scholarly journals Porcine bone-patellar tendon-bone xenograft in a caprine model of anterior cruciate ligament repair

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 230949902093973
Author(s):  
Jared A Lombardi ◽  
Amardeep Hoonjan ◽  
Neil Rodriguez ◽  
Aubrey Delossantos ◽  
Gary Monteiro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Mechanical Load ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Fiber Formation ◽  
Acl Repair ◽  
Normal Score ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Bone Patellar Tendon

The use of human tissue-derived autografts and allografts continues to be the gold standard in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair. However, autografts and allografts have their own set of associated risks. Many alternative options, including synthetic replacements, have failed to demonstrate long-term success. In this study, sterile acellular porcine bone-tendon-bone (BTB) xenografts were created using a proprietary process and tested against BTB autografts in goats for 13 and 52 weeks. At 13 weeks, all xenograft-implanted animals ( n = 9) had subjective hind leg motor function (HLMF) that was categorized as either normal (score = 0) or a slight limp (score = 1) compared with two of nine autograft-implanted animals having a moderate limp (score = 2). At 39 weeks, there was HLMF improvement with each autograft-implanted and xenograft-implanted animal having normal HLMF or only a slight limp. At 13 weeks, six of nine animals in each group achieved normal anterior drawer scores, which increased to nine of nine animals in each group by 39 weeks. Both autografts and xenografts exhibited minimal inflammation with excellent integration of the fibrous tendon portion of the graft to host bone, as evidenced histologically by Sharpey’s fiber formation. At 52 weeks, maximum mechanical load at failure for xenografts was 1092.0 ± 586.4 N compared with 1037.0 ± 422.6 N for autografts. These results demonstrate that a sterile acellular porcine BTB xenograft can perform equivalently to BTB autograft in a caprine model of ACL repair.

scholarly journals Primary ACL Repair vs Reconstruction: Investigating the Current Conventional Wisdom

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (6_suppl3) ◽  
pp. 2325967118S0004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriella Bucci ◽  
Michael Begg ◽  
Kevin Pillifant ◽  
Steven B. Singleton
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Sports Medicine ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Conventional Wisdom ◽  
Acl Repair ◽  
Arthroscopic Technique ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Injured Knee

BACKGROUND: “Why try to convert other collagen substitutes into ligament if the original can be preserved?” said Sherman1. Nowadays, reconstruction became the gold standard treatment for ACL injuries. Despite current treatment, secondary knee osteoarthritis has been described in more than 70% of the injured patients after 10 years follow up.2 Recent studies have reported that tears involving the proximal ACL have an intrinsic healing response. This response has been compared to the one observed in MCL injuries.3, 4. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to initiate a scientific analysis of our experience in patients diagnosed with an acute, proximal ACL tear treated with a primary repair arthroscopic technique. We suggest the creation of a symposium that reconsiders the ACL repair as a tool for treatment, on a selected subset of patients. METHODS: We analyzed retrospectively the data of 12 consecutive patients diagnosed clinically and radiologically (MRI) with proximal ACL tears in our clinic. The inclusion criteria were: proximal ACL tear (type 1 tear in Sherman´s classification), good remaining ACL quality tissue and less than 3 months from injury. The mean age at time of surgery was 33 years (16 to 55). Patients included in this study are athletes either at an amateur or professional level. The technique consists of an anatomical reinsertion of native ACL by reinforcing the anteromedial and posterolateral bundles of the ACL with a series of high strength locking Bunnell-type sutures, moving up the ligament from distal to proximal with an arthroscopic suture passer. The normal ACL insertional footprint within the notch is then debrided to provide a bleeding surface for healing. Finally, the torn ligament is opposed to the native footprint using 1-2 absorbable anchors that recreate the anatomic bundle insertional sites of the native ACL. RESULTS: Associated injuries were found in 7 of the 12 patients, these included 4 knees with lateral and 1 with medial meniscal tear which were repaired in the same procedure. Also, one knee had a medial bucket handle tear, partial meniscectomy was performed, and one knee with a combined ACL/MCL injury in which the MCL was simultaneously repaired. In our ongoing series, were excluded patients that had sustained complex knee injuries with multi-ligament damage (except ACL/MCL injuries), those with ACL re-ruptures, and previous knee surgery with cartilage repair procedures. Validated functional outcomes scores were collected after a mean follow up of 20 months (14-26). For the IKDC subjective score 11 of 12 patients rated their knees as normal or nearly normal. Lachman and Pivot Shift was negative in all patients. Lysholm score postoperatively averaged 93.5 ± 7; preoperatively 48 ± 7. Tegner preinjury 7.5 ± 1.2 postinjury: 7 ± 1.4. The KT-1000 knee arthrometer, objectively measured < 3 mm of anterior tibial motion relative to the femur in the injured knee compared to the non-injured knee at all levels of force, including manual max tests, in all patients included in the study. No complications or further surgeries are reported up to date. CONCLUSION: The keys to success include: Proper patient selection, early intervention, all arthroscopic technique, appropriate suture control of the torn ACL fibers, and stable opposition to a bleeding bone surface at the native attachment site within the femoral notch. Long-term data is pending. However, basic science and early clinical studies are promising. REFERENCES Mark F. Sherman, MD, Lawernce Lieber, MD, Joel R. Bonamo, MD, Luga Podesta, MD, Ira Reiter, RPT., The long-term followup of primary anterior cruciate ligament repair, 1991, The American Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 19, No 3. Martha M. Murray, MD. Current Status and Potential for Primary ACL Repair. 2009. Clin Ssports Med. Duy Tan Nguyen, Tamara H. Ramwadhdoebe, Cor P. van der Hart, Leendert Blankervoort, Paul Peter Tak, Cornelis Niek van Dijk., Intrinsic Healing Response of the Human Anterior Cruciate Ligament: An Histological Study of Reattached ACL Remnants, 2014, Journal of Orthopaedic Research. Martha M. Murray, MD, Braden C. Fleming, Ph.D., Use of a Bioactive Scaffold to Stimulate ACL Healing Also Minimizes Post-traumatic Osteoarthritis after Surgery, 2014, American Journal of Sports Medicine. Primary ACL Repair vs Reconstruction: Investigating the Current Conventional Wisdom

