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

Return to Soccer After Acute Anterior Cruciate Ligament Primary Repair: A 2-Year Minimum Follow-up Study of 50 Amateur Players

BACKGROUND

Return to sport (RTS) after treatment of an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear is a critical parameter to assess the outcome of a surgical procedure. However, few studies have investigated RTS after ACL repair.

PURPOSE

To evaluate RTS of a group of amateur soccer players at a minimum follow-up of 2 years after ACL repair.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients treated with acute ACL repair was conducted. A total of 50 amateur soccer players were included in the study. Patients were examined clinically or contacted to complete postoperative patient-reported outcome measures, namely the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, the International Knee Documentation Committee questionnaire, the ACL-Return to Sport After Injury scale, and the Forgotten Joint Score-12.

RESULTS

The patients' mean age was 25.8 ± 7.7 years (range, 14-47 years), and the mean follow-up was 34.3 ± 10.7 months (range, 24-51.3 months). The median Tegner Activity Scale score was 9. The ACL repair failure rate was 16% (8/50). The mean time from repair to failure was 23.1 ± 12.7 months (range, 6-44 months), and the mean age of patients who sustained ACL repair failure was 19.9 ± 3.3 years (range, 14-24 years), significantly lower compared with patients who did not experience ACL repair failure (26.9 ± 7.9 years; range, 16-47 years; P = .017). Multivariate analysis showed that age ≤21 years was the only significant risk factor for ACL repair failure (odds ratio, 5.45; confidence interval, 1.24-27.91; P = .041). Excluding the 8 patients who experienced repair failure, 31 of 42 patients (73.8%) returned to soccer after ACL repair, with 29 of the 31 (93.5%) returning at their preinjury level of play. Moreover, patients who played competitive soccer and returned to their preinjury level of play were significantly younger than those who did not return to their preinjury level of play (mean, 21.1 ± 3.4 vs 29.2 ± 9.5 years, respectively; P = .002) and had significantly better ACL-Return to Sport After Injury scores (mean, 96.6 ± 4 vs 87.8 ± 11, respectively; P = .044).

CONCLUSION

In this study, 73.8% (n = 31) of patients returned to playing soccer, of whom 93.5% (n = 29) returned to their preinjury level after ACL repair. The failure rate was 16% (n = 8) and mainly involved patients ≤21 years old.

Arthroscopic Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Primary Repair Restores Anterior Tibial Translation Intraoperatively at Time Zero With No Additional Effect of Suture Augmentation

PURPOSE

To intraoperatively evaluate the ability of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) primary repair (ACLPR) to restore anterior tibial translation (ATT) at time zero and to assess the influence of additional suture augmentation (SA) on ATT.

METHODS

Patients with proximal ACL tears undergoing arthroscopic ACLPR with dual-suture anchor fixation were included in this time-zero clinical study. Laxity measurements were taken with a digital arthrometer to evaluate ATT stability preoperatively in the office (T0) as a standardized diagnostic tool, preoperatively under anesthesia (T1), at time zero intraoperatively after ACLPR but prior to SA fixation (T2), and after SA fixation (T3).

RESULTS

A total of 27 patients (mean age ± standard deviation [SD], 35.1 ± 12.0 years) with proximal ACL tears and significant preoperative (T0) ATT side-to-side differences (SSDs) (mean ± SD, 4.1 ± 1.5 mm) were evaluated. ACLPR was shown to restore ATT SSD at time zero (mean ± SD, 0.2 ± 1.1 mm) given that a significant reduction in ATT SSD (mean difference ± standard error, -4.7 ± 0.21 mm; P < .001) was achieved when comparing preoperative and intraoperative measurements after separate refixation of both ACL bundles with suture anchors. Additional SA fixation did not further decrease ATT when comparing measurements of the ipsilateral leg after ACL refixation and after SA fixation (mean difference ± SD, 0.03 ± 0.22 mm; P = .496).

CONCLUSIONS

ACLPR with dual-suture anchor fixation restores time-zero ATT laxity in adults with proximal ACL tears. Additional SA fixation in full knee extension does not further decrease ATT.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study provides important information about the effectiveness of ACLPR in restoring ATT. SA with the knee fixed in full knee extension does not further decrease ATT; therefore, augmentation may not lead to overconstraint of the knee or stress shielding of the repaired ACL.

