No Differences in Prevalence of Osteoarthritis or Function After Open Versus Endoscopic Technique for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

2012 ◽  
Vol 40 (11) ◽  
pp. 2492-2498 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inger Holm ◽  
Britt Elin Øiestad ◽  
May Arna Risberg ◽  
Ragnhild Gunderson ◽  
Arne Kristian Aune
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Muscle Strength ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Endoscopic Technique ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Hop Tests ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Open Versus

Background: Although arthroscopic techniques are the most common procedures today when reconstructing the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), many surgeons still prefer the open and/or 2-incision techniques. Hypothesis: There are no differences in knee function or prevalence of knee osteoarthritis (OA) in patients who have undergone the open versus endoscopic technique for ACL reconstruction using the patellar tendon autograft. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Sixty-seven patients with subacute or chronic rupture of the ACL were randomly assigned to open (OPEN) (n = 33) or endoscopic (ENDO) (n = 34) reconstruction. Function was evaluated by the Cincinnati knee score, single-legged hop tests, and isokinetic muscle strength tests. The radiographs were classified according to the Kellgren and Lawrence (KL) classification system, defining grade 2 or more as the cutoff point for knee OA. The Insall-Salvati ratio and the Blackburne-Peel ratio were used to calculate the patellar position and height. Results: Mean age at inclusion and at the 12-year follow-up evaluation was 27.9 ± 8.6 and 39.8 ± 8.6 years, respectively. At 12-year follow-up, 53 patients (79%) were eligible for evaluation. There were no significant differences between the 2 surgical procedures with respect to the pain, function, muscle strength, hop tests, patellar height, or the prevalence of OA. The prevalence of OA was high in the tibiofemoral joint on the operated side, 79% and 80% in the OPEN and ENDO groups, respectively. For the uninvolved knee, the corresponding numbers were 36% and 21%. Conclusion: This study suggests that the open procedure does not produce more functional problems or osteoarthritis compared with the endoscopic technique up to 12 years postoperatively.

scholarly journals Combined Intra- and Extra-Articular Technique in Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Joints ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 05 (03) ◽  
pp. 156-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Zanovello ◽  
Federica Rosso ◽  
Alessandro Bistolfi ◽  
Roberto Rossi ◽  
Filippo Castoldi
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Surgical Removal ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Over The Top

Purpose The aim of the study was to evaluate the “over the top” (OTT) nonanatomical technique for revision of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Methods Twenty-four patients with a mean age of 31.9 ± 11.2 years underwent revision of ACL reconstruction using OTT technique. International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lysholm score, Tegner score, Subjective Patient Outcome for Return to Sport (SPORTS) score, Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport After Injury (ACL-RSI) scale, and KT-1000 evaluation were recorded at a mean follow-up of 30.7 ± 18.9 months. Results Postoperatively, the IKDC objective total score significantly improved (p = 0.0046). The KOOS, Lysholm, and Tegner scores also improved, but the results were not statistically significant (62.4 vs. 72.6, 6.5 vs. 75.8, and 4.1 vs. 6.0, respectively). The subjective IKDC evaluation score improved from an average of 51.1 points to 63.7 points at the last follow-up (p = 0.0027). The RTP prevalence was 81.8%, with 44.4% of the patients returning to the same preinjury level. According to the SPORTS score, 16.6% of patients played sport without limitations in activity and performance. The average ACL-RSI score was 52.1 ± 27.0. No major complications were reported. A total of 21.5% of patients underwent surgical removal of staples. The failure prevalence was 14.3% and the cumulative survivorship, calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method, was equal to 70% at 60 months of follow-up. Conclusion The OTT technique in the revision ACL reconstruction provided improvement in objective and subjective scores, good RTP prevalence, and acceptable rate of complication and failure. One of the advantages was the possibility to avoid the femoral tunnel. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic case series.

