Literature DB >> 36156178

Clinical and arthroscopic outcomes of single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous hamstrings augmented with ligament augmentation and reconstruction systems compared with four-strand hamstring tendon grafts alone.

Hamood H G Zaid1,2, Nan Chenwei1, Hua Xu1, Guo Yang3, Xihai Li4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical, radiological, and second-look arthroscopic outcomes in patients who underwent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using a four-strand hamstring tendon graft (hamstring group) either without augmentation or with ligament augmentation and reconstruction system (LARS) augmentation (LARS augmentation group).
METHODS: From January 2018 to December 2019, patients who underwent ACL reconstruction were included. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were undertaken pre-operatively and at three, six, 12, and 24 months post-operatively. Arthroscopic evaluation was performed focusing on the morphology of the graft based on graft tension, graft tear, and synovial coverage.
RESULTS: A total of 178 consecutive patients received single-bundle ACL reconstruction, 89 patients in each group, and 20 patients were lost to follow-up in the first two years. At the three month follow-up, the LARS augmentation group had significantly higher Lysholm scores, IKDC scores, and KOS-ADLS scores than the hamstring group (P < 0.001). At the three, six and 12-month follow-ups, there were significantly higher Tegner scores and ACL-RSI scores in the LARS augmentation group than in the hamstring group (P < 0.05). At the three and six month follow-ups, the LARS augmentation group had significantly higher rates of return to sports and return to sports at their preinjury level (P < 0.05). There were no between-group differences in other outcomes, including arthroscopic outcomes, graft signal intensity, post-operative complications or rerupture rates.
CONCLUSIONS: Autologous hamstring augmented with the LARS augmentation technique provides good and realistic clinical and functional results during the early post-operative period with high levels of satisfaction of patients, including participation in sports and physical activity, and high rates of return to sports at the preinjury level, without any apparent complications compared with hamstring ACL reconstruction alone. No increases in complication, reinjury rates, or increased lateral laxity were observed at the 12-month or 24-month follow-up.
© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to SICOT aisbl.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions; Augmentation; LARS; Remnant preservation; Return to sport; Second-look arthroscopy

Year:  2022        PMID: 36156178     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-022-05588-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.479


  42 in total

Review 1.  Failure of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Authors:  Gonzalo Samitier; Alejandro I Marcano; Eduard Alentorn-Geli; Ramon Cugat; Kevin W Farmer; Michael W Moser
Journal:  Arch Bone Jt Surg       Date:  2015-10

Review 2.  Fifty-five per cent return to competitive sport following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis including aspects of physical functioning and contextual factors.

Authors:  Clare L Ardern; Nicholas F Taylor; Julian A Feller; Kate E Webster
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  2014-08-25       Impact factor: 13.800

Review 3.  Anterior cruciate ligament injury rehabilitation in athletes. Biomechanical considerations.

Authors:  B D Beynnon; R J Johnson
Journal:  Sports Med       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 11.136

Review 4.  Graft Selection in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery: Who gets What and Why?

Authors:  Kyle R Duchman; T Sean Lynch; Kurt P Spindler
Journal:  Clin Sports Med       Date:  2016-10-15       Impact factor: 2.182

Review 5.  Bioabsorbable versus metallic interference screws in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses.

Authors:  Randy Mascarenhas; Bryan M Saltzman; Eli T Sayegh; Nikhil N Verma; Brian J Cole; Charles Bush-Joseph; Bernard R Bach
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2014-12-31       Impact factor: 4.772

Review 6.  Outcomes Following ACL Reconstruction Based on Graft Type: Are all Grafts Equivalent?

Authors:  Matthew Widner; Mark Dunleavy; Scott Lynch
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2019-12

7.  Revascularization and ligamentization of autogenous anterior cruciate ligament grafts in humans.

Authors:  R P Falconiero; V J DiStefano; T M Cook
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 4.772

8.  Expectations for Return to Preinjury Sport Before and After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Authors:  Kate E Webster; Julian A Feller
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2019-01-16       Impact factor: 6.202

9.  Beliefs and attitudes of members of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons regarding the treatment of anterior cruciate ligament injury.

Authors:  Robert G Marx; Edward C Jones; Michael Angel; Thomas L Wickiewicz; Russell F Warren
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 4.772

Review 10.  Risk of Secondary Injury in Younger Athletes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Amelia J Wiggins; Ravi K Grandhi; Daniel K Schneider; Denver Stanfield; Kate E Webster; Gregory D Myer
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2016-01-15       Impact factor: 6.202

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.