Technique and Outcomes of Posterior Cruciate Ligament Repair With Augmentation

Background

Posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injuries to the knee are uncommon, and ideal surgical management of these injuries is unclear. Current surgical techniques include PCL reconstruction with remnant debridement, remnant-preserving techniques, and primary PCL repair. Augmentation of PCL repairs and reconstructions has been proposed to protect repairs or grafts in the postoperative period.

Purpose

To describe PCL repair with the hamstring autograft augmentation technique and examine our preliminary midterm outcomes from a sequential cohort of patients.

Study Design

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

The authors identified patients at their institution who underwent remnant-preserving primary PCL repair with hamstring autograft augmentation for both isolated tears and tears associated with multiligament knee injury (MLKI). Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated at a minimum 2-year follow-up using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee form, the 12-item Short Form Survey, and a custom return-to-play questionnaire. Patient-reported outcomes data were summarized, and the predictors of outcomes from the descriptive data and clinical measures were further examined.

Results

A total of 23 patients with a mean follow-up of 5.3 years met the inclusion criteria. Of these patients, 87% were associated with MLKI. The mean IKDC score was 87.7. Approximately 83% of patients were able to successfully return to their sport or occupation. Among 19 athletes, only 2 reported being unable to return to their preinjury level of sport because of limitations from their PCL surgery. Patient-reported outcome scores and return to sport or occupation did not have a statistically significant association with age, sex, body mass index, time from injury to surgery, or follow-up time.

Conclusion

Outcomes of our cohort with remnant-preserving primary PCL repairs with hamstring autograft augmentation demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes to previously published PCL data. The advantages of remnant preservation, primary repair, and augmentation with an independent hamstring autograft reconstruction are combined within this technique.

Suture Tape Augmentation Improves Posterior Stability After Isolated Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Hamstring Tendon Autograft With Single-Bundle Transtibial Technique

PURPOSE

To assess whether posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCLR) with suture tape augmentation can yield more stability after isolated PCLR.

METHODS

A prospective database was retrospectively reviewed to identify patients who underwent primary isolated PCLR (control group) or isolated PCLR with suture tape augmentation (study group) from January 2016 to September 2020. We analyzed subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, and Tegner knee scores; posterior drawer test findings; posterior stress radiographs; and return-to-sports activity rates. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was used to evaluate clinical relevance (subjective IKDC, Lysholm, and Tegner scores).

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients were included in this analysis (28 in control group and 31 in study group). The average length of follow-up was similar between the study and control groups (48.6 months vs 47.9 months, P = .800). Knee function was significantly improved in the study group in terms of subjective IKDC scores (85.1 ± 6.4 in study group vs 79.8 ± 6.4 in control group, P = .002), Lysholm scores (86.3 ± 7.4 vs 80.8 ± 7.4, P = .005), and Tegner scores (7.0 ± 1.4 vs 5.6 ± 1.7, P = .006). However, the differences between the control and study groups were less than the MCID for the subjective IKDC score and Lysholm score. In the control and study groups, 21.4% of patients (6 of 28) and 48.4% of patients (15 of 31), respectively, returned to their preinjury sports activity levels (P = .031). At last follow-up, the mean side-to-side difference in posterior laxity was significantly improved in the study group compared with the control group (1.52 ± 0.70 mm in study group vs 3.17 ± 2.01 mm in control group, P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Primary isolated PCLR with suture tape augmentation provides better posterior stability than PCLR without suture tape augmentation at a minimum of 2 years' follow-up. No differences between the groups were observed in the percentage of patients who met or exceeded the MCID for the subjective IKDC and Lysholm scores.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

There is no difference in the efficacy of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autograft combined with or without ligament augmentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study aims to determine the efficacy of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using autograft combined with or without ligament augmentation.

