Suture tape augmentation ACL repair, stable knee, and favorable PROMs, but a re-rupture rate of 11% within 2 years

Heusdens, Christiaan H.W.; Blockhuys, Karen; Roelant, Ella; Dossche, Lieven; Glabbeek, Francis Van; Dyck, Pieter Van

doi:10.1007/s00167-020-06399-2

Cited by 26 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Higher failure rates were also generally observed in younger patients after ACL reconstruction and were attributed to higher activity levels. In keeping with this, Heusdens et al 12 reported that a preoperative Tegner score 7 was a risk factor for failure after ACL repair. Despite this, the higher failure rate in young patients appeared to be more pronounced after repair than reconstruction.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Patient Acceptable Symptom State, and Clinical Outcomes of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Versus Reconstruction: A Matched-Pair Analysis From the SANTI Study Group

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There has been increasing interest in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair because of theoretical advantages over ACL reconstruction; however, the contemporary literature has failed to provide high-quality evidence to demonstrate these advantages. Purpose: To compare the clinical and functional outcomes of ACL repair versus ACL reconstruction at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients who underwent ACL repair were propensity matched (based on demographics, time between injury and surgery, knee laxity parameters, presence of meniscal lesions, preoperative activity level, and sport participation), in a 1:1 ratio, to those who underwent ACL reconstruction during the same period. Isokinetic testing was used to evaluate strength deficits at 6 months postoperatively. Knee laxity parameters were evaluated at 12 months. Complications, return to sport, and patient-reported outcome scores were recorded at final follow-up. Results: In total, 75 matched pairs (150 patients) were evaluated. The repair group had significantly better mean hamstring muscle strength at 6 months compared with the reconstruction group (1.7% ± 12.2% vs −10.0% ± 12.8%, respectively; P < .0001). At a mean final follow-up of 30.0 ± 4.8 months, the repair group had a significantly better mean Forgotten Joint Score–12 (FJS-12) score compared with the reconstruction group (82.0 ± 15.1 vs 74.2 ± 21.7, respectively; P = .017). Noninferiority criteria were met for ACL repair, compared with ACL reconstruction, with respect to the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee score (86.8 ± 9.0 vs 86.7 ± 10.1, respectively; P < .0001) and side-to-side anteroposterior laxity difference (1.1 ± 1.4 vs 0.6 ± 1.0 mm, respectively; P < .0001). No significant differences were found for other functional outcomes or the pivot-shift grade. There were no significant differences in the rate of return to the preinjury level of sport (repair group: 74.7%; reconstruction group: 60.0%; P = .078). A significant difference was observed regarding the occurrence of ACL reruptures (repair group: 5.3%; reconstruction group: 0.0%; P = .045). Patients who experienced a failure of ACL repair were significantly younger than those who did not (26.8 vs 40.7 years, respectively; P = .013). There was no significant difference in rupture rates between the repair and reconstruction groups when only patients aged >21 years were considered (2.9% vs 0.0%, respectively; P = .157). The minimal clinically important difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds were defined for the ACL repair group. A significantly greater proportion of patients in the repair group achieved the PASS for the FJS-12 compared with their counterparts in the reconstruction group (77.3% vs 60.0%, respectively; P = .034). Conclusion: ACL repair was associated with some advantages over ACL reconstruction including superior hamstring muscle strength at 6 months and significantly better FJS-12 scores. However, the failure rate was significantly higher after ACL repair, and younger patients were particularly at risk.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Patient Acceptable Symptom State, and Clinical Outcomes of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Versus Reconstruction: A Matched-Pair Analysis From the SANTI Study Group

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To date, many studies have been published on biomechanics after ACL-R as summarised in several systematic reviews, [17][18][19][20][21][22][23] yet only few studies have reported on gait analysis (with a simple marker model) and functional hop testing in patients after ACL repair and dynamic intraligamentary stabilisation (DIS) (Ligamys). 24 25 While Leister et al 26 reported comparable single leg hop performance after primary ACL repair with InternalBrace augmentation and after ACL-R and the few available reviews and casecontrol studies on small numbers of patients have shown promising results regarding clinical outcomes, [27][28][29][30][31][32] to date, comprehensive clinical, socioeconomic and functional-biomechanical analyses after this procedure are scarce.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

