconstruction group: 475 patients). There were 4 randomized controlled trials (level 1), 1 prospective comparative study (level 2), 2 retrospective comparative studies (level 3), and 2 case-control studies (level 3). The augmented ACL repair group attained significantly higher Lysholm score (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14-3.01; P = .03) and hamstring strength (WMD = 36.69; 95% CI, 29.07-44.31; P < .01) but had higher rates of hardware removal (odds ratio [OR] = 6.30; 95% CI, 2.44-16.23; P = .0001), reoperation (OR = 1.87; 95% CI, 1.33-2.62; P = .0003), and failure (OR = 1.58; 95% CI, 1.03-2.43; P = .0003) compared with the autograft ACL reconstruction group. No significant differences were observed between the repair and reconstruction groups regarding postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee scores, Tegner scores, knee laxity, satisfaction, ACL revisions, complications, and reoperation rather than revision.

Conclusion

Augmented ACL repair was associated with higher rates of reoperation, hardware removal, and failure compared with autograft ACL reconstruction in studies with minimum 2-year follow-up data. However, augmented ACL repair had higher Lysholm scores and hamstring strength versus autograft ACL reconstruction.

Anterior cruciate ligament repair versus reconstruction: A clinical, MRI and patient-reported outcome comparison

BACKGROUND

There has been a resurgence in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair for proximal tears using modern surgical techniques and technology. This study aims to compare ACL repair with reconstruction using MRI, clinician-measured and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

A post-hoc analysis was performed on prospectively collected data from 20 consecutive primary ACL repairs by the senior author. This was compared with an age and sex-matched cohort of 20 ACL reconstructions by the same surgeon using PROMs, return-to-sport (RTS) testing, and MRI signal noise quotient (SNQ).

RESULTS

Repairs demonstrated equivalent post-operative PROMs to reconstructions as measured by International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score (78.5 ± 17.1 vs. 83.7 ± 13.3, P = 0.333), Tegner Activity Scale (5.9 ± 1.8 vs. 6.1 ± 2.6, P = 0.646) and Lysholm score (89.8 ± 10.0 vs. 89.6 ± 10.4, P = 0.762). There was no difference in repairs and reconstructions passing quadriceps strength criteria (50% vs. 53%, P = 0.097). A greater proportion of repairs passed hamstrings strength criteria (86% vs. 60%, P = 0.023) and hamstrings-to-quadriceps ratio (71% vs. 20%, P = 0.003). There were no differences across hop and Y-balance testing. Repairs had earlier RTS assessment (8.2 ± 2.8 months vs. 10.6 ± 1.4 months, P = 0.020). On 12-month MRI, repairs demonstrated higher femoral (8.8 ± 5.7 vs. 4.6 ± 2.9, P = 0.009) and tibial SNQ (10.0 ± 5.7 vs. 4.3 ± 4.2, P = 0.001), with no mid-substance difference (12.3 ± 8.5 vs. 7.6 ± 5.2, P = 0.074). There were no graft failures.

CONCLUSIONS

When patient selection is optimized for proximal tears, ACL repairs demonstrate equivalent PROMs and better objective outcomes to reconstructions at an earlier timepoint. Repair tissue quality on MRI shows higher signal at tibial and femoral attachments.

Reduced knee laxity and failure rate following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction compared with repair for acute tears: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears, both repair and reconstruction may be performed to restore joint biomechanics and proprioception. The present study compared joint laxity, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and rate of failure following primary repair versus reconstruction for ACL ruptures.

METHODS

This meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Pubmed, Google scholar, Embase, and Web of Science were accessed in September 2022. All the clinical investigations comparing repair versus reconstruction for primary ACL tears were accessed. Studies reporting data on multiple ligament injuries settings were not eligible.

RESULTS

Data from eight articles (708 procedures) were collected. The mean length of the follow-up was 67.3 ± 119.4 months. The mean age of the patients was 27.1 ± 5.7 years. Thirty-six percent (255 of 708 patients) were women. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 24.3 ± 1.1 kg/m². The mean time span from injury to surgery was 36.2 ± 32.3 months. There was comparability at baseline with regards to instrumental laxity, Lachman test, International Knee Document Committee (IKDC), and Tegner Scale (P > 0.1). Similarity between ACL reconstruction and repair was found in IKDC (P = 0.2) and visual analog scale (VAS) satisfaction (P = 0.7). The repair group demonstrated greater mean laxity (P = 0.0005) and greater rate of failure (P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

ACL reconstruction may yield greater joint stability and lower rate of failure compared with surgical repair. Similarity was found in PROMs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Continuous data capture of gait and mobility metrics using wearable devices for postoperative monitoring in common elective orthopaedic procedures of the hip, knee, and spine: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Surgical procedures involving the hip, knee, or spine represent a majority of orthopaedic procedures performed electively in the health care system. Postoperative care is a key aspect of surgery and mobilisation without injury is the primary objective. Recent advances in wearable technologies allow objective evaluation of walking metrics to inform and guide postoperative care following orthopaedic surgery.