Rehabilitation Principles to Consider for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair

2021 ◽  
pp. 194173812110329
Author(s):  
Jocelyn Wu ◽  
Jamie L. Kator ◽  
Michael Zarro ◽  
Natalie L. Leong
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Ligament Repair ◽  
Acl Repair ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair ◽  
Ligament Augmentation ◽  
Internal Bracing ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Repair Techniques

Context: Injury to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is among the most common orthopaedic injuries, and reconstruction of a ruptured ACL is a common orthopaedic procedure. In general, surgical intervention is necessary to restore stability to the injured knee, and to prevent meniscal damage. Along with surgery, intense postoperative physical therapy is needed to restore function to the injured extremity. ACL reconstruction (ACLR) has been the standard of care in recent decades, and advances in surgical technology have reintroduced the prospect of augmented primary repair of the native ACL via a variety of methods. Evidence Acquisition: A search of PubMed database of articles and reviews available in English was performed through 2020. The search terms ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament repair, bridge enhanced acl repair, suture anchor repair, dynamic intraligamentary stabilization, internal bracing, suture ligament augmentation, and internal brace ligament augmentation were used. Study Design: Clinical review. Level of Evidence: Level 5. Results: No exact consensus exists on effective rehabilitation protocols after ACL repair techniques, as the variation in published protocols seem even greater than the variation in those for ACLR. For some techniques such as internal bracing and dynamic interligamentary stabilization, it is likely permissible for the patients to progress to full weightbearing and discontinue bracing sooner. However, caution should be applied with regard to earlier return to sport than after ACLR as to minimize risk for retear. Conclusion: More research is needed to address how physical therapies must adapt to these innovative repair techniques. Until that is accomplished, we recommend that physical therapists understand the differences among the various ACL surgery techniques discussed here and work with the surgeons to develop a rehabilitation protocol for their mutual patients. Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT): C.

scholarly journals Prognostic Factors for Patient-Reported Outcomes at 32 to 37 Years After Surgical or Nonsurgical Management of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 232596712110215
Author(s):  
Stephanie Filbay ◽  
Christer Andersson ◽  
Håkan Gauffin ◽  
Joanna Kvist
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Prognostic Factors ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Knee Laxity ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Acl Repair ◽  
Extension Deficit ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Flexion And Extension

