Shang-Hsuan Tsai1,2, Cheng-Hung Lee1,3, Kwok-Man Tong1, Shun-Ping Wang1, Kun-Tsan Lee1, Wen-Chen Tsai4, Chao-Ping Chen1,4,5. 1. Department of Orthopedics, Taichung Veterans General Hospital, Taichung, Taiwan, ROC. 2. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Feng Yuan Hospital, Ministry of Health and Welfare, Taichung, Taiwan, ROC. 3. Department of Biotechnology, Hung Kuang University, Taichung, Taiwan, ROC. 4. Department of Public Health, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan, ROC. 5. Jen-Teh Junior College of Medicine, Nursing and Management, Miaoli, Taiwan, ROC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with ligament advanced reinforcement system (LARS) had revealed good results with low complication and failure rate in series of studies. The specific candidates for ACL reconstruction with LARS are still unknown anyway. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the activity-related outcome in ACL reconstruction using LARS ligament. METHODS: A total of 43 unilateral arthroscopic ACL reconstructions with LARS were collected and divided into two groups: group A (preinjury Tegner score ≥ 6, n = 20) and group B (preinjury Tegner score < 6, n = 23). We had analyzed the stability of knee and functional outcome with a minimum of 2-years follow up. RESULTS: All patients were aware of improvement over the knee stability immediately after ACL reconstruction with LARS. The functional outcome of knee was improved in both groups by analysis with the Lysholm score and modified International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score. The postoperative grading of the knee examination form of modified IKDC grade showed no statistical difference in both groups. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with LARS was encouraged as an alternative option even in high sports demand patients.
BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with ligament advanced reinforcement system (LARS) had revealed good results with low complication and failure rate in series of studies. The specific candidates for ACL reconstruction with LARS are still unknown anyway. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the activity-related outcome in ACL reconstruction using LARS ligament. METHODS: A total of 43 unilateral arthroscopic ACL reconstructions with LARS were collected and divided into two groups: group A (preinjury Tegner score ≥ 6, n = 20) and group B (preinjury Tegner score < 6, n = 23). We had analyzed the stability of knee and functional outcome with a minimum of 2-years follow up. RESULTS: All patients were aware of improvement over the knee stability immediately after ACL reconstruction with LARS. The functional outcome of knee was improved in both groups by analysis with the Lysholm score and modified International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score. The postoperative grading of the knee examination form of modified IKDC grade showed no statistical difference in both groups. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with LARS was encouraged as an alternative option even in high sports demand patients.