PURPOSE

The aim of this scoping review is to explore current applications of wearable devices, objective data capture and gait analysis in monitoring postoperative recovery following commonly performed elective orthopaedic procedures of the hip, knee and spine.

METHODS

A search against pre-defined criteria was performed on the following scientific databases from date of inception to February 28th, 2021: Medline (via OvidSP), Embase (via OvidSP) and Cochrane Library (via CENTRAL). Data were collected according to a predetermined checklist including study participants, surgery, wearable device (model), sensor location, and monitoring parameters such as mobility metrics, monitoring timepoints and monitoring duration for each study included in our review. Quality was assessed independently using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS).

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first review of wearable monitoring (of postoperative recovery) following hip, knee and spine surgery. Patients undergoing elective orthopaedic procedures may benefit from wearable monitoring of their walking health and mobility metrics.

Ambulatory knee biomechanics and muscle activity 2 years after ACL surgery: InternalBraceTM-augmented ACL repair versus ACL reconstruction versus healthy controls

BACKGROUND

Little is known about knee mechanics and muscle control after augmented ACL repair. Our aim was to compare knee biomechanics and leg muscle activity during walking between the legs of patients 2 years after InternalBraceTM-augmented anterior cruciate ligament repair (ACL-IB) and between patients after ACL-IB and ACL reconstruction (ACL-R), and controls.

METHODS

Twenty-nine ACL-IB, 27 sex- and age-matched ACL-R (hamstring tendon autograft) and 29 matched controls completed an instrumented gait analysis. Knee joint angles, moments, power, and leg muscle activity were compared between the involved and uninvolved leg in ACL-IB (paired t-tests), and between the involved legs in ACL patients and the non-dominant leg in controls (analysis of variance and posthoc Bonferroni tests) using statistical parametric mapping (SPM, P < 0.05). Means and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of differences in discrete parameters (DP; i.e., maximum/minimum) were calculated.

RESULTS

Significant differences were observed in ACL-IB only in minimum knee flexion angle (DP: 2.4°, CI [-4.4;-0.5]; involved > uninvolved) and maximum knee flexion moment during stance (-0.07Nm/kg, CI [-0.13;-0.00]; involved < uninvolved), and differences between ACL-IB and ACL-R only in maximum knee flexion during swing (DP: 3.6°, CI [0.5;7.0]; ACL-IB > ACL-R). Compared to controls, ACL-IB (SPM: 0-3%GC, P = 0.015; 98-100%, P = 0.016; DP: -6.3 mm, CI [-11.7;-0.8]) and ACL-R (DP: -6.0 mm, CI [-11.4;-0.2]) had lower (maximum) anterior tibia position around heel strike. ACL-R also had lower maximum knee extension moment (DP: -0.13Nm/kg, CI [-0.23;-0.02]) and internal knee rotation moment (SPM: 34-41%GC, P < 0.001; DP: -0.03Nm/kg, CI [-0.06;-0.00]) during stance, and greater maximum semitendinosus activity before heel strike (DP: 11.2%maximum voluntary contraction, CI [0.1;21.3]) than controls.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest comparable ambulatory knee function 2 years after ACL-IB and ACL-R, with ACL-IB showing only small differences between legs. However, the differences between both ACL groups and controls suggest that function in the involved leg is not fully recovered and that ACL tear is not only a mechanical disruption but also affects the sensorimotor integrity, which may not be restored after surgery. The trend toward fewer abnormalities in knee moments and semitendinosus muscle function during walking after ACL-IB warrants further investigation and may underscore the importance of preserving the hamstring muscles as ACL agonists.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, case-control study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04429165 (12/06/2020).

Favorable Patient-Reported, Clinical, and Functional Outcomes 2 Years After ACL Repair and InternalBrace Augmentation Compared With ACL Reconstruction and Healthy Controls

BACKGROUND

Recently, interest in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) preservation and repair after proximal ACL tears has been resurrected. Although good clinical outcomes have been reported in the literature with adequate patient selection, to date detailed scientific evidence for the functional benefit of primary ACL repair with ligament augmentation is scarce.

