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 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 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 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 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.

scholarly journals Repair versus reconstruction for proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears: a study protocol for a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jelle P. van der List ◽  
Harmen D. Vermeijden ◽  
Inger N. Sierevelt ◽  
Maarten V. Rademakers ◽  
Mark L. M. Falke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Return To Sports ◽  
Acl Repair ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Ikdc Score ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Abstract Background For active patients with a tear of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) who would like to return to active level of sports, the current surgical gold standard is reconstruction of the ACL. Recently, there has been renewed interest in repairing the ACL in selected patients with a proximally torn ligament. Repair of the ligament has (potential) advantages over reconstruction of the ligament such as decreased surgical morbidity, faster return of range of motion, and potentially decreased awareness of the knee. Studies comparing both treatments in a prospective randomized method are currently lacking. Methods This study is a multicenter prospective block randomized controlled trial. A total of 74 patients with acute proximal isolated ACL tears will be assigned in a 1:1 allocation ratio to either (I) ACL repair using cortical button fixation and additional suture augmentation or (II) ACL reconstruction using an all-inside autologous hamstring graft technique. The primary objective is to assess if ACL repair is non-inferior to ACL reconstruction regarding the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score at two-years postoperatively. The secondary objectives are to assess if ACL repair is non-inferior with regards to (I) other patient-reported outcomes measures (i.e. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Lysholm score, Forgotten Joint Score, patient satisfaction and pain), (II) objective outcome measures (i.e. failure of repair or graft defined as rerupture or symptomatic instability, reoperation, contralateral injury, and stability using the objective IKDC score and Rollimeter/KT-2000), (III) return to sports assessed by Tegner activity score and the ACL-Return to Sports Index at two-year follow-up, and (IV) long-term osteoarthritis at 10-year follow-up. Discussion Over the last decade there has been a resurgence of interest in repair of proximally torn ACLs. Several cohort studies have shown encouraging short-term and mid-term results using these techniques, but prospective randomized studies are lacking. Therefore, this randomized controlled trial has been designed to assess whether ACL repair is at least equivalent to the current gold standard of ACL reconstruction in both subjective and objective outcome scores. Trial registration Registered at Netherlands Trial Register (NL9072) on 25th of November 2020.

Twenty-Year Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Prospectively Collected Data

2021 ◽  
pp. 036354652110273
Author(s):  
Joshua S. Everhart ◽  
Sercan Yalcin ◽  
Kurt P. Spindler
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Knee Function ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: Several long-term (≥20 years) follow-up studies after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction have been published in recent years, allowing for a systematic evaluation of outcomes. Purpose: To summarize outcomes at ≥20 years after ACL reconstruction and identify patient and surgical factors that affect these results. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Prospective studies of primary ACL reconstructions with hamstring or bone–patellar tendon—bone (BTB) autograft via an arthroscopic or a mini-open technique and with a mean follow-up of ≥20 years were identified. When possible, the mean scores for each outcome measure were calculated. Factors identified in individual studies as predictive of outcomes were described. Results: Five studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria with a total of 2012 patients. The pooled mean follow-up for patient-reported outcome measures was 44.2% (range, 29.6%-92.7%) and in-person evaluation was 33.2% (range, 29.6%-48.9%). Four studies (n = 584) reported graft tears at a mean rate of 11.8% (range, 2%-18.5%) and 4 studies (n = 773) reported a contralateral ACL injury rate of 12.2% (range, 5.8%-30%). Repeat non-ACL arthroscopic surgery (4 studies; n = 177) to the ipsilateral knee occurred in 10.4% (range, 9.5%-18.3%) and knee arthroplasty (1 study; n = 217) in 5%. The pooled mean of the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee function (IKDC) score was 79.1 (SD, 21.8 [3 studies; n = 644]). In 2 studies (n?= 221), 57.5% of patients continued to participate in strenuous activities. The IKDC-objective score was normal or nearly normal in 82.3% (n = 496; 3 studies), with low rates of clinically significant residual laxity. Moderate-severe radiographic osteoarthritis (OA) (IKDC grade C or D) was present in 25.9% of patients (n = 605; 3 studies). Medial meniscectomy is associated with increased risk of radiographic OA. Radiographic OA severity is associated with worse patient-reported knee function, but the association with knee pain is unclear. Conclusion: Currently available prospective evidence for ACL reconstruction with hamstring or BTB autograft provides several insights into outcomes at 20 years. The rates of follow-up at 20 years range from 30% to 93%. IKDC-objective scores were normal or nearly normal in 82% and the mean IKDC-subjective score was 79 points.

