scholarly journals Arthroscopic Primary Repair of Proximal Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears: With or Without Additional Suture Augmentation?

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (7_suppl4) ◽  
pp. 2325967118S0006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Jonkergouw ◽  
Jelle P. van der List ◽  
Gregory S. DiFelice
Keyword(s):  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Suture Anchor ◽  
Primary Repair ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Type I ◽  
Acl Repair ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Objectives: Over the last years, arthroscopic primary repair of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears has shown excellent results owing to appropriate patient selection (only repairing proximal ACL tears and good tissue quality), minimal invasive surgery (arthroscopy) and focus on early range of motion. Some surgeons have repaired proximal ACL tears without suture augmentation while others have used internal suture augmentation to reinforce and thus protect the repaired ligament during range of motion. No studies have yet compared the two surgical techniques. The objective of this study was to compare failure rates, reoperation rates and patient-reported outcomes of arthroscopic primary repair with versus without suture augmentation. Methods: A retrospective search for all patients treated with suture anchor arthroscopic primary ACL repair between April 2008 and June 2016 was performed. All patients with isolated proximal ACL tears (type I) were included. Since the development of internal suture augmentation, this reinforcement was added to the repaired ACLs. Minimum follow-up length was 1.0 years. Results: A total of 56 patients were included (mean age 33 years (range: 14 - 57), 59% male) of which 28 (50%) patients received additional suture augmentation. Mean follow-up was 2.3 years (range: 1.0-9.2). Six of all patients had reruptured their repaired ACL (10.7%), of which four underwent uncomplicated ACL reconstruction and two were treated conservatively. Four reruptures were initially treated with primary repair only (4/28, 14.3%) and two patients with additional suture augmentation (2/28, 7.1%; p = 0.431). During follow-up, three patients underwent reoperation (5.4%; two for medial meniscus tear (one in each group) and one for tibial suture anchor removal of the suture augmentation). Patient-reported outcomes have so far been collected in 20 patients without reruptures (currently collecting), with mean Lysholm score of 96, modified Cincinnati 94, SANE 93, pre-injury Tegner 6.7, postoperative Tegner 6.3 and subjective IKDC 91. Objective IKDC was A in 90%, B in 5%, C in 5%. Conclusion: In this study, the total failure rate of arthroscopic primary ACL repair was 10.7% and was lower with additional suture augmentation (7.1%) than primary repair alone (14.3%). Patients with failed ACL repair underwent uncomplicated primary ACL reconstruction. We recommend adding suture augmentation in high-risk patients (i.e. adolescents, ones with hyperlaxity, high contact sports), to protect the repaired ligament, especially during early range of motion. These data support treating type I proximal ACL tears with arthroscopic primary repair.

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 Poor Associations Between Radiographic Tibiofemoral Osteoarthritis and Patient-Reported Outcomes at 16 Years After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (9) ◽  
pp. 232596712095117
Author(s):  
Fredrik Identeg ◽  
Eric Hamrin Senorski ◽  
Eleonor Svantesson ◽  
Kristian Samuelsson ◽  
Ninni Sernert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Long Term Follow Up ◽  
Ikdc Score ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Grade 3

Background: Radiographic tibiofemoral (TF) osteoarthritis (OA) is common in patients after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction at long-term follow-up. The association between radiographic OA and patient-reported outcomes has not been thoroughly investigated. Purpose: To determine the association between radiographic TF OA and patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores at 16 years after ACL reconstruction. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: This study was based on 2 randomized controlled studies comprising 193 patients who underwent unilateral ACL reconstruction. A long-term follow-up was carried out at 16.4 ± 1.7 years after surgery and included a radiographic examination of the knee and recording of PROM scores. Correlation analyses were performed between radiographic OA (Kellgren-Lawrence [K-L], Ahlbäck, and cumulative Fairbank grades) and the PROMs of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee form, Lysholm score, and Tegner activity scale. A linear univariable regression model was used to assess how the IKDC score differed with each grade of radiographic OA. Results: Of 193 patients at baseline, 147 attended the long-term follow-up. At long-term follow-up, 44.2% of the patients had a K-L grade of ≥2 in the injured leg, compared with 6.8% in the uninjured leg. The mean IKDC score at follow-up was 71.2 ± 19.9. Higher grades of radiographic OA were significantly correlated with lower IKDC and Lysholm scores ( r = –0.36 to –0.22). Patients with a K-L grade of 3 to 4 had significantly lower IKDC scores compared with patients without radiographic OA (K-L grade 0-1). Adjusted beta values were –15.7 (95% CI, –27.5 to –4.0; P = .0093; R 2 = 0.09) for K-L grade 3 and –25.2 (95% CI, –41.7 to –8.6; P = .0033; R 2 = 0.09) for K-L grade 4. Conclusion: There was a poor but significant correlation between radiographic TF OA and more knee-related limitations, as measured by the IKDC form and the Lysholm score. Patients with high grades of radiographic TF OA (K-L grade 3-4) had a statistically significant decrease in IKDC scores compared with patients without radiographic TF OA at 16 years after ACL reconstruction. No associations were found between radiographic TF OA and the Tegner activity level.

scholarly journals Primary ACL Repair Revisited: Back to the Future?

