Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Primary Repair of Proximal Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears Are Maintained at Mid-term Follow-up

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 1085-1093 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory S. DiFelice ◽  
Jelle P. van der List
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Primary Repair ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Cruciate Ligament Tears

scholarly journals Satisfactory patient-reported outcomes at 5 years following primary repair with suture tape augmentation for proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graeme P. Hopper ◽  
Joanna M. S. Aithie ◽  
Joanne M. Jenkins ◽  
William T. Wilson ◽  
Gordon M. Mackay
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Primary Repair ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Repair ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Activity Scale ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Suture Tape

Abstract Purpose An enhanced understanding of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) healing and advancements in arthroscopic instrumentation has resulted in a renewed interest in ACL repair. Augmentation of a ligament repair with suture tape reinforces the ligament and acts as a secondary stabilizer. This study assesses the 5-year patient-reported outcomes of primary repair with suture tape augmentation for proximal ACL tears. Methods Thirty-seven consecutive patients undergoing ACL repair with suture tape augmentation for an acute proximal rupture were prospectively followed up for a minimum of 5 years. Patients with midsubstance and distal ruptures, poor ACL tissue quality, retracted ACL remnants and multiligament injuries were excluded. Patient-reported outcome measures were collated using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS), Visual Analogue Pain Scale (VAS-pain), Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) and the Marx Activity Scale. Patients with a re-rupture were identified. Results Three patients were lost to follow-up leaving 34 patients in the final analysis (91.9%). The mean KOOS at 5 years was 88.5 (SD 13.8) which improved significantly from 48.7 (SD 18.3) preoperatively (p < 0.01). The VAS score improved from 2.3 (SD 1.7) to 1.0 (SD 1.5) and the VR-12 score improved from 35.9 (SD 10.3) to 52.4 (SD 5.9) at 5 years (p < 0.01). However, the Marx activity scale decreased from 12.4 (SD 3.4) pre-injury to 7.3 (SD 5.2) at 5 years (p = 0.02). Six patients had a re-rupture (17.6%) and have since undergone a conventional ACL reconstruction for their revision surgery with no issues since then. These patients were found to be younger and have higher initial Marx activity scores than the rest of the cohort (p < 0.05). Conclusion Primary repair with suture tape augmentation for proximal ACL tears demonstrates satisfactory outcomes in 28 patients (82.4%) at 5-year follow-up. Six patients sustained a re-rupture and have no ongoing problems following treatment with a conventional ACL reconstruction. These patients were significantly younger and had higher initial Marx activity scores. Level of evidence Level IV.

scholarly journals Clinical outcomes of combined anterior cruciate ligament and anterolateral ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Diego Ariel de Lima ◽  
Lana Lacerda de Lima ◽  
Nayara Gomes Reis de Souza ◽  
Rodrigo Amorim de Moraes Perez ◽  
Marcel Faraco Sobrado ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Pivot Shift ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Anterolateral Ligament ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Abstract Objectives To compare the clinical outcomes of isolated anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with combined reconstruction of the ACL and anterolateral ligament (ALL) of the knee. Methods A search was conducted on the PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases, in line with the PRISMA protocol. The indexation terms used were “anterior cruciate ligament” OR “acl” AND “anterolateral ligament” AND “reconstruction.” Articles that compared patients submitted to combined ACL and ALL reconstruction with those submitted to isolated reconstruction of the ACL, with levels of evidence I, II, and III, were included. Studies with follow-up of less than 2 years and articles that did not use “anatomical” techniques for ALL reconstruction, such as extraarticular tenodesis, were excluded. A meta-analysis with R software was conducted, with a random effects model, presented as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD), with a 95% confidence level (CI) and statistically significant at p < 0.05. Results Ten articles were selected, with a total of 1495 patients, most of whom were men, of whom 674 submitted to ACL and ALL reconstruction and 821 to isolated ACL reconstruction. Combined ACL and ALL reconstruction exhibited a statistically significant advantage in residual pivot shift (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.24–0.47, I2 = 0%, p < 0.01), rerupture rate (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19–0.62, I2 = 0%, p < 0.01), Lachman test (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.40–0.86, I2 = 21%, p < 0.01), and postoperative Lysholm score (MD 2.28, CI 95% 0.75–3.81, I2 = 73%, p < 0.01). Conclusions Combined ACL and ALL reconstruction obtained better postoperative clinical outcomes when compared with isolated ACL reconstruction, especially in reducing residual pivot shift and rerupture rate.

