The Comparison of Clinical Result between Primary Repair of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament with Additional Internal Bracing and Anatomic Single Bundle Reconstruction-A Retrospective Study

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.

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.

Ambulatory knee biomechanics and muscle activity 2 years after ACL surgery: InternalBraceTM-augmented ACL repair versus ACL reconstruction versus healthy controls

BACKGROUND

Little is known about knee mechanics and muscle control after augmented ACL repair. Our aim was to compare knee biomechanics and leg muscle activity during walking between the legs of patients 2 years after InternalBraceTM-augmented anterior cruciate ligament repair (ACL-IB) and between patients after ACL-IB and ACL reconstruction (ACL-R), and controls.

METHODS

Twenty-nine ACL-IB, 27 sex- and age-matched ACL-R (hamstring tendon autograft) and 29 matched controls completed an instrumented gait analysis. Knee joint angles, moments, power, and leg muscle activity were compared between the involved and uninvolved leg in ACL-IB (paired t-tests), and between the involved legs in ACL patients and the non-dominant leg in controls (analysis of variance and posthoc Bonferroni tests) using statistical parametric mapping (SPM, P < 0.05). Means and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of differences in discrete parameters (DP; i.e., maximum/minimum) were calculated.

RESULTS

Significant differences were observed in ACL-IB only in minimum knee flexion angle (DP: 2.4°, CI [-4.4;-0.5]; involved > uninvolved) and maximum knee flexion moment during stance (-0.07Nm/kg, CI [-0.13;-0.00]; involved < uninvolved), and differences between ACL-IB and ACL-R only in maximum knee flexion during swing (DP: 3.6°, CI [0.5;7.0]; ACL-IB > ACL-R). Compared to controls, ACL-IB (SPM: 0-3%GC, P = 0.015; 98-100%, P = 0.016; DP: -6.3 mm, CI [-11.7;-0.8]) and ACL-R (DP: -6.0 mm, CI [-11.4;-0.2]) had lower (maximum) anterior tibia position around heel strike. ACL-R also had lower maximum knee extension moment (DP: -0.13Nm/kg, CI [-0.23;-0.02]) and internal knee rotation moment (SPM: 34-41%GC, P < 0.001; DP: -0.03Nm/kg, CI [-0.06;-0.00]) during stance, and greater maximum semitendinosus activity before heel strike (DP: 11.2%maximum voluntary contraction, CI [0.1;21.3]) than controls.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest comparable ambulatory knee function 2 years after ACL-IB and ACL-R, with ACL-IB showing only small differences between legs. However, the differences between both ACL groups and controls suggest that function in the involved leg is not fully recovered and that ACL tear is not only a mechanical disruption but also affects the sensorimotor integrity, which may not be restored after surgery. The trend toward fewer abnormalities in knee moments and semitendinosus muscle function during walking after ACL-IB warrants further investigation and may underscore the importance of preserving the hamstring muscles as ACL agonists.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, case-control study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04429165 (12/06/2020).

Favorable Patient-Reported, Clinical, and Functional Outcomes 2 Years After ACL Repair and InternalBrace Augmentation Compared With ACL Reconstruction and Healthy Controls

BACKGROUND

Recently, interest in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) preservation and repair after proximal ACL tears has been resurrected. Although good clinical outcomes have been reported in the literature with adequate patient selection, to date detailed scientific evidence for the functional benefit of primary ACL repair with ligament augmentation is scarce.

PURPOSE

To compare patient-reported, clinical, and functional outcomes in patients 2 years after ACL repair and InternalBrace augmentation (ACL-IB) with age- and sex-matched patients 2 years after ACL reconstruction (ACL-R) and with matched healthy controls.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

In total, 29 patients 2 years after ACL-IB, 27 sex- and age- matched patients 2 years after ACL-R (hamstring autografts), and 29 matched healthy controls were included. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the International Knee Documentation Committee score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, EQ-5D-5L, Tegner Activity Scale, and Anterior Cruciate Ligament Return to Sports after Injury scale. Surgery time was recorded. For clinical outcomes, range of motion and thigh and shank circumference were measured, and passive anterior translation was determined using the Rolimeter. Isokinetic muscle strength was measured using a Biodex dynamometer. The limb symmetry index (operated/contralateral or nondominant/dominant × 100), side-to-side differences (operated - contralateral, nondominant - dominant), and hamstring-quadriceps ratios were calculated for functional parameters. Failure and reoperation rates were not compared.

