| Literature DB >> 30148163 |
Matthias Koch1, Felix Mayr1, Leonard Achenbach2, Werner Krutsch1, Siegmund Lang1, Franz Hilber1, Johannes Weber1, Christian G Pfeifer1, Rebecca Woehl1, Jürgen Eichhorn2, Johannes Zellner1, Michael Nerlich1, Peter Angele1,2.
Abstract
The historical treatment options for partial anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures were conservative therapy or ACL reconstruction by injured bundle or entire ACL replacement. In awareness of the regenerative potential of biologic agents such as mesenchymal stem cells or platelet rich plasma (PRP), the healing response technique was developed to preserve the injured ACL with better outcomes than the conservative therapy. Further improvement of this technique seems to be obtained by the additional application of PRP products. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the midterm outcome after intraligament autologous conditioned plasma (ACP) by a clinical, scoring, and functional performance assessment. 42 patients were evaluated in this study. The failure rate was 9.5%. Outcome evaluation showed good to excellent results. The scores were IKDC subjective 83.2 (SD 14.5), Lysholm 85.5 (SD 15.5), Tegner 4.7 (SD 1.7), and Cincinnati 85.4 (SD 15.5) after a mean follow-up of 33 months. Clinical examination showed stable Lachman test, negative pivot shift phenomenon, and a significant reduction in AP-laxity compared to preoperative status (rolimeter preoperative: 1.9 (SD1.4); postoperative 0.6 (SD1.8), p=0.001) in all patients. Functional performance testing showed no significant differences between the injured and healthy side. Return to sport was achieved after a mean of 5.8 months (SD 3.6) in 71.1% of the included patients. In summary, this new treatment option revealed in midterm follow-up promising results to treat partial ACL lesions with a reduced need for conversion to ACL reconstruction and with a high percentage of return to preinjury sport activity.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30148163 PMCID: PMC6083554 DOI: 10.1155/2018/3204869
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Grading system of partial ACL ruptures.
| Grade | Definition |
|---|---|
| 1 | intact ACL sheet with haemorrhage of the synovial ACL sheet |
|
| |
| 2 | ruptured synovial ACL sheet without extrusion of ACL tissue |
|
| |
| 3 | ruptured synovial ACL sheet with extrusion of ACL tissue |
|
| |
| 4 | partial rupture of one ACL bundle with 25-50% remaining ACL structure |
|
| |
| 5 | partial rupture of one ACL bundle with 10-25% remaining ACL structure |
Figure 1(a) Healing response technique and (b) intraligament ACP injection in a partial ACL rupture grade 3.
Epidemiological data and injury pattern.
|
| Grade I / II | Grade III | Grade IV / V | failure | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| follow-up [months, mean (SD)] |
| 38.7 (18.3) | 30.5 (18.6) | 34.0 (9.6) | - |
|
| |||||
| age [years, mean (SD)] |
| 39.1 (14.6) | 43.7 (14.0) | 45.2 (10.8) | 26.8 (8.6) |
|
| |||||
| gender [%; male/ female] |
| 44.4/55.6 | 47.8/52.2 | 33.3/66.6 | 50/50 |
|
| |||||
| index side [%; right/ left] |
| 88.9/11.1 | 60.9/39.1 | 50.0/50.0 | 50/50 |
|
| |||||
| dominant side [%; right/ left] |
| 77.8/22.2 | 60.9/39.1 | 100/0 | 75/25 |
|
| |||||
| concomitant injury [%] |
| 33.3 | 60.9 | 66.7 | 75.0 |
|
| |||||
| meniscus [%] |
| 66.7 | 47.8 | 66.7 | 75.0 |
|
| |||||
| collateral ligament [%] |
| 33.3 | 39.1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| |||||
| sports associated injury |
| 88.9 | 65.2 | 100 | 100 |
|
| |||||
| football [%] |
| 12.5 | 20.0 | 16.7 | 25 |
|
| |||||
| ski [%] |
| 62.5 | 73.3 | 66.7 | 50 |
|
| |||||
| mountain biking [%] |
| 12.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| |||||
| volleyball [%] |
| 12.51 | 6.7 | 0 | 25 |
|
| |||||
| kung-fu [%] |
| 0 | 0 | 16.7 | 0 |
|
| |||||
| pre-injury sport level | |||||
|
| |||||
| recreational [%] |
| 55.6 | 52.2 | 66.7 | 25 |
|
| |||||
| amateur [%] |
| 33.3 | 47.8 | 33.3 | 75 |
|
| |||||
| professional [%] |
| 11.1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Return to sport data.