RetroBRACE: clinical, socioeconomic and functional–biomechanical outcomes 2 years after ACL repair and InternalBrace augmentation in comparison to ACL reconstruction and healthy controls—experimental protocol of a non-randomised single-centre comparative study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionDespite good clinical outcomes reported in the literature, to date, scientific evidence for the functional and biomechanical benefit of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair with augmentation is scarce. We present an experimental protocol for a detailed multimodal (clinical, socioeconomic, functional and biomechanical) comparative study in patients after primary ACL repair and InternalBrace augmentation, patients after ACL reconstruction and healthy controls.Methods and analysisIn this non-randomised single-centre comparative study with prospective data collection with three arms (patients 2 years after ACL repair and InternalBrace augmentation; patients 2 years after ACL reconstruction using hamstring autografts; and healthy controls), 30 participants per study arm will be included. The study is designed as non-inferiority study with three arms. Required sample size was estimated based on data reported in the literature on muscle strength, proprioception and balance parameters, resulting in at least 28 participants per group. Outcome parameters include patient-reported outcome measures (EQ-5D-5L, Tegner Activity Scale, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), International Knee Documentation Committee and ACL-Return to Sports Injury Scale), socio-economic parameters, anterior tibial translation, range of motion and functional-biomechanical data of the lower extremities. Functional–biomechanical parameters include proprioception, isokinetic muscle strength, single-leg balance, walking, running and single-leg hops with additional lower extremity 3D joint kinematics and kinetics and muscle activity. These parameters will be compared between limbs in patients, between groups and to the current literature.Ethics and disseminationThe results of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international conferences. Ethical approval was obtained by the regional ethics board (Ethics Committee Northwest Switzerland EKNZ 2020–00551), and the study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov.Trial registration numberNCT04429165.

show abstract

“…Suture anchors were used in two studies for the femoral fixation of proximal tears [ 42 , 62 ]. Interestingly, all studies published since 2019 applied an internal brace as suture tape augmentation [ 18 , 25 , 42 , 62 ], a technique which is also used to repair ACL ruptures [ 5 , 19 , 20 , 67 ]. This highlight how the promising results of modern ACL repair have sparked a renewed interest in PCL repair as well.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Posterior cruciate ligament repair seems safe with low failure rates but more high level evidence is needed: a systematic review

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To discuss recent literature on posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) repair and report on the clinical and radiological outcomes. Methods A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. In August 2022, three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library) were searched for studies on PCL repair by two independent reviewers. Articles published between January 2000 and August 2022 focussing on the clinical and/or radiological outcomes, following PCL repair, were included. Patient demographic data, clinical evaluations, patient‑reported outcome measures, post-operative complications and radiological outcomes were extracted. Results Nine studies met the inclusion criteria, covering 226 patients with a mean age ranging from 22.4 to 38.8 years and mean follow-up periods ranging from 14 to 78.6 months. Seven studies (77.8%) were level IV and two studies (22.2%) were level III. Arthroscopic PCL repair was performed in four studies (44.4%) while the remaining five studies (55.6%) described open PCL repair. In four studies (44.4%) additional suture augmentation was applied. Arthrofibrosis affected a combined total of 24 patients (11.7%; range 0–21.0%) making it the most common complication and the overall failure rate was 5.6%, ranging from 0 to 15.8%. Two studies (22.2%) performed post-operative MRI and confirmed PCL healing. Conclusion This systematic review indicates that PCL repair can be a safe procedure with an overall failure rate of 5.6%, ranging from 0% to 15.8%. However, more high quality research is necessary before widespread clinical implementation is warranted. Level of Evidence IV.

show abstract

Suture tape augmentation ACL repair, stable knee, and favorable PROMs, but a re-rupture rate of 11% within 2 years

Cited by 26 publications

References 43 publications

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Patient Acceptable Symptom State, and Clinical Outcomes of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Versus Reconstruction: A Matched-Pair Analysis From the SANTI Study Group

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Patient Acceptable Symptom State, and Clinical Outcomes of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Versus Reconstruction: A Matched-Pair Analysis From the SANTI Study Group

RetroBRACE: clinical, socioeconomic and functional–biomechanical outcomes 2 years after ACL repair and InternalBrace augmentation in comparison to ACL reconstruction and healthy controls—experimental protocol of a non-randomised single-centre comparative study

Posterior cruciate ligament repair seems safe with low failure rates but more high level evidence is needed: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About