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

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Results in Similar Patient Reported Outcome Measures as Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Prospective Comparative Studies

PURPOSE

To investigate the patient-reported outcomes (PROs), knee stability, and complications in prospective comparative studies of patients undergoing augmented anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair compared to ACL reconstruction (ACLR).

METHODS

A literature search was performed according to the 2020 PRISMA guidelines. Human clinical studies of level I-II evidence comparing PROs, knee stability and complications following ACL repair and reconstruction were included, and a qualitative analysis was performed. Excluded studies included those lacking reporting outcomes, studies that performed open ACLR or repair, studies published prior to the year 2000 and studies with evidence levels III-IV. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool.

RESULTS

Seven level of evidence I-II studies were retained including 190 ACLR and 221 repairs (75 Bridge-Enhanced ACL Repair (BEAR), 49 Suture Augmentation (SA), and 97 Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization (DIS)). At final follow-up, re-rupture rates varied between 0-14% (BEAR) vs 0-6% (ACLR) and mean side-to-side differences measured using KT-1000 testing ranged from 1.6-1.9mm (BEAR) vs 1.7-3.14mm (ACLR). For DIS vs ACLR, mean anterior tibial translation values at final follow-up were 1.7mm (DIS) vs. 1.4mm (ACLR), and re-rupture rates ranged from 20.8%-29% (DIS) vs. 17%-27.2% (ACLR). For SA vs ACLR, the mean side to side difference ranged from 0.2-0.39mm (SA) vs 0.33-0.4mm (ALCR), while the re-rupture rates were 10% (SA) vs. 0% (ACLR). International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Tegner, Lysholm and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome (KOOS) scores across both cohorts exhibited statistically significant, and comparable improvement, from baseline to final follow-up ranging from 1 to 5 years.

CONCLUSION

Augmented ACL repair results in similar patient reported outcomes measures in comparison to ACL reconstruction. However, augmented ACL repair may be associated with higher rates of failure given re-rupture rates of up to 14%, 29% and 10% for BEAR, DIS and SA, respectively.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II; Systematic review of level I-II studies.

What's in a Name? Defining 'Failure' in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Graft failure, one of the most common outcomes in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction randomized controlled trials, lacks a consensus definition. The purpose of this study was to systematically summarize current practice and parameters in defining anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction graft 'failure'.

RECENT FINDINGS

Forty studies (4466 participants) satisfied the inclusion criteria. Of these, 90% either defined failure formally or referenced the etiology of failure, the remaining 10% used the term failure without referencing the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction graft. Among the included studies, there was a high level of inconsistency between the definitions of graft failure. The extracted data was categorized into broader groups, revealing abnormal knee laxity (80%) and graft re-rupture (37.5%) as the most common parameters incorporated in the definitions of graft failure in high-level randomized controlled trials. This review shows that anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction randomized controlled trials lack a consistent definition for graft failure. A universal definition is vital for clarity in medical practice and research, ideally incorporating both objective (e.g. graft re-rupture) and subjective (e.g. validated questionnaires) parameters. A composite outcome should be established which includes some of the common parameters highlighted in this review. In the future, this review can be used to assist orthopaedic surgeons to establish a formal definition of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction graft 'failure'.

Incidence of Osteoarthritis Between ACL Reconstruction With Different Graft Types and Between ACL Reconstruction and Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Variation in stiffness, fixation methods, and donor-site morbidity after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with different graft types and with anterior cruciate ligament suture repair (ACLSR) can lead to differences in dynamic knee laxity and consequent differences in posttraumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) development.

Purpose

To compare the incidence of PTOA between different graft types used for primary ACLR and between primary ACLR and ACLSR. It was hypothesized that the incidence of PTOA would vary between ACLR with different autografts and allografts and between ACLR and ACLSR.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 1.

Methods

A search of the literature was performed to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing radiographic evidence of PTOA after ACLR between different graft types-hamstring tendon (HT) autograft, bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autograft, quadriceps tendon autograft, and allograft-and between ACLR and ACLSR. The minimum follow-up was 2 years. Study quality was assessed using the modified Coleman Methodology Score. A meta-analysis was performed to determine whether there was a difference in the incidence of PTOA between the different graft types and between ACLR and ACLSR.

Results

Eleven randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis-HT: 440 patients (mean follow-up, 9.7 years); BPTB: 307 patients (mean follow-up, 11.8 years); allograft: 246 patients (mean follow-up, 5 years); ACLSR, 22 patients (5 years). No study reporting the incidence after ACLR with quadriceps tendon was included. The study quality ranged from 70 to 88. The meta-analysis indicated no significant difference in the incidence of PTOA between graft types used for ACLR and between ACLR and ACLSR (risk ratios: HT vs BPTB, 1.05; HT vs allograft, 0.81; BPTB vs allograft, 0.82; HT vs ACLSR, not estimable [P > .05 for all]). The combined number of patients with PTOA in all studies per graft type showed that patients who underwent ACLR with a BPTB autograft had the highest percentage of PTOA (HT, 23.4%; BPTB, 29.6%; allograft, 8.1%; ACLSR, 0%). However, excluding studies with a follow-up <5 years resulted in similar outcomes for patients with an HT autograft and a BPTB autograft.