PURPOSE

To compare patient-reported, clinical, and functional outcomes in patients 2 years after ACL repair and InternalBrace augmentation (ACL-IB) with age- and sex-matched patients 2 years after ACL reconstruction (ACL-R) and with matched healthy controls.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

In total, 29 patients 2 years after ACL-IB, 27 sex- and age- matched patients 2 years after ACL-R (hamstring autografts), and 29 matched healthy controls were included. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the International Knee Documentation Committee score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, EQ-5D-5L, Tegner Activity Scale, and Anterior Cruciate Ligament Return to Sports after Injury scale. Surgery time was recorded. For clinical outcomes, range of motion and thigh and shank circumference were measured, and passive anterior translation was determined using the Rolimeter. Isokinetic muscle strength was measured using a Biodex dynamometer. The limb symmetry index (operated/contralateral or nondominant/dominant × 100), side-to-side differences (operated - contralateral, nondominant - dominant), and hamstring-quadriceps ratios were calculated for functional parameters. Failure and reoperation rates were not compared.

RESULTS

Two years after surgery, patients treated with ACL-IB showed good to excellent patient-reported outcomes comparable with those of patients after ACL-R. Surgery time, including concomitant surgeries, was significantly shorter in the ACL-IB group (mean, 81 minutes) compared with the ACL-R group (mean, 97 minutes) (P = .024). Isokinetic muscle strength was comparable between patient groups without significant differences in extensor and flexor strength or in hamstring-quadriceps ratios.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that ACL-IB achieves comparable patient-reported, clinical, and functional outcomes with ACL-R at 2 years postoperatively and, after careful patient selection, should be considered as a valuable early treatment alternative for proximal ACL tears.

REGISTRATION

NCT04429165 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Functional leg performance 2 years after ACL surgery: a comparison between InternalBrace™-augmented repair versus reconstruction versus healthy controls

BACKGROUND

While clinical and patient-reported outcomes have been investigated in patients after InternalBrace™-augmented anterior cruciate ligament repair (ACL-IB), less is known regarding restoration of functional performance. We aimed to determine differences in functional performance within and between patients 2 years after ACL-IB, patients 2 years after ACL reconstruction (ACL-R), and healthy controls.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 29 ACL-IB, 27 ACL-R (hamstring autograft), and 29 controls performed single-leg hop (maximum forward distance hop, SLH; side hop > 40 cm in 30 s, SH), proprioception (knee joint position sense at 30° and 60° flexion), and dynamic postural balance (Y Balance) tests. Differences were calculated within groups (side-to-side difference) and between the involved leg of patients and the non-dominant leg of controls, and were evaluated to predefined statistical (P < 0.05), clinically relevant, and methodological (smallest detectable change) thresholds. The number of exceeded thresholds represented no (0), small (1), moderate (2), or strong (3) differences. In addition, the relative number of participants achieving leg symmetry (≥ 90%) and normal performance (≥ 90% of the average performance of the non-dominant leg of controls) were compared between groups (chi-squared tests, P < 0.05).

RESULTS

We observed no-to-moderate leg differences within ACL-IB (moderate difference in hops) and within ACL-R (moderate difference in knee proprioception), no leg differences between patient groups, no-to-small leg differences between ACL-IB and controls, and no leg differences between ACL-R and controls in functional performance. However, two patients in ACL-IB and ACL-R, respectively, passed the hop pretest only with their uninvolved leg, and fewer patients after ACL-IB and ACL-R than controls reached a leg symmetry and normal leg performance of controls in SLH (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Functional performance seems to be comparable 2 years postoperatively between ACL-IB and ACL-R for a specific subgroup of patients (i.e., proximal ACL tears, moderate activity level). However, the presumed advantage of comparable functional outcome with preserved knee structures after augmented ACL repair compared with ACL-R, and the tendency of both patient groups toward leg asymmetry and compromised single-leg hop performance in the involved legs, warrants further investigation. Level of Evidence Level III, case-control study. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04429165 (12/09/2020). Prospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04429165 .

Computational assessment on the impact of collagen fiber orientation in cartilages on healthy and arthritic knee kinetics/kinematics

BACKGROUND

The inhomogeneous distribution of collagen fiber in cartilage can substantially influence the knee kinematics. This becomes vital for understanding the mechanical response of soft tissues, and cartilage deterioration including osteoarthritis (OA). Though the conventional computational models consider geometrical heterogeneity along with fiber reinforcements in the cartilage model as material heterogeneity, the influence of fiber orientation on knee kinetics and kinematics is not fully explored. This work examines how the collagen fiber orientation in the cartilage affects the healthy (intact knee) and arthritic knee response over multiple gait activities like running and walking.

METHODS

A 3D finite element knee joint model is used to compute the articular cartilage response during the gait cycle. A fiber-reinforced porous hyper elastic (FRPHE) material is used to model the soft tissue. A split-line pattern is used to implement the fiber orientation in femoral and tibial cartilage. Four distinct intact cartilage models and three OA models are simulated to assess the impact of the orientation of collagen fibers in a depth wise direction. The cartilage models with fibers oriented in parallel, perpendicular, and inclined to the articular surface are investigated for multiple knee kinematics and kinetics.

