Range of motion and complications following primary repair versus reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament

Repair with suture tape augmentation vs. reconstruction for ACL tears: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background and aims

Interest in repairing ruptured anterior cruciate ligaments (ACL) has resurged, with suture tape augmentation (internal brace, ACL-IB) emerging as a prominent technique. However, the efficacy of ACL-IB compared to ACL reconstruction (ACL-R) remains unclear. We conducted a meta-analysis to address this gap.

Methods

Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, a search to PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central for studies comparing ACL-IB to ACL-R was performed. The main endpoints were patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and failure rate. Muscle and joint function and surgery time were also assessed. Statistical analysis was performed by Review Manager 5.1.7.

Results

Nine studies comprising 1049 patients were included; 381 (36.3 %) underwent ACL-IB. Hamstring autografts were used for ACL-R in 421 patients (63.0 %). Most studies (6 of 8) reported follow-up longer than two years. The failure rate was higher in the ACL-IB group (risk ratio 3.62; 95 % CI 1.16 to 11.33; p = 0.03; I2: 52 %). No significant difference was found between groups for PROs, except KOOS Symptoms, which was significantly improved with ACL-IB (mean difference 2.49; 95 % CI 0.05 to 4.92; p = 0.05; I2: 0 %). ACL-IB resulted in stronger hamstrings (mean difference 11.99 %; 95 % CI 4.47 %-19.51 %; p = 0.002; I2: 73 %). No significant difference was found in anterior tibial translation and quadriceps strength.

Conclusions

ACL-IB had a higher failure rate compared to ACL-R. However, ACL-IB showed better hamstring strength and KOOS symptom score. No significant differences were seen in other PROs, time to return to sports, or quadriceps strength.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair With Suture Tape Augmentation of Proximal Tears and Early Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Suture Tape Augmentation Result in Comparable Clinical Outcomes With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction at 2-Year Follow-Up

PURPOSE

To compare the postoperative side-to-side laxity and short-term clinical outcomes of patients who received primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair with suture tape augmentation, acute anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with suture tape augmentation performed within 8 weeks of injury (ACLRacute), or ACLR beyond 8 weeks of injury.

METHODS

After institutional review board approval was obtained, 100 patients were enrolled in this prospective trial: 34 primary ACL repair with suture tape augmentation, 33 ACLRs performed within 8 weeks of injury (ACLRacute), and 33 ACLRs. Patients were allocated to ACL repair if a proximal avulsion was present with good tissue quality (Sherman type 1), confirmed by intraoperative diagnostic arthroscopy. Preoperative side-to-side anteroposterior knee laxity was assessed with KT-1000 arthrometer, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including the visual analog scale, Marx activity scale, Veterans RAND 12-item health survey (VR-12 physical & mental), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score survey subscales, and range of motion were collected. These objective and subjective measures were repeated at regular intervals postoperatively through 2 years. Minimal clinically important difference calculations were performed assessing postoperative PRO changes at 2 years compared with preoperative.

RESULTS

The average time from injury to surgery was 5.03 ± 1.2 weeks for the ACL repair group, 5.09 ± 0.74 weeks for the ACLRacute, and 43.22 ± 33.5 weeks for the ACLR group. Postoperatively, the KT-1000 side-to-side laxity difference for 30 lbs was determined to be 0.1 ± 0.37 (95% confidence interval [CI] -0.7 to 0.8) for ACL repair versus ACLR (P < .0001), -0.8 ± 0.35 (95% CI -1.5 to -0.1) for ACLRacute versus ACLR (P < .0001), and 0.8 ± 0.40 (95% CI 0.0-1.6) for ACL repair versus ACLRacute (P < .0001). The data reveal ACL repair and ACLRacute are noninferior to ACLR at 2-year follow-up. The postoperative difference from baseline for all PROs demonstrated improvement for all PROs. Magnetic resonance imaging at 1 year revealed tissue healing for the 3 ACL injury treatment groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who underwent ACL repair of proximal tears with suture tape augmentation or ACL reconstruction within 8 weeks from injury resulted in noninferior side-to-side knee laxity, comparable PROs, and similar range of motion at 2-year follow-up compared with ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, prospective comparative study.

Primary repair of proximal anterior cruciate ligament injury: a global expert consensus statement

The application of primary repair for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries remains controversial, and evidence-based guidelines have not yet been established. Remarkable advancements in arthroscopic techniques and biological stimuli have been achieved in the past decades, which may change expectations regarding the potential of ACL healing and clinical outcomes for patients. In this study, a global expert consensus on the primary repair of proximal ACL injuries was established. A panel of 16 experts from the fields of sports medicine and arthroscopic surgery was invited to participate in the compilation of this consensus statement. This project followed the Delphi approach to the consensus process involving steering, rating, and peer review groups. Ultimately, 14 statements were retained: four achieved unanimous support, six achieved strong consensus, and four did not achieve consensus. The expert consensus statement established in this study focused on surgical indications, decision-making, surgical techniques, adjunctive methods, prognostic factors, and rehabilitation following ACL repair. The accepted recommendations in these areas will assist doctors and therapists in standardizing the management of related pathologies. The consensus statement clearly states that the tear site and tissue quality are important for ensuring successful ACL repair, while other factors should also be considered. ACL reconstruction remains the gold standard for ACL repair until long-term follow-up data demonstrates otherwise.

Comparison of clinical, radiological, and second-look arthroscopic outcomes between hamstring autograft and tibialis allograft following remnant-tensioning anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The remnant-tensioning (RT) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) has been reported to have excellent postoperative outcomes. However, the influence of graft selection on postoperative outcomes of autografts and allografts after RT-ACLR has been poorly investigated. The purpose of our study was to compare the clinical, radiological, and second-look arthroscopic outcomes of autografts and allografts following RT-ACLR.

METHODS

Between January 2013 and May 2020, 94 and 64 patients were enrolled in auto (hamstring tendon) and allo (tibialis tendon) groups, respectively. For subgroup analysis, patients were divided into two age categories: ≤34 and > 34 years of age. Stability tests, including the Lachman and Pivot shift tests, side-to-side differences on Telos stress radiographs and KT-2000 arthrometer, patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs), and graft status on postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and second-look arthroscopy, were evaluated and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The two groups showed no statistically significant differences in stability outcomes or PROMs for patients aged ≤ 34 and > 34 years. Furthermore, both groups demonstrated comparable postoperative graft status on postoperative MRI and second-look arthroscopy analyses in patients aged ≤ 34 and > 34 years.

CONCLUSION

RT-ACLR using allografts yielded similar postoperative clinical outcomes, MRI findings, and second-look results compared to autografts, irrespective of patients' age. Therefore, allografts may serve as a viable option for patients scheduled for RT-ACLR.

Mesenchymal Stem Cell Exosome and Fibrin Sealant Composite Enhances Rabbit Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair

BACKGROUND

The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) fails to heal after rupture, leading to joint instability and an increased risk of osteoarthritis. Mesenchymal stem/stromal cell (MSC) exosomes have reported wide-ranging therapeutic efficacy; however, their potential for augmenting ACL repair remains to be investigated.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the use of MSC exosomes with fibrin sealant on biological augmentation of ACL healing after suture repair and their effects on ACL fibroblast functions.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Twelve rabbit knees underwent ACL transection and suture repair. MSC exosome and fibrin composite (Exosome+Fibrin) or fibrin (Fibrin) alone was used to supplement the suture repair in 6 knees. ACL repair was assessed by magnetic resonance imaging at 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively and by histologic and immunohistochemical analyses at 12 weeks. To investigate the mechanisms through which MSC exosomes augment ACL repair, metabolic activity, proliferation, migration, and matrix synthesis assays were performed using the primary ACL fibroblasts. RNA sequencing was also performed to assess global gene expression changes in exosome-treated ACL fibroblasts.