scholarly journals Failure and Reoperation Rates Following Arthroscopic Primary Repair Versus Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (7_suppl5) ◽  
pp. 2325967119S0029
Author(s):  
Jelle P. van der List ◽  
Anne Jonkergouw ◽  
Gregory S. DiFelice
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Primary Repair ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Treatment Algorithm ◽  
Acl Injuries ◽  
Graft Rupture ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Reoperation Rates

Objectives: To compare the failure and reoperation rates of arthroscopic primary repair versus reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). Methods: This study retrospectively reviewed all patients with ACL injury operatively treated between April 2008 and May 2016 by one surgeon. All patients with proximal tears were treated with primary repair using suture anchors, or otherwise underwent standard reconstruction. Patients were included if minimum two-year follow-up was present, and were excluded for multiligamentous injuries. Charts were reviewed and patients were contacted to assess failure (instability, graft rupture or revision), reoperation (other than revision), complications and contralateral failure. Results: 154 patients were included of which 56 underwent primary repair (36.4%). Mean age was 30 years (range 14-57), 70% was male and mean follow-up was 3 years (range 2-9). Patients undergoing ACL reconstruction were younger (28 vs. 33, p=0.002) and were more often male (77% vs. 59%, p=0.02). Failure rates were lower following primary repair (10.7%) than ACL reconstruction (12.2%) but this was not statistically significant (p=0.776). Also, no clinical relevant or statistical significant differences were found between repair and reconstruction in reoperations (7.1% each group), complications (1.8% vs. 3.1%, respectively) and contralateral failures (3.6% vs. 4.1%, respectively) (all p>0.99). With revision surgery, no complications were noted following primary repair revision (primary reconstruction; 0%) but 25% of revision reconstructions failed and 1 needed reoperation (8%). Conclusion: This study is the first study to compare the failure and reoperation rates following arthroscopic primary repair versus reconstruction in a large cohort of patients. With the treatment algorithm of primary repair for proximal avulsion tears and reconstruction of midsubstance tears, equivalent outcomes were noted between both treatments. Arthroscopic primary repair is a safe and good treatment for ACL injuries and has similar failure and reoperation rates when compared to the gold standard of ACL reconstruction.

scholarly journals Prospective Comparative Study of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using the Double-Bundle and Single-Bundle Techniques

2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (9) ◽  
pp. 1705-1711 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eun Kyoo Song ◽  
Luke S. Oh ◽  
Thomas J. Gill ◽  
Guoan Li ◽  
Hemanth R. Gadikota ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Double Bundle ◽  
Single Bundle ◽  
Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background The intent of double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is to reproduce the normal anterior cruciate ligament anatomy and improve knee joint rotational stability. However, no consensus has been reached on the advantages of this technique over the single-bundle technique. Hypothesis We hypothesized that double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction could provide better intraoperative stability and clinical outcome than single-bundle reconstruction. Type of study: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods Forty patients with anterior cruciate ligament injury in one knee were recruited; 20 were allocated to a double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction group and 20 to a single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction group. Intraoperative stabilities at 30° of knee flexion were compared between the 2 groups using a navigation system. Clinical outcomes including Lysholm knee scores, Tegner activity scores, Lachman and pivot-shift test results, and radiographic stabilities were also compared between the 2 groups after a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Results Intraoperative anterior and rotational stabilities after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the double-bundle group were significantly better than those in single-bundle group (P = .020 and P < .001, respectively). Nineteen patients (95%) in each group were available at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Clinical outcomes including Lysholm knee and Tegner activity scores were similar in the 2 groups at 2-year follow-up (P > .05). Furthermore, stability results of the Lachman and pivot-shift tests, and radiologic findings at 2-year follow-up failed to reveal any significant intergroup differences (P > .05). Conclusion Although double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction produces better intraoperative stabilities than single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, the 2 modalities were found to be similar in terms of clinical outcomes and postoperative stabilities after a minimum of 2 years of follow-up.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document