Efficacy of Nonaugmented, Static Augmented, and Dynamic Augmented Suture Repair of the Ruptured Anterior Cruciate Ligament: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cruciate ligament suture repair (ACLSR) was abandoned late last century in favor of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) because of overall disappointing results. However, in recent years there has been renewed and increasing interest in ACLSR for treatment of ACL ruptures. Several contemporary ACLSR techniques are being used, but any difference in effectiveness is unclear. HYPOTHESIS: Contemporary nonaugmented (NA), static augmented (SA), and dynamic augmented (DA) ACLSR leads to (1) comparable outcomes overall and (2) comparable outcomes between proximal third, middle third, and combined ACL rupture locations (a) within and (b) between ACLSR technique categories. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: An electronic search was performed in the MEDLINE and Embase databases for the period between January 1, 2010, and August 7, 2019. All articles describing clinical and patient-reported outcomes for ACLSR were identified and included, and outcomes for NA, SA, and DA ACLSR categories were compared. RESULTS: A total of 31 articles and 2422 patients were included. The majority of articles (65%) and patients (89%) reported outcomes of DA ACLSR. Overall, there was high heterogeneity in study characteristics and level as well as quality of evidence (19 level 4; 7 level 3; 3 level 2; and 2 level 1). Most studies indicated excellent patient-reported outcomes. Overall, the variability in (and the maximum of) the reported failure rate was high within all ACLSR categories. The variability in (and the maximum of) the reported rate of all other complications was highest for DA ACLSR. Regarding ACL rupture location, the failure rate was highest in proximal ACL ruptures within the SA and DA ACLSR categories; rates of all other reported complications were highest in combined ACL ruptures within the DA ACLSR category. However, no studies in the NA category and only 1 study in the SA ACLSR category evaluated combined ACL ruptures. The majority of studies comparing ACLSR and ACLR found no differences in outcomes. CONCLUSION: The amount of high-quality evidence for contemporary ACLSR is poor. This makes it difficult to interpret differences among ACLSR categories and among ACL rupture locations and, though promising, to establish the role of ACLSR in the treatment of ACL ruptures. More high-quality large randomized clinical trials with longer follow-up comparing ACLSR and ACLR are needed.

Acute Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture: Repair or Reconstruction? Two-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Contemporary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) suture repair techniques have been subject to renewed interest in recent years. Although several clinical studies have yielded good short-term results, high-quality evidence is lacking in regard to the effectiveness of this treatment compared with ACL reconstruction. HYPOTHESIS: Dynamic augmented ACL suture repair is at least as effective as anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction for the treatment of acute ACL rupture in terms of patient self-reported outcomes at 2 years postoperatively. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: After stratification and randomization, 48 patients underwent either dynamic augmented ACL suture repair or ACL reconstruction with a single-bundle, all-inside, semitendinosus technique. The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score at 2 years postoperatively was the primary outcome measure. Patient-reported outcomes (IKDC subjective score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Tegner score, visual analog scale for satisfaction), clinical outcomes (IKDC physical examination score, leg symmetry index for the quadriceps, hamstrings strength, and jump test battery), and radiological outcomes as well as adverse events including reruptures were recorded. Analyses were based on an intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: The lower limit for the median IKDC subjective score of the repair group (86.2) fell within the prespecified noninferiority margin, confirming noninferiority of dynamic augmented ACL suture repair compared with ACL reconstruction. No statistical difference was found between groups for median IKDC subjective score (repair, 95.4; reconstruction, 94.3). Overall, 2 reruptures (8.7%) occurred in the dynamic ACL suture repair group and 4 reruptures (19.0%) in the ACL reconstruction group; further, 5 repeat surgeries-other than for revision ACL surgery-took place in 4 patients from the dynamic ACL suture repair group (20.8%) and in 3 patients from the ACL reconstruction group (14.3%). CONCLUSION: