Proprioception After Primary Repair of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament

BACKGROUND

Primary repair of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) has some potential advantages over the reconstruction technique, which include but are not limited to better knee sensation due to preservation of the natural ACL tissue in patients compared with tendon graft. Proprioception is impaired after ACL injuries and the sense of the joint position is lost.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study was to compare arthroscopic ACL primary repair and ACL reconstruction techniques clinically and functionally and analyze the differences in proprioception. It was hypothesized that primary repair would restore knee joint proprioception more successfully because the original tissue of the ACL is preserved.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A total of 63 patients (34 underwent reconstruction and 29 underwent primary repair between 2017 and 2020) and 33 healthy controls, as well as the healthy knees of the operated groups, were evaluated between 24 and 48 months (mean, 29 months) postoperatively. Patients with proximal femoral avulsion tears and stump quality suitable for repair underwent primary repair, and those with tears outside these criteria underwent reconstruction using hamstring tendon autograft. Proprioception was evaluated using the active joint position sensation method during weightbearing, with a digital inclinometer used to measure differences between the target and achieved flexion angles of 15°, 30°, and 60°.

RESULTS

At 15° of knee flexion, the deviation angles for the healthy knee of the reconstruction and primary repair groups were significantly smaller than those of the control group (P < .001), but there was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of deviation angle at 30° and 60° of flexion. The deviation angle of the operated knees was statistically significantly larger in the reconstruction group than in the primary repair group at all angles. The deviation angles at 15°, 30°, and 60° were 2.83°, 2.66°, and 2.66° in the reconstruction group and 1.00°, 1.00°, and 1.33° in the primary repair group, respectively (P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference between the reconstruction and primary repair groups in terms of clinical scores.

CONCLUSION

Primary ACL repair can preserve proprioception in a well-selected patient group. In short-term follow-up, primary repair of the ACL in patients with proximal femoral avulsion tears and stump quality suitable for repair appears to be proprioceptively protective. Future studies are needed to clarify the long-term consequences of primary repair on proprioception in a larger population.

Primary Repair versus Reconstruction in Patients with Bilateral Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries: What Do Patients Prefer?

Purpose. The purpose is to evaluate knee preference and functional outcomes of patients with primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair in one knee and ACL reconstruction in the contralateral side. Methods. All patients who underwent both procedures were retrospectively reviewed at minimum two-year follow-up. Patients were asked to complete questionnaires regarding their operated knees’ preferences during rehabilitation, daily activities, sports activities, and overall function. Furthermore, the Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee, Forgotten Joint Score-12, and Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury were completed. Results. Twenty-one patients were included. All patients underwent ACL reconstruction first, which was displayed at younger age at surgery (24 vs. 33 years, $p=0.010$ ) and longer follow-up (10.2 vs. 2.3 years, $p<0.001$ ), respectively. Thirty-three percent preferred the repaired knee, 11% the reconstructed knee, and 56% had no preference; however, 78% indicated that their repaired knee was less painful during rehabilitation and 83% reported earlier range of motion (ROM) return following repair, which was similar for both knees in 17%. Eighty-three percent of patients indicated better function and progression during rehabilitation with their repaired knee and 11% with their reconstructed knees. No statistical differences were found in patient-reported outcomes between both procedures (all $p>0.4$ ). Objective laxity assessment showed mean side-to-side difference of 0.6 mm between both sides in favor of the reconstructed knee. Conclusion. This study showed that ACL repair and ACL reconstruction lead to similar functional outcomes. However, patients undergoing both procedures may have less pain, earlier ROM return, and faster rehabilitation progression following primary repair.

Repair versus reconstruction for proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears: a study protocol for a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial

Background

For active patients with a tear of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) who would like to return to active level of sports, the current surgical gold standard is reconstruction of the ACL. Recently, there has been renewed interest in repairing the ACL in selected patients with a proximally torn ligament. Repair of the ligament has (potential) advantages over reconstruction of the ligament such as decreased surgical morbidity, faster return of range of motion, and potentially decreased awareness of the knee. Studies comparing both treatments in a prospective randomized method are currently lacking.

Methods

This study is a multicenter prospective block randomized controlled trial. A total of 74 patients with acute proximal isolated ACL tears will be assigned in a 1:1 allocation ratio to either (I) ACL repair using cortical button fixation and additional suture augmentation or (II) ACL reconstruction using an all-inside autologous hamstring graft technique. The primary objective is to assess if ACL repair is non-inferior to ACL reconstruction regarding the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score at two-years postoperatively. The secondary objectives are to assess if ACL repair is non-inferior with regards to (I) other patient-reported outcomes measures (i.e. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Lysholm score, Forgotten Joint Score, patient satisfaction and pain), (II) objective outcome measures (i.e. failure of repair or graft defined as rerupture or symptomatic instability, reoperation, contralateral injury, and stability using the objective IKDC score and Rollimeter/KT-2000), (III) return to sports assessed by Tegner activity score and the ACL-Return to Sports Index at two-year follow-up, and (IV) long-term osteoarthritis at 10-year follow-up.

Discussion

Over the last decade there has been a resurgence of interest in repair of proximally torn ACLs. Several cohort studies have shown encouraging short-term and mid-term results using these techniques, but prospective randomized studies are lacking. Therefore, this randomized controlled trial has been designed to assess whether ACL repair is at least equivalent to the current gold standard of ACL reconstruction in both subjective and objective outcome scores.

Trial registration

Registered at Netherlands Trial Register (NL9072) on 25th of November 2020.

Arthroscopic Primary Repair of the Posterior Cruciate Ligament

The posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) is one of the four major stabilizers of the knee joint and functions as the primary restraint to posterior tibial translation. PCL tears rarely occur in isolation and most commonly presents in the setting of multiligamentous knee injuries. Several treatment strategies for these injuries have been proposed over the last decades, including ligament reconstruction and primary repair. Arthroscopic primary PCL repair has the potential to preserve native tissue using a more minimally invasive approach, thereby avoiding donor-site morbidity and allowing early mobilization. While arthroscopic PCL repair is certainly not an effective surgical approach for all patients, this procedure may be a reasonable and less morbid alternative to PCL reconstruction in selected patients treated for proximal or distal avulsion tears, with low failure rates, good knee stability, and good to excellent subjective outcomes. The surgical indications, surgical techniques, postoperative management, and outcomes for arthroscopic primary repair of proximal and distal PCL tears will be discussed in this review.