Anne Jonkergouw1, Jelle P van der List2, Gregory S DiFelice1. 1. Orthopaedic Sports Medicine and Trauma Service, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, NewYork-Presbyterian, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 525 East 68th Street, Starr 2, New York, NY, 10021, USA. 2. Orthopaedic Sports Medicine and Trauma Service, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, NewYork-Presbyterian, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, 525 East 68th Street, Starr 2, New York, NY, 10021, USA. jpjvanderlistmd@gmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Recent outcomes of arthroscopic primary repair of proximal anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears have been promising in small cohort studies. The purpose of this study was to assess outcomes of arthroscopic ACL repair in a larger cohort and to assess the role of additional augmentation. METHODS: The first 56 consecutive patients that underwent arthroscopic ACL repair were examined at minimum 2-year follow-up. The latter 27 patients [48.2% (27/56)] received additional internal bracing with ACL repair. All 56 patients were included (100% follow-up). Mean age at surgery was 33.5 ± 11.3 years (59% male) and mean follow-up 3.2 ± 1.7 years. Clinical examination was performed using the objective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form. Subjective outcomes were obtained using the Lysholm, modified Cincinnati, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and subjective IKDC scores. RESULTS: Six repairs (10.7%) failed and four additional patients underwent reoperation (7.1%): two for meniscus tears and two for suture anchor irritation. Objective IKDC scores were A in 38 (73%), B in 8 (15%) and C/D in 6 (12%) patients. Mean Lysholm score was 94 ± 7.6, modified Cincinnati 94 ± 8.9, SANE 90 ± 12.5, pre-injury Tegner 6.7 ± 1.5, current Tegner 6.2 ± 1.5, and subjective IKDC 90 ± 10.9. Failures rates were 7.4% with and 13.8% without internal bracing (P = 0.672). There were no statistically significant or clinically relevant differences in subjective outcomes. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic primary repair has resulted in good objective and subjective outcomes at 3.2-year follow-up in a carefully selected population. The role of additional internal bracing is possibly beneficial, but larger groups are needed to assess this. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
PURPOSE: Recent outcomes of arthroscopic primary repair of proximal anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears have been promising in small cohort studies. The purpose of this study was to assess outcomes of arthroscopic ACL repair in a larger cohort and to assess the role of additional augmentation. METHODS: The first 56 consecutive patients that underwent arthroscopic ACL repair were examined at minimum 2-year follow-up. The latter 27 patients [48.2% (27/56)] received additional internal bracing with ACL repair. All 56 patients were included (100% follow-up). Mean age at surgery was 33.5 ± 11.3 years (59% male) and mean follow-up 3.2 ± 1.7 years. Clinical examination was performed using the objective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form. Subjective outcomes were obtained using the Lysholm, modified Cincinnati, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and subjective IKDC scores. RESULTS: Six repairs (10.7%) failed and four additional patients underwent reoperation (7.1%): two for meniscus tears and two for suture anchor irritation. Objective IKDC scores were A in 38 (73%), B in 8 (15%) and C/D in 6 (12%) patients. Mean Lysholm score was 94 ± 7.6, modified Cincinnati 94 ± 8.9, SANE 90 ± 12.5, pre-injury Tegner 6.7 ± 1.5, current Tegner 6.2 ± 1.5, and subjective IKDC 90 ± 10.9. Failures rates were 7.4% with and 13.8% without internal bracing (P = 0.672). There were no statistically significant or clinically relevant differences in subjective outcomes. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic primary repair has resulted in good objective and subjective outcomes at 3.2-year follow-up in a carefully selected population. The role of additional internal bracing is possibly beneficial, but larger groups are needed to assess this. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Authors: Paulina M Szakiel; Nicholas E Aksu; Kunal M Kirloskar; Maxwell D Gruber; Kyle W Zittel; Caleb V Grieme; Xue Geng; Evan H Argintar Journal: J Orthop Date: 2022-07-16
Authors: Toan D Duong; Dung T Tran; Bich N T Do; Tai T Nguyen; Son M Le; Ha H Le Journal: Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol Date: 2022-07-01
Authors: Mikołaj Wypych; Robert Lundqvist; Dariusz Witoński; Rafał Kęska; Anna Szmigielska; Przemysław T Paradowski Journal: Open Med (Wars) Date: 2021-05-29