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (11_suppl6) ◽  
pp. 2325967119S0044
Author(s):  
Bruce Reider
Keyword(s):  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Primary Repair ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
The United States ◽  
Current Recommendation ◽  
Acl Repair ◽  
Early Results ◽  
Select Group ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Primary repair of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) had some popularity among a select group of surgeons in the mid 20th century. Techniques described by Ivar Palmer of Sweden were adopted in the United States by surgeons such as O’Donoghue, Marshall, and Feagin. However, promising early results were followed by disappointing failure rates at 5-year follow-up, and ACL reconstruction became the norm. Recently there has been a renewed interest in ACL repair. One use has been in conjunction with ACL reconstruction as remnant preservation. Isolated repair has been reported using a variety of techniques, including bridge-enhanced repair (BEAR) with a sheath, meticulous suturing with or without suture tape reinforcement, and repair to a dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) device. Early reports have been encouraging. However, in the case of the BEAR, the series is so far small and short-term; the two other techniques have more results reported but they include some studies with a concerning level of failure, especially in younger or more active patients. My current recommendation is to await more clinical documentation before adopting these technique in lieu of ACL reconstruction.

scholarly journals Influence of Meniscal and Chondral Lesions on Patient-Reported Outcomes After Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction at 2-Year Follow-up

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 232596711775418 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark E. Cinque ◽  
Jorge Chahla ◽  
Justin J. Mitchell ◽  
Gilbert Moatshe ◽  
Jonas Pogorzelski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Chondral Lesions ◽  
Meniscal Lesions ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Outcome Scores ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: Meniscal and chondral lesions are commonly associated with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears, and these lesions may play a role in patient outcomes after ACL reconstruction. Purpose: To determine the effects of the presence and location of meniscal and chondral lesions at the time of ACL reconstruction on patient-reported outcomes at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients with no prior knee surgery who underwent primary ACL reconstruction by a single surgeon between 2010 and 2014 were included in this study. Those meeting inclusion criteria were divided into the following groups based on the arthroscopic diagnosis: patients without concomitant meniscal or chondral lesions, patients with isolated meniscal lesions, patients with isolated chondral lesions, and patients with both chondral and meniscal lesions. Patient-reported outcomes (Short Form–12 [SF-12] physical component summary [PCS] and mental component summary [MCS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC], and Lysholm scale) were assessed at a minimum of 2 years from the index surgery. Results: A total of 151 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. The mean age at the time of surgery was 36.2 years (range, 14-73 years), and the mean follow-up was 3.2 years (range, 2.0-5.6 years). At the time of surgery, 33 (22%) patients had no concomitant lesions and served as the control group, 63 (42%) patients had isolated meniscal lesions, 21 (14%) patients had isolated chondral lesions, and 34 (22%) patients had both chondral and meniscal lesions. There was significant improvement in all outcome scores postoperatively for the 3 groups ( P < .05 for all outcome scores). The presence of a meniscal tear and laterality of the meniscal lesion did not have a negative effect on any postoperative outcome scores. Patients with isolated chondral lesions had significantly lower postoperative WOMAC scores compared with patients without chondral lesions ( P < .05). No significant differences were found for all other scores. Patients with patellofemoral chondral lesions had significantly lower postoperative SF-12 PCS and Lysholm scores than patients with tibiofemoral chondral lesions ( P < .05). Conclusion: Patients with ACL tears achieved improved functional scores at a mean 3.2 years after ACL reconstruction. While meniscal lesions did not affect postoperative outcomes in the short term, chondral lesions were identified as a predictor for worse outcomes.

scholarly journals Clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament injury: Panther Symposium ACL Injury Clinical Outcomes Consensus Group

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 281-294
Author(s):  
Eleonor Svantesson ◽  
Eric Hamrin Senorski ◽  
Kate E Webster ◽  
Jón Karlsson ◽  
Theresa Diermeier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Injury ◽  
Consensus Meeting ◽  
Comprehensive Assessment ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