METHODS

A computerized search of the databases was conducted, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus and the Cochrane Library. Only prospective or retrospective comparative studies with a minimum 2-year follow-up were considered for inclusion. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and methodological quality assessment. A Mantel-Haenszel analysis was used for the pooling of results. Sensitivity analysis was performed to maintain the stability of results. The egger test was applied to assess the publication bias.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included. The total cohort was 1353 patients (non-augmented group: 763 patients; augmented group: 590 patients). There were three Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs, Level I), six retrospective comparative studies (Level III) and five case-control studies (Level III). The follow-up rate was ≥ 88% and the follow-up periods were ≥ 24 months in all included studies. The augmented graft used to compare with autograft included the Ligament Augmentation Device (LAD), the Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System (LARS) artificial ligament, FiberTape, hamstring tendon allograft, degradable poly (urethane urea). No significant differences were observed between the augmented and non-augmented groups regarding postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including the International Knee Documentation Committee score, Lysholm score and Tegner score, knee laxity, including KT-1000, side-to-side difference, Lachman test and pivot shift and rate of graft failure.

CONCLUSIONS

ACLR using autografts combined with ligament augmentation shows no advantages in PROs, knee laxity and graft failure rate compared with using autografts only.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The research protocol was registered at the PROSPERO database (CRD42022324784).

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 .

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.

Ligament augmentation repair is broadly applied across different orthopaedic subspecialities: an ISAKOS international survey of orthopaedic surgeons

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate how ligament augmentation repair (LAR) techniques are currently used in different anatomic regions in orthopaedic sports medicine, and to identify the most common indications and limitations of LAR.

METHODS

We sent survey invitations to 4,000 members of the International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery and Orthopaedic Sports Medicine society. The survey consisted of 37 questions total, with members only receiving some branching questions specific to their area of specialisation. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, and the significance between groups was evaluated using chi-square tests of independence.

RESULTS

Of 515 surveys received, 502 were complete and included for the analysis (97% completion rate). 27% of respondents report from Europe, 26% South America, 23% Asia, 15% North America, 5.2% Oceania, and 3.4% Africa. 75% of all survey respondents report using LAR, most frequently using it for the anterior talofibular ligament ( 69%), acromioclavicular joint ( 58%), and the anterior cruciate ligament (51%). Surgeons in Asia report using LAR the most (80%), and surgeons in Africa the least (59%). LAR is most commonly indicated for additional stability (72%), poor tissue quality (54%), and more rapid return-to-play (47%). LAR users state their greatest limitation is cost (62%), while non-LAR users state their greatest reason not to use LAR is that patients do well without it (46%). We also find that the frequency of LAR use among surgeons may differ based on practice characteristics and training. For example, surgeons who treat athletes at the professional or Olympic level are significantly more likely to have a high annual use of LAR (20+ cases) compared to surgeons that treat only recreational athletes (45% and 25%, respectively, p ​= ​0.005).

CONCLUSION

LAR is broadly applied in orthopaedics but its rate of use is not homogeneous. Outcomes and perceived benefits vary depending on factors such as surgeon specialty and treatment population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V.

Ceiling Effect of the Combined Norwegian and Danish Knee Ligament Registers Limits Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Outcome Prediction

BACKGROUND

Clinical tools based on machine learning analysis now exist for outcome prediction after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Relying partly on data volume, the general principle is that more data may lead to improved model accuracy.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose was to apply machine learning to a combined data set from the Norwegian and Danish knee ligament registers (NKLR and DKRR, respectively), with the aim of producing an algorithm that can predict revision surgery with improved accuracy relative to a previously published model developed using only the NKLR. The hypothesis was that the additional patient data would result in an algorithm that is more accurate.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Machine learning analysis was performed on combined data from the NKLR and DKRR. The primary outcome was the probability of revision ACLR within 1, 2, and 5 years. Data were split randomly into training sets (75%) and test sets (25%). There were 4 machine learning models examined: Cox lasso, random survival forest, gradient boosting, and super learner. Concordance and calibration were calculated for all 4 models.

RESULTS

The data set included 62,955 patients in which 5% underwent a revision surgical procedure with a mean follow-up of 7.6 ± 4.5 years. The 3 nonparametric models (random survival forest, gradient boosting, and super learner) performed best, demonstrating moderate concordance (0.67 [95% CI, 0.64-0.70]), and were well calibrated at 1 and 2 years. Model performance was similar to that of the previously published model (NKLR-only model: concordance, 0.67-0.69; well calibrated).

