A comparison of clinical outcome of augmentation and standard reconstruction techniques for partial anterior cruciate ligament tears.

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare the clinical outcome and possible complications of augmentation technique and standard reconstruction for the treatment of partial anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty patients (36 males, 4 females; mean age 30 years; range 19 to 40 years) who underwent surgery due to ACL tear were included in this prospective randomized study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups, including 20 patients in each group. The patients in the group 1 underwent standard single bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon autografts, while those in the group 2 underwent augmentation where the remaining remnant ACL was not sacrificed, but instead augmented with hamstring tendon autograft as in the standard reconstruction technique. The mean follow-up was 24.3 months (range; 21-28 months). Clinical outcomes were evaluated using International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm scores, physical instability tests and patient satisfaction questionnaires. The complication rates of both groups were compared. Tibial and femoral tunnel widening were assessed using lateral and anteroposterior radiographs.
RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of IKDC, Lysholm scores, physical instability tests, patient satisfaction questionnaires and incidences of Cyclops lesions and arthrofibrosis. Tibial and femoral tunnel widening was less in the augmentation group. This difference was more significant on the tibial side.
CONCLUSION: In the repair of partial ACL tears, augmentation technique is as effective as the standard technique, leading to, less tunnel widening evidently in the tibial tunnel, particularly.

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes