Ligament advanced reinforcementsystem anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Dericks, Gerard

doi:10.1016/s1060-1872(95)80009-3

Cited by 61 publications

(75 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The first clinical report on the use of LARS™ in ACL reconstruction was made by Dericks in 1995 [12]. He reported encouraging results in 220 cases with a mean follow-up of 2.5 years, without any case of knee synovitis.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Parchi

Ciapini

Dolfi

et al. 2013

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The aim of this study was to review patients that underwent ACL reconstruction with the LARS™ ligament in the First Orthopaedic Division of Pisa University during the period between January 2003 and December 2005. Methods Twenty-six patients were reviewed with an average follow-up of 95.3 months (7.9 years). The review protocol was articulated in three phases: (1) a subjective evaluation using three grading scales: VAS, KOOS and the Cincinnati knee rating scale, (2) a clinical and objective evaluation, and (3) a biomechanical evaluation of the knee stability. Results A global positive result was obtained in 92.3 % of the patients (16 optimal results and eight good results), with a fast functional recovery and a high knee stability. A global poor result was reported in two cases. In our series we did not record cases of infection or knee synovitis. We recorded only one case of mechanical graft failure. The results obtained from our study are encouraging and similar to those in the literature. Conclusions We conclude that the LARS™ ligament can be considered a suitable option for ACL reconstruction in carefully selected cases, especially for older patients needing a fast functional recovery.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Parchi

Ciapini

Dolfi

et al. 2013

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A few studies have reported the outcome of using the LARS ligament for ACL reconstruction. The knee laxity and patient satisfaction were significantly improved after operation [4,5], and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) evaluation and instrument-tested laxity were better with use of the LARS ligament than with the BPTB graft at one year postoperatively [6]. There are few clinical studies that have reported the outcome of isolated PCL reconstruction with a LARS ligament.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the enthusiasm for these implants gradually waned because of the intermittently reported problems, mainly referring to the high device failure rate and reactive synovitis [23,24]. The LARS ligament was taken as a new generation of artificial ligament owing to its special design, and there were no serious problems following ACL and PCL reconstruction with it reported in the current literature [4][5][6][7]. Nevertheless, concerns over the complications associated with the LARS ligament, similar to other types of artificial ligaments, have remained under discussion since its use [4][5][6][7].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nevertheless, reports of donor-site morbidity have increased [2,3] and the use of artificial ligaments which avoids those complications may offer an alternative form of treatment. The LARS artificial ligament (Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System, Surgical Implants and Devices, Arc-sur-Tille, France) has recently been reported to be a suitable material [4][5][6][7]. There have been few studies focusing specifically on comparison of autografts and LARS artificial ligaments in PCL reconstruction.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Arthroscopic single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: retrospective review of hamstring tendon graft versus LARS artificial ligament

et al. 2008

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our objective was to compare the results of reconstruction of isolated chronic posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injury using a four-strand hamstring graft (4SHG) and a LARS artificial ligament. Thirty-six patients were divided into a 4SHG group (n=15) and a LARS group (n=21). The minimum follow-up time was two years. The outcome measures used were KT-1000 measurements, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scoring system, Lysholm knee scoring scale and Tegner activity rating. Both groups improved significantly between the preoperative and postoperative assessment in terms of the knee laxity and functional examination (P<0.01). Meanwhile, knee stability was significantly improved in the LARS group when compared with the 4SHG group (P<0.05); this was also the case for the Lysholm, Tegner and IKDC scores (P<0.05). Our study indicates that using a LARS ligament for PCL reconstruction was clinically more useful than using a 4SHG in the treatment of the PCL-deficient knee.

show abstract

“…This data suggests the third generation of synthetics have largely solved the problems of synovitis that led to the disrepute of the first and second generation. Dericks [40] described his experience of 220 patients reported 3 infections (1.4%) and 9 ligament ruptures (4.1%) with 83% of patients returning to full sports by 6 mo (and 61% by as early as 4 mo). The largest published study of LARS ACL reconstructions is by Gao et al [41] who retrospectively report on 159 reconstructions.…”

Section: Graft Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

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

Shaerf

Pastides

Sarraf

et al. 2014

WJO

119

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is much literature about differing grafts used in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Much of this is of poor quality and of a low evidence base. We review and summarise the literature looking at the four main classes of grafts used in ACL reconstruction; bone-patella tendon-bone, hamstrings, allograft and synthetic grafts. Each graft has the evidence for its use reviewed and then compared, where possible, to the others. We conclude that although there is no clear "best" graft, there are clear differences between the differing graft choices. Surgeon's need to be aware of the evidence behind these differences, in order to have appropriate discussions with their patients, so as to come to an informed choice of graft type to best suit each individual patient and their requirements.

show abstract

Ligament advanced reinforcementsystem anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Cited by 61 publications

References 2 publications

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

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

Arthroscopic single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: retrospective review of hamstring tendon graft versus LARS artificial ligament

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About