RESULTS

Based on magnetic resonance imaging findings, 5 of 6 Exosome+Fibrin-treated ACLs were completely or partially healed, as opposed to 5 of 6 Fibrin-treated ACLs appearing torn at 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively. Additionally, 4 of 6 Exosome+Fibrin-treated ACLs were isointense, as compared with 5 of 6 Fibrin-treated ACLs that were hyperintense, indicating improved remodeling and maturation of the repaired ACLs with Exosome+Fibrin treatment. Histologically, Exosome+Fibrin-treated ACLs showed more organized collagen fibers and abundant collagen deposition, with a high amount of collagen I and relatively lower amount of collagen III, which are consistent with the matrix structure and composition of the normal ACL. Cell culture studies using ACL fibroblasts showed that MSC exosomes enhanced proliferation, migration, and collagen synthesis and deposition, which are cellular processes relevant to ACL repair. Further gene set enrichment analysis revealed key pathways mediated by MSC exosomes in enhancing proliferation and migration while reducing matrix degradation of ACL fibroblasts.

CONCLUSION

The combination of MSC exosomes and fibrin sealant (Exosome+Fibrin) applied to a suture repair enhanced the morphologic and histologic properties of the ACL in a rabbit model, and these improvements could be attributed to the augmented functions of ACL fibroblasts with exosome treatment.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This work supports the use of MSC exosomes in biological augmentation of ACL healing after suture repair.

[Early Surgical Treatment Options for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury]

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is one of the most commonly injured structures in distortion injuries of the knee joint. Currently, there is no consensus among the professional community regarding the basic principles and timing of ACL injury management. An analysis of several retrospective studies from the 2008-2023 period provides information on ACL preservation procedures and a comparison of these results with those of ACL reconstruction surgery using a graft. The most comprehensive information was provided by a large meta-analysis conducted by Van der List et al. in 2019, which compared 1101 patients from 13 studies who had undergone an ACL preservation surgery. Wilson et al. carried out a retrospective study of patients who underwent ACL repair with InternalBrace (Arthrex© implant system) ligament augmentation. In their meta-analysis, Van der List et al. reported the failure rate of 7-11% and the functional outcome score > 85% of maximum scores in the scoring systems used (Lysholm, KOOS, IKDC score) for the preservation procedures. Wilson et al. in their retrospective study reported the failure rate of 10.4% and the functional outcome > 87% of maximum scores in the scoring systems used. These values are consistent with similar outcomes reported in patients undergoing ACL reconstruction surgery using a graft. According to the available literature, the primary ACL refixation with InternalBrace augmentation for proximal ruptures appears to be a safe technique with satisfactory outcomes when properly timed and indicated. In acute proximal ruptures, this technique should be considered as an alternative to ACL reconstruction using a graft, with potential benefits of preserving the original tissue and proprioception of the ligament. A prospective randomized study which would compare these two surgical techniques is still lacking in the literature.

Editorial Commentary: Primary Repair of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Shows Positive Midterm Outcomes When Properly Indicated

Anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is the gold standard treatment for ACL injury and has been shown to restore the 3-dimensional joint laxity. Recently, however, there is renewed interest in primary repair of the injured ACL in selected cases. Research shows that, in some cases, short- and midterm outcomes of ACL repair are favorable, albeit with greater failure rates than ACL reconstruction. No long-term outcomes are yet available, which could address whether repair reduces risk of osteoarthritis relative to reconstruction with a graft. Historically, primary repair showed poor outcomes, but for proximal and acute injuries with good vascularity, innovations such as suture anchors, dynamic intraligamentary stabilization, and suture tape augmentation show promise, particularly in paediatric patients. The old orthopaedic dogma that "ACL cannot heal" is not entirely correct.

A Modern-Day Algorithm for the Treatment of Multi-Ligament Knee Injuries

Introduction

Multiligament knee injuries (MLKI) are rare and complex, significantly impacting long-term outcomes, with risks of osteoarthritis, joint stiffness, and reduced activity levels.

Objective

To explore the evolution of MLKI treatment protocols, comparing historical and modern approaches, and to present a patient-tailored, preservation-first algorithm.

Methods

This article reviews the literature on MLKI management, focusing on surgical timing, techniques, and rehabilitation protocols. The proposed algorithm categorizes MLKIs based on tear location and tissue quality, incorporating options, such as primary ligament repair, augmentation, and reconstruction.

Results

The modern preservation-first algorithm provides a tailored approach to MLKI treatment, addressing the complexity and heterogeneity of these injuries, and aims to mitigate risks like postoperative arthrofibrosis.

Conclusion

MLKI management remains complex and controversial. The presented algorithm offers a structured, individualized treatment strategy that integrates modern surgical and rehabilitation advancements.

Primary anterior cruciate ligament repair-morphological and quantitative assessment by 7-T MRI and clinical outcome after 1.5 years

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to assess morphological and quantitative changes of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and cartilage after ACL repair.

METHODS

7T MRI of the knee was acquired in 31 patients 1.5 years after ACL repair and in 13 controls. Proton density-weighted images with fat saturation (PD-fs) were acquired to assess ACL width, signal intensity, elongation, and fraying. T2/T2* mapping was performed for assessment of ACL and cartilage. Segmentation of the ACL, femoral, and tibial cartilage was carried out at 12 ROIs. The outcome evaluation consisted of the Lysholm Knee Score and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score and clinical examination.

RESULTS

ACL showed a normal signal intensity in 96.8% and an increased width in 76.5% after repair. Fraying occurred in 22.6% without having an impact on the clinical outcome (Lysholm score: 90.39 ± 9.75, p = 0.76 compared to controls). T2 analysis of the ACL revealed no difference between patients and controls (p = 0.74). Compared to controls, assessment of the femoral and tibial cartilage showed a significant increase of T2* times in all ROIs, except at the posterolateral femur. Patients presented a good outcome in clinical examination with a Lysholm score of 87.19 ± 14.89 and IKDC of 80.23 ± 16.84.

CONCLUSION

T2 mapping results suggest that the tissue composition of the ACL after repair is similar to that of a native ACL after surgery, whereas the ACL exhibits an increased width. Fraying of the ACL can occur without having any impact on functional outcomes. T2* analysis revealed early degradation at the cartilage.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT

MRI represents a noninvasive diagnostic tool for the morphological and compositional assessment of the anterior cruciate ligament after repair, whereas knowledge about post-surgical alterations is crucial for adequate imaging interpretation.

KEY POINTS

• There has been renewed interest in repairing the anterior cruciate ligament with a proximally torn ligament. • T2 times of the anterior cruciate ligament do not differ between anterior cruciate ligament repair patients and controls. • T2 mapping may serve as a surrogate for the evaluation of the anterior cruciate ligament after repair.

Return to Soccer After Acute Anterior Cruciate Ligament Primary Repair: A 2-Year Minimum Follow-up Study of 50 Amateur Players

BACKGROUND

Return to sport (RTS) after treatment of an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear is a critical parameter to assess the outcome of a surgical procedure. However, few studies have investigated RTS after ACL repair.

PURPOSE

To evaluate RTS of a group of amateur soccer players at a minimum follow-up of 2 years after ACL repair.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all patients treated with acute ACL repair was conducted. A total of 50 amateur soccer players were included in the study. Patients were examined clinically or contacted to complete postoperative patient-reported outcome measures, namely the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, the International Knee Documentation Committee questionnaire, the ACL-Return to Sport After Injury scale, and the Forgotten Joint Score-12.

RESULTS

The patients' mean age was 25.8 ± 7.7 years (range, 14-47 years), and the mean follow-up was 34.3 ± 10.7 months (range, 24-51.3 months). The median Tegner Activity Scale score was 9. The ACL repair failure rate was 16% (8/50). The mean time from repair to failure was 23.1 ± 12.7 months (range, 6-44 months), and the mean age of patients who sustained ACL repair failure was 19.9 ± 3.3 years (range, 14-24 years), significantly lower compared with patients who did not experience ACL repair failure (26.9 ± 7.9 years; range, 16-47 years; P = .017). Multivariate analysis showed that age ≤21 years was the only significant risk factor for ACL repair failure (odds ratio, 5.45; confidence interval, 1.24-27.91; P = .041). Excluding the 8 patients who experienced repair failure, 31 of 42 patients (73.8%) returned to soccer after ACL repair, with 29 of the 31 (93.5%) returning at their preinjury level of play. Moreover, patients who played competitive soccer and returned to their preinjury level of play were significantly younger than those who did not return to their preinjury level of play (mean, 21.1 ± 3.4 vs 29.2 ± 9.5 years, respectively; P = .002) and had significantly better ACL-Return to Sport After Injury scores (mean, 96.6 ± 4 vs 87.8 ± 11, respectively; P = .044).

CONCLUSION

In this study, 73.8% (n = 31) of patients returned to playing soccer, of whom 93.5% (n = 29) returned to their preinjury level after ACL repair. The failure rate was 16% (n = 8) and mainly involved patients ≤21 years old.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair-Here to Stay or History Repeating Itself?

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries continue to be a prevalent concern among athletes and individuals with an active lifestyle. Traditionally, the standard of care for ACL tears has involved surgical reconstruction using autograft or allograft. This article aims to provide an overview of the evolving landscape of primary ACL repair, examining the current evidence, surgical techniques, patient selection criteria, outcomes, and potential future directions in this field.

Rehabilitation Following ACL Repair with Internal Brace Ligament Augmentation in Female Gymnast: A Resident's Case Report

Introduction

Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) injuries continue to be a major source of morbidity in gymnastics. The gold standard is to perform an ACL Reconstruction (ACLR). However, injuries to the proximal femoral attachment of the ACL have demonstrated an ability to regenerate. An alternative surgical intervention to the ACLR in this ACL tear subgroup is an ACL repair. The purpose of this case report is to provide a rehabilitation progression for a female gymnast after an ACL repair with Internal Brace Ligament Augmentation (IBLA).

Case Description

The subject was a 16-year-old female who presented with a Sherman Type 1 proximal avulsion of her ACL. She underwent an ACL repair with IBLA. Physical therapy interventions followed a sequential and multi-phased approach based on time for tissue physiologic healing and individual progression. Patient reported outcomes including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Return to Sport After Injury (ACL-RSI) and the Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Yellow Flag (OSPRO-YF) were assessed in conjunction with isokinetic strength and hop performance testing to determine return to sport readiness.

Outcomes

The subject completed 42 sessions over the course of 26 weeks in addition to a home exercise program. At return to sport, clinically meaningful improvement was observed in patient reported outcomes including the IKDC, ACL-RSI, and OSPRO-YF. Additionally, strength and hop performance surpassed established thresholds of clinical significance. The subject returned to sport at six months post-operatively.

Conclusion

The subject in this case report returned to full participation in gymnastics six months after an ACL repair with internal bracing following a sequential and multi-phased rehabilitation. The primary ACL repair with IBLA appeared beneficial to this patient and could benefit from additional study in other athletes and athletic populations.

Level of Evidence

Level 5.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Leads to Improved Patient-Reported Outcomes Compared to Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Introduction Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears occur frequently in young athletes, and ligament repair and reconstruction are surgical treatments. Although there are suggested benefits for both approaches, there is a lack of direct comparisons between ACL repair and reconstruction.This study aims to compare the mid-term functional outcomes and quality of life measures between patients that have undergone ACL repair versus reconstruction. Methods A retrospective review was conducted for demographic and operative report data of patients who underwent an ACL repair or reconstruction between 2012 and 2018. Patients were contacted over the phone and underwent a Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) survey evaluating pain interference, mobility, and function. Patients were excluded from the study if there was an incomplete operative note, missing contact information, or failure to answer phone calls. Results A total of 74 eligible patients were included, with n = 54 in the ACL reconstruction group (73.0%) and n = 20 in the ACL repair group (27.0%). Reconstruction patients had a PROMIS (median (IQR)) physical function score of 22.50 (16.00-59.00), as compared to repair patients' physical function score of 60.00 (21.50-60.00). There was a significant difference favoring repair (p = 0.040). In addition, ACL reconstruction patients had a significantly higher rate of additional procedures, with 63.0% of reconstruction patients receiving an additional operation as compared to 30.0% of repair patients (p = 0.017). The surgery type did not show a significant effect on physical function scores, while additional procedures remained significant in the linear regression analysis. Conclusion Although ACL repair is associated with improved physical function scores as compared to reconstruction in the univariate analysis, surgery type did not show significance when controlling for other variables. Further studies are necessary to compare patients with similar injuries to account for differences in additional procedures, but the results remain promising in assisting with patient-driven treatment decisions.

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Modern Augmented ACL Repair and Autograft ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Studies With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been the gold standard for primary ACL rupture since the 1990s. In the past decade, ACL repair has received renewed attention and increased research.

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical outcomes of modern augmented ACL repair versus autograft reconstruction for ACL ruptures.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A search of the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted for prospective or retrospective comparative studies published between January 1, 2010, and January 3, 2023, with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and methodological quality assessment. Sensitivity analysis was performed to maintain the stability of results.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included (minimum follow-up period, 24-60 months). The total sample size was 833 patients (augmented repair group: 358 patients; autograft ACL reconstruction group: 475 patients). There were 4 randomized controlled trials (level 1), 1 prospective comparative study (level 2), 2 retrospective comparative studies (level 3), and 2 case-control studies (level 3). The augmented ACL repair group attained significantly higher Lysholm score (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14-3.01; P = .03) and hamstring strength (WMD = 36.69; 95% CI, 29.07-44.31; P < .01) but had higher rates of hardware removal (odds ratio [OR] = 6.30; 95% CI, 2.44-16.23; P = .0001), reoperation (OR = 1.87; 95% CI, 1.33-2.62; P = .0003), and failure (OR = 1.58; 95% CI, 1.03-2.43; P = .0003) compared with the autograft ACL reconstruction group. No significant differences were observed between the repair and reconstruction groups regarding postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee scores, Tegner scores, knee laxity, satisfaction, ACL revisions, complications, and reoperation rather than revision.

CONCLUSION

Augmented ACL repair was associated with higher rates of reoperation, hardware removal, and failure compared with autograft ACL reconstruction in studies with minimum 2-year follow-up data. However, augmented ACL repair had higher Lysholm scores and hamstring strength versus autograft ACL reconstruction.

Anterior cruciate ligament repair versus reconstruction: A clinical, MRI and patient-reported outcome comparison

BACKGROUND

There has been a resurgence in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair for proximal tears using modern surgical techniques and technology. This study aims to compare ACL repair with reconstruction using MRI, clinician-measured and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

A post-hoc analysis was performed on prospectively collected data from 20 consecutive primary ACL repairs by the senior author. This was compared with an age and sex-matched cohort of 20 ACL reconstructions by the same surgeon using PROMs, return-to-sport (RTS) testing, and MRI signal noise quotient (SNQ).

RESULTS

Repairs demonstrated equivalent post-operative PROMs to reconstructions as measured by International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score (78.5 ± 17.1 vs. 83.7 ± 13.3, P = 0.333), Tegner Activity Scale (5.9 ± 1.8 vs. 6.1 ± 2.6, P = 0.646) and Lysholm score (89.8 ± 10.0 vs. 89.6 ± 10.4, P = 0.762). There was no difference in repairs and reconstructions passing quadriceps strength criteria (50% vs. 53%, P = 0.097). A greater proportion of repairs passed hamstrings strength criteria (86% vs. 60%, P = 0.023) and hamstrings-to-quadriceps ratio (71% vs. 20%, P = 0.003). There were no differences across hop and Y-balance testing. Repairs had earlier RTS assessment (8.2 ± 2.8 months vs. 10.6 ± 1.4 months, P = 0.020). On 12-month MRI, repairs demonstrated higher femoral (8.8 ± 5.7 vs. 4.6 ± 2.9, P = 0.009) and tibial SNQ (10.0 ± 5.7 vs. 4.3 ± 4.2, P = 0.001), with no mid-substance difference (12.3 ± 8.5 vs. 7.6 ± 5.2, P = 0.074). There were no graft failures.

CONCLUSIONS

When patient selection is optimized for proximal tears, ACL repairs demonstrate equivalent PROMs and better objective outcomes to reconstructions at an earlier timepoint. Repair tissue quality on MRI shows higher signal at tibial and femoral attachments.

