Literature DB >> 31272646

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Outcomes: An Updated Systematic Review of Recent Literature.

Benedict U Nwachukwu1, Bhavik H Patel2, Yining Lu2, Answorth A Allen3, Riley J Williams3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To critically review recent literature on outcomes following primary surgical repair of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL).
METHODS: In December 2018, a search of the MEDLINE database was conducted for English language articles reporting clinical outcomes of ACL repair from 2003 to 2018. Included studies were evaluated for patient demographics, patient-reported outcome measures, return to sports/work, patient satisfaction, and postoperative complications. Subgroup analysis was conducted for studies that included patients with only type 1/proximal ACL ruptures.
RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies satisfied the inclusion criteria, comprising 2,401 patients (52.3% male, 35.7% female, 12.0% unspecified gender) with mean age ranging from 6.0 to 43.3 years. Most studies were conducted in Europe (82.1%), were level of evidence IV (60.7%), and were designed as case series (57.1%). Fourteen investigations (50.0%) used primary suture repair and 14 (50.0%) used dynamic intraligamentary stabilization. Preoperative ranges for Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee Score subjective, and Tegner scores were 28 to 100, 94.1 to 100, and 2 to 9, respectively. Postoperative ranges for the same measures were 80 to 100, 54.3 to 98, and 3.67 to 7, respectively. Time to return to sport/work ranged from 3.1 ± 3.3 to 17.4 ± 1.5 weeks. Frequency of rerupture, revision ACL surgery, and overall reoperations were as high as 23.1%, 33.3%, and 51.5%, respectively. Overall ACL repair survivorship ranged from 60.0% to 100.0%. In subgroup analysis for proximal ruptures treated with repair, the rates of revision ACL reconstruction (ACLR) and total reoperations were as high as 12.9% and 18.2%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on our cumulative findings across 2,401 patients from the 28 included studies, it appears that ACLR results in better survivorship and patient-perceived postoperative improvement when compared with ACL repair. At present, ACLR appears to remain the superior treatment strategy in the vast majority of cases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II to IV studies.
Copyright © 2019 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31272646     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2019.04.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthroscopy        ISSN: 0749-8063            Impact factor:   4.772


  16 in total

1.  The vancomycin soaking technique: no differences in autograft re-rupture rate. A comparative study.

Authors:  Daniel Pérez-Prieto; Simone Perelli; Ferran Corcoll; Gonzalo Rojas; Verónica Montiel; Juan Carlos Monllau
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2020-09-17       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 2.  Current trends in the anterior cruciate ligament part II: evaluation, surgical technique, prevention, and rehabilitation.

Authors:  Volker Musahl; Ian D Engler; Ehab M Nazzal; Jonathan F Dalton; Gian Andrea Lucidi; Jonathan D Hughes; Stefano Zaffagnini; Francesco Della Villa; James J Irrgang; Freddie H Fu; Jon Karlsson
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-12-05       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 3.  Current strategies for enhancement of the bioactivity of artificial ligaments: A mini-review.

Authors:  Shenglin Li; Shuhan Wang; Wenliang Liu; Chao Zhang; Jian Song
Journal:  J Orthop Translat       Date:  2022-10-12       Impact factor: 4.889

4.  ACL repair for athletes?

Authors:  Anshu Shekhar; Anoop Pilar; K M Ponnanna; Sachin Tapasvi
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2022-04-07

5.  Interrater Agreement of an Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tear Classification System.

Authors:  José F Vega; Gregory J Strnad; Isaac Briskin; Charles L Cox; Lutul D Farrow; Paul Fadale; David Flanigan; Michael Hulstyn; Peter B Imrey; Christopher C Kaeding; Brett D Owens; Paul Saluan; Rick Wright; Yi-Meng Yen; Kurt P Spindler
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2020-12-03

6.  Standard MRI May Not Predict Specific Acute Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture Characteristics.

Authors:  Roy A G Hoogeslag; Margje B Buitenhuis; Reinoud W Brouwer; Rosalie P H Derks; Sjoerd M van Raak; Rianne Huis In 't Veld
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-03-29

7.  Reliable Internal Consistency and Adequate Validity of the Forgotten Joint Score-12 after Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair.

Authors:  Harmen D Vermeijden; Xiuyi A Yang; Jelle P van der List; Gregory S DiFelice
Journal:  Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil       Date:  2021-05-05

8.  Acute Primary Repair of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament With Anterolateral Ligament Augmentation.

Authors:  Edoardo Monaco; Daniele Mazza; Matthew Daggett; Fabio Marzilli; Alessandro Annibaldi; Alessandro Carrozzo; Andrea Ferretti
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2021-05-24

9.  AANA20: The 2020 Annual Meeting of the Arthroscopy Association of North America.

Authors:  James H Lubowitz; Jefferson C Brand; Michael J Rossi
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 4.772

10.  The healing potential of an acutely repaired ACL: a sequential MRI study.

Authors:  Andrea Ferretti; Edoardo Monaco; Alessandro Annibaldi; Alessandro Carrozzo; Mattia Bruschi; Giuseppe Argento; Gregory S DiFelice
Journal:  J Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2020-08-31
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.