CONCLUSION

Machine learning analysis of the combined NKLR and DKRR enabled prediction of the revision ACLR risk with moderate accuracy. However, the resulting algorithms were less user-friendly and did not demonstrate superior accuracy in comparison with the previously developed model based on patients from the NKLR alone, despite the analysis of nearly 63,000 patients. This ceiling effect suggests that simply adding more patients to current national knee ligament registers is unlikely to improve predictive capability and may prompt future changes to increase variable inclusion.

Augmentation with Fibertape Leads to Biomechanically Superior but Similar Clinical Outcomes in ACL Surgeries: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Purpose

The current generation has witnessed significant progress in the field of knee arthroscopy. Suture tapes have gained immense popularity due to perceived improved biomechanical support to the graft while it heals. The purpose of the present systematic review is to analyze the biomechanical construct of suture tapes in ACL repairs and reconstructions along with clinical outcomes.

Methods

Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase were searched until December 2021. All Biomechanical Studies on animal or cadaver knees that compared construct characteristics of suture tape in ACL repair or reconstruction and clinical studies in English focusing on outcomes following suture tape augmentation in ACL repair or reconstruction were included. The quality of clinical studies using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS).

Results

A total of 16 studies biomechanical and 23 clinical studies were included in qualitative synthesis, leaving nine biomechanical studies for final quantitative analyses. Suture tape revealed biomechanical superiority in terms of ultimate strength, stiffness, cyclic displacement, and elongation of graft, while comparing ACLR with internal brace to standard ACLR. No significant difference in retear rates was seen in clinical studies. Clinical score(IKDC score) was found similar in both augmented and non-augmented construct. Similar results were obtained in biomechanical studies.

Conclusion

The use of suture tape as a ligament augmentation in both ACL reconstruction and ACL repair offers more strength, less elongation or displacement, and is biomechanically stable and sound. There is a lack of data to comprehensively comment upon the clinical superiority of the use of internal augmentation. However, a meta-analysis of the retear rates and clinical outcome score revealed similar outcomes between suture tape augmented and nonaugmented groups.

Posterior cruciate ligament repair seems safe with low failure rates but more high level evidence is needed: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To discuss recent literature on posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) repair and report on the clinical and radiological outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. In August 2022, three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) were searched for studies on PCL repair by two independent reviewers. Articles published between January 2000 and August 2022 focussing on the clinical and/or radiological outcomes, following PCL repair, were included. Patient demographic data, clinical evaluations, patient‑reported outcome measures, post-operative complications and radiological outcomes were extracted.

RESULTS

Nine studies met the inclusion criteria, covering 226 patients with a mean age ranging from 22.4 to 38.8 years and mean follow-up periods ranging from 14 to 78.6 months. Seven studies (77.8%) were level IV and two studies (22.2%) were level III. Arthroscopic PCL repair was performed in four studies (44.4%) while the remaining five studies (55.6%) described open PCL repair. In four studies (44.4%) additional suture augmentation was applied. Arthrofibrosis affected a combined total of 24 patients (11.7%; range 0-21.0%) making it the most common complication and the overall failure rate was 5.6%, ranging from 0 to 15.8%. Two studies (22.2%) performed post-operative MRI and confirmed PCL healing.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review indicates that PCL repair can be a safe procedure with an overall failure rate of 5.6%, ranging from 0% to 15.8%. However, more high quality research is necessary before widespread clinical implementation is warranted.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Clinical Research Progress of Internal Brace Ligament Augmentation Technique in Knee Ligament Injury Repair and Reconstruction: A Narrative Review

Knee ligament injuries are most common in sports injuries. In general, ligament repair or reconstruction is necessary to restore the stability of the knee joint and prevent secondary injuries. Despite advances in ligament repair and reconstruction techniques, a number of patients still experience re-rupture of the graft and suboptimal recovery of motor function. Since Dr. Mackay's introduction of the internal brace technique, there has been continuous research in recent years using the internal brace ligament augmentation technique for knee ligament repair or reconstruction, particularly in the repair or reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. This technique focuses on increasing the strength of autologous or allograft tendon grafts through the use of braided ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene suture tapes to facilitate postoperative rehabilitation and avoid re-rupture or failure. The purpose of this review is to present detailed research progress in the internal brace ligament enhancement technique of knee ligament injury repair as well as the reconstruction from biomechanical and histological research and clinical studies and to comprehensively assess the value of the application of this technique.