Primary anterior cruciate ligament repair: Current concepts

The renewed interest in ACL repair over the last two decades stems from advances in modern arthroscopic techniques and clinical studies that have provided evidence that the ACL can reliably heal, and patients can return to sport at a comparable rate to ACL reconstruction patients. The ability to maintain and utilize native ACL tissue, with proprioceptive capabilities, and the smaller drill tunnels needed to repair an ACL leads to an overall less invasive procedure and improved early rehabilitation. Additionally, repair avoids a variety of comorbidities associated with autograft harvest. This current concept review details modern techniques of ACL repair and their current studies, a review on the use of biologic enhancement in ACL repair, and other considerations to appropriately integrate ACL repair into the sports medicine orthopaedic surgeon's practice.

Reduced knee laxity and failure rate following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction compared with repair for acute tears: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears, both repair and reconstruction may be performed to restore joint biomechanics and proprioception. The present study compared joint laxity, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and rate of failure following primary repair versus reconstruction for ACL ruptures.

METHODS

This meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Pubmed, Google scholar, Embase, and Web of Science were accessed in September 2022. All the clinical investigations comparing repair versus reconstruction for primary ACL tears were accessed. Studies reporting data on multiple ligament injuries settings were not eligible.

RESULTS

Data from eight articles (708 procedures) were collected. The mean length of the follow-up was 67.3 ± 119.4 months. The mean age of the patients was 27.1 ± 5.7 years. Thirty-six percent (255 of 708 patients) were women. The mean body mass index (BMI) was 24.3 ± 1.1 kg/m². The mean time span from injury to surgery was 36.2 ± 32.3 months. There was comparability at baseline with regards to instrumental laxity, Lachman test, International Knee Document Committee (IKDC), and Tegner Scale (P > 0.1). Similarity between ACL reconstruction and repair was found in IKDC (P = 0.2) and visual analog scale (VAS) satisfaction (P = 0.7). The repair group demonstrated greater mean laxity (P = 0.0005) and greater rate of failure (P = 0.004).

CONCLUSION

ACL reconstruction may yield greater joint stability and lower rate of failure compared with surgical repair. Similarity was found in PROMs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Management of anterior cruciate ligament tears in Tanner stage 1 and 2 children: a narrative review and treatment algorithm guided by ACL tear location

The incidence of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears in skeletally immature patients has acutely increased over the last 20 years, yet there is no consensus on a single "best treatment." Selection of an optimal treatment is critical and based on individual circumstances; consequently, we propose a treatment-selection algorithm based on skeletal development, ACL tear location, type, and quality, as well as parental perspective in order to facilitate the decision-making process. We combined our surgical group's extensive case histories of ACL tear management in Tanner Stage 1 and 2 patients with those in the literature to form a consolidated data base. For each case the diagnostic phase, communication with patient and parents, treatment choice(s), selected surgical techniques and rehabilitation schedule were critically analyzed and compared for patient outcomes. MRI-imaging and intraoperative tissue quality assessment were preeminent in importance for selection of the optimal treatment strategy. Considerations for selecting an optimal treatment included: associated lesions, the child/patient and parent(s)' well-informed and counseled consent, biological potential, and the potential for successful ACL preservative surgery. Complete ACL tears were evaluated according to tear-location. In type I and II ACL tears with remaining good tissue quality, we propose primary ACL repair. In type III and IV ACL tears we propose physeal-sparing reconstruction with an iliotibial band graft. Finally, in the case of a type V ACL tear, we propose that the best treatment be based on the Meyers-McKeever classification. We present a facile decision-making algorithm for ACL management in pediatric patients based on specific elements of tissue damage and status.

Functional leg performance 2 years after ACL surgery: a comparison between InternalBrace™-augmented repair versus reconstruction versus healthy controls

BACKGROUND

While clinical and patient-reported outcomes have been investigated in patients after InternalBrace™-augmented anterior cruciate ligament repair (ACL-IB), less is known regarding restoration of functional performance. We aimed to determine differences in functional performance within and between patients 2 years after ACL-IB, patients 2 years after ACL reconstruction (ACL-R), and healthy controls.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 29 ACL-IB, 27 ACL-R (hamstring autograft), and 29 controls performed single-leg hop (maximum forward distance hop, SLH; side hop > 40 cm in 30 s, SH), proprioception (knee joint position sense at 30° and 60° flexion), and dynamic postural balance (Y Balance) tests. Differences were calculated within groups (side-to-side difference) and between the involved leg of patients and the non-dominant leg of controls, and were evaluated to predefined statistical (P < 0.05), clinically relevant, and methodological (smallest detectable change) thresholds. The number of exceeded thresholds represented no (0), small (1), moderate (2), or strong (3) differences. In addition, the relative number of participants achieving leg symmetry (≥ 90%) and normal performance (≥ 90% of the average performance of the non-dominant leg of controls) were compared between groups (chi-squared tests, P < 0.05).

RESULTS

We observed no-to-moderate leg differences within ACL-IB (moderate difference in hops) and within ACL-R (moderate difference in knee proprioception), no leg differences between patient groups, no-to-small leg differences between ACL-IB and controls, and no leg differences between ACL-R and controls in functional performance. However, two patients in ACL-IB and ACL-R, respectively, passed the hop pretest only with their uninvolved leg, and fewer patients after ACL-IB and ACL-R than controls reached a leg symmetry and normal leg performance of controls in SLH (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Functional performance seems to be comparable 2 years postoperatively between ACL-IB and ACL-R for a specific subgroup of patients (i.e., proximal ACL tears, moderate activity level). However, the presumed advantage of comparable functional outcome with preserved knee structures after augmented ACL repair compared with ACL-R, and the tendency of both patient groups toward leg asymmetry and compromised single-leg hop performance in the involved legs, warrants further investigation. Level of Evidence Level III, case-control study. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04429165 (12/09/2020). Prospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04429165 .

Prospective Comparison of Postoperative Pain and Opioid Consumption Between Primary Repair and Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament

Background

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) is associated with postoperative pain and necessitates using perioperative nerve blocks and multimodal analgesic plans.

Purpose

To assess postoperative pain and daily opioid use after ACL repair versus ACLR and to assess whether ACL repair could be performed successfully without using long-acting nerve blocks.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods

All eligible patients who underwent ACL surgery between 2019 and 2022 were prospectively enrolled. Patients were treated with primary repair if proximal tears with sufficient tissue quality were present; otherwise, they underwent single-bundle ACLR with either hamstring tendon or quadriceps tendon autograft. The patients were divided into 3 groups: ACLR with adductor canal nerve block (up to 20 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine with 2 mg dexamethasone), primary repair with nerve block, and primary repair without nerve block. Pain visual analog scale and number of opioids used were recorded during the first 14 postoperative days (PODs). Furthermore, patients completed the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) survey, and range of motion was assessed. Group differences were compared using Mann-Whitney U test and chi-square test.

Results

Seventy-eight patients were included: 30 (39%) underwent ACLR, 19 (24%) ACL repair with nerve block, and 29 (37%) ACL repair without nerve block. Overall, the ACL repair group used significantly fewer opioids than the ACLR group on POD 1 (1 vs 3, P = .027) and POD 2 (1 vs 3, P = .014) while also using fewer opioids in total (3 vs 8, P = .038). This difference was even more marked when only analyzing those patients who received postoperative nerve blocks (1 vs 8, P = .029). Repair patients had significantly higher QoR-15 scores throughout the first postoperative week, and they had greater range of motion (all P < .05). There were no significant differences in pain scores, opioid usage, or QoR-15 scores between patients who underwent repair with versus without nerve block.

Conclusion

The ACL repair group experienced less postoperative pain during the first 2 weeks after surgery and used significantly fewer opioids than the ACLR group. Furthermore, they had improved knee function and higher recovery quality than patients who underwent ACLR during the initial postoperative period. Postoperative nerve blocks may not be necessary after ACL repair.

Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Primary Repair With Synthetic Augmentation and Fixation With the Knotless Suture Anchor

An anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear is one of the most common ligament injuries in athletes. The arthroscopic ACL reconstruction procedure is the gold standard for treatment. However, the improvement in injury classification and suture materials has subsequently made arthroscopic ACL primary repair an alternative surgical treatment option. This Technical Note describes an arthroscopic ACL primary repair with synthetic augmentation made of several high-strength sutures and fixation with the knotless suture anchor. The reinforced synthetic material acts as a structural tie to support the ACL while it heals.

