Anna M Krismer1, Lampros Gousopoulos1, Sandro Kohl2, Atesch Ateschrang3, Hendrik Kohlhof4, Sufian S Ahmad1. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Inselspital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. Sandro.Kohl@insel.ch. 3. Department of Traumatology and Reconstructive Surgery, BG Trauma Center Tübingen, Eberhard-Karls University of Tübingen, Schnarrenbergstr. 95, Tübingen, Germany. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, University Hospital of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Primary repair of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) has regained interest of clinicians with recent development of novel repair techniques. Dynamic intraligamentary stabilisation was introduced in an attempt to promote healing by shielding cyclic loads acting upon the ACL during the healing phase. The aim of this study was to identify negative factors likely to influence success of this procedure. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2014, 264 patients with an acute ACL rupture undergoing dynamic intraligamentary stabilisation were included in this study. Patients were evaluated for anterior/posterior laxity; range of motion and patient reported outcome measures. Adverse events and re-operations were noted. Failure was defined as AP Translation >3 mm, re-rupture or conversion to ACL reconstruction. Minimum follow-up was 24 months. Univariate and multivariate regression models were utilized to determine predictors of failure. RESULTS: An overall complication rate of 15.1% was noted comprising 9.5% (n = 25) re-ruptures, 4.1% (n = 11) persistent instability, and 1.5% (n = 4) > 10° fixed flexion deformity. Two factors were identified as negative predictors of failure: (1) pursuit of competitive sport activities with a Tegner pre-injury score >7 (Odds Ratio (OR) 4.4, CI 1.2-15.9, p = 0.02) and (2) mid-substance ACL rupture location (OR 2.5, 1.1-5.7, p = 0.02). When neither of those risk factors occurred the failure rate was limited to 3.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Correct patient selection and narrowing of indications are necessary to maintain high success rates of the procedure. Mid-substance ACL ruptures and a high pre-injury sports activity level are two predictors of inferior outcome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
PURPOSE: Primary repair of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) has regained interest of clinicians with recent development of novel repair techniques. Dynamic intraligamentary stabilisation was introduced in an attempt to promote healing by shielding cyclic loads acting upon the ACL during the healing phase. The aim of this study was to identify negative factors likely to influence success of this procedure. METHODS: Between 2009 and 2014, 264 patients with an acute ACL rupture undergoing dynamic intraligamentary stabilisation were included in this study. Patients were evaluated for anterior/posterior laxity; range of motion and patient reported outcome measures. Adverse events and re-operations were noted. Failure was defined as AP Translation >3 mm, re-rupture or conversion to ACL reconstruction. Minimum follow-up was 24 months. Univariate and multivariate regression models were utilized to determine predictors of failure. RESULTS: An overall complication rate of 15.1% was noted comprising 9.5% (n = 25) re-ruptures, 4.1% (n = 11) persistent instability, and 1.5% (n = 4) > 10° fixed flexion deformity. Two factors were identified as negative predictors of failure: (1) pursuit of competitive sport activities with a Tegner pre-injury score >7 (Odds Ratio (OR) 4.4, CI 1.2-15.9, p = 0.02) and (2) mid-substance ACL rupture location (OR 2.5, 1.1-5.7, p = 0.02). When neither of those risk factors occurred the failure rate was limited to 3.9%. CONCLUSIONS: Correct patient selection and narrowing of indications are necessary to maintain high success rates of the procedure. Mid-substance ACL ruptures and a high pre-injury sports activity level are two predictors of inferior outcome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Authors: Simon Thompson; Lucy Salmon; Alison Waller; James Linklater; Justin Roe; Leo Pinczewski Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Christopher C Kaeding; Angela D Pedroza; Emily K Reinke; Laura J Huston; Kurt P Spindler Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2015-04-21 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Daniel Andernord; Neel Desai; Haukur Björnsson; Mattias Ylander; Jón Karlsson; Kristian Samuelsson Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: S Eggli; H Kohlhof; M Zumstein; P Henle; M Hartel; D S Evangelopoulos; H Bonel; S Kohl Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2014-03-21 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Sufian S Ahmad; Gregory S Difelice; Jelle P van der List; Atesch Ateschrang; Michael T Hirschmann Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Janosch Häberli; Benjamin Voumard; Clemens Kösters; Daniel Delfosse; Philipp Henle; Stefan Eggli; Philippe Zysset Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2018-06-01 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Roy A G Hoogeslag; Reinoud W Brouwer; Rianne Huis In 't Veld; Joanna M Stephen; Andrew A Amis Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2018-02-03 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Martin Meister; Jonathan Koch; Felix Amsler; Markus P Arnold; Michael T Hirschmann Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-09-22 Impact factor: 4.342