Failure Rates After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair With Suture Tape Augmentation in an Active-Duty Military Population

Background

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair had previously been considered the standard of care for a ruptured ACL; however, ACL reconstruction has became the standard of care because of poor midterm outcomes after ACL repair. Recently, studies have suggested that the treatment paradigm should shift back to ACL repair.

Purpose/Hypothesis

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of ACL repair augmented with suture tape in a high-demand military population. We hypothesized that for proximal ACL avulsions, ACL repair with suture tape augmentation would lead to acceptable failure rates, satisfactory knee stability, excellent functional outcomes, and high rates of return to preinjury activity levels.

Study Design

Case series; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods

Patients who were treated with ACL repair by a single surgeon between March 2017 and June 2019 and who had a minimum of 2 years of follow-up were included. Intraoperatively, all patients first underwent an arthroscopic examination. If an ACL avulsion of the proximal insertion with adequate remaining tissue was visualized, then ACL repair was performed. The primary outcome assessed was ACL repair failure, defined as reruptures or clinical instability requiring revision to ACL reconstruction. Analysis of the risk factors for ACL repair failure was conducted, with age at surgery, sex, body mass index, level of competition, and tobacco use evaluated.

Results

Included were 46 patients (32 male and 14 female; mean age, 28.3 ± 8.4 years) who underwent ACL repair with suture tape augmentation. There were 12 cases of failure (26.1%; 8 male and 4 female). The mean time from injury to surgery in the failure group was 164.1 ± 59.4 days compared to 107.3 ± 98.0 days in the nonfailure group (P = .02). According to multivariate regression analysis, patients aged ≤17 and ≥35 years, elite/competitive/operational patients, and current smokers had a higher chance of ACL repair failure. The mean time to pass a military physical fitness test was 5.0 months. There were no complications other than ACL repair failure.

Conclusion

Primary arthroscopic ACL repair with suture tape augmentation resulted in unacceptably high failure rates at a minimum of 2 years of follow-up in a highly active military population. Age ≤17 and ≥35 years, elite level of competition, time from injury to surgery, and active tobacco use were independent risk factors for ACL repair failure.

Suture Augmentation in Orthopaedic Surgery Offers Improved Time-Zero Biomechanics and Promising Short-Term Clinical Outcomes

Ligament and tendon ruptures have historically been addressed with varying techniques involving either repair or reconstruction. More recently, the potential biomechanical benefits of suture augmentation (SA), also known as internal brace, have attracted substantial attention and helped renew interest in ligament repair surgery. We evaluated the biomechanical and clinical outcomes of SA-based techniques in the following sports medicine procedures: medial ulnar collateral ligament repair of the elbow, thumb collateral ligament repair, anterior cruciate ligament repair, Achilles' tendon repair, and deltoid ligament repair. Published data on the use of SA to augment repairs of the ulnar collateral ligament, thumb collateral ligament, anterior cruciate ligament, Achilles' tendon, and deltoid ligament repair demonstrates improved time-zero biomechanical and promising short to mid-term clinical outcomes. However, surgeons must be wary of potential complications, including joint over-constraint, nerve paresthesia, and infection.

Promising functional outcomes following anterior cruciate ligament repair with suture augmentation

PURPOSE

There has been a renewed interest in the repair of the torn anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). Purpose of this study was to evaluate the functional outcome of arthroscopic ACL repair with additional suture augmentation (SA), hypothesizing that isolated ACL ruptures would yield superior patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) compared to those with concomitant meniscal and/or ligamentous injuries.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of 93 consecutive patients (67 female, median age 42 years) who underwent arthroscopic ACL repair with SA between January 2017 and March 2019 for an acute traumatic ACL tear confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Patients with pre- or intraoperative mid-substance or distal ACL tears and/or poor tissue quality of the ACL remnant were not considered for ACL repair but were scheduled for an ACL reconstruction with a tendon autograft. In patients who underwent ACL repair with SA, the SA construct was proximally stabilized with a flip-button and distally with a suture anchor. Surgery was preferably performed on the day of injury and all surgeries were performed by the same surgeon. Postoperative rehabilitation included partial weight-bearing (20 kg) for 6 weeks and immobilization in a brace limited at 90-degrees of knee flexion for 4 weeks. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were determined using International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Lysholm Score (LS), Tegner Activity Score (TS) and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS). Knee-laxity was assessed using the KT-1000 arthrometer (Med Metrics Corp. Inc., San Diego, USA).