scholarly journals Bridge-Enhanced Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Is Not Inferior to Autograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction at 2 Years: Results of a Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (6) ◽  
pp. 1305-1315 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martha M. Murray ◽  
Braden C. Fleming ◽  
Gary J. Badger ◽  
Christina Freiberger ◽  
Rachael Henderson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Muscle Strength ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Knee Laxity ◽  
Acl Injuries ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Subjective Score ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Noninferiority Margin

Background: Preclinical studies suggest that for complete midsubstance anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, a suture repair of the ACL augmented with a protein implant placed in the gap between the torn ends (bridge-enhanced ACL repair [BEAR]) may be a viable alternative to ACL reconstruction (ACLR). Hypothesis: We hypothesized that patients treated with BEAR would have a noninferior patient-reported outcomes (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] Subjective Score; prespecified noninferiority margin, –11.5 points) and instrumented anteroposterior (AP) knee laxity (prespecified noninferiority margin, +2-mm side-to-side difference) and superior muscle strength at 2 years after surgery when compared with patients who underwent ACLR with autograft. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: One hundred patients (median age, 17 years; median preoperative Marx activity score, 16) with complete midsubstance ACL injuries were enrolled and underwent surgery within 45 days of injury. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either BEAR (n = 65) or autograft ACLR (n = 35 [33 with quadrupled semitendinosus-gracilis and 2 with bone–patellar tendon–bone]). Outcomes—including the IKDC Subjective Score, the side-to-side difference in instrumented AP knee laxity, and muscle strength—were assessed at 2 years by an independent examiner blinded to the procedure. Patients were unblinded after their 2-year visit. Results: In total, 96% of the patients returned for 2-year follow-up. Noninferiority criteria were met for both the IKDC Subjective Score (BEAR, 88.9 points; ACLR, 84.8 points; mean difference, 4.1 points [95% CI, –1.5 to 9.7]) and the side-to-side difference in AP knee laxity (BEAR, 1.61 mm; ACLR, 1.77 mm; mean difference, –0.15 mm [95% CI, –1.48 to 1.17]). The BEAR group had a significantly higher mean hamstring muscle strength index than the ACLR group at 2 years (98.2% vs 63.2%; P < .001). In addition, 14% of the BEAR group and 6% of the ACLR group had a reinjury that required a second ipsilateral ACL surgical procedure ( P = .32). Furthermore, the 8 patients who converted from BEAR to ACLR in the study period and returned for the 2-year postoperative visit had similar primary outcomes to patients who had a single ipsilateral ACL procedure. Conclusion: BEAR resulted in noninferior patient-reported outcomes and AP knee laxity and superior hamstring muscle strength when compared with autograft ACLR at 2-year follow-up in a young and active cohort. These promising results suggest that longer-term studies of this technique are justified. Registration: NCT02664545 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier)

