ACL rupture in the immediate build-up to the Olympic Games: return to elite alpine ski competition 5 months after injury and ACL repair

Rate of Revision Surgery and Associated Risk Factors After Primary Arthroscopic ACL Repair With Additional Suture Augmentation

Background

Recent studies have suggested promising patient-reported outcomes after primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair with additional suture augmentation (SA).

Purpose

To evaluate the risk for revision surgery and identify patient- and injury-related risk factors after ACL repair with SA in a large patient cohort subject to strict patient selection.

Study Design

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

Included were 86 patients (61 female; 93% follow-up rate) who underwent arthroscopic ACL repair with SA between January 2017 and March 2019 by a single surgeon and had a minimum follow-up of 24 months. Patients were selected for surgery with regard to time to surgery (preferably on the day of injury), tear pattern (limited to Sherman types 1 and 2), and tissue quality (intact synovial coverage). Postoperatively, the patients who needed revision surgery were identified and compared with patients who did not undergo revision surgery, using the Mann-Whitney U test for nonparametric analysis and the Student t test for parametric analysis. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to investigate the survival rate of the ACL repair.

Results

A total of 9 patients (10%; median age, 48 years; interquartile range [IQR], 27-50 years) underwent revision surgery at 12 months postoperatively (IQR, 8-25 months). The median follow-up of patients without revision surgery was 35 months (IQR, 33-44 months). The revision-free survival rate was 97% (95% CI, 93%-100%) after 1 year, 93% (95% CI, 88%-98%) after 2 years, and 90% (95% CI, 83%-97%) after 4 years. Patient-related factors-such as sex (P = .98), age at surgery (P = .459), body mass index (P = .352), and preinjury level of sports (P = .53)-had no significant impact on the survival rate of the ACL repair. Injury-related factors-such as concomitant injuries of the medial (P = .860) and lateral menisci (P = .414) and the medial (P = .801) and lateral collateral ligaments (P = .534) or same-day surgery compared with a delay of surgery of up to 18 days (P = .277)-had no significant impact on the survival rate of the ACL repair.

Conclusion

The revision rate of primary ACL repair with SA at a 2-year follow-up was 10%. Patient- and injury-related factors were not associated with the survival rate of the ACL repair.

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.

Comparison of Primary Repair of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Anterolateral Structures to Reconstruction and Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis at 2-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Lateral extra-articular procedures have been effective in reducing graft rupture rates after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR), but the evidence supporting their role in ACL repair is sparse.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of ACLR and lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) (ACLR+LET) against combined repair of the ACL and anterolateral (AL) structures (ACL+AL Repair). It was hypothesized that patients undergoing ACL+AL Repair would have noninferior clinical and radiological outcomes with respect to International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, knee laxity parameters, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) characteristics. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that patients undergoing repair would have significantly better Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) values and shorter times to return to the preinjury level of sport, without any increase in the rate of ipsilateral second ACL injury.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

Consecutive patients evaluated with an acute ACL tear were considered for study eligibility. ACLR+LET was only performed when intraoperative tear characteristics contraindicated ACL repair. Patient-reported outcome measures such as the IKDC score, Lysholm score, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS); reinjury rates; anteroposterior side-to-side laxity difference; and MRI characteristics were reported at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The noninferiority study was based on the IKDC subjective score; side-to-side anteroposterior laxity difference; and signal-to-noise quotient (SNQ). The noninferiority margins were defined using the existing literature. An a priori sample size calculation was performed using the IKDC subjective score as the primary outcome measure.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients (47 ACLR+LET, 53 ACL+AL Repair) with a mean follow-up of 25.2 months (range, 24-31 months) were enrolled and underwent surgery within 15 days of injury. At the final follow-up, the differences between groups with respect to the IKDC score, anteroposterior side-to-side laxity difference, and SNQ did not exceed noninferiority thresholds. ACL+AL Repair was associated with a shorter time to return to the preinjury level of sport (ACL+AL Repair: mean, 6.4 months; ACLR+LET: mean, 9.5 months; P < .01), better FJS-12 values (ACL+AL Repair: mean, 91.4; ACLR+LET: mean, 97.4; P = .04), and a higher proportion of patients achieving the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for the KOOS subdomains studied (Symptoms: 90.2% vs 67.4%, P = .005; Sport and Recreation: 94.1% vs 67.4%, P < .001; Quality of Life: 92.2% vs 73.9%, P = .01). There were no significant differences between groups with respect to ipsilateral second ACL injury rates (ACL+AL Repair group, 3.8% and ACLR+LET group, 2.1% [n = 1]; P = .63).

CONCLUSION

ACL+AL Repair yielded clinical outcomes that were noninferior to (or not significantly different from) ACLR+LET with respect to IKDC subjective, Tegner activity level, and Lysholm scores; knee laxity parameters; graft maturity; and rates of failure and reoperation. However, there were significant advantages of ACL+AL Repair, including a shorter duration of time to return to the preinjury level of sport, better FJS-12 values, and a higher proportion of patients achieving PASS for KOOS subdomains studied (Symptoms, Sport and Recreation, Quality of Life).

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.