RESULTS

Nine patients underwent revision surgery for a traumatic re-tear (four patients) and chronic instability (five patients) and were excluded from further functional analysis. Functional results of 77 patients (54 female) with a median age of 44 years (IQR 33-51) on the day of surgery were available for follow-up after a median time of 35 months (IQR 33-44). Concomitant injuries were observed in 66 Patients (86%), meniscal injuries in 43 patients (55%) and ligamentous injuries in 50 patients (65%). Median interval from injury to surgery was 1 day (IQR 0-1) with 81% (62/77) of patients being treated within 24 h of injury. The median IKDC was 92 (IQR 86-99), the median LS was 95 (IQR 86-100), the median pre-traumatic TS was 7 (IQR 6-7), the median post-traumatic TS was 6 (IQR 5-7) with a non-significant median difference (TS_Diff) of 0 (IQR 0-1). The median FJS was 95 (IQR 78-98). KT-1000 measurements were available in 34 of 77 patients with a median postoperative laxity compared to the uninjured side of 1 mm (IQR 0-2). Interval from injury to surgery, patients' age, body mass index (BMI), knee laxity and concomitant ligamentous or meniscal injuries had no statistically significant impact on postoperative PROMs (n.s.).

CONCLUSION

Following arthroscopic ACL repair with SA good-to-excellent functional results were observed. However, a failure rate of 10% cannot be neglected and warrants further attention. Concomitant injuries to the meniscus and/or collateral ligaments do not seem to be associated with inferior PROMs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Patient Acceptable Symptom State, and Clinical Outcomes of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Versus Reconstruction: A Matched-Pair Analysis From the SANTI Study Group

BACKGROUND

There has been increasing interest in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair because of theoretical advantages over ACL reconstruction; however, the contemporary literature has failed to provide high-quality evidence to demonstrate these advantages.

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical and functional outcomes of ACL repair versus ACL reconstruction at a minimum follow-up of 2 years.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Patients who underwent ACL repair were propensity matched (based on demographics, time between injury and surgery, knee laxity parameters, presence of meniscal lesions, preoperative activity level, and sport participation), in a 1:1 ratio, to those who underwent ACL reconstruction during the same period. Isokinetic testing was used to evaluate strength deficits at 6 months postoperatively. Knee laxity parameters were evaluated at 12 months. Complications, return to sport, and patient-reported outcome scores were recorded at final follow-up.

RESULTS

In total, 75 matched pairs (150 patients) were evaluated. The repair group had significantly better mean hamstring muscle strength at 6 months compared with the reconstruction group (1.7% ± 12.2% vs -10.0% ± 12.8%, respectively; P < .0001). At a mean final follow-up of 30.0 ± 4.8 months, the repair group had a significantly better mean Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) score compared with the reconstruction group (82.0 ± 15.1 vs 74.2 ± 21.7, respectively; P = .017). Noninferiority criteria were met for ACL repair, compared with ACL reconstruction, with respect to the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee score (86.8 ± 9.0 vs 86.7 ± 10.1, respectively; P < .0001) and side-to-side anteroposterior laxity difference (1.1 ± 1.4 vs 0.6 ± 1.0 mm, respectively; P < .0001). No significant differences were found for other functional outcomes or the pivot-shift grade. There were no significant differences in the rate of return to the preinjury level of sport (repair group: 74.7%; reconstruction group: 60.0%; P = .078). A significant difference was observed regarding the occurrence of ACL reruptures (repair group: 5.3%; reconstruction group: 0.0%; P = .045). Patients who experienced a failure of ACL repair were significantly younger than those who did not (26.8 vs 40.7 years, respectively; P = .013). There was no significant difference in rupture rates between the repair and reconstruction groups when only patients aged >21 years were considered (2.9% vs 0.0%, respectively; P = .157). The minimal clinically important difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds were defined for the ACL repair group. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the repair group achieved the PASS for the FJS-12 compared with their counterparts in the reconstruction group (77.3% vs 60.0%, respectively; P = .034).