RESULTS

Two years after surgery, patients treated with ACL-IB showed good to excellent patient-reported outcomes comparable with those of patients after ACL-R. Surgery time, including concomitant surgeries, was significantly shorter in the ACL-IB group (mean, 81 minutes) compared with the ACL-R group (mean, 97 minutes) (P = .024). Isokinetic muscle strength was comparable between patient groups without significant differences in extensor and flexor strength or in hamstring-quadriceps ratios.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that ACL-IB achieves comparable patient-reported, clinical, and functional outcomes with ACL-R at 2 years postoperatively and, after careful patient selection, should be considered as a valuable early treatment alternative for proximal ACL tears.

REGISTRATION

NCT04429165 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

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 .

Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Primary Repair With Synthetic Augmentation and Fixation With the Knotless Suture Anchor

An anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear is one of the most common ligament injuries in athletes. The arthroscopic ACL reconstruction procedure is the gold standard for treatment. However, the improvement in injury classification and suture materials has subsequently made arthroscopic ACL primary repair an alternative surgical treatment option. This Technical Note describes an arthroscopic ACL primary repair with synthetic augmentation made of several high-strength sutures and fixation with the knotless suture anchor. The reinforced synthetic material acts as a structural tie to support the ACL while it heals.

Augmentation with Fibertape Leads to Biomechanically Superior but Similar Clinical Outcomes in ACL Surgeries: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Purpose

The current generation has witnessed significant progress in the field of knee arthroscopy. Suture tapes have gained immense popularity due to perceived improved biomechanical support to the graft while it heals. The purpose of the present systematic review is to analyze the biomechanical construct of suture tapes in ACL repairs and reconstructions along with clinical outcomes.

Methods

Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase were searched until December 2021. All Biomechanical Studies on animal or cadaver knees that compared construct characteristics of suture tape in ACL repair or reconstruction and clinical studies in English focusing on outcomes following suture tape augmentation in ACL repair or reconstruction were included. The quality of clinical studies using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS).

Results

A total of 16 studies biomechanical and 23 clinical studies were included in qualitative synthesis, leaving nine biomechanical studies for final quantitative analyses. Suture tape revealed biomechanical superiority in terms of ultimate strength, stiffness, cyclic displacement, and elongation of graft, while comparing ACLR with internal brace to standard ACLR. No significant difference in retear rates was seen in clinical studies. Clinical score(IKDC score) was found similar in both augmented and non-augmented construct. Similar results were obtained in biomechanical studies.

Conclusion

The use of suture tape as a ligament augmentation in both ACL reconstruction and ACL repair offers more strength, less elongation or displacement, and is biomechanically stable and sound. There is a lack of data to comprehensively comment upon the clinical superiority of the use of internal augmentation. However, a meta-analysis of the retear rates and clinical outcome score revealed similar outcomes between suture tape augmented and nonaugmented groups.

Comparison of proprioception recovery following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using an artificial graft versus an autograft

BACKGROUND

To compare proprioception recovery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with a hamstring tendon autograft versus the artificial Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System (LARS).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty patients (9 females, 31 males) with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture were enrolled in this prospective study. Patients were randomized to two groups, 1) ACLR using a hamstring tendon autograft (n = 20) or 2) ACLR using artificial LARS (n = 20). Proprioception was assessed with knee joint position sense (JPS) passive-passive test at 45° and 75° flexions, with the contralateral healthy knee as a control baseline to calculate the JPS error. Knee JPS absolute error was used as the main outcome variable and defined as the absolute difference between the reproduction and target angles.

RESULTS

JPS error in both groups at 3 months after ACLR was significantly higher than that at 12 months. However, no significant difference in JPS error was detected between the LARS and autograft groups at either 3 or 12 months after ACLR. Analyzing JPS data by grouping patients according to whether ACLR was performed more or less than 1 year following injury regardless of graft type showed a statistically significant difference between the groups at 3 months, but not at 12 months, after ACLR. Patients receiving the graft within 1 year of injury had a lower JPS error than those receiving the graft more than 1 year after injury at 3 months. No complications were associated with either ACLR method.

CONCLUSION

ACLR with a hamstring tendon autograft or LARS artificial graft is similarly safe and effective for recovering knee proprioception.