Comparison of Primary Repair of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Anterolateral Structures to Reconstruction and Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis at 2-Year Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Lateral extra-articular procedures have been effective in reducing graft rupture rates after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR), but the evidence supporting their role in ACL repair is sparse.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of ACLR and lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) (ACLR+LET) against combined repair of the ACL and anterolateral (AL) structures (ACL+AL Repair). It was hypothesized that patients undergoing ACL+AL Repair would have noninferior clinical and radiological outcomes with respect to International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, knee laxity parameters, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) characteristics. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that patients undergoing repair would have significantly better Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) values and shorter times to return to the preinjury level of sport, without any increase in the rate of ipsilateral second ACL injury.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

Consecutive patients evaluated with an acute ACL tear were considered for study eligibility. ACLR+LET was only performed when intraoperative tear characteristics contraindicated ACL repair. Patient-reported outcome measures such as the IKDC score, Lysholm score, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS); reinjury rates; anteroposterior side-to-side laxity difference; and MRI characteristics were reported at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The noninferiority study was based on the IKDC subjective score; side-to-side anteroposterior laxity difference; and signal-to-noise quotient (SNQ). The noninferiority margins were defined using the existing literature. An a priori sample size calculation was performed using the IKDC subjective score as the primary outcome measure.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients (47 ACLR+LET, 53 ACL+AL Repair) with a mean follow-up of 25.2 months (range, 24-31 months) were enrolled and underwent surgery within 15 days of injury. At the final follow-up, the differences between groups with respect to the IKDC score, anteroposterior side-to-side laxity difference, and SNQ did not exceed noninferiority thresholds. ACL+AL Repair was associated with a shorter time to return to the preinjury level of sport (ACL+AL Repair: mean, 6.4 months; ACLR+LET: mean, 9.5 months; P < .01), better FJS-12 values (ACL+AL Repair: mean, 91.4; ACLR+LET: mean, 97.4; P = .04), and a higher proportion of patients achieving the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for the KOOS subdomains studied (Symptoms: 90.2% vs 67.4%, P = .005; Sport and Recreation: 94.1% vs 67.4%, P < .001; Quality of Life: 92.2% vs 73.9%, P = .01). There were no significant differences between groups with respect to ipsilateral second ACL injury rates (ACL+AL Repair group, 3.8% and ACLR+LET group, 2.1% [n = 1]; P = .63).

CONCLUSION

ACL+AL Repair yielded clinical outcomes that were noninferior to (or not significantly different from) ACLR+LET with respect to IKDC subjective, Tegner activity level, and Lysholm scores; knee laxity parameters; graft maturity; and rates of failure and reoperation. However, there were significant advantages of ACL+AL Repair, including a shorter duration of time to return to the preinjury level of sport, better FJS-12 values, and a higher proportion of patients achieving PASS for KOOS subdomains studied (Symptoms, Sport and Recreation, Quality of Life).

Altered Knee Loading Following Primary ACL Repair versus ACL Reconstruction

Background

ACL repair (ACL-r) has recently gained renewed clinical interest for treatment of ACL tears. ACL-r has several potential benefits over ACL reconstruction (ACL-R) including maintaining the native ACL innervation and blood supply, no graft site morbidity, and possible improved knee biomechanics and decrease in osteoarthritis. The purpose of this study was to assess for differences in metrics of knee joint loading during a single limb squat task between individuals following a primary ACL-r versus those who underwent a standard ACL-R with a patella bone-tendon-bone autograft.

Study type

Case Control Study.

Methods

The ACL-r group [n: 15, age(yrs): 38.8±13.9] sustained a proximal ACL disruption that was amenable to repair, while the ACL-R group [n: 15, age(yrs): 25.60±1.7] underwent primary reconstruction with patella bone-tendon-bone autograft. At 12-weeks post-operation, both groups completed the IKDC questionnaire and biomechanical testing during performance of the single limb squat. Bilateral peak knee extension moment and total knee joint power as a measure of eccentric loading (contraction) during the descent phase of the squat were calculated on the surgical and non-surgical limb and averaged across the middle three of five trials. Participants also completed quadriceps strength testing on both limbs three months after surgery on an isokinetic dynamometer at 60°/sec. LSI (Limb Strength Index) was calculated for all variables. Separate ANCOVAs were performed on each biomechanical variable to examine differences between groups.

Results

The ACL-r had a significantly greater peak knee extension moment LSI (ACL-r: 78.46±5.79%; ACL-R: 56.86±5.79%; p=0.019, ηp2=.186) and total knee joint power LSI (ACL-r: 72.47±7.39%; ACL-R: 39.70±7.39%, p=0.006, ηp2=.245) than the ACL-R group. The ACL-r also had a significantly greater quadriceps LSI than the ACL-R group (ACL-r: 66.318±4.61%, ACL-R: 48.03±4.61%, p=0.013, ηp2=.206).

Conclusions

Individuals following ACL-r demonstrate increased knee joint loading symmetry during a single leg squat task and greater quadriceps strength symmetry at 12 weeks post-surgery compared to those who underwent ACL-R.

Level of Evidence

3.

Augmenting ACL Repair With Suture Tape Improves Knee Laxity: A Biomechanical Study

Background

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair is an alternative to reconstruction; however, suture tape support may be necessary to achieve adequate outcomes.

Purposes

To investigate the influence of suture tape augmentation (STA) of proximal ACL repair on knee kinematics and to evaluate the effect of the 2 flexion angles of suture tape fixation.

Study Design

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods

Fourteen cadaveric knees were tested using a 6 degrees of freedom robotic testing system under anterior tibial (AT) load, simulated pivot-shift (PS) load, and internal rotation (IR) and external rotation loads. Kinematics and in situ tissue forces were evaluated. Knee states tested were (1) ACL intact, (2) ACL cut, (3) ACL repair with suture only, (4) ACL repair with STA fixed at 0° of knee flexion, and (5) ACL repair with STA fixed at 20° of knee flexion.

Results

ACL repair alone did not restore the intact ACL AT translation at 0°, 15°, 30°, or 60° of flexion. Adding suture tape to the repair significantly decreased AT translation at 0°, 15°, and 30° of knee flexion but not to the level of the intact ACL. With PS and IR loadings, only ACL repair with STA fixed at 20° of flexion was not significantly different from the intact state at all knee flexion angles. ACL suture repair had significantly lower in situ forces than the intact ACL with AT, PS, and IR loadings. With AT, PS, and IR loadings, adding suture tape significantly increased the in situ force in the repaired ACL at all knee flexion angles to become closer to that of the intact ACL state.

Conclusion

For complete proximal ACL tears, suture repair alone did not restore normal knee laxity or normal ACL in situ force. However, adding suture tape to augment the repair resulted in knee laxity closer to that of the intact ACL. STA with fixation at 20° of knee flexion was superior to fixation with the knee in full extension.

Clinical Relevance

The study findings suggest that ACL repair with STA fixed at 20° could be considered in the treatment of femoral sided ACL tears in the appropriate patient population.

Mobile health-based home rehabilitation education improving early outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Objective

This study aimed to assess changes in joint range of motion (ROM) and knee joint function between patients who received the mobile health-based intervention and those who received regular care at 2 and 6 weeks after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction to provide better interventions in the future.

Methods

Patients who underwent ACL reconstruction were randomized into the experimental [Mobile health-based intervention (MHI); n = 62] and control (CON) groups (n = 63). The CON group underwent home-based rehabilitation exercise following the paper rehabilitation schedule, while the intervention group received additional mobile health-based education at weeks 1-6 after surgery. ROM, thigh circumference difference, and flexion pain were the primary outcomes. The secondary outcomes were the international knee documentation committee knee evaluation form (IKDC) scores and rehabilitation compliance scores. All the outcomes were measured 1 day before surgery as references and at 2 and 6 weeks after surgery.