FINDINGS

The comparison of models with fiber orientation parallel to articulating surface for walking and running gait has the highest elastic stress and fluid pressure compared with inclined and perpendicular fiber-oriented models. Also, the maximum contact pressure is observed to be higher in the case of intact models during the walking cycle than for OA models. In contrast, the maximum contact pressure is higher during running in OA models than in intact models. Additionally, parallel-oriented models produce higher maximum stresses and fluid pressure for walking and running gait than proximal-distal-oriented models. Interestingly, during the walking cycle, the maximum contact pressure with intact models is approximately three times higher than on OA models. In contrast, the OA models exhibit higher contact pressure during the running cycle.

INTERPRETATION

Overall, the study indicates that collagen orientation is crucial for tissue responsiveness. This investigation provides insights into the development of tailored implants.

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.

Early outcomes of primary repair versus reconstruction for acute anterior cruciate ligament injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Contemporary techniques for repair of acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture have been receiving renewed interest recently because of reports of good outcomes.

METHODS

A literature search of PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Only RCTs published in English and comparing clinical outcomes of ACL repair versus reconstruction were included. Outcomes were evaluated using the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, visual analog scale pain score, anterior laxity, Lachman test, hop tests, knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score, extension deficit, revision rate, and re-rupture rate. Statistical analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.4 and Stata 14.0. Two-tailed P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Four RCTs (with a total of 293 patients) that met the eligibility criteria were included in this review. Over short-term follow-up, none of the studies found significant differences between the repair groups and reconstruction groups with respect to International Knee Documentation Committee, Lysholm, Tegner, visual analog scale, anterior laxity, Lachman test, re-rupture rate, extension deficit, and performance of 3 hop tests (P > .05). In both groups, the hop tests scores were >90%.

CONCLUSION

ACL repair and ACL reconstruction appear to provide comparable short-term outcomes. The low revision rate after primary repair is encouraging. For patients with ACL injury, current repair techniques such as dynamic intraligamentary stabilization and bridge-enhanced ACL repair may be an effective alternative to reconstruction.

Factors Influencing Treatment Outcome and Proprioception after Electrocoagulation of the Femoral Insertion of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament

(1) Background: Studies have established that exercises shaping the sense of deep sensation are an important element of medical rehabilitation of patients after vaporization of the femoral insertion of the anterior cruciate ligament and affect the restoration of correct movement patterns, thus reducing the risk of injuries. The aim of this study was to determine the factors influencing the treatment outcome and deep-feeling function after applying a specific rehabilitation scheme 12 weeks after anterior cruciate ligament electrocoagulation surgery. (2) Methods: The study group consisted of 41 patients after partial rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament, who underwent electrocoagulation of the femoral cruciate ligament attachment and microfracture of the femoral attachment area. All patients were operated on by the same surgeon and then rehabilitated according to the same medical rehabilitation protocol. The anthropometric and clinical data were collected through an anterior drawer test, Lachman test, assessment of the range of movements in the knee joint, muscle strength test, Unterberger test and Lysholm questionnaire. The assessment was performed before the surgery, and then on days 7-10, after 6 and 12 weeks of rehabilitation treatment. (3) Results: Statistical improvement of the parameters was demonstrated by strength of the quadriceps and hamstrings muscle, the Unterberger test, and the Lysholm scale after surgery. A negative correlation was found between the Unterberger test and Lysholm scale at the end of the research period and it differed depending on the gender and the dominant limb. The Lysholm scale and muscle strength were independent of sex, dominant extremity and associated damage of the meniscus and cartilage. The Lysholm scale 6 weeks after surgery negatively correlated with BMI. (4) Conclusions: Stability of the knee joint and improvement of proprioception were demonstrated 12 weeks after treatment with an ACL electrocoagulation and rehabilitation regimen. The factors contributing to a better treatment outcome were greater muscle strength, less thigh asymmetry, better sense of depth, younger age and lower body weight.

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.

Collagen wrapping and local platelet-rich fibrin do not improve the survival rates of ACL repair with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization: a retrospective case series after ≥5 years postoperatively

PURPOSE

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair has been recommended as a treatment principle for ACL tears. Several authors have advocated a potential role for primary repair techniques in the ACL decision tree. However, long-term results have been controversial. This study aims to determine the survival of the primarily repaired ACL after dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) with and without augmentation.