Perceived Kinesiophobia and Its Association with Return to Sports Activity Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Surgery: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background: The knee joint is one of the most important joints in terms of its functions of providing great stability, movement and weight bearing. Among the contributors to knee joint stability, there is the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). Kinesiophobia is said to be the fear of movement or the fear of re-injury. Kinesiophobia is the most extreme form of fear of movement, and it is defined as an excessive, irrational, and debilitating fear of physical movement and activity resulting from a feeling of vulnerability to painful injury or re-injury. Aim: To estimate the prevalence and effect of kinesiophobia among patients with ACL reconstruction in the Aseer region, in southern Saudi Arabia. Methodology: A descriptive cross-sectional approach was used involving those patients who underwent ACL reconstruction surgery in Aseer Central Hospital during the period of October 2017 to October 2019. The Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK) and ACL-Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI) scale were used to determine kinesiophobia and the readiness to return to sport after ACL injury or reconstructive surgery. Result: The research included 130 ACL reconstruction patients with ages ranging from 18 to 45 years with a mean age of 27.2 + 7.5 years. More than 97% of the participants were males. In 67.7% of the cases, the right leg was affected. A total of 10.8% of the patients recorded a low level of kinesiophobia, while only 6.9% recorded a high level. Conclusions: In conclusion, the study revealed that among patients who underwent ACL reconstruction, kinesiophobia was at a moderate level. Kinesiophobia was recorded more among middle-aged patients who waited a long time from the onset of injury until the ACL reconstruction surgery time.

Clinical Results of Combined ACL and Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction: A Narrative Review from the SANTI Study Group

Lateral extraarticular procedures (LEAPs) in the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-injured knee were widely abandoned in the 1990s but have seen a recent resurgence. The aim of this review was to demonstrate that anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) is associated with evidence of significant advantages and no evidence of historical concerns. A narrative review of the literature was performed. Combined ACL + ALLR is associated with improved outcomes when compared against isolated ACL reconstruction, including a significantly lower risk of ACL graft rupture (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.327, 95% CI: 0.130-0.758), a significantly lower risk of reoperation for secondary meniscectomy following medial meniscal repair at the time of ACL reconstruction (HR: 0.443, 95% CI: 0.218-0.866), significantly increased likelihood of return to the preinjury level of sport following primary (odds ratio [OR]: 1.938, 95% CI: 1.174-3.224) and revision ACL reconstruction (57.1 vs. 25.6%, respectively; p = 0.008), and in chronic ACL injuries, less residual pivot shift (9.1 vs. 35.3%, p = 0.011), and better IKDC (92.7 ± 5.9 vs. 87.1 ± 9.0, p = 0.0013) and Lysholm (95.4 ± 5.3 vs. 90.0 ± 7.1, p < 0.0001) scores, and no evidence of historical concerns. Combined ACLR + ALLR is associated with excellent clinical outcomes with no evidence of the adverse events that led to the historical widespread abandonment of other types of LEAP. Specifically, comparative series have demonstrated significant advantages of ALLR when compared against isolated ACLR with respect to reduced rates of ACL graft rupture, secondary meniscectomy, persistent instability, and significantly improved functional outcomes and improved return to sport metrics.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Retensioning-A Novel Revision Procedure Using Suture Augmentation: A Case Report With A 3-Year Follow-up

CASE

We report the case of a 44-year-old woman with previous anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction 25 years ago in the right knee, who sustained a bucket-handle medial meniscus tear after pain and instability while pivoting during tennis. Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated an intact but vertical and anterior ACL graft. A novel ACL retensioning procedure with suture augmentation (SA) was performed as the revision procedure. Excellent clinical outcomes and knee stability were obtained at both 17 and 36 months postoperatively.

CONCLUSIONS

In certain cases, ACL retensioning with SA may be performed as the revision procedure for unsuccessful primary ACL reconstruction.

Patients Forget About Their Operated Knee More Following Arthroscopic Primary Repair of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Than Following Reconstruction

PURPOSE

To assess the extent to which patients forget their operative knee joint on a daily basis following arthroscopic primary repair as compared with reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) at short- to mid-term follow-up.

METHODS

For this retrospective study, all patients undergoing ACL surgery between May 2012 and May 2017 were identified. All patients were treated with the algorithm of undergoing arthroscopic primary repair for proximal tears and reconstruction for nonrepairable tears. Patients were contacted to complete the Forgotten Joint Score-12 questionnaire between 2 and 5 years following surgery. A greater score represents a more favorable outcome indicating the patient's ability to "forget" the joint in everyday life, whereas lower scores indicate a less-favorable outcome. Data were analyzed using independent t-tests and χ2 tests, and multiple linear regression analysis was performed to correct for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients completed the questionnaire (57%). Patients who underwent primary repair thought about their operated knee less when compared with those patients who underwent reconstruction (85.3 ± 14.2 vs 74.3 ± 23.3, P = .022). These differences were significantly greater in patients older than 30 years (85.3 ± 12.9 vs 62.6 ± 24.9, P = .007), male patients (85.0 ± 13.6 vs 72.5 ± 24.7, P = .037), and patients with a body mass index greater than 25 (85.9 ± 14.5 vs 64.7 ± 25.6, P = .009). After we corrected for potential confounders, the overall difference remained significant (P = .045).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the data in this study, patients undergoing arthroscopic primary ACL repair can expect to have less daily awareness of their operated knee at short- to mid-term follow-up as compared with patients undergoing ACL reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective comparative study, level III.

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.