Four-strand hamstring tendon autograft versus LARS artificial ligament for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Abstract

This retrospective study compared the results after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using a four-strand hamstring tendon graft (4SHG) versus Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System (LARS) artificial ligament in 60 patients between January 2003 and July 2004 with a minimum four-year follow-up. The KT-1000 examination, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scoring systems and Lysholm knee scoring scale were used to evaluate the clinical results. The mean side-to-side difference was 2.4 +/- 0.5 mm and 1.2 +/- 0.3 mm in the 4SHG group and LARS group, respectively (P = 0.013). Although other results of ACL reconstruction, measured by IKDC evaluation, Lysholm scores and Tegner scores, showed using a LARS graft clinically tended to be superior to using a 4SHG, there were no significant differences calculated. Our results suggest that four years after ACL reconstruction using a LARS ligament or 4SHG dramatically improves the function outcome, while the patients in the LARS group displayed a higher knee stability than those in the 4SHG group.

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with LARS™ artificial ligament results at a mean follow-up of eight years

“…In five of the 16 papers available as full-text, the LARS™ ligament was compared to autografts (two BPBT and three 4SHG) [17,19,20,31,33]. The results showed that there were no significant differences between the two groups and that the patients treated with LARS™ had a faster recovery and return to sport activities without complications, such as synovitis.…”

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the ligament augmentation and reconstruction system: a systematic review

“…A total of 156 articles were excluded for one or more exclusion criteria: no full text available (n02), abstract or full text review revealing the article was not relevant (n0126), foreign language article for which no English translation was readily available (n030), evidence of data replication (n013) and studies relating to first-or secondgeneration devices not comparable to LARS (n037). Nine studies were included in the final review [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13].…”

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction best practice: A review of graft choice

“…The largest comparative study of LARS vs HS grafts, Liu et al [45] retrospectively compared 28 LARS and 32 HS grafts and found no significant differences between the two except in KT-1000 examination results showing the LARS to be more stable (1.2 mm vs 2.4 mm). However there were no differences in IKDC or revision rates.…”