BACKGROUND:Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair has once again become a focus of research because of the development of new techniques. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose was to compare the functional results and recurrent instability rates in patients undergoingACL repair with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) versus primary ACL reconstruction (ACLR) for acute isolated ACL tears. The hypothesis was that functional results and knee joint stability after ACL repair with DIS would be comparable with that after ACLR. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: A total of 85 patients with acute ACL tears were randomized to undergo either ACL repair with DIS or primary ACLR. The preinjury activity level and function were recorded. Follow-up examinations were performed at 6 weeks and 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Anterior tibial translation (ATT) was evaluated using Rolimeter testing. The Tegner activity scale, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective form, and Lysholm knee scoring scale scores were obtained. Clinical failure was defined as ΔATT >3 mm in combination with subjective instability. Recurrent instability and other complications were recorded. RESULTS: There were 83 patients (97.6%) who were successfully followed until 2 years. ATT was significantly increased in the DIS group compared with the ACLR group (ΔATT, 1.9 vs 0.9 mm, respectively; P = .0086). A total of 7 patients (16.3%) in the DIS group had clinical failure and underwent single-stage revision. In the ACLR group, 5 patients (12.5%) had failure of the reconstruction procedure; 4 of these patients required 2-stage revision. The difference in the failure rate was not significant (P = .432). There were 4 patients (3 in the DIS group and 1 in the ACLR group) who showed increased laxity (ΔATT >3 mm) without subjective instability and did not require revision. Recurrent instability was associated with young age (<25 years) and high Tegner scores (>6) in both groups. No significant differences between ACL repair with DIS and ACLR were found for the Tegner, IKDC, and Lysholm scores at any time. CONCLUSION: Whereas ATT measured by Rolimeter testing was significantly increased after ACL repair with DIS, clinical failure was similar to that after ACLR. In addition, functional results after ACL repair with DIS for acute tears were comparable with those after ACLR. The current study supports the use of ACL repair with DIS as an option to treat acute ACL tears. REGISTRATION: DRKS00015466 (German Clinical Trials Register).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair has once again become a focus of research because of the development of new techniques. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose was to compare the functional results and recurrent instability rates in patients undergoing ACL repair with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) versus primary ACL reconstruction (ACLR) for acute isolated ACL tears. The hypothesis was that functional results and knee joint stability after ACL repair with DIS would be comparable with that after ACLR. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: A total of 85 patients with acute ACL tears were randomized to undergo either ACL repair with DIS or primary ACLR. The preinjury activity level and function were recorded. Follow-up examinations were performed at 6 weeks and 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Anterior tibial translation (ATT) was evaluated using Rolimeter testing. The Tegner activity scale, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective form, and Lysholm knee scoring scale scores were obtained. Clinical failure was defined as ΔATT >3 mm in combination with subjective instability. Recurrent instability and other complications were recorded. RESULTS: There were 83 patients (97.6%) who were successfully followed until 2 years. ATT was significantly increased in the DIS group compared with the ACLR group (ΔATT, 1.9 vs 0.9 mm, respectively; P = .0086). A total of 7 patients (16.3%) in the DIS group had clinical failure and underwent single-stage revision. In the ACLR group, 5 patients (12.5%) had failure of the reconstruction procedure; 4 of these patients required 2-stage revision. The difference in the failure rate was not significant (P = .432). There were 4 patients (3 in the DIS group and 1 in the ACLR group) who showed increased laxity (ΔATT >3 mm) without subjective instability and did not require revision. Recurrent instability was associated with young age (<25 years) and high Tegner scores (>6) in both groups. No significant differences between ACL repair with DIS and ACLR were found for the Tegner, IKDC, and Lysholm scores at any time. CONCLUSION: Whereas ATT measured by Rolimeter testing was significantly increased after ACL repair with DIS, clinical failure was similar to that after ACLR. In addition, functional results after ACL repair with DIS for acute tears were comparable with those after ACLR. The current study supports the use of ACL repair with DIS as an option to treat acute ACL tears. REGISTRATION: DRKS00015466 (German Clinical Trials Register).
Authors: B Schliemann; C Kösters; J Glasbrenner; M Fischer; M J Raschke; T Briese; M Müller; E Herbst; C Kittl Journal: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg Date: 2021-07-31 Impact factor: 2.928
Authors: Sophie C Eberlein; Vanessa Rodriguez; Andreas Hecker; Katharina Schürholz; Sufian S Ahmad; Frank M Klenke Journal: J Exp Orthop Date: 2022-08-08
Authors: Harmen D Vermeijden; Edoardo Monaco; Fabio Marzilli; Xiuyi A Yang; Jelle P van der List; Andrea Ferretti; Gregory S DiFelice Journal: Adv Orthop Date: 2022-09-13
Authors: Johannes Glasbrenner; Michael J Raschke; Christoph Kittl; Elmar Herbst; Christian Peez; Thorben Briese; Philipp A Michel; Mirco Herbort; Clemens Kösters; Benedikt Schliemann Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2022-08-25 Impact factor: 7.010