|
| Grade I / II | Grade III | Grade IV / V | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| return to … |
| mean (SD) | mean (SD) | mean (SD) |
|
| ||||
| training [weeks] |
| 9.8 (4.8) | 14.4 (7.6) | 12.3 (8.3) |
|
| ||||
| sports [months] |
| 4.9 (3.4) | 6.0 (2.2) | 6.8 (5.8) |
|
| ||||
| pre-injury sport level [%] |
| 88.9 | 43.5 | 100 |
|
| ||||
| subjective regain of sport level [%] |
| 86.9 (18.5) | 82.8 (21.3) | 94.2 (8.0) |
Clinical outcome data.
|
| Grade I / II | Grade III | Grade IV / V | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROM deficit [%] |
| 0 | 13.0 | 16.7 |
|
| ||||
| LM test | ||||
|
| ||||
| negative [%] |
| 100 | 100 | 100 |
|
| ||||
| positive [%] |
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| ||||
| pivot shift | ||||
|
| ||||
| negative [%] |
| 100 | 100 | 100 |
|
| ||||
| positive [%] |
| 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| ||||
| rolimeter test | ||||
|
| ||||
| pre-operative [mm] |
| 1.7 (SD 1.5) | 1.7 (SD 1.4) | 3.2 (SD 1.0) |
|
| ||||
| post-operative [mm] |
| 0.6 (SD 1.7) | 1.2 (SD 1.8) | 0.2 (SD 1.2) |
|
| ||||
| p-value |
| 0.01 | 0.4 | 0.0007 |
[∗] = sign for significance; significance level < 0.05.
Postoperative outcome scoring.
| score |
| Grade I / II | Grade III | Grade IV / V | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| mean (SD) | mean (SD) | mean (SD) | ||
| IKDC subjective |
| 85.6 (18.4) | 80.1 (13.8) | 89.7 (8.1) | |
| Lysholm |
| 83.2 (26.6) | 85.4 (10.3) | 89.3 (8.5) | |
| Tegner |
| 5.1 (2.1) | 4.6 (1.6) | 4.6 (1.9) | |
| Cincinnati |
| 81.6 (23.5) | 86.4 (11.7) | 90.0 (8.9) | |
| Marx |
| 7.0 (4.4) | 3.5 (3.8) | 1.7 (0.8) | |
|
| |||||
| IKDC objective |
| [%] | [%] | [%] | |
|
|
| 62.5 | 61.1 | 50.0 | |
|
|
| 25.0 | 27.8 | 33.3 | |
|
|
| 12.5 | 11.1 | 16.7 | |
|
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Functional performance tests.
| functional performance test |
| Grade I / II | Grade III | Grade IV / V |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| mean (SD) | mean (SD) | mean (SD) | |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| index side [points] |
| 7.9 (1.0) | 7.3 (1.3) | 6.8 (1.1) |
|
| ||||
| healthy side [points] |
| 7.5 (1.1) | 7.7 (1.3) | 6.8 (1.6) |
|
| ||||
| p-value |
| n.s. | n.s. | n.s. |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| (1) trial [sec] |
| 0.7 (0.9) | 0.6 (1.8) | -1.8 (1.3) |
|
| ||||
| (2) trial [sec] |
| 0.4 (1.0) | 0.7 (1.8) | 0.9 (1.8) |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| (1) trial [sec] |
| 3.2 (0.6) | 3.5 (0.8) | 3.8 (0.7) |
|
| ||||
| (2) trial [sec] |
| 3.0 (0.3) | 3.1 (1.0) | 3.5 (0.8) |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| index side | ||||
|
| ||||
| (1) trial [sec] |
| 2.8 (0.9) | 2.9 (1.0) | 3.1 (0.6) |
|
| ||||
| (2) trial [sec] |
| 2.6 (0.5) | 2.9 (0.8) | 3.2 (0.9) |
|
| ||||
| healthy side | ||||
|
| ||||
| (1) trial [sec] |
| 2.9 (0.8) | 3.0 (0.8) | 3.3 (0.9) |
|
| ||||
| (2) trial [sec] |
| 2.7 (0.5) | 2.8 (0.9) | 3.1 (0.7) |
|
| ||||
| p-value (index vs healthy side) |
| n.s. | n.s. | n.s. |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| [sec] |
| 10.7 (1.6) | 12.6 (3.9) | 11.8 (2.7) |
n.s. = not significant according the level of significance > 0.05.