Primary Repair of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries: Current Level of Evidence of Available Techniques

Rare Fracture Knee Dislocation Treated with Ligament Repair and Novel Arcuate Fracture Repair Technique: A Case Report

CASE

A 57-year-old man presented with a left knee dislocation after a motor vehicle collision. Clinical and imaging evaluation demonstrated disruption of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), posterior cruciate ligament (PCL), anterolateral ligament (ALL), and posterolateral corner (PLC). The patient underwent acute, single-stage arthroscopic primary ACL and PCL repair, with arcuate fracture fixation using a novel technique. At 4 years postoperatively, he continues to do well subjectively with minimal clinical laxity.

CONCLUSION

Acute, single-stage arthroscopic primary ligamentous repair is a viable option for high-grade multiligamentous knee dislocations and may be combined with our novel technique for arcuate fracture fixation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, Case Report.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

High-level evidence for short-term outcomes of contemporary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) suture repair (ACLSR) in comparison with those of ACL reconstruction (ACLR) is scarce. High-level evidence for mid- and long-term results is lacking, whereas outcomes of ACLSR in several historical studies were shown to deteriorate at midterm follow-up after initial good short-term outcomes.

HYPOTHESIS

Contemporary ACLSR is noninferior to ACLR in the treatment of acute ACL rupture in terms of patient self-reported outcomes at 5 years postoperatively.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

A total of 48 patients were enrolled in the study and, after stratification and randomization, underwent either dynamic augmented (DA) ACLSR or anatomic single-bundle ACLR. The primary outcome measure was the International Knee Documentation Committee 2000 (IKDC) subjective score (IKDCs). Furthermore, the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Tegner Activity Scale score (TAS), visual analog scale score for satisfaction (VASs), IKDC physical examination score (IKDCpe), limb symmetry index for quadriceps (LSIq) and hamstrings (LSIh) strength and jump test battery (LSIj), Kellgren-Lawrence grade of osteoarthritis (OA), and rate of adverse events were recorded. Analyses were based on an intention-to-treat principle.

RESULTS

The lower limit of the 2-sided 95% CI for the median IKDCs of the DA ACLSR group (n = 23; 75.9) was lower than the prespecified noninferiority margin (n = 21; 86.6). Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. However, the upper limit of the 2-sided 95% CI of the DA ACLSR group (100.0) was higher than the median IKDCs of the ACLR group (96.6), rendering the result for noninferiority inconclusive. No statistical difference was found between groups for median IKDCs (repair, 90.2; reconstruction, 96.6). Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were found for any of the secondary outcome measures for the DA ACLSR compared with the ACLR group: KOOS Symptoms, 92.9 versus 96.4; KOOS Pain, 100 versus 97.2; KOOS Activities of Daily Living, 100 versus 100; KOOS Sport and Recreation, 85.0 versus 100; TAS score, 7.0 versus 6.5; VASs, 9.2 versus 8.7; IKDCpe, 81.8% versus 100%; LSIq, ≥91.6 versus ≥88.2; LSIh, ≥95.1 versus ≥90.7; LSIj, ≥94.2 versus ≥97.6; OA grade 0, 90.9% versus 77.8%; clinical ACL failure rate, 20.8% versus 27.2%; and repeat surgery rate, 37.5% versus 20.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

It remains inconclusive whether the effectiveness of DA ACLSR is noninferior to that of ACLR in terms of subjective patient-reported outcomes as measured using the IKDCs. Although DA ACLSR may be a viable treatment option for patients with acute ACL rupture, caution must be exercised when considering this treatment for young, active patients, corresponding to the present study population.