Results

There was no statistical difference in the patients' ROM, thigh circumference difference, and VAS scores at the 2-week follow-up. At the 6-week follow-up, the ROM of the affected leg was (118.1 ± 20.5)° in the CON group and (126.6 ± 20.5)° in the MHI group, and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.011). The difference in thigh circumference was 3.0 (2.0, 3.5) cm in the CON group and 2.5 (1.0, 3.0) cm in the MHI group. The difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The VAS score in the CON group was 3.0 (2.0, 4.0), and the MHI group was 2.5 (1.0, 3.0). The difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). At the 6-week follow-up, the compliance score of patients in the MHI group was significantly higher than that in the CON group (P = 0.047, β = 2.243, 95%CI: 0.026-4.459). There is no statistically significant difference in IKDC scores.

Conclusion

Mobile health-based intervention positively affected patients undergoing ACL reconstruction surgery, particularly in improving the clinical outcome indicators of the knee joint.

Efficacy of Repair for ACL Injury: A Meta‑analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

We aim to compare the curative effect of primary repair for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury with reconstruction and provide the reliable evidence for its clinical application. The literatures were searched in PubMed, EMBASE, Springer, and other medical literature databases published between January 1970 and June 2021. Basic characteristics, surgery technique, clinical outcome scores and physical examination results were recorded and evaluated. Seven randomized controlled trials (RCT) were eligible for inclusion. The results showed that there were no statistically significant differences between arthroscopic ACL repair and ACL reconstruction for Tegner, Lysholm, Lachman, KT-1000, range of motion (ROM), functional outcomes and reoperation rate (P>0.05), even the result of IKDC scores showed that arthroscopic repair was better than reconstruction (P=0.04). However, through the subgroup analysis, it was found that the short-term follow-up results of arthroscopic ACL repair were indeed better than those of open ACL repair. Therefore, we can assume that the arthroscopic ACL repair technique is an optional and promising surgical method to treat ACL injury.

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Patient Acceptable Symptom State, and Clinical Outcomes of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Versus Reconstruction: A Matched-Pair Analysis From the SANTI Study Group

BACKGROUND

There has been increasing interest in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair because of theoretical advantages over ACL reconstruction; however, the contemporary literature has failed to provide high-quality evidence to demonstrate these advantages.

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical and functional outcomes of ACL repair versus ACL reconstruction at a minimum follow-up of 2 years.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Patients who underwent ACL repair were propensity matched (based on demographics, time between injury and surgery, knee laxity parameters, presence of meniscal lesions, preoperative activity level, and sport participation), in a 1:1 ratio, to those who underwent ACL reconstruction during the same period. Isokinetic testing was used to evaluate strength deficits at 6 months postoperatively. Knee laxity parameters were evaluated at 12 months. Complications, return to sport, and patient-reported outcome scores were recorded at final follow-up.

RESULTS

In total, 75 matched pairs (150 patients) were evaluated. The repair group had significantly better mean hamstring muscle strength at 6 months compared with the reconstruction group (1.7% ± 12.2% vs -10.0% ± 12.8%, respectively; P < .0001). At a mean final follow-up of 30.0 ± 4.8 months, the repair group had a significantly better mean Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) score compared with the reconstruction group (82.0 ± 15.1 vs 74.2 ± 21.7, respectively; P = .017). Noninferiority criteria were met for ACL repair, compared with ACL reconstruction, with respect to the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee score (86.8 ± 9.0 vs 86.7 ± 10.1, respectively; P < .0001) and side-to-side anteroposterior laxity difference (1.1 ± 1.4 vs 0.6 ± 1.0 mm, respectively; P < .0001). No significant differences were found for other functional outcomes or the pivot-shift grade. There were no significant differences in the rate of return to the preinjury level of sport (repair group: 74.7%; reconstruction group: 60.0%; P = .078). A significant difference was observed regarding the occurrence of ACL reruptures (repair group: 5.3%; reconstruction group: 0.0%; P = .045). Patients who experienced a failure of ACL repair were significantly younger than those who did not (26.8 vs 40.7 years, respectively; P = .013). There was no significant difference in rupture rates between the repair and reconstruction groups when only patients aged >21 years were considered (2.9% vs 0.0%, respectively; P = .157). The minimal clinically important difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds were defined for the ACL repair group. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the repair group achieved the PASS for the FJS-12 compared with their counterparts in the reconstruction group (77.3% vs 60.0%, respectively; P = .034).

CONCLUSION

ACL repair was associated with some advantages over ACL reconstruction including superior hamstring muscle strength at 6 months and significantly better FJS-12 scores. However, the failure rate was significantly higher after ACL repair, and younger patients were particularly at risk.

Factors Influencing Treatment Outcome and Proprioception after Electrocoagulation of the Femoral Insertion of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament

(1) Background: Studies have established that exercises shaping the sense of deep sensation are an important element of medical rehabilitation of patients after vaporization of the femoral insertion of the anterior cruciate ligament and affect the restoration of correct movement patterns, thus reducing the risk of injuries. The aim of this study was to determine the factors influencing the treatment outcome and deep-feeling function after applying a specific rehabilitation scheme 12 weeks after anterior cruciate ligament electrocoagulation surgery. (2) Methods: The study group consisted of 41 patients after partial rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament, who underwent electrocoagulation of the femoral cruciate ligament attachment and microfracture of the femoral attachment area. All patients were operated on by the same surgeon and then rehabilitated according to the same medical rehabilitation protocol. The anthropometric and clinical data were collected through an anterior drawer test, Lachman test, assessment of the range of movements in the knee joint, muscle strength test, Unterberger test and Lysholm questionnaire. The assessment was performed before the surgery, and then on days 7-10, after 6 and 12 weeks of rehabilitation treatment. (3) Results: Statistical improvement of the parameters was demonstrated by strength of the quadriceps and hamstrings muscle, the Unterberger test, and the Lysholm scale after surgery. A negative correlation was found between the Unterberger test and Lysholm scale at the end of the research period and it differed depending on the gender and the dominant limb. The Lysholm scale and muscle strength were independent of sex, dominant extremity and associated damage of the meniscus and cartilage. The Lysholm scale 6 weeks after surgery negatively correlated with BMI. (4) Conclusions: Stability of the knee joint and improvement of proprioception were demonstrated 12 weeks after treatment with an ACL electrocoagulation and rehabilitation regimen. The factors contributing to a better treatment outcome were greater muscle strength, less thigh asymmetry, better sense of depth, younger age and lower body weight.

Bilateral simultaneous anterior cruciate ligament tears treated with single staged simultaneous primary repair: A case report

Introduction and importance

Simultaneous bilateral anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are a rare injury pattern within the literature. There is not a consensus optimal management of this injury. Bilateral primary ACL repair in a single stage surgery provides knee stability with a minimally morbid surgery in a single rehabilitation period. This case report offers another option for surgeons to consider in the treatment of this rare injury.

Case presentation

A 45-year-old female skier presented with simultaneous bilateral isolated proximal anterior cruciate ligament injuries. MRI demonstrated bilateral proximal ACL tear patterns which were amenable to primary ACL repair. The patient subsequently underwent acute single-staged arthroscopic primary ACL repair with suture augmentation of both knees. She attained rehabilitation milestones and was fully cleared to return to sporting activities one year post-operatively. Two years post-operatively the patient continues to do well with excellent clinical outcomes.

Clinical discussion

The other treatment modalities reported in the literature were single staged and two staged ACL reconstruction with either autograft or allograft. While single staged procedures are more time and cost efficient, the primary concern is that simultaneous rehabilitation of bilateral ACL reconstructions may lead to severe quadriceps deconditioning. Primary ACL repair poses a potential solution as a minimally morbid surgery with faster rehabilitation from surgery.

Conclusion

Due to the limited invasiveness and morbidity of ACL primary repair with suture augmentation, simultaneous primary repair surgery could be an excellent treatment option for this rare patient population, saving time and cost while providing appropriate knee stability.

Level of evidence

Level IV, Case Report.

•

Single-stage bilateral ACL repair is a viable treatment option in a patient with simultaneous bilateral ACL injuries

•

ACL repair might be an excellent treatment option for this population due to its minimally morbid nature.

