Interrater Agreement of an Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tear Classification System

Spontaneous healing of acute ACL ruptures: rate, prognostic factors and short-term outcome

INTRODUCTION

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is considered the first line treatment in ACL rupture. However, some patients return to high intensity sport activities and show a normal knee function without ACL reconstruction. Therefore, aim of this study was to evaluate the rate and prognostic factors of spontaneous healing in patients with ACL rupture and the short-term functional outcome.

METHODS

The rate, prognostic factors and short-term functional results of spontaneous healing in patients with ACL rupture were evaluated in 381 patients. Morphology of ACL rupture and extent of posterior tibial slope (PTS) were classified by MR- and x-ray imaging. In patients with normal knee stability in anesthesia examination and healed ACL during the arthroscopy 6 weeks after trauma ACL reconstruction was canceled. IKDC -, Tegner Activity Score, KT 1000 testing and radiological characteristics were collected 12 months postoperatively in these patients.

RESULTS

14.17% of the patients with ACL rupture showed a spontaneous healing after 6 weeks. Femoral ACL-rupture (p < 0.02) with integrity of ligament stump > 50% (p < 0.001), without bundle separation (p < 0.001) and decreased PTS (p < 0.001) was found significantly more often in patients with a spontaneous healed ACL. The average IKDC score was high at 84,63 in patients with healed ACL at 1 year follow-up, but KT 1000 testing was inferior compared to non-injured side.

CONCLUSION

Spontaneous healing of a ruptured ACL happened in 14% of the patients. Especially in low-demand patients with femoral single bundle lesions without increased posterior tibial slope delayed ACL surgery should be considered to await the possibility for potential spontaneous ACL healing.

Design Features and Rationale of the BEAR-MOON (Bridge-Enhanced ACL Restoration Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network) Randomized Clinical Trial

Background:

BEAR (bridge-enhanced anterior cruciate ligament [ACL] restoration), a paradigm-shifting technology to heal midsubstance ACL tears, has been demonstrated to be effective in a single-center 2:1 randomized controlled trial (RCT) versus hamstring ACL reconstruction. Widespread dissemination of BEAR into clinical practice should also be informed by a multicenter RCT to demonstrate exportability and compare efficacy with bone--patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) ACL reconstruction, another clinically standard treatment.

Purpose:

To present the design and initial preparation of a multicenter RCT of BEAR versus BPTB ACL reconstruction (the BEAR: Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network [BEAR-MOON] trial). Design and analytic issues in planning the complex BEAR-MOON trial, involving the US National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, the US Food and Drug Administration, the BEAR implant manufacturer, a data and safety monitoring board, and institutional review boards, can usefully inform both clinicians on the trial’s strengths and limitations and future investigators on planning of complex orthopaedic studies.

Study Design:

Clinical trial.

Methods:

We describe the distinctive clinical, methodological, and operational challenges of comparing the innovative BEAR procedure with the well-established BPTB operation, and we outline the clinical motivation, experimental setting, study design, surgical challenges, rehabilitation, outcome measures, and planned analysis of the BEAR-MOON trial.

Results:

BEAR-MOON is a 6-center, 12-surgeon, 200-patient randomized, partially blinded, noninferiority RCT comparing BEAR with BPTB ACL reconstruction for treating first-time midsubstance ACL tears. Noninferiority of BEAR relative to BPTB will be claimed if the total score on the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee evaluation form and the knee arthrometer 30-lb (13.61-kg) side-to-side laxity difference are both within respective margins of 16 points for the IKDC and 2.5 mm for knee laxity.

Conclusion:

Major issues include patient selection, need for intraoperative randomization and treatment-specific postoperative physical therapy regimens (because of fundamental differences in surgical technique, initial stability construct, and healing), and choice of noninferiority margins for short-term efficacy outcomes of a novel intervention with evident short-term advantages and theoretical, but unverified, long-term benefits on other dimensions.