METHODS

Between 2014 and 2019, 102 patients with isolated proximal ACL ruptures underwent DIS repair within 21 days from injury and were available for follow-up either clinically or telephonically after ≥5 years postoperatively. In 45 cases, DIS repair was augmented with collagen fleece wrapping, platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) or both. Failure was defined as traumatic re-rupture or conversion to ACL reconstruction. The patients being available for physical examination underwent a.-p. stability measurement with a KT-1000 device. Functional outcome was measured with the IKDC, Tegner and Lysholm scores. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, Log-Rank Test and Binominal logistic regression were performed.

RESULTS

After a minimum 5-year follow-up, 71/102 (69.6%) DIS repairs were not re-reptured and clinically and/or subjectively stable. Augmentation did not improve survival rates (p = 0.812). The identified factors influencing failure were a younger age and a pre-injury Tegner activity level of ≥7. 95.7% of those patients with an intact ACL repair had normal or near normal knee function based on the IKDC scoring system.

CONCLUSIONS

The 5-year overall survival rate of DIS was 69.6%. Collagen fleece wrapping and local PRF application did not improve survival. Patients not suffering failure of repair demonstrated high satisfaction. Nevertheless, the results are inferior to those of established ACL reconstruction procedures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Case series, Level IV.

Biological enhancement methods may be a viable option for ACL arthroscopic primary repair - A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Bioactive factors combined with advanced anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) primary repair technology have been used to treat ACL repairs. The current review was conducted to identify whether biological enhancement could enable superior clinical outcome, including side-to-side difference, failure rate, reoperation rate and subjective scores.

HYPOTHESIS

The implementation of ACL primary repair with biological enhancement will provide better clinical outcomes in terms of side-to-side differences, failure rate, reoperation rate and subjective scores than ACL primary repair alone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed following PRISMA guidelines by searching all studies reporting outcomes of arthroscopic primary repair with or without biological augmentation published until April 19, 2020, in Medline, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Primary metrics were side-to-side differences, failure rate and reoperation rate, as well as measurements of patient-reported outcomes at the last follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 20 studies were finally included in this work, of which 3 were Grade I (15%), 3 studies were Grade III (15%), and 14 studies were Grade IV (70%) in terms of the level of evidence. There were 729 patients with a mean age of 30 (range: 8-68) years, and the mean follow-up period of which was 38 (range: 3-122) months. At the final follow-up, the postoperative side-to-side differences (the proportion of patients with a side-to-side difference less than 3mm) and patient-report outcomes were significantly better in the biological enhancement group. Nevertheless, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the rate of surgical failure, the rate of revision, or the positive Lachman test or pivot shift test.

CONCLUSION

Biologically enhanced arthroscopic ACL primary repair was superior to ACL primary repair alone in terms of postoperative side-to-side differences (proportion of patients with a side-to-side difference less than 3mm) and patient-reported outcomes. Thus, biologically enhanced arthroscopic ACL primary repair can be preferentially recommended over ACL arthroscopic primary repair alone.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, systematic review.

Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Versus Autograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies

Purpose

To compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair and autograft ACL reconstruction for ACL ruptures.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies from 1 January 1990 to 21 March 2022. Two evaluators independently screened the literature, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the enrolled studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software.

Results

Ten studies with mean follow-up periods from 12 to 36 months were included. For 638 patients with ACL ruptures, arthroscopic ACL repair showed statistically comparable outcomes of failure (p = 0.18), complications (p = 0.29), reoperation other than revision (p = 0.78), Lysholm score (p = 0.78), Tegner score (p = 0.70), and satisfaction (p = 0.45) when compared with autograft ACL reconstruction. A significantly higher rate of hardware removal (p = 0.0008) but greater International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score (p = 0.009) were found in the ACL repair group. The heterogeneity of the side-to-side difference of anterior tibial translation (ΔATT) was high (I 2 = 80%). After the sensitivity analysis, the I 2 decreased dramatically (I 2 = 32%), and the knees with ACL repair showed significantly greater ΔATT (P = 0.04).

Conclusion

For proximal ACL ruptures, arthroscopic ACL repair showed similar clinical outcomes, and even better functional performance when compared to autograft ACL reconstruction. ACL repair has a higher rate of hardware removal, and might be related to greater asymptomatic knee laxity. More high-quality prospective trials are needed to confirm our findings.

RetroBRACE: clinical, socioeconomic and functional-biomechanical outcomes 2 years after ACL repair and InternalBrace augmentation in comparison to ACL reconstruction and healthy controls-experimental protocol of a non-randomised single-centre comparative study

INTRODUCTION

Despite good clinical outcomes reported in the literature, to date, scientific evidence for the functional and biomechanical benefit of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair with augmentation is scarce. We present an experimental protocol for a detailed multimodal (clinical, socioeconomic, functional and biomechanical) comparative study in patients after primary ACL repair and InternalBrace augmentation, patients after ACL reconstruction and healthy controls.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this non-randomised single-centre comparative study with prospective data collection with three arms (patients 2 years after ACL repair and InternalBrace augmentation; patients 2 years after ACL reconstruction using hamstring autografts; and healthy controls), 30 participants per study arm will be included. The study is designed as non-inferiority study with three arms. Required sample size was estimated based on data reported in the literature on muscle strength, proprioception and balance parameters, resulting in at least 28 participants per group. Outcome parameters include patient-reported outcome measures (EQ-5D-5L, Tegner Activity Scale, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), International Knee Documentation Committee and ACL-Return to Sports Injury Scale), socio-economic parameters, anterior tibial translation, range of motion and functional-biomechanical data of the lower extremities. Functional-biomechanical parameters include proprioception, isokinetic muscle strength, single-leg balance, walking, running and single-leg hops with additional lower extremity 3D joint kinematics and kinetics and muscle activity. These parameters will be compared between limbs in patients, between groups and to the current literature.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The results of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international conferences. Ethical approval was obtained by the regional ethics board (Ethics Committee Northwest Switzerland EKNZ 2020-00551), and the study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov.Trial registration numberNCT04429165.

Efficacy of repair for ACL injury: a meta‑analysis of randomized controlled trials

We aim to compare the curative effect of primary repair for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury with reconstruction and provide the reliable evidence for its clinical application. The literatures were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Springer, and other medical literature databases published between January 1970 and June 2021. Basic characteristics, surgery technique, clinical outcome scores and physical examination results were recorded and evaluated. Seven randomized controlled trials (RCT) were eligible for inclusion. The results showed that there were no statistically significant differences between arthroscopic ACL repair and ACL reconstruction for Tegner, Lysholm, Lachman, KT-1000, range of motion (ROM), functional outcomes and reoperation rate (P > 0.05), even the result of IKDC scores showed that arthroscopic repair was better than reconstruction (P = 0.04). However, through the subgroup analysis, it was found that the short-term follow-up results of arthroscopic ACL repair were indeed better than those of open ACL repair. Therefore, we can assume that the arthroscopic ACL repair technique is an optional and promising surgical method to treat ACL injury.

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.

Kinetic measurement system use in individuals following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a scoping review of methodological approaches

Purpose

Our primary objectives were to (1) describe current approaches for kinetic measurements in individuals following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and (2) suggest considerations for methodological reporting. Secondarily, we explored the relationship between kinetic measurement system findings and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Methods

We followed the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews and Arksey and O’Malley’s 6-stage framework. Seven electronic databases were systematically searched from inception to June 2020. Original research papers reporting parameters measured by kinetic measurement systems in individuals at least 6-months post primary ACLR were included.

Results

In 158 included studies, 7 kinetic measurement systems (force plates, balance platforms, pressure mats, force-measuring treadmills, Wii balance boards, contact mats connected to jump systems, and single-sensor insoles) were identified 4 main movement categories (landing/jumping, standing balance, gait, and other functional tasks). Substantial heterogeneity was noted in the methods used and outcomes assessed; this review highlighted common methodological reporting gaps for essential items related to movement tasks, kinetic system features, justification and operationalization of selected outcome parameters, participant preparation, and testing protocol details. Accordingly, we suggest considerations for methodological reporting in future research. Only 6 studies included PROMs with inconsistency in the reported parameters and/or PROMs.

Conclusion

Clear and accurate reporting is vital to facilitate cross-study comparisons and improve the clinical application of kinetic measurement systems after ACLR. Based on the current evidence, we suggest methodological considerations to guide reporting in future research. Future studies are needed to examine potential correlations between kinetic parameters and PROMs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40634-021-00397-0.

Arthroscopy Primary Double-Bundle Repair of Anterior Cruciate Ligament With Internal Brace Augmentation and a Knotless Anchor Implant

The primary repair technique of acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears has been controversially discussed over the past few decades. Many different suture techniques have been reported for ACL repair, but these procedures showed high re-rupture rates and poor results. Recently, the literature has reported excellent outcomes with primary ACL repair. There has been a resurging interest in modernizing and augmenting primary ACL repair. This article describes a technique that uses internal brace augmentation and a knotless anchor (Arthrex) implant for primary anatomic double-bundle ACL repair after an acute proximal ACL tear. This technique aims to advocate natural healing by the high-strength internal brace augmentation and knotless anchor as a provisional scaffold during the healing phase and early mobilization. This technique might be an alternative to conventional ACL reconstruction in the appropriate selection of patients.

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.

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).