PurposeA stringent outcome assessment is a key aspect for establishing evidence-based clinical guidelines for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury treatment. The aim of this consensus statement was to establish what data should be reported when conducting an ACL outcome study, what specific outcome measurements should be used and at what follow-up time those outcomes should be assessed.MethodsTo establish a standardised assessment of clinical outcome after ACL treatment, a consensus meeting including a multidisciplinary group of ACL experts was held at the ACL Consensus Meeting Panther Symposium, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, in June 2019. The group reached consensus on nine statements by using a modified Delphi method.ResultsIn general, outcomes after ACL treatment can be divided into four robust categories—early adverse events, patient-reported outcomes, ACL graft failure/recurrent ligament disruption, and clinical measures of knee function and structure. A comprehensive assessment following ACL treatment should aim to provide a complete overview of the treatment result, optimally including the various aspects of outcome categories. For most research questions, a minimum follow-up of 2 years with an optimal follow-up rate of 80% is necessary to achieve a comprehensive assessment. This should include clinical examination, any sustained re-injuries, validated knee-specific patient-reported outcomes and Health-Related Quality of Life questionnaires. In the mid-term to long-term follow-up, the presence of osteoarthritis should be evaluated.ConclusionThis consensus paper provides practical guidelines for how the aforementioned entities of outcomes should be reported and suggests the preferred tools for a reliable and valid assessment of outcome after ACL treatment.Level of EvidenceLevel V.

scholarly journals Patient-Reported Outcomes, Return-to-Sport Status, and Reinjury Rates After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Adolescent Athletes: Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 232596712096447
Author(s):  
Lilah Fones ◽  
Regina O. Kostyun ◽  
Andrew D. Cohen ◽  
J. Lee Pace
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Knee Function ◽  
Adolescent Athletes ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Adolescent Patients ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: Significant variation exists in the published rates of return to sport after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR). Functional outcomes and psychological response to injury have been implicated as factors that influence return to sport. Most studies focus on patients aged in the mid-20s, and less is known about this topic in adolescents. Purpose: To report midterm ACLR results for adolescent patients with regard to return to primary sport, patient-reported outcomes, and reinjury rate. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Adolescent athletes were contacted at a minimum of 2 years after ACLR. Patients completed 2 patient-reported outcome measures, the ACL--Return to Sport After Injury (ACL-RSI) and the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective form, and responded to questions regarding preinjury primary sport and level of competition, post-ACLR return to primary sport status, and reinjury. Results: A total of 74 patients (mean ± SD surgical age, 15.9 ± 1.5 years; follow-up age, 19.9 ± 2.0 years; response rate, 24.5%) completed the surveys at a mean of 4.0 ± 2.0 years after primary ACLR. Outcome scores averaged 90.3 ± 12.3 for IKDC and 81.6 ± 20.4 for ACL-RSI. Questionnaire responses indicated that 27.0% of patients did not return to or sustain primary sport participation after ACLR; the principal reasons were poor knee function, team/training change, and fear of another injury. Both IKDC and ACL-RSI scores were statistically lower in patients who did not successfully return to their primary sport in contrast to patients who successfully resumed their primary sport (IKDC, P = .026; ACL-RSI, P < .001). IKDC and ACL-RSI scores were moderately positively correlated with one another ( r Spearman = 0.60). There were 18 patients (reinjury rate, 24.3%) who suffered another ACL injury; 8 of these injuries included ipsilateral ACL graft tear (retear rate, 10.8%). Conclusion: In our cohort, 73% of adolescent patients successfully returned to their primary preinjury sport at a minimum of 2 years after ACLR. Both knee function and psychological responses to injury were important in determining an adolescent athlete’s return to sport. The findings support the use of the IKDC and ACL-RSI at midterm follow-up, with higher scores associated with a greater likelihood of adolescent patients returning to sport after ACLR.

scholarly journals Arthroscopic Primary Repair of Proximal Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears With Suture Augmentation

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 263502542110054
Author(s):  
Harmen D. Vermeijden ◽  
Jelle P. van der List ◽  
Gregory S. DiFelice
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Failure Rate ◽  
Suture Anchor ◽  
Primary Repair ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Tissue Quality ◽  
Acl Repair ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Suture Tape

