Clinical and functional outcome after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the LARS™ system at a minimum follow-up of 10years

Clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using LARS artificial graft with an at least 7-year follow-up

“…According to a review of the recent literature, the failure rate was 4.75% (23/484) in all studies where the mean follow-up was longer than 3 years (Table 3). [9,10,12,14–19] There were 9 cases of graft rupture and 14 cases of recurrent instability. Among these 9 cases, 6 were due to a new trauma, and 1 case was injury in a high-level sport activity.…”

“…[21] Infection and screw loosening/pain related to screws were most frequently reported. [10,15] Based on observation of the histological characteristics and ultrastructure of the LARS ligament in vitro, inflammation and foreign body reaction were enhanced, but the LARS ligament had good in-growth capability based on the findings of fibrous connective tissue formation. [22] Although the complication rate was not high, methods to promote the biocompatibility of the LARS artificial ligament needed further study.…”

“…In 2015, a study indicated that LARS should currently not be suggested as a potential graft for primary reconstruction of the ACL based on a minimum 10-year follow-up of 18 patients. [10] An editorial commentary stated that LARS may not be perfect, but LARS clinical outcomes are surprisingly impressive. [11] …”

Synthetic grafts in the treatment of ruptured anterior cruciate ligament of the knee joint

“…47 Also, a follow-up at a mean of 8 years reported by Parchi et al in 2013 showed satisfying results reflected in no postoperative complication occurrence and only one case of LARS rupture. 49 On the other hand, the follow-up of 10 years postoperatively carried out by Tiefenboeck et al (2015) revealed lack of subjective satisfaction in half of patients treated with the use of LARS, thus the authors suggested not to consider the ligament system as a potential graft for primary reconstruction of the ACL and rather treat it as an alternative graft in special cases.…”

A Long Shot

“…The specific device that they used has generated acceptance among some surgeons 2,3,10,18,32 but also several unfavorable reports of frequent failures 12,30,33 and sporadic cases of intense synovitis 10,11,32 or foreign-body reaction. 31 The current authors attribute their success with the synthetic device to the strict requirement for remnant preservation and careful attention to tunnel positioning.…”