Equivalent Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores 12 and 24 Months After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Results From the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (9) ◽  
pp. 2085-2091 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristian Samuelsson ◽  
Robert A. Magnussen ◽  
Eduard Alentorn-Geli ◽  
Ferid Krupic ◽  
Kurt P. Spindler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Knee Injury ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Knee Ligament ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: It is not clear whether Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) results will be different 1 or 2 years after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Purpose: To investigate within individual patients enrolled in the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register whether there is equivalence between KOOS at 1 and 2 years after primary ACL reconstruction. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: This cohort study was based on data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register during the period January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2013. The longitudinal KOOS values for each individual at the 1- and 2-year follow-up evaluations were assessed through the two one-sided test (TOST) procedure with an acceptance criterion of 4. Subset analysis was performed with patients classified by sex, age, graft type, and type of injury (meniscal and/or cartilage injury). Results: A total of 23,952 patients were eligible for analysis after exclusion criteria were applied (10,116 women, 42.2%; 13,836 men, 57.8%). The largest age group was between 16 and 20 years of age (n = 6599; 27.6%). The most common ACL graft was hamstring tendon (n = 22,504; 94.0%), of which the combination of semitendinosus and gracilis was the most common. A total of 7119 patients reported on the KOOS Pain domain at both 1- and 2-year follow-ups, with a mean difference of 0.21 (13.1 SD, 0.16 SE [90% CI, −0.05 to 0.46], P < .001). The same results were found for the other KOOS subscales: symptoms (mean difference −0.54, 14.1 SD, 0.17 SE [90% CI, −0.81 to −0.26], P < .001), activities of daily living (mean difference 0.45, 10.8 SD, 0.13 SE [90% CI, 0.24 to 0.66], P < .001), sports and recreation (mean difference −0.35, 22.7 SD, 0.27 SE [90% CI, −0.79 to 0.09], P < .001), quality of life (mean difference −0.92, 20.0 SD, 0.24 SE [90% CI, −1.31 to −0.53], P < .001), and the combined KOOS-4 score (mean difference −0.41, 14.5 SD, 0.17 SE [90% CI, −0.70 to −0.13], P < .001). Analyses within specific subsets of patients showed equivalent results between the 2 follow-up evaluations. Conclusion: Equivalent results within patients were found in KOOS values at 1- and 2-year follow-ups after ACL reconstruction. The finding was consistent across all KOOS subscales and for all evaluated subsets of patients. This result implies that there is no additional value in capturing both 1- and 2-year KOOS outcomes after ACL reconstruction. However, these findings of equivalence at 1- and 2-year endpoints do not alleviate the need for longer follow-up periods.

scholarly journals Arthroscopic primary repair of proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears seems safe but higher level of evidence is needed: a systematic review and meta-analysis of recent literature

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 1946-1957 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jelle P. van der List ◽  
Harmen D. Vermeijden ◽  
Inger N. Sierevelt ◽  
Gregory S. DiFelice ◽  
Arthur van Noort ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Recent Literature ◽  
Primary Repair ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Outcome Scores ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Abstract Purpose To assess the outcomes of the various techniques of primary repair of proximal anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears in the recent literature using a systematic review with meta-analysis. Methods PRISMA guidelines were followed. All studies reporting outcomes of arthroscopic primary repair of proximal ACL tears using primary repair, repair with static (suture) augmentation and dynamic augmentation between January 2014 and July 2019 in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane were identified and included. Primary outcomes were failure rates and reoperation rates, and secondary outcomes were patient-reported outcome scores. Results A total of 13 studies and 1,101 patients (mean age 31 years, mean follow-up 2.1 years, 60% male) were included. Nearly all studies were retrospective studies without a control group and only one randomized study was identified. Grade of recommendation for primary repair was weak. There were 9 out of 74 failures following primary repair (10%), 6 out of 69 following repair with static augmentation (7%) and 106 out of 958 following dynamic augmentation (11%). Repair with dynamic augmentation had more reoperations (99; 10%), and more hardware removal (255; 29%) compared to the other procedures. All functional outcome scores were > 85% of maximum scores. Conclusions This systematic review with meta-analysis found that the different techniques of primary repair are safe with failure rates of 7–11%, no complications and functional outcome scores of > 85% of maximum scores. There was a high risk of bias and follow-up was short with 2.1 years. Prospective studies comparing the outcomes to ACL reconstruction with sufficient follow-up are needed prior to widespread implementation. Level of evidence IV.

scholarly journals Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with LARS Artificial Ligament—Clinical Results after a Long-Term Follow-Up

Joints ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 06 (02) ◽  
pp. 075-079 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Parchi ◽  
Gianluca Ciapini ◽  
Carlo Paglialunga ◽  
Michele Giuntoli ◽  
Carmine Picece ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Retrospective Case ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Purpose The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the subjective and functional outcome of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with the synthetic Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System (LARS) ligament. Methods Twenty-six patients were reviewed at an average follow-up of 11.6 years. Objective clinical evaluation was performed with stability tests. Patient-reported outcomes (Visual Analogue Scale, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and Cincinnati Knee Rating Scale) were used to assess subjective and functional outcomes. Results Overall satisfactory results were obtained in 22 cases (84.6%). Four patients (15.4%) showed mechanical failure of the graft. No cases of synovitis or infection were reported. Conclusion LARS ligament can be considered a safe and suitable option for ACL reconstruction in carefully selected cases, especially elderly patients needing a rapid postoperative recovery. Level of Evidence Level IV, retrospective case series.