CONCLUSION

ACL repair was associated with some advantages over ACL reconstruction including superior hamstring muscle strength at 6 months and significantly better FJS-12 scores. However, the failure rate was significantly higher after ACL repair, and younger patients were particularly at risk.

Primary repair with suture augmentation for proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears: A systematic review with meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the outcomes of arthroscopic primary repair of proximal anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears with suture augmentation in the literature.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane for studies reporting on outcomes of primary repair of proximal ACL tears with suture augmentation between 2015 and 2021. Primary outcomes included failure and reoperation rates, whereas secondary outcomes consisted of functional outcomes. Proportion meta-analysis was performed to assess the overall incidence of failure rates. Outcomes of adults and adolescent were reported separately.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies with 418 patients were included in this study (mean age 32 years, mean follow-up 2.0 years, 49% male). There were no randomized studies and overall grade of recommendation was weak. Overall failure rate for primary repair with suture augmentation was 8% (95% CI 3.9-14.4), but this was higher for younger patients (17%; 95% CI 2.5-63.9) than for older patients (6%; 95% CI 3.8-8.9). The risk for additional reoperations, complications, or hardware removal was low (all <2%), while functional outcomes were good to excellent (all >80% of maximum score).

CONCLUSION

Current literature shows that primary repair with suture augmentation is a reliable treatment option for proximal ACL tears with a failure rate of 8% and good functional outcome scores at short-term follow-up. Although functional outcomes were good irrespective of age, failure rates were higher in young patients (17% vs 6%, respectively). There is a need for high-quality comparative studies with large group of patients to compare these outcomes with ACL reconstruction.

Anterior cruciate ligament repair with internal brace augmentation: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Primary repair of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures has re-emerged as a treatment option for proximal tears, with internal brace augmentation often utilised. The aim of this study is to provide an overview of the current evidence presenting outcomes of ACL repair with internal bracing to assess the safety and efficacy of this technique.

METHODS

All studies reporting outcomes of arthroscopic primary repair of proximal ACL tears, augmented with internal bracing from 2014-2021 were included. Primary outcome was failure rate and secondary outcomes were subjective patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and objective assessment of anteroposterior knee laxity.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included, consisting of 347 patients, mean age 32.5 years, mean minimum follow up 2 years. There were 36 failures (10.4%, CI 7.4% - 14.1%). PROMs reporting was variable across studies. KOOS, Lysholm and IKDC scores were most frequently used with mean scores > 87%. The mean Tegner and Marx scores at follow-up were 6.1 and 7.8 respectively. The mean side to side difference measured for anteroposterior knee laxity was 1.2mm.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review with meta-analysis shows that ACL repair with internal bracing is a safe technique for treatment of proximal ruptures, with a failure rate of 10.4%. Subjective scores and clinical laxity testing also revealed satisfactory results. This suggests that ACL repair with internal bracing should be considered as an alternative to ACL reconstruction for acute proximal tears, with the potential benefits of retained native tissue and proprioception, as well as negating the need for graft harvest.

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.

ACL Repair: A Game Changer or Will History Repeat Itself? A Critical Appraisal

Until the past decade the common thought was that the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) was not able to heal and restore knee stability. In this manuscript a brief review of studies of the developers and the early adaptors of four different modern ACL repair techniques are presented. The present status and considerations for the future of ACL repair and its research are shared. After promising short- to midterm ACL healing results by the developers, the results of the early adaptors show more variety in terms of rerupture and reintervention for other reasons. Risk factors for failure are a young age, high preinjury sports activity level, midsubstance ruptures and impaired integrity of the ACL bundles and the synovial sheath. There is a call for more clinical data and randomized clinical trials. Conclusion: an important finding of the past decade is that the ACL is able to heal and subsequently restabilize the knee. Patient selection is emphasized: the ideal patient is a non-high athlete older than 25 and has an acute proximal one bundle ACL rupture. Further research will have to show if ACL repair could be a game changer or if history will repeat itself.