Background: Knowledge to inform the identification of individuals with a poor long-term prognosis after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is limited. Identifying prognostic factors for long-term outcomes after ACL injury may inform targeted interventions to improve outcomes for those with a poor long-term prognosis. Purpose: To determine whether ACL treatment (early augmented or nonaugmented ACL repair plus rehabilitation, rehabilitation alone, or rehabilitation plus delayed ACL reconstruction [ACLR]) and 4-year measures (quadriceps and hamstrings strength, single-leg hop, knee laxity, flexion and extension deficit, self-reported knee function, activity level) are prognostic factors for patient-reported outcomes at 32 to 37 years after acute ACL injury. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A total of 251 patients aged 15 to 40 years with acute ACL rupture between 1980 and 1985 were allocated to early ACL repair (augmented or nonaugmented) plus rehabilitation or to rehabilitation alone, based on birth year. One hundred ninety of 234 completed 32- to 37-year follow-up questionnaires (response rate, 81%); 18 people were excluded, resulting in 172 patients available for analysis (mean age, 59 ± 6 years; 28% female). Potential prognostic factors assessed 4 years after ACL injury were ACL treatment (early ACL repair, rehabilitation alone, or delayed ACLR), isokinetic quadriceps and hamstrings strength, single-leg hop performance, knee flexion and extension deficit, knee laxity, Tegner activity scale, and Lysholm score. Outcomes included Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales and the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Quality of Life (ACL-QOL) measure. Linear regression adjusted for age, sex, baseline meniscal injury, and contralateral ACL injury was used to assess potential prognostic factors for 32- to 37-year outcomes. Multiple imputation accounted for missing data. Results: A fair/poor Lysholm score (vs excellent/good) at 4 years was a prognostic factor for worse KOOS Pain (adjusted regression coefficient, −12 [95% confidence interval (CI), −19 to −4]), KOOS Symptoms (−15 [95% CI, −23 to −7]), KOOS Sport and Recreation (−19 [95% CI, −31 to −8]), and ACL QOL (−9 [95% CI, −18 to −1]) scores. A 4-year single-leg hop limb symmetry index <90% was a prognostic factor for worse KOOS Pain (adjusted regression coefficient, −9 [95% CI, −17 to −1]) and ACL QOL (−13 [95% CI, −22 to −3]) scores at long-term follow-up. A lower activity level, delayed ACLR, and increased knee laxity were prognostic factors in the crude analysis. Rehabilitation alone versus early repair, quadriceps and hamstring strength, and flexion and extension deficit were not related to 32- to 37-year outcomes. Conclusion: Reduced self-reported knee function and single-leg hop performance 4 years after ACL injury were prognostic factors for worse 32- to 37-year outcomes. Estimates exceeded clinically important thresholds, highlighting the importance of assessing these constructs when managing individuals with ACL injuries. Registration: NCT03182647 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

The long-term followup of primary anterior cruciate ligament repair

1991 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 243-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark F. Sherman ◽  
Lawrence Lieber ◽  
Joel R. Bonamo ◽  
Luga Podesta ◽  
Ira Reiter
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Ligament Repair ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament repair with and without suture augmentation: technical note

2021 ◽  
pp. jisakos-2020-000508
Author(s):  
Jorge Pablo Batista ◽  
Jorge Chahla ◽  
Miki Dalmau-Pastor ◽  
Rodrigo Maestu ◽  
Kyle N Kunze ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Technical Note ◽  
Tissue Quality ◽  
Acl Repair ◽  
Acute Setting ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Primary Acl Reconstruction

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are routinely treated with an ACL reconstruction. This is based on historical literature reporting high failure rates after ACL repairs in addition to the limited healing potential of the ACL. Recently, improved understanding of pathophysiology of ligamentous healing has led to increasing interest in treating proximal avulsions with excellent tissue quality in the acute setting, as this technique allows for ACL healing. Potential advantages of ACL repair include preservation of native proprioceptive and kinematics of the knee, avoidance of graft harvesting morbidity and the possibility to perform a primary ACL reconstruction in case of failure. As a consequence, several techniques for ACL repair have been proposed that can be performed in isolation or with suture augmentation. The primary aim of this technical note is to describe step-by-step the ACL repair technique with and without suture augmentation. The secondary aim of the current study is to review the indications, patient selection and advantages of the technique.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document