Earlier Resolution of Symptoms and Return of Function After Bridge-Enhanced Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair As Compared With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Background: Bridge-enhanced anterior cruciate ligament repair (BEAR) has noninferior patient-reported outcomes when compared with autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) at 2 years. However, the comparison of BEAR and autograft ACLR at earlier time points—including important outcomes such as resolution of knee pain and symptoms, recovery of strength, and return to sport—has not yet been reported. Hypothesis: It was hypothesized that the BEAR group would have higher outcomes on the International Knee Documentation Committee and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, as well as improved muscle strength, in the early postoperative period. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A total of 100 patients aged 13 to 35 years with complete midsubstance anterior cruciate ligament injuries were randomized to receive a suture repair augmented with an extracellular matrix implant (n = 65) or an autograft ACLR (n = 35). Outcomes were assessed at time points up to 2 years postoperatively. Mixed-model repeated-measures analyses were used to compare BEAR and ACLR outcomes. Patients were unblinded after their 2-year visit. Results: Repeated-measures testing revealed a significant effect of group on the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Score ( P = .015), most pronounced at 6 months after surgery (BEAR = 86 points vs ACLR = 78 points; P = .001). There was a significant effect of group on the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Symptoms subscale scores ( P = .010), largely attributed to the higher BEAR scores at the 1-year postoperative time point (88 vs 82; P = .009). The effect of group on hamstring strength was significant in the repeated-measures analysis ( P < .001), as well as at all postoperative time points ( P < .001 for all comparisons). At 1 year after surgery, approximately 88% of the patients in the BEAR group and 76% of the ACLR group had been cleared for return to sport ( P = .261). Conclusion: Patients undergoing the BEAR procedure had earlier resolution of symptoms and increased satisfaction about their knee function, as well as improved resolution of hamstring muscle strength throughout the 2-year follow-up period. Registration: NCT02664545 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier)

Rehabilitation Principles to Consider for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair

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.

Massive Chondrolysis and Joint Destruction after Artificial Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair

The Ligament Augmentation Reconstruction System (LARS) is an artificial ligament made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) used for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in Australia. Poor results with previous generations of synthetic grafts causing synovitis, graft failure, and premature osteoarthritis have encouraged the production of the newer LARS ligament with good results. We present a case of massive chondrolysis and joint destruction after LARS implantation requiring total knee replacement in a 23-year-old male. This case documents a rare and severe complication to the LARS ligament as caution for the implementation of this device in young athlete.