Martin Meister1, Jonathan Koch1, Felix Amsler2, Markus P Arnold3,4, Michael T Hirschmann5,6. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Kantonsspital Baselland (Bruderholz, Liestal, Laufen), 4101, Bruderholz, Switzerland. 2. Amsler Consulting, Basel, Switzerland. 3. LEONARDO, Hirslanden Clinic Birshof, Münchenstein, Switzerland. 4. University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. 5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Kantonsspital Baselland (Bruderholz, Liestal, Laufen), 4101, Bruderholz, Switzerland. michael.hirschmann@ksbl.ch. 6. University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland. michael.hirschmann@ksbl.ch.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Most of the clinical outcome studies dealing with ACL repair are from the developer's perspective. It is a fact that these developer-initiated studies tend to interpret the results rather in favour than against their developed technique or product. Hence, it was the purpose of the present independent investigator-initiated study to investigate the clinical and radiological outcomes as well as failure rate of patients who underwent an ACL suture using dynamic intraligamentary stabilisation device in a specialised independent knee clinic. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed on prospectively collected data of 26 patients (28 ± 9 years, range 18-50 years; male/female = 17:9) who underwent biologically augmented ACL suture using dynamic intraligamentary stabilisation. Mean time from ACL injury was 15 ± 5 days (range 4-25 days). In addition, in seven (27%) patients a medial meniscus refixation and in four (15%) patients a lateral meniscus refixation was done for associated meniscal lesions. All patients were clinically and radiologically followed up at 6 weeks, 3 and 12 months after ACL surgery using the Tegner and Lysholm score as well as IKDC score. Adverse events such as ACL failure, arthrofibrosis, pain > 3 on a visual analogue scale as well as the need and type of revision surgery were noted. RESULTS: Four patients (15%) suffered from an ACL retear due to another adequate trauma during follow-up time. In six patients (23%), an arthrofibrosis (extension deficit of > 10° or flexion deficit > 20°) was noted. In five of those six patients, an arthroscopic arthrolysis was performed. Three patients also complained about pain VAS > 3. In nine (35%) patients, superfluous ACL scar tissue and the DIS device including the polyethylene suture and the DIS screw were removed, and in another two (8%) patients, the DIS screw only was removed. In two patients, a partial meniscectomy was performed due to a non-healed meniscal suture. The median Tegner score was 8 (range 6-10) before injury and 7 (range 3-10) at last follow-up (p < 0.001). The mean Lysholm score before surgery was 28 ± 14 and 94 ± 11 at last follow-up (p < 0.001). At last follow-up, 14 patients (66%) showed a normal total IKDC score (A) and 4 patients (19%) were nearly normal (B) and 2 patients (10%) were slightly abnormal (C) and one patient (5%) was entirely abnormal (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: ACL suturing using the dynamic intraligamentary stabilisation device showed satisfying clinical results at 12-month follow-up. However, a retear rate of 15% and a reoperation rate of 35% due to retear or arthrofibrosis appear rather high. These results highlight the importance of adequate patient selection and the delicacy of the surgical procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective case series, Level IV.
PURPOSE: Most of the clinical outcome studies dealing with ACL repair are from the developer's perspective. It is a fact that these developer-initiated studies tend to interpret the results rather in favour than against their developed technique or product. Hence, it was the purpose of the present independent investigator-initiated study to investigate the clinical and radiological outcomes as well as failure rate of patients who underwent an ACL suture using dynamic intraligamentary stabilisation device in a specialised independent knee clinic. METHODS: A retrospective study was performed on prospectively collected data of 26 patients (28 ± 9 years, range 18-50 years; male/female = 17:9) who underwent biologically augmented ACL suture using dynamic intraligamentary stabilisation. Mean time from ACL injury was 15 ± 5 days (range 4-25 days). In addition, in seven (27%) patients a medial meniscus refixation and in four (15%) patients a lateral meniscus refixation was done for associated meniscal lesions. All patients were clinically and radiologically followed up at 6 weeks, 3 and 12 months after ACL surgery using the Tegner and Lysholm score as well as IKDC score. Adverse events such as ACL failure, arthrofibrosis, pain > 3 on a visual analogue scale as well as the need and type of revision surgery were noted. RESULTS: Four patients (15%) suffered from an ACL retear due to another adequate trauma during follow-up time. In six patients (23%), an arthrofibrosis (extension deficit of > 10° or flexion deficit > 20°) was noted. In five of those six patients, an arthroscopic arthrolysis was performed. Three patients also complained about pain VAS > 3. In nine (35%) patients, superfluous ACL scar tissue and the DIS device including the polyethylene suture and the DIS screw were removed, and in another two (8%) patients, the DIS screw only was removed. In two patients, a partial meniscectomy was performed due to a non-healed meniscal suture. The median Tegner score was 8 (range 6-10) before injury and 7 (range 3-10) at last follow-up (p < 0.001). The mean Lysholm score before surgery was 28 ± 14 and 94 ± 11 at last follow-up (p < 0.001). At last follow-up, 14 patients (66%) showed a normal total IKDC score (A) and 4 patients (19%) were nearly normal (B) and 2 patients (10%) were slightly abnormal (C) and one patient (5%) was entirely abnormal (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: ACL suturing using the dynamic intraligamentary stabilisation device showed satisfying clinical results at 12-month follow-up. However, a retear rate of 15% and a reoperation rate of 35% due to retear or arthrofibrosis appear rather high. These results highlight the importance of adequate patient selection and the delicacy of the surgical procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective case series, Level IV.
Authors: Seper Ekhtiari; Nolan S Horner; Darren de Sa; Nicole Simunovic; Michael T Hirschmann; Rick Ogilvie; Rebecca L Berardelli; Danny B Whelan; Olufemi R Ayeni Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-03-04 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: James O Smith; Sam K Yasen; Harry C Palmer; Breck R Lord; Edward M Britton; Adrian J Wilson Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2016-05-03 Impact factor: 4.342
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: 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: Jelle P van der List; Harmen D Vermeijden; Inger N Sierevelt; Gregory S DiFelice; Arthur van Noort; Gino M M J Kerkhoffs Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2019-09-05 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Sophie C Eberlein; Vanessa Rodriguez; Andreas Hecker; Katharina Schürholz; Sufian S Ahmad; Frank M Klenke Journal: J Exp Orthop Date: 2022-08-08