Conclusion

This meta-analysis reported no difference in the incidence of PTOA between graft types used for ACLR and between ACLR and ACLSR. More research is necessary to make a reliable conclusion about which technique is associated with the lowest incidence of PTOA after ACL surgery.

Anterior cruciate ligament primary repair revision rates are increased in skeletally mature patients under the age of 21 compared to reconstruction, while adults (>21 years) show no significant difference: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of age as a risk factor on the revision rates of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) primary repair (ACLPR), dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) and bridge-enhanced ACL restoration (BEAR) compared to ACL reconstruction (ACLR).

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed for comparative studies comparing outcomes for ACLPR, DIS or BEAR to ACLR. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to assess nondifferentiated and age-differentiated (skeletally mature patients ≤21 and >21 years) ACL revision and reoperation risk, as well as results for subjective outcomes. Methodological study quality was assessed using the Risk of Bias Tool 2.0c and Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies tools.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies (n = 1277) were included. ACLR demonstrated a lower nonage-stratified revision risk at 2 years versus ACLPR, DIS and BEAR, but a similar revision risk at 5 years when compared to DIS. However, an age-stratified analysis demonstrated a significantly increased ACLPR revision risk as compared to ACLR in skeletally mature patients ≤21 years of age (risk ratios [RR], 6.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-33.87, p = 0.03), while adults (>21 years) showed no significant difference between groups (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.25-8.91, n.s.). Furthermore, DIS reoperation rates were significantly higher than respective ACLR rates (RR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.35-3.65, p = 0.002), whereas BEAR (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.41-2.75, n.s.) and ACLPR (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.21-3.09, n.s.) showed no differences. IKDC scores were equivalent for all techniques. However, ACLPR exhibited significantly better FJS (mean difference, 11.93; 95% CI, 6.36-17.51, p < 0.0001) and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Symptoms (mean difference, 3.01; 95% CI, 0.42-5.60, p = 0.02), along with a lower Tegner activity reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

ACLPR in skeletally mature patients ≤21 years of age is associated with up to a six-fold risk increase for ACL revision surgery compared to ACLR; however, adults (>21 years) present no significant difference. Based on the current data, age emerges as a crucial risk factor and should be considered when deciding on the appropriate treatment option in proximal ACL tears.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

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-Here to Stay or History Repeating Itself?

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries continue to be a prevalent concern among athletes and individuals with an active lifestyle. Traditionally, the standard of care for ACL tears has involved surgical reconstruction using autograft or allograft. This article aims to provide an overview of the evolving landscape of primary ACL repair, examining the current evidence, surgical techniques, patient selection criteria, outcomes, and potential future directions in this field.

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.

Clinical Results of Primary Repair Versus Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Contemporary Trials

Background

Primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair has gained renewed interest in select centers for patients with proximal or midsubstance ACL tears. Therefore, it is important to reassess contemporary clinical outcomes of ACL repair to determine whether a clinical benefit exists over the gold standard of ACL reconstruction (ACLR).

Purpose

To (1) perform a meta-analysis of comparative trials to determine whether differences in clinical outcomes and adverse events exist between ACL repair versus ACLR and (2) synthesize the midterm outcomes of available trials.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

The PubMed, OVID/Medline, and Cochrane databases were queried in August 2023 for prospective and retrospective clinical trials comparing ACL repair and ACLR. Data pertaining to tear location, surgical technique, adverse events, and clinical outcome measures were recorded. DerSimonian-Laird random-effects models were constructed to quantitatively evaluate the association between ACL repair/ACLR, adverse events, and clinical outcomes. A subanalysis of minimum 5-year outcomes was performed.

Results

Twelve studies (893 patients; 464 ACLR and 429 ACL repair) were included. Random-effects models demonstrated a higher relative risk (RR) of recurrent instability/clinical failure (RR = 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.57; P = .032), revision ACLR (RR = 1.63; 95% CI, 1.03-2.59; P = .039), and hardware removal (RR = 4.94; 95% CI, 2.10-11.61; P = .0003) in patients who underwent primary ACL repair versus ACLR. The RR of reoperations and complications (knee-related) were not significantly different between groups. No significant differences were observed when comparing patient-reported outcome scores. In studies with minimum 5-year outcomes, no significant differences in adverse events or Lysholm scores were observed.

Conclusion

In contemporary comparative trials of ACL repair versus ACLR, the RR of clinical failure, revision surgery due to ACL rerupture, and hardware removal was greater for primary ACL repair compared with ACLR. There were no observed differences in patient-reported outcome scores, reoperations, or knee-related complications between approaches. In the limited literature reporting on minimum 5-year outcomes, significant differences in adverse events or the International Knee Documentation Committee score were not observed.

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.