Biomechanical Evaluation of Preoperative Rehabilitation in Patients of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury

Objectives

To investigate the biomechanical characteristics of patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury by gait analysis, surface electromyography (SEMG), and proprioception test, and provide rehabilitation suggestions according to the results.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, 90 adults with unilateral ACL injury, ranging in age from 19 to 45 years (66 men and 24 women, average age: 30.03 ± 7.91) were recruited for this study form May 2018 to July 2019. They were divided into three groups according to the time after the injury: group A (3‐week to 1.5‐month), group B (1.5‐month to 1 year), and group C (more than 1 year). The SEMG signals were collected from the bilateral rectus femoris (RF), vastus medialis (VM), and vastus lateralis (VL) and the root mean square (RMS) were used to assess muscular activity. SEMG were used to analyze muscles function, gait analysis was used to evaluate the walking stability, balance and location assessment were used to analyze the proprioception.

Results

Through the comparison between bilateral limbs, all muscles strength shown decreased (RF: 239.94 ± 129.70 vs 364.81 ± 148.98, P = 0.001; VM: 298.88 ± 175.41 vs 515.79 ± 272.49, P = 0.001; VL:389.54 ± 157.97 vs 594.28 ± 220.31, P < 0.001) and the division of proprioception became larger (tandem position: 7.79 ± 1.57 vs 6.33 ± 1.49, P = 0.001; stance with one foot: 8.13 ± 0.84 vs 7.1 ± 0.57, P = 0.003; variance of 30°: 6.96 ± 3.15 vs 4.45 ± 1.67, P = 0.03; variance of 60°: 4.64 ± 3.38 vs 2.75 ± 1.98, P = 0.044) in the injured side when compared to the non‐injured and 26 gait parameters were shown difference in group A. In group B, the muscle strength of VL shown decreased (VL: 381.23 ± 142.07 vs 603.9 ± 192.72, P < 0.001) and the division of location of 30° became larger (7.62 ± 4.98 vs 4.33 ± 3.24, P = 0.028) in the injured side when compared to the non‐injured side and there were eight gait parameters that showed differences. In group C, the muscle strength and proprioception showed no differences and only 16 gait parameters showed differences between the bilateral limbs.

Conclusion

The results proved the deterioration of proprioception in 30° of injured side will not recover and non‐injury side and will become worse after 1 year from the injury; among the VL, VM, and RF, the recovery rate of VL is the slowest and bilateral straight leg raising (SLR) (30°) is the best way to train it; the gait stability will be worse after 1 year from the injury. Therefore, we suggest that the training for proprioception in 30° and VL are important for the rehabilitation, and the ACL reconstruction should be performed within 1 year.

Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair: A Systematic Review from the Scientific Anterior Cruciate Ligament Network International Study Group

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review of contemporary studies reporting clinical outcomes of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair to determine whether these studies demonstrate any significant benefit of ACL repair and whether there is evidence of a deterioration of mid-term outcomes as seen in historical data.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. A PubMed search using the keywords "repair" AND "Anterior Cruciate Ligament" was performed (limits: English language, publication date between January 1, 2014, and January 13, 2019). All identified studies reporting clinical outcomes of arthroscopic ACL repair were included. Critical appraisal was conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Clinical Trials and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies. Basic parameters of each study including population characteristics, repair technique, physical examination findings, and clinical outcome scores were recorded and evaluated.

RESULTS

Nineteen eligible studies were identified (including 5 comparative studies). None of the comparative studies showed any significant difference between repair and reconstruction groups with respect to International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, Tegner, side-to-side laxity difference, Lachman, pivot shift tests, or graft rupture rates. Four non-comparative studies reported outcomes at medium- to long-term follow up (range of mean follow up 43.3-79 months) with a mean Lysholm score between 85.3 and 100, mean IKDC subjective score between 87.3 and 100, and mean Tegner activity score between 5 and 7.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparative studies identified no significant differences between ACL repair and reconstruction with respect to Lysholm, IKDC, side-to-side laxity difference, pivot shift grade, or graft rupture rates. However, these studies had major limitations including small numbers and short durations of follow up. Case series demonstrated that excellent outcomes can be achieved at medium- to long-term follow up with the SAR technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; Systematic review of Level II to IV investigations.

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.

Primary Arthroscopic Repair of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament: A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes

PURPOSE

To describe the clinical outcomes after primary arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair.

METHODS

A systematic review of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. All English-language literature published from 2000 to 2018 that reported the clinical outcomes after primary arthroscopic repair (AR) of complete tear of the ACL (without augmentation) with a minimum 2-year follow-up was reviewed by 2 independent reviewers. Outcomes included repair failure, reoperation, postoperative knee stability, and patient-reported outcomes. Descriptive statistics are presented. Study quality was evaluated with the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS) and the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) score.