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

scholarly journals GRAFT CHOICE FOR ADOLESCENT ATHLETES RETURNING TO HIGH-RISK SPORTS: A MATCHED COHORT ANALYSIS OF PATELLAR TENDON AND HAMSTRING AUTOGRAFTS

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2325967119S0007
Author(s):  
Crystal Perkins ◽  
Michael Busch ◽  
Melissa Christino ◽  
Belinda Schaafsma ◽  
S. Clifton Willimon
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Patellar Tendon ◽  
Graft Failure ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Graft Rupture ◽  
Graft Choice ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: Graft selection for skeletally mature adolescents undergoing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is guided by surgeon and patient preference. In young patients returning to high-risk cutting and pivoting sports, graft rupture is the most feared complication of ACL reconstruction. Some studies have demonstrated slightly lower rates of graft failure and decreased laxity in the short term associated with patellar tendon (BTB) autografts as compared to hamstring (HS) autografts, but these studies are limited by their heterogeneity of ages and activity level1-3. The purpose of this study is to compare the rates of graft failure between BTB and HS ACL reconstruction cohorts matched by age, sex, and sport. Methods: A single-institution retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients less than 19 years of age treated with ACL reconstructions using either patellar tendon (BTB) or hamstring (HS) autograft performed by a single surgeon. Skeletally mature or nearly mature patients in “high-risk” ACL injury sports (basketball, football, soccer, lacrosse, and gymnastics) were initially treated with hamstring autografts but the graft preference transitioned to BTB autografts as the preferred graft choice during the study period. This transition in graft preference for adolescents participating in “high risk” sports allows for a comparison of outcomes based on graft types. Inclusion criteria were ages 13 – 18 years, participation in a “high risk” sport, and minimum 6-month follow-up. The two cohorts of patients were matched by age, gender, and sport. The primary outcome measure was graft rupture. Results: One hundred fifty-two patients with an average age of 16 years (range 13 – 18 years) underwent ACL reconstruction during the study period. There were 71 BTB reconstructions and 81 HS reconstructions. There were 64 females and 88 males. There was no difference in age, sex, BMI, or laterality between groups. There were more patients who played soccer in the BTB cohort (44%) vs HS cohort (20%) and fewer who played basketball in the BTB cohort (24%) vs HS cohort (41%), p = 0.005. There were no differences between the BTB and HS cohorts in terms of meniscus tears (61% v 72%, p = 0.15), meniscus repair (21% v 32%, p = 0.13), or partial meniscectomy (32% v 33%, p = 0.90). Mean duration of follow-up was 28 months (range 7-57 months). There was no difference in follow-up between cohorts (BTB 28 months and HS 29 months, p = 0.19). There were a total of 16 graft ruptures (10.5%). There was no difference in the rate of graft rupture between cohorts (BTB 8.5% vs HS 12.3%, p = 0.60). Mean time to graft rupture was 21 months (range 8 – 35 months) and Kaplan-Meier survival curves demonstrated no difference between cohorts. Conclusions: ACL reconstruction in adolescents returning to high-risk sports can be performed utilizing BTB or HS autografts with similar rates of graft rupture. There is a trend toward lower rates of graft rupture associated with BTB autografts, but additional patients will be necessary to determine if this trend will become a statistically significant difference. Beynnon BD, Johnson RJ, Fleming BC, et al. Anterior cruciate ligament replacement: comparison of bone-patellar tendon bone grafts with two-strand hamstring grafts. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002;84(9):1503-1513. Ho B, Edmonds EW, Chambers HG et al. Risk factors for early ACL reconstruction failure in pediatric and adolescent patients: a review of 561 cases. J Pediatr Orthop 2016. Samuelsen BT, Webster KE, Johnson NR, et al. Hamstring autograft versus patellar tendon autograft for ACL reconstruction: is there a difference in graft failure rate? A meta-analysis of 47,613 patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017;475(10):2459-2468.

Low Rates of Return to Preinjury Sport After Bilateral Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

2018 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 334-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate E. Webster ◽  
Julian A. Feller ◽  
Alexander J. Kimp ◽  
Timothy S. Whitehead
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Return To Sport ◽  
Rates Of Return ◽  
Acl Injuries ◽  
Reconstruction Surgery ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: Patients with bilateral anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries tend to report worse results in terms of knee function and quality of life as compared with those with unilateral injury. There are limited data regarding return to preinjury sport in this group. Purpose: To report return-to-sport rates for patients who had bilateral ACL reconstruction and to compare outcomes according to age and sex. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A total of 107 patients (62 male, 45 female) who underwent primary ACL reconstruction surgery to both knees completed a detailed sports activity survey at a mean 5-year follow-up (range, 2.5-10 years). Follow-up also included the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form, Marx Activity Scale, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score–Quality of Life subscale. Rates of return to preinjury levels of sport were calculated for the whole cohort, and for further analysis, the group was divided according to age (<25 vs ≥25 years), sex, and time between the reconstruction procedures (<3 vs ≥3 years). Results: The rate of return to preinjury sport after bilateral ACL reconstruction was 40% (95% CI, 31%-50%), as compared with an 83% (95% CI, 74%-88%) return rate after the first reconstruction procedure. Although not statistically significant, return rates were higher for male versus female patients (47% vs 31%) and older versus younger patients (45% vs 31%). Of those who returned to their preinjury levels of sport after the second reconstruction, 72% thought that they could perform as well as before their ACL injuries. In contrast, only 20% thought that they could perform as well if they returned to a lower level. Fear of reinjury was the most common reason cited for failure to return to sport after the second reconstruction. Patient-reported outcome scores were higher for those who returned to their preinjury levels of sport but did not differ for sex and age. Conclusion: Return-to-sport rates drop markedly after a second (contralateral) ACL reconstruction, with less than half of the investigated cohort returning to its preinjury level of sport. Return-to-sport outcomes are less than ideal for patients who have ACL reconstruction surgery to both knees.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document