Background: Historically, the midterm outcomes of open anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair were rather disappointing, and ACL reconstruction subsequently became the surgical standard for ACL injuries. Recent studies, however, have shown that there might be a role for arthroscopic primary repair in appropriately selected patients with proximal ACL tears. Indications: Due to more prominent blood supply in the proximal ligament region, ACL repair should only be performed in patients with proximal tears and good-to-excellent tissue quality. Although all patients are potential candidates, this procedure is preferably performed acutely and in adult patients. Technique Description: First, it is identified whether a proximal tear with good tissue quality is present. Then, both ACL bundles are sutured individually from distal to proximal using a Bunnell-type pattern and a self-retrieving suture passer. The posterolateral bundle is then reattached first in anatomical fashion, using a 4.75-mm vented biocomposite suture anchor. Next, the suture anchor of the anteromedial bundle is preloaded with an internal suture tape augmentation. After anchor deployment, the suture tape augmentation is channeled through a small 2.5-mm tibial tunnel in the anterior third of the tibial ACL footprint. Finally, the suture augmentation is tensioned near full extension and fixed to the tibia’s anteromedial cortex using single suture anchor fixation. Results: Recently, we have published a series of the first 113 consecutive repair patients with minimum 2-year follow-up, of which 60 received additional suture augmentation. In this cohort, the overall failure rate was 13%, which was similar to 3 other studies on modern-day ACL repair (range: 5%-15%). Subgroup analysis showed that the failure rate was much higher in patients ≤ 21 years (38%) but low in patients >21 years (0%). Finally, it has been shown that there is an earlier return of knee motion, complications are rare, and there is less joint awareness after ACL repair as compared with ACL reconstruction. Conclusion: Selective, modern-day, arthroscopic primary ACL repair with suture augmentation seems to be a good alternative to ACL reconstruction in carefully selected patients, which include patients with proximal tears and good tissue quality and aged ≤ 22 years.

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Outcomes at a Minimum of 5-Year Follow-Up: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (03) ◽  
pp. 218-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lea Johnson ◽  
Robert Brophy ◽  
Ljiljana Bogunovic ◽  
Matthew Matava ◽  
Matthew Smith ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Revision Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

AbstractRevision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction typically has worse outcomes than primary reconstructions. Minimal long-term data exist regarding 5-year results. We chose to perform a systematic review to evaluate midterm (5-year) revision ACL reconstruction outcomes (patient-reported outcomes, reoperation, stability, arthritis) in comparison to primary ACL reconstructions at similar time points. Embase, Cochrane, and PubMed databases were queried, and four studies met the inclusion criteria. Two authors reviewed and performed data extraction. All were level 4 studies. Review of the studies demonstrated that results at 5 years are consistently worse than those noted in primary reconstructions for objective and patient-reported outcomes. Revision ACL reconstruction outcomes remain worse than primary reconstructions at midterm 5-year follow-up. The level of evidence is 4.

Single-stage versus two-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (6) ◽  
pp. 345-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristin J Mathew ◽  
Jeremiah E Palmer ◽  
Bradley S Lambert ◽  
Joshua D Harris ◽  
Patrick C McCulloch
Keyword(s):  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Single Stage ◽  
Stage Versus ◽  
Clinical Failure ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Complex Cases

ImportanceDespite advances in surgical techniques and postoperative rehabilitation, long-term anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft rupture rate remains high. The increasing number of primary ACL reconstructions in an ageing population will lead to increasing revision reconstructions. Revision cases may have higher failure rates and worse patient-reported outcomes compared with primaries. While two-stage revisions may be indicated in certain complex cases, whether this is comparatively equivalent or even superior to revisions done in a single stage would assist preoperative planning.ObjectiveThe objective of this systematic review was to analyse and compare patient-reported outcomes and failure rate of single-stage versus two-stage revision ACL reconstruction.Evidence reviewUsing PubMed, MEDLINE Complete and Ovid MEDLINE databases, a review was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines to identify level I–IV outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction with a minimum follow-up of 24 months.FindingsThree studies reported outcomes of two-stage revisions with mean follow-up of 61.6 months, while 21 studies reported single-stage revisions with mean follow-up of 47.4 months. Pooled rate of two-stage revisions was 3.1% compared with 6.8% in single-stage (p=0.068). Clinical failure was reported in 5.1% of 79 two-stage patients compared with 13.8% of 533 single-stage patients (p<0.05). Within the single-stage cohort, there was a greater clinical failure rate (+8.7%, p<0.05) for patients with less than 48 months follow-up. Those with > 48 months follow-up had a higher rerupture rate (+5%, p<0.05) and a significantly greater sum of squared deviations (p<0.05) compared with those with < 48 months follow-up. Patient-reported outcomes have demonstrated two-stage revision patients with higher IKDC A and B scores than single-stage.Conclusions and relevanceAlthough two-stage revisions may be performed in more complex cases, there are limited short-term data available regarding their outcomes. Two-stage revisions demonstrated comparable clinical outcomes and lower rate of revision surgery and clinical failure compared with single-stage revisions. Studies with shorter follow-up (24–48 months) showed higher clinical failure rates. Those with longer follow-up (>48 months) showed higher graft rerupture rates. The decision to perform staged reconstruction should made on whether adequate tunnel placement and fixation can be established in a single setting.Level of evidenceLevel IV.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document