RESULTS

Six studies (2 level III, 4 level IV) were included. The mean MCMS was 62.2. The mean MINORS score for noncomparative studies was 11.8, and for comparative studies, 18. Six studies reported outcomes of 89 patients who underwent AR of the ACL from 2007 to 2016 (age, 8 to 67 years; follow-up, 24 to 110 months). All 6 studies included exclusively proximal avulsion tears. Overall, 0% to 25.0% of patients experienced repair failure (I² = 23.7%; 95% confidence interval, 0% to 67.6%), and 0% to 20.0% of patients had a subsequent reoperation (I² = 12.1%; 95% confidence interval, 0% to 77.7%). Similar inconsistent results were shown for postoperative knee stability measures and patient-reported outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature on clinical outcomes of primary arthroscopic ACL repair is limited. The reported rates of repair failure and reoperation are highly inconsistent. Most studies report relatively high failure rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, systematic review of level III and IV studies.

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.

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.

High complication rate following dynamic intraligamentary stabilization for primary repair of the anterior cruciate ligament

PURPOSE

New strategies for dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) in the primary repair of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures are currently under debate. It has been proposed that these might serve as alternative techniques to conventional ACL reconstruction procedures using tendon autografts. The aims of the present investigation were to evaluate the functional results and critically assess the complication rate following primary ACL repair with DIS and to review existing reports of favourable clinical results with the method in relation to knee joint stability and patient satisfaction.

METHODS

Fifty-nine patients received dynamic intraligamentary stabilization a mean of 14 days after ACL rupture. Fifty-seven patients (96.6%, male:female = 37:20; mean age 27.6 years) were available for follow-up examinations including the Tegner activity level, anteroposterior stability in comparison with the uninjured knee, subjective satisfaction, and range of knee motion. Complications after 3 and 12 months were also analyzed. Associated lesions requiring surgical measures were found in 30 patients.

RESULTS

A statistically significant decrease in Tegner activity levels was detected between the preoperative status (median 7) and the 12-month follow-up (median 5). The overall complication rate was 57.9%, including rerupture or non-healing (n = 10, 17.5%), repeat arthroscopy (n = 13, 22.8%) as a result of meniscus tears (n = 2, 15.4%), cyclops syndrome (n = 4, 30.8%) or restricted range of motion (n = 7, 53.8%), arthrofibrosis (n = 3, 5.3%), and implant interference (n = 7, 12.3%). Anteroposterior KT-1000 stability of 3 mm or below was achieved in 29 (50.9%) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The DIS procedure does not appear to be appropriate for providing predictable results in a young and active cohort of patients following ACL rupture, as it has an unacceptably high complication rate and leads to residual anteroposterior knee joint laxity of 3 mm or more in 28 (49.1%) of cases.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV (prospective case series).

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.

Dynamic augmentation restores anterior tibial translation in ACL suture repair: a biomechanical comparison of non-, static and dynamic augmentation techniques

PURPOSE

There is a lack of objective evidence investigating how previous non-augmented ACL suture repair techniques and contemporary augmentation techniques in ACL suture repair restrain anterior tibial translation (ATT) across the arc of flexion, and after cyclic loading of the knee. The purpose of this work was to test the null hypotheses that there would be no statistically significant difference in ATT after non-, static- and dynamic-augmented ACL suture repair, and they will not restore ATT to normal values across the arc of flexion of the knee after cyclic loading.

METHODS

Eleven human cadaveric knees were mounted in a test rig, and knee kinematics from 0° to 90° of flexion were recorded by use of an optical tracking system. Measurements were recorded without load and with 89-N tibial anterior force. The knees were tested in the following states: ACL-intact, ACL-deficient, non-augmented suture repair, static tape augmentation and dynamic augmentation after 10 and 300 loading cycles.

RESULTS

Only static tape augmentation and dynamic augmentation restored ATT to values similar to the ACL-intact state directly postoperation, and maintained this after cyclic loading. However, contrary to dynamic augmentation, the ATT after static tape augmentation failed to remain statistically less than for the ACL-deficient state after cyclic loading. Moreover, after cyclic loading, ATT was significantly less with dynamic augmentation when compared to static tape augmentation.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to non-augmented ACL suture repair and static tape augmentation, only dynamic augmentation resulted in restoration of ATT values similar to the ACL-intact knee and decreased ATT values when compared to the ACL-deficient knee immediately post-operation and also after cyclic loading, across the arc of flexion, thus allowing the null hypotheses to be rejected. This may assist healing of the ruptured ACL. Therefore, this study would support further clinical evaluation of dynamic augmentation of ACL repair.

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.