Primary repair with suture augmentation for proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears: A systematic review with meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To assess the outcomes of arthroscopic primary repair of proximal anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears with suture augmentation in the literature.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane for studies reporting on outcomes of primary repair of proximal ACL tears with suture augmentation between 2015 and 2021. Primary outcomes included failure and reoperation rates, whereas secondary outcomes consisted of functional outcomes. Proportion meta-analysis was performed to assess the overall incidence of failure rates. Outcomes of adults and adolescent were reported separately.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies with 418 patients were included in this study (mean age 32 years, mean follow-up 2.0 years, 49% male). There were no randomized studies and overall grade of recommendation was weak. Overall failure rate for primary repair with suture augmentation was 8% (95% CI 3.9-14.4), but this was higher for younger patients (17%; 95% CI 2.5-63.9) than for older patients (6%; 95% CI 3.8-8.9). The risk for additional reoperations, complications, or hardware removal was low (all <2%), while functional outcomes were good to excellent (all >80% of maximum score).

CONCLUSION

Current literature shows that primary repair with suture augmentation is a reliable treatment option for proximal ACL tears with a failure rate of 8% and good functional outcome scores at short-term follow-up. Although functional outcomes were good irrespective of age, failure rates were higher in young patients (17% vs 6%, respectively). There is a need for high-quality comparative studies with large group of patients to compare these outcomes with ACL reconstruction.

A novel home-based rehabilitative knee brace system is a viable option for postoperative rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a report of 15 cases

Purpose

To investigate the functional outcomes for patients who used a novel home-based rehabilitative system during the postoperative period after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions.

Methods

Patients undergoing ACL reconstruction surgeries were prospectively enrolled. A home-based rehabilitation system, which is composed of a knee brace with a motion tracker, a mobile app, and a web portal, was applied. Patients could complete the rehabilitation exercise through the audio guidance and the real-time tracking system which displayed the achieved motions on the user interface of the app. Feedbacks from the patients, including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, were collected and uploaded to the web portal. Each patient would meet a specialized physical therapist face-to-face once a month. At postoperative 6 months, every patient received a GNRB arthrometer examination and a Cybex isokinetic dynamometer examination.

Results

A total of 15 patients (10 males and 5 females) were enrolled and followed for at least 6 months. The mean time of return to full knee extension was 1.5 months.

The mean difference in laxity measured by GNRB arthrometer at 134 N significantly improved at postoperative 6 months (1.8 ± 1.6 mm) compared to that measured preoperatively (3.4 ± 1.9 mm) (p = 0.024). The peak torques of flexor and extensor muscles measured by Cybex isokinetic dynamometer remained unchanged at postoperative 6 months (p = 0.733 and 0.394, respectively). The patients’ IKDC score became smaller at postoperative 1 month (p = 0.011) and significantly improved at postoperative 6 months (p = 0.002).

Conclusion

Using a home-based rehabilitative knee brace system after ACL reconstruction is a viable option as patients maintained their knee muscle strengths maintained their muscle strength and achieve similar or better knee range of motion six months postoperatively.

Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Versus Autograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies

Purpose

To compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair and autograft ACL reconstruction for ACL ruptures.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies from 1 January 1990 to 21 March 2022. Two evaluators independently screened the literature, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the enrolled studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software.

Results

Ten studies with mean follow-up periods from 12 to 36 months were included. For 638 patients with ACL ruptures, arthroscopic ACL repair showed statistically comparable outcomes of failure (p = 0.18), complications (p = 0.29), reoperation other than revision (p = 0.78), Lysholm score (p = 0.78), Tegner score (p = 0.70), and satisfaction (p = 0.45) when compared with autograft ACL reconstruction. A significantly higher rate of hardware removal (p = 0.0008) but greater International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score (p = 0.009) were found in the ACL repair group. The heterogeneity of the side-to-side difference of anterior tibial translation (ΔATT) was high (I²= 80%). After the sensitivity analysis, the I² decreased dramatically (I²= 32%), and the knees with ACL repair showed significantly greater ΔATT (P = 0.04).

Conclusion

For proximal ACL ruptures, arthroscopic ACL repair showed similar clinical outcomes, and even better functional performance when compared to autograft ACL reconstruction. ACL repair has a higher rate of hardware removal, and might be related to greater asymptomatic knee laxity. More high-quality prospective trials are needed to confirm our findings.