Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair has once again become a focus of research because of the development of new techniques. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to compare the functional results and recurrent instability rates in patients undergoing ACL repair with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) versus primary ACL reconstruction (ACLR) for acute isolated ACL tears. The hypothesis was that functional results and knee joint stability after ACL repair with DIS would be comparable with that after ACLR. Study Design: Randomized clinical trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A total of 85 patients with acute ACL tears were randomized to undergo either ACL repair with DIS or primary ACLR. The preinjury activity level and function were recorded. Follow-up examinations were performed at 6 weeks and 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Anterior tibial translation (ATT) was evaluated using Rolimeter testing. The Tegner activity scale, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective form, and Lysholm knee scoring scale scores were obtained. Clinical failure was defined as ΔATT >3 mm in combination with subjective instability. Recurrent instability and other complications were recorded. Results: There were 83 patients (97.6%) who were successfully followed until 2 years. ATT was significantly increased in the DIS group compared with the ACLR group (ΔATT, 1.9 vs 0.9 mm, respectively; P = .0086). A total of 7 patients (16.3%) in the DIS group had clinical failure and underwent single-stage revision. In the ACLR group, 5 patients (12.5%) had failure of the reconstruction procedure; 4 of these patients required 2-stage revision. The difference in the failure rate was not significant ( P = .432). There were 4 patients (3 in the DIS group and 1 in the ACLR group) who showed increased laxity (ΔATT >3 mm) without subjective instability and did not require revision. Recurrent instability was associated with young age (<25 years) and high Tegner scores (>6) in both groups. No significant differences between ACL repair with DIS and ACLR were found for the Tegner, IKDC, and Lysholm scores at any time. Conclusion: Whereas ATT measured by Rolimeter testing was significantly increased after ACL repair with DIS, clinical failure was similar to that after ACLR. In addition, functional results after ACL repair with DIS for acute tears were comparable with those after ACLR. The current study supports the use of ACL repair with DIS as an option to treat acute ACL tears. Registration: DRKS00015466 (German Clinical Trials Register)
Aims and Objectives: Recently, due to the development of new techniques, ACL repair has returned back into focus of experimental and clinical research. Newer studies highlight the fact that ACL repair can lead to satisfying functional results and healing rates. Aim of the present study was to compare the functional results after ACL repair in comparison to primary ACL reconstruction for acute isolated ACL tears. It was hypothesized, that functional results and knee joint stability after ACL repair are comparable to those after ACLR. Materials and Methods: A prospective randomized study (Level of evidence 1) including a total of 85 patients with acute ACL tears was performed. Patients were randomized to undergo either ACL repair or primary ACL reconstruction with a semitendinosus autograft. The preinjury activity level and function were recorded. Follow-up examinations were performed at six weeks, six, twelve and 24 months postoperatively. At each follow up, the Tegner activity scale, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score and the Lysholm score were acquired. Furthermore, anterior tibial translation (ATT) was evaluated by Rolimeter testing. The rate of recurrent instability and other complications were recorded. Results: 79 patients could be re-evaluated (follow-up rate 93%). No significant differences between ACL repair and ACLR were found for the Tegner, IKDC and Lysholm score at any time of the follow-up. ATT was increased in the ACL repair group ( ATT 1.9 vs. 0.9). This difference was statistically significant (p=0.0086). Seven patients (17%) of the ACL repair group presented with recurrent instability and underwent single-stage revision reconstruction with hamstring autografts. Another three patients showed increased laxity with insufficient healing after ACL repair but did not require revision. In the ACLR group, five patients (13%) sustained a re-tear after return to their previous activity level. However, in three cases, a two-staged revision was required. Recurrent instability was associated with young age and higher Tegner scores in both groups. Conclusion: Functional results after ACL repair for acute tears are comparable to those after ACLR. However, the rate of ACL insufficiency seems to be slightly increased after ACL repair. In the revision situation, single-stage revision was possible in all cases following primary repair, whereas after primary reconstruction, a two-staged revision had to be performed in three of five cases. The current study supports the use of ACL repair as an option to treat acute ACL tears.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.