•

Simultaneous bilateral ACL repair allows for early return to ambulation and range of motion

Primary Repair versus Reconstruction in Patients with Bilateral Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries: What Do Patients Prefer?

Purpose. The purpose is to evaluate knee preference and functional outcomes of patients with primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair in one knee and ACL reconstruction in the contralateral side. Methods. All patients who underwent both procedures were retrospectively reviewed at minimum two-year follow-up. Patients were asked to complete questionnaires regarding their operated knees’ preferences during rehabilitation, daily activities, sports activities, and overall function. Furthermore, the Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee, Forgotten Joint Score-12, and Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury were completed. Results. Twenty-one patients were included. All patients underwent ACL reconstruction first, which was displayed at younger age at surgery (24 vs. 33 years, $p=0.010$ ) and longer follow-up (10.2 vs. 2.3 years, $p<0.001$ ), respectively. Thirty-three percent preferred the repaired knee, 11% the reconstructed knee, and 56% had no preference; however, 78% indicated that their repaired knee was less painful during rehabilitation and 83% reported earlier range of motion (ROM) return following repair, which was similar for both knees in 17%. Eighty-three percent of patients indicated better function and progression during rehabilitation with their repaired knee and 11% with their reconstructed knees. No statistical differences were found in patient-reported outcomes between both procedures (all $p>0.4$ ). Objective laxity assessment showed mean side-to-side difference of 0.6 mm between both sides in favor of the reconstructed knee. Conclusion. This study showed that ACL repair and ACL reconstruction lead to similar functional outcomes. However, patients undergoing both procedures may have less pain, earlier ROM return, and faster rehabilitation progression following primary repair.

Prescription of knee braces after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Fact or fiction?

Objectives: This study aims to compare the clinical results of patients rehabilitated with or without a rehabilitative knee brace (RKB) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

Patients and methods: This retrospective, comparative study was conducted at between January 2013 and December 2017. A total of 119 patients (112 males, 7 females; mean age: 32.0±8.6 years; range, 18 to 45 years) with acute ACL ruptures treated with arthroscopic ACL reconstruction and rehabilitated with (n=56) or without RKB (n=63) participated in the study. The minimum follow-up time was 24 months. The ACL quality of life (QoL) questionnaire, Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, and Tegner Activity Level Scale were used for the evaluation of the QoL, knee function, and activity level, respectively. The time to return to sports was recorded. The side-to-side difference in the anterior translation of the tibia was measured using a KT-1000 arthrometer.

Results: The mean follow-up time was 38.4±9.1 (range, 24 to 56) months. Baseline demographics and clinical characteristics were similar between groups. Regarding QoL, knee function, and activity level, no significant difference was observed between patients who used RKB and those who did not use it at the postoperative 12th month (p=0.95, p=0.56, p=0.98, respectively) and the latest follow-up (p=0.21, p=0.73, p=0.99, respectively). The mean time to return to sports (nearly 11 months for both groups) and side-to-side difference in the anterior tibial translation at the latest follow-up was also similar between groups (p=0.15 and p=0.15, respectively). There was no graft rupture during the follow-up in both groups. The complication rates were 7.9% and 7.1% for no brace and brace groups, respectively, without a statistically significant difference (p=0.87).

Conclusion: According to the results of this study, there was no significant difference between the rehabilitative brace and no brace groups in clinical outcomes after ACL reconstruction.

Failure of primary ACL repair with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization may result in a high risk of two-stage ACL reconstruction: a case series of ten patients

PURPOSE

Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization (DIS) is a technique for the repair of acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential challenges of ACL reconstruction (ACLR) following failure of DIS.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients with failure of primary ACL repair performed with DIS was undertaken. Failure was defined as abnormal knee laxity (positive Lachman and/or pivot shift) and/or severely restricted range of motion. Medical and surgical records were reviewed and preoperative standard anteroposterior and lateral X-rays were assessed.

RESULTS

Between July 2015 and May 2022, 10 patients (3 males, 7 females, median age 28 years, range 18-52 years) with failure of DIS were referred to and surgically treated at a single centre. In four patients, single-stage ACLR was performed following the removal of the tibial monoblock. In six patients, arthrofibrosis and excessive tibial tunnel enlargement following the removal of the monoblock prevented single-stage ACLR. These patients underwent arthroscopic arthrolysis and tibial tunnel bone grafting as a first-stage revision procedure.

CONCLUSION

In the present case series, single-stage ACLR was performed in only four (40%) of ten patients following failure of ACL repair with DIS. Arthrofibrosis and excessive tibial tunnel enlargement following the removal of the monoblock prevented single-stage ACLR in six (60%) patients. It is important for clinicians to inform patients that, in the event of failure of ACL repair with DIS, they may run a high risk of undergoing two-stage ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, Case Series.

Femoral intercondylar notch: Accuracy of a novel MRI measurement protocol

OBJECTIVE

The most common mechanical complication following an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is joint stiffness, due in part to cyclops syndrome. A narrow intercondylar notch is an anatomical risk factor. A reliable preoperative notch measurement would help anticipate proper graft size, or plan a notchplasty during the ligament reconstruction, if necessary. No study has yet assessed the accuracy of the methods used to measure notch size.

HYPOTHESIS

The novel measurement protocol proposed in this study would be more reproducible than the reference technique.

METHODS

A total of 20 preoperative knee MRIs performed during the assessment of an ACL rupture were randomly selected. The notch size was measured using 2 methods: traditional (ratio of the notch and metaphyseal widths measured on a line drawn through the popliteal groove) and novel. The latter was measured using the same ratio but took into account the notch width in its proximal third, according to a coronal slice that passes through the ACL tibial attachment. Three orthopedic surgeons with different levels of experience (senior surgeon, junior surgeon and surgical resident) performed these measurement protocols twice on anonymized MRI scans, 10days apart. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to assess the intraobserver correlations and a concordance index was used to assess the interobserver correlations. The influence of the second MRI reading was analyzed with a bootstrap test.

RESULTS

The mean intraobserver reliability was 0.73 for the reference method and 0.83 for the proposed method. The values of the bootstrap tests were higher for the proposed method (0.45 vs. 0.45 and 0.70; p<05 for interobserver; 0.49 vs. 0.69 and 0.62; p<05 for intraobserver).

CONCLUSION

The proposed measurement protocol showed a higher reproducibility in assessing notch size than the traditional method. This technique therefore provides a reliable assessment of the intercondylar notch width.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; retrospective study.

Biological enhancement methods may be a viable option for ACL arthroscopic primary repair - A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Bioactive factors combined with advanced anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) primary repair technology have been used to treat ACL repairs. The current review was conducted to identify whether biological enhancement could enable superior clinical outcome, including side-to-side difference, failure rate, reoperation rate and subjective scores.

HYPOTHESIS

The implementation of ACL primary repair with biological enhancement will provide better clinical outcomes in terms of side-to-side differences, failure rate, reoperation rate and subjective scores than ACL primary repair alone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic literature review was performed following PRISMA guidelines by searching all studies reporting outcomes of arthroscopic primary repair with or without biological augmentation published until April 19, 2020, in Medline, PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Primary metrics were side-to-side differences, failure rate and reoperation rate, as well as measurements of patient-reported outcomes at the last follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 20 studies were finally included in this work, of which 3 were Grade I (15%), 3 studies were Grade III (15%), and 14 studies were Grade IV (70%) in terms of the level of evidence. There were 729 patients with a mean age of 30 (range: 8-68) years, and the mean follow-up period of which was 38 (range: 3-122) months. At the final follow-up, the postoperative side-to-side differences (the proportion of patients with a side-to-side difference less than 3mm) and patient-report outcomes were significantly better in the biological enhancement group. Nevertheless, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the rate of surgical failure, the rate of revision, or the positive Lachman test or pivot shift test.

CONCLUSION

Biologically enhanced arthroscopic ACL primary repair was superior to ACL primary repair alone in terms of postoperative side-to-side differences (proportion of patients with a side-to-side difference less than 3mm) and patient-reported outcomes. Thus, biologically enhanced arthroscopic ACL primary repair can be preferentially recommended over ACL arthroscopic primary repair alone.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, systematic review.

