PURPOSE: The Ligament Augmentation and Reconstruction System (LARS®) is a synthetic ligament consisting of fibres made of polyethylene terephthalate. Despite the LARS being used as an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) device for nearly 30 years and the well-documented complications from earlier synthetic ligament designs, there is a paucity of published medium- to long-term results. The aim of this study is to report the clinical and functional outcomes after ACL reconstruction using the LARS at a minimum follow-up of 6 years. METHODS: Results of a single surgeon's entire cohort of 55 patients who underwent primary LARS ACL surgery were reviewed at a median of 7.8 years (6.0-9.4). Patient-reported outcome measures including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) were collected and clinical assessment consisted of range of motion (ROM) and the KT-1000 arthrometer to assess the side-side difference in the operative and non-operative knee. Mechanical failures of the graft were confirmed at revision surgery and a survivorship analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: The overall mechanical failure rate was 17/51 (33.3%) with ruptures occurring at a median 3.9 years (0.6-8.8 years) following primary LARS ACL surgery. Secondary operative procedures were performed in 39.2% of patients. For intact grafts, there was no statistically significant difference is side-to-side ROM or anterior knee laxity and subjective scores revealed a median IKDC subjective score of 85.1 (26.4-100) and SF-36 physical component score of 94.1. CONCLUSION: The rates of LARS ACL construct failure (33.3%) in this cohort are high and based on these results the LARS should not be considered as a graft option for primary ACL reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, cohort study.
PURPOSE: The Ligament Augmentation and Reconstruction System (LARS®) is a synthetic ligament consisting of fibres made of polyethylene terephthalate. Despite the LARS being used as an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) device for nearly 30 years and the well-documented complications from earlier synthetic ligament designs, there is a paucity of published medium- to long-term results. The aim of this study is to report the clinical and functional outcomes after ACL reconstruction using the LARS at a minimum follow-up of 6 years. METHODS: Results of a single surgeon's entire cohort of 55 patients who underwent primary LARS ACL surgery were reviewed at a median of 7.8 years (6.0-9.4). Patient-reported outcome measures including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score and 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) were collected and clinical assessment consisted of range of motion (ROM) and the KT-1000 arthrometer to assess the side-side difference in the operative and non-operative knee. Mechanical failures of the graft were confirmed at revision surgery and a survivorship analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: The overall mechanical failure rate was 17/51 (33.3%) with ruptures occurring at a median 3.9 years (0.6-8.8 years) following primary LARS ACL surgery. Secondary operative procedures were performed in 39.2% of patients. For intact grafts, there was no statistically significant difference is side-to-side ROM or anterior knee laxity and subjective scores revealed a median IKDC subjective score of 85.1 (26.4-100) and SF-36 physical component score of 94.1. CONCLUSION: The rates of LARS ACL construct failure (33.3%) in this cohort are high and based on these results the LARS should not be considered as a graft option for primary ACL reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, cohort study.
Authors: Volker Musahl; Anton Plakseychuk; Andrew VanScyoc; Tomoyuki Sasaki; Richard E Debski; Patrick J McMahon; Freddie H Fu Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2005-02-16 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Jonathan S Mulford; Stephen E Hutchinson; Jacqueline R Hang Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2012-09-25 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Przemyslaw M Kamien; Josie M Hydrick; William H Replogle; Linda T Go; Gene R Barrett Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2013-06-28 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: W Michael Pullen; Brandon Bryant; Trevor Gaskill; Nicholas Sicignano; Amber M Evans; Marlene DeMaio Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2016-08-12 Impact factor: 6.202