Differences in Baseline Characteristics and Outcome Among Responders, Late Responders, and Never-Responders After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

2021 ◽  
pp. 036354652110478
Author(s):  
Per-Henrik Randsborg ◽  
Dakota Adamec ◽  
Nicholas A. Cepeda ◽  
Andrew Pearle ◽  
Anil Ranawat
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
International Knee Documentation Committee ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Return To Sports ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: Loss to follow-up in registry studies might affect generalizability and interpretation of results. Purpose: To evaluate the effect of nonresponder bias in our anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) registry. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 2042 patients with ACL reconstruction in the Hospital for Special Surgery ACL Registry between 2009 and 2013 were included in the study. Patients who completed the patient-reported outcome measures at 2 or 5 years were considered responders (n = 808). Baseline data and patient characteristics were compared between responders and nonresponders (n = 1234). Both responders and nonresponders were contacted and invited to complete the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Marx scores electronically and respond to questions regarding return to sports and subsequent surgeries. Nonresponders who completed the questionnaires after reminders were considered late responders. The remaining nonresponders were considered never-responders. The late responders (n = 367) completed the questionnaires after a mean follow-up of 7.8 years (range, 6.7-9.6 years), while follow-up for the responders was 6.8 years (range, 5.0-9.7 years). Responders and late responders were then compared in terms of differences in IKDC and Marx scores from baseline to final follow-up. Results: Nonresponders were younger (28.5 vs 31.5 years; P < .001) and more often male (60% vs 53%; P = .003) compared with responders. Responders had a higher level of education and were more likely to be White (79% vs 74%; P = .04). There were no substantial differences in patient characteristics or baseline IKDC and Marx scores between the late responders and never-responders. There were no statistically significant differences in patient-reported outcomes, return to sports, or subsequent surgeries between responders and late responders at a mean follow-up time of 8.8 years (range, 6.7-9.7 years). Repeat email reminders and telephone calls increased response rate by 18% (from 40% to 58%). Conclusion: There was no difference in clinical outcome as evaluated using IKDC and Marx scores between responders and late responders.

scholarly journals Knee Osteoarthritis after Reconstruction of Isolated Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries: A Systematic Literature Review

Joints ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 05 (01) ◽  
pp. 039-043 ◽  
Author(s):  
Compagnoni Riccardo ◽  
Catani Fabio ◽  
Randelli Pietro
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Current Literature ◽  
English Language ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
X Rays ◽  
Ligament Injuries ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Level I ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Purpose The aim of this review was to analyze the current literature on osteoarthritic evolution of knees without any combined meniscal or ligament lesions undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Methods A PubMed/MEDLINE research was performed using the following keywords: “Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction” [Mesh] AND “Osteoarthritis, Knee” [Mesh]. Only English language literature and articles published after 2005 were included. Studies including concomitant meniscal tears, posterior cruciate or collateral ligament injuries, previous surgery in the affected knees, infections, osteochondral defects, loose bodies, synovial plica syndrome, and posteromedial or posterolateral corner injuries were not considered in this review. Results Twelve studies were selected. These papers included 892 patients (mean age at the time of surgery was 22.3 years), with an average follow-up of 11 years. Imaging at follow-up was obtained with standard radiographs in nine studies, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in one study, and both X-rays and MRI in two studies. Eight studies reported osteoarthritic evolution, with different prevalence. Conclusion Only few high-quality studies focused on these specific patients have been published. When reconstructed, isolated ACL-deficient knees have a low risk of osteoarthritic evolution, but mild signs of joint degeneration are reported by the current literature. Level of Evidence Level IV, systematic review of level I to level IV studies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document