Outcomes of RigidFix Cross Pin Fixation in Femoral and Tibial Tunnel for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

OBJECTIVES

There is no clear consensus so far on which fixation method is most favorable for the tibial tunnel in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The purpose of this paper is to investigate the outcome of RigidFix cross pins fixation in the tibial tunnel and to explore the advantages of RigidFix applied both in the femoral and tibial tunnel with hamstring tendon graft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 53 patients (male/female, 45/8) who underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous hamstring tendons between January 2013 and December 2017 at our institute. The participants in group A (n = 36) received anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with RigidFix cross pins fixation in both femoral and tibial tunnels, while those in group B (n = 17) with RigidFix cross pins fixation in the femoral tunnel and Interference screw fixation in the tibial tunnel. The visual analogue scale (VAS) score, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee form 2000 (IKDC2000) score, Lysholm knee scoring scale, Tegner activity score and the side-to-side difference were compared at 2 and 5 years postoperatively. The graft diameter, number of strands in graft and the average diameter of each strand were also compared between the two groups. The categorical parameters were analyzed by chi-square test and the continuous variables conforming to a normal distribution were analyzed by Student's t-test.

RESULTS

At 2 years postoperation, the VAS score (1.61 ± 0.55), side-to-side difference (1.50 ± 0.58) in group A were significantly lower than that in group B, and the IKDC2000 score (88.81 ± 3.88), Tegner activity score (6.14 ± 0.60) in group A were significantly higher than that in group B. At 5 years postoperation, the VAS score (1.64 ± 0.68), side-to-side difference (1.73 ± 0.63) in group A were significantly lower than that in group B, and the IKDC2000 score (89.09 ± 3.85), Tegner activity score (6.58 ± 0.94) in group A were slso significantly higher than that in group B. There was statistical difference in the change of the side-to-side difference between the two groups (group A vs. B, 0.22 ± 0.08 vs. 0.34 ± 0.11, p < 0.001). There were also statistical differences in the graft diameter (group A vs. B, 7.83 ± 0.74 vs. 7.41 ± 0.51, p = 0,038), number of strands in graft (5.67 ± 0.72 vs. 4.00 ± 0.00, p < 0.001) and the average diameter of each strand (1.41 ± 0.22 vs. 1.85 ± 0.13, p < 0.001) between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

RigidFix cross pins fixation in the tibial tunnel for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction can achieve better 5-year results when compared with the interference screw, and the hamstring tendon can be folded into a thicker graft when RigidFix cross pins were applied in both femoral and tibial tunnels.

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.

Primary anterior cruciate ligament repair: Current concepts

The renewed interest in ACL repair over the last two decades stems from advances in modern arthroscopic techniques and clinical studies that have provided evidence that the ACL can reliably heal, and patients can return to sport at a comparable rate to ACL reconstruction patients. The ability to maintain and utilize native ACL tissue, with proprioceptive capabilities, and the smaller drill tunnels needed to repair an ACL leads to an overall less invasive procedure and improved early rehabilitation. Additionally, repair avoids a variety of comorbidities associated with autograft harvest. This current concept review details modern techniques of ACL repair and their current studies, a review on the use of biologic enhancement in ACL repair, and other considerations to appropriately integrate ACL repair into the sports medicine orthopaedic surgeon's practice.

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 .

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).

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.

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.

Suture tape augmentation, a novel application of synthetic materials in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review

Objective: Suture tape (ST) is a common synthetic material in the repairing surgery of soft tissue. Recently, ST augmentation (STA) technique has been described as a novel way to improve the mechanical property of grafts in the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR). However, the clinical outcomes of ACLR using ST-augmented grafts have not been clarified. This systematic review aimed to summarize the specific technique of STA and evaluate the clinical outcomes after ACLR with STA. Methods: A electronic search of PubMed and Embase databases with a manual search of Google Scholar was performed to identify studies that reported the clinical outcomes of ACLR with STA. Each included study was abstracted regarding the study features, patient data, surgical information, and outcome measures. Results: Nine studies were included, representing 314 knees in 314 patients undergoing ACLR with STA. Technically, ST was fixed independently from grafts in six studies and along with grafts in two studies. Most studies applied an equal or slightly less tension on ST than ACL graft. Clinically, significant improvements were found in the Lysholm, IKDC, and KOOS scores after a mean follow-up of 16.7 months. Physical examinations of 220 patients showed significant restoration of knee stability at the final follow-up. 59 of 80 (73.8%) patients returned to preinjury sports level at a minimum 2 year follow-up. Six of 266 (2.3%) patients had a graft failure during the first 2 years postoperatively. The use of ST was significantly associated with better Tegner scores and a trend toward significantly higher rates of return to sport compared to standard ACLR. No significant difference was found in most subjective scores, knee laxity, and graft failures between ACLR with or without STA. Conclusion: ACLR with STA achieved overall favorable clinical outcomes. Patients using ST-augmented grafts were seemingly associated with better sports performance compared to standard ACLR. But ACLR with STA was not superior to ACLR alone in most functional scores, knee stability measures, and graft failure rates. A tension equal to or slightly less than the ACL graft should be carefully applied on ST during fixation to avoid stress shielding of the graft.