ACL repair for athletes?

Background

The current gold standard treatment for an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear in an athlete is an arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with autografts. This restores the knee stability but is associated with unique complications like graft re-tear, kinesiophobia and graft donor site morbidity. ACL suture repair (ACLSR) is an attractive alternative method of surgical management of this injury.

Current science of ACLSR

The potential advantages of performing a repair are the preservation of native biology and proprioceptive function of ACL, elimination of a graft and preservation of bone stock. The purported benefits are better stability, reduction of kinesiophobia and faster rehabilitation. ACLSR is now performed only for proximal (femoral-sided) tears in the acute phase, when the tissue quality is good and using high-strength nonabsorbable sutures. There are several techniques for performing ACLSR but broadly speaking are either non-augmented, static augmented with suture tape, dynamic augmented or using bio-scaffolds.

Clinical outcome of ACLSR

There is a lot of literature on ACLSRs including case series, cohort studies and randomized controlled trials. The results from these studies are encouraging but mostly pertain to patient reported outcome measures, are in small numbers and in the short-term. The results are also inconsistent across different studies and not specifically performed for the athletic population. Moreover, most of these studies are from the innovator or designer surgeons and groups and have not been independently validated.

Conclusion

Currently, there is insufficient evidence to recommend ACLSR as a preferred method of managing even acute proximal tears in athletes. Improved rates of return to sports, lower retear rate and lesser kinesiophobia needs to be proven in athletes.

Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Versus Autograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies

Purpose

To compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair and autograft ACL reconstruction for ACL ruptures.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library were searched for relevant studies from 1 January 1990 to 21 March 2022. Two evaluators independently screened the literature, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the enrolled studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 software.

Results

Ten studies with mean follow-up periods from 12 to 36 months were included. For 638 patients with ACL ruptures, arthroscopic ACL repair showed statistically comparable outcomes of failure (p = 0.18), complications (p = 0.29), reoperation other than revision (p = 0.78), Lysholm score (p = 0.78), Tegner score (p = 0.70), and satisfaction (p = 0.45) when compared with autograft ACL reconstruction. A significantly higher rate of hardware removal (p = 0.0008) but greater International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score (p = 0.009) were found in the ACL repair group. The heterogeneity of the side-to-side difference of anterior tibial translation (ΔATT) was high (I 2 = 80%). After the sensitivity analysis, the I 2 decreased dramatically (I 2 = 32%), and the knees with ACL repair showed significantly greater ΔATT (P = 0.04).

Conclusion

For proximal ACL ruptures, arthroscopic ACL repair showed similar clinical outcomes, and even better functional performance when compared to autograft ACL reconstruction. ACL repair has a higher rate of hardware removal, and might be related to greater asymptomatic knee laxity. More high-quality prospective trials are needed to confirm our findings.

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.

A Criterion Based Rehabilitation Protocol for ACL Repair with Internal Brace Augmentation

The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is one of the main stabilizing structures of the knee and its rupture is a common injury in young active adults. ACL reconstruction has been the preferred operative management of an ACL rupture for several decades; however, success rates are variable. Recently, interest in arthroscopic primary repair of the ligament has increased. The repair is augmented with an Internal Brace (IB), which is an ultra-high strength suture tape that bridges the ligament. This technique protects the ligament during the healing and the ligament is encouraged to heal naturally, whilst not requiring any external braces. It acts as a stabiliser to permit early mobilization and optimise rehabilitation. As understanding of rehabilitation has progressed, there has been an increased focus on early weight-bearing and achieving full range of movement. While detailed criterion-based rehabilitation protocols exist for ACL reconstruction, this is not the case for ACL repair. The purpose of this commentary is to present a novel criterion-based rehabilitation protocol following ACL repair surgery augmented with an IB.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

V.

Acute Primary Repair of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament With Anterolateral Ligament Augmentation

Acute injuries of the anterior cruciate ligament are often associated with concurrent injuries to the structures of the anterolateral complex, specifically the anterolateral ligament. Some injury patterns of the anterior cruciate ligament involve tearing of the majority of the ligament from the femoral origin, leaving a large, viable ligament remnant. In these patients, a repair of the anterior cruciate ligament back to the femoral origin can be undertaken. Subsequently, percutaneous repair of the anterolateral ligament can be performed through anatomical, percutaneous suture tape augmentation. The combined technique of anterior cruciate ligament repair with anterolateral ligament reinforcement is presented.

Reliable Internal Consistency and Adequate Validity of the Forgotten Joint Score-12 after Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair

Purpose

To validate the Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) as a subjective outcome metric for patients undergoing arthroscopic primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair.

Methods

In this retrospective study, all patients undergoing primary ACL repair for complete isolated proximal tears between 2008 and 2018 were eligible for inclusion. Patients were contacted and asked to complete the FJS-12, Lysholm Knee Score, modified Cincinnati score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), and Anterior Cruciate Ligament Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI) scale at a minimum of 1 year of follow-up. Internal consistency, convergent validity, and ceiling effects were analyzed.

Results

Ninety-six patients could be included (62%), with a mean FJS-12 score of 86.9 ± 14.0 (range, 31.3-100). The FJS-12 showed reliable internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89). Construct validity was moderate to strong (r = 0. 621-0.702). Ceiling effect for the FJS-12 was 21.9%, which was lower than for the Lysholm (44.6%), modified Cincinnati (45.1%), equal to the IKDC subjective (21.9%), and SANE score (22.0%) but higher compared to the ACL-RSI (12.8%). Furthermore, internal consistency for the other scores was also good to excellent (range Cronbach’s alpha = 0.627-0.953).

Conclusion

The FJS-12 shows high internal consistency and construct validity after primary ACL repair. Furthermore, this metric showed equal or less ceiling effect than most other scores, although still notable. This study suggests that the FJS-12 is an easy and validated outcome metric to evaluate subjective primary repair outcomes.

Level of Evidence

Level III, diagnostic study.

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

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.

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

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.

Arthroscopic Primary Repair of the Posterior Cruciate Ligament

The posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) is one of the four major stabilizers of the knee joint and functions as the primary restraint to posterior tibial translation. PCL tears rarely occur in isolation and most commonly presents in the setting of multiligamentous knee injuries. Several treatment strategies for these injuries have been proposed over the last decades, including ligament reconstruction and primary repair. Arthroscopic primary PCL repair has the potential to preserve native tissue using a more minimally invasive approach, thereby avoiding donor-site morbidity and allowing early mobilization. While arthroscopic PCL repair is certainly not an effective surgical approach for all patients, this procedure may be a reasonable and less morbid alternative to PCL reconstruction in selected patients treated for proximal or distal avulsion tears, with low failure rates, good knee stability, and good to excellent subjective outcomes. The surgical indications, surgical techniques, postoperative management, and outcomes for arthroscopic primary repair of proximal and distal PCL tears will be discussed in this review.

Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Using Suture Tape Augmentation: A Case Series of 29 Patients With Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up

PURPOSE

To evaluate clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes of patients who underwent primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair using suture tape augmentation.

METHODS

Patients with a proximal tear of the ACL who underwent primary ACL repair with a minimum 2-year follow-up were included. The exclusion criteria included multiligamentous knee injuries, midsubstance tears, tibial avulsion fractures, and distal tears. Demographic characteristics, injury pattern, concomitant injury pattern, and patient-reported outcome measures were recorded. Patients were evaluated at a minimum 2-year follow-up for clinical success, defined as stability not requiring revision ACL reconstruction, and for patient-reported outcome measurements. Failure was defined as the need for revision surgery.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up period was 2.8 ± 0.9 years. Thirty-five patients met the inclusion criteria, with an average age of 32.2 ± 7.2 years, and 2-year follow-up was obtained for 29 of these patients. Revision surgery was required in 2 of the 29 patients (6.9%); successful treatment was achieved in the remaining 93.1%. The Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for the 27 successfully treated patients were recorded, with 70.4% having Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation scores of 80 or greater.

CONCLUSIONS

This case series shows that primary surgical repair of proximal ACL tears using suture tape augmentation results in a low rate of revision surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, prospective case series.