Favorable Patient-Reported, Clinical, and Functional Outcomes 2 Years After ACL Repair and InternalBrace Augmentation Compared With ACL Reconstruction and Healthy Controls

Abstract

Background: Recently, interest in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) preservation and repair after proximal ACL tears has been resurrected. Although good clinical outcomes have been reported in the literature with adequate patient selection, to date detailed scientific evidence for the functional benefit of primary ACL repair with ligament augmentation is scarce. Purpose: To compare patient-reported, clinical, and functional outcomes in patients 2 years after ACL repair and InternalBrace augmentation (ACL-IB) with age- and sex-matched patients 2 years after ACL reconstruction (ACL-R) and with matched healthy controls. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: In total, 29 patients 2 years after ACL-IB, 27 sex- and age- matched patients 2 years after ACL-R (hamstring autografts), and 29 matched healthy controls were included. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the International Knee Documentation Committee score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, EQ-5D-5L, Tegner Activity Scale, and Anterior Cruciate Ligament Return to Sports after Injury scale. Surgery time was recorded. For clinical outcomes, range of motion and thigh and shank circumference were measured, and passive anterior translation was determined using the Rolimeter. Isokinetic muscle strength was measured using a Biodex dynamometer. The limb symmetry index (operated/contralateral or nondominant/dominant × 100), side-to-side differences (operated – contralateral, nondominant – dominant), and hamstring-quadriceps ratios were calculated for functional parameters. Failure and reoperation rates were not compared. Results: Two years after surgery, patients treated with ACL-IB showed good to excellent patient-reported outcomes comparable with those of patients after ACL-R. Surgery time, including concomitant surgeries, was significantly shorter in the ACL-IB group (mean, 81 minutes) compared with the ACL-R group (mean, 97 minutes) ( P = .024). Isokinetic muscle strength was comparable between patient groups without significant differences in extensor and flexor strength or in hamstring-quadriceps ratios. Conclusion: These results suggest that ACL-IB achieves comparable patient-reported, clinical, and functional outcomes with ACL-R at 2 years postoperatively and, after careful patient selection, should be considered as a valuable early treatment alternative for proximal ACL tears. Registration: NCT04429165 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Acute anterior cruciate ligament rupture: can repair become an alternative to reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies

“…Among them, 3 articles [ 47 , 50 , 51 ] published on 2 RCTs included patients with central ACL rupture, while the remaining articles primarily focused on patients with proximal ACL rupture. For the classification of repair techniques, two studies used SAR [ 53 , 55 ] and one used IBLA [ 54 ], BEAR was employed in 3 articles [ 47 , 50 , 51 ], and DIS was utilized in 4 articles [ 28 , 48 , 49 , 52 ]. We subsequently conducted subgroup analyses of outcomes according to the repair techniques, rupture locations, and study designs.…”

Favorable Patient-Reported, Clinical, and Functional Outcomes 2 Years After ACL Repair and InternalBrace Augmentation Compared With ACL Reconstruction and Healthy Controls: Letter to the Editor

“…The paper by Müller et al, 2 “Favorable Patient-Reported, Clinical, and Functional Outcomes 2 Years After ACL Repair and InternalBrace Augmentation Compared With ACL Reconstruction and Healthy Controls,” purports to conclude that ACL repair is favorable when compared with ACL reconstruction (ACLR). However, we question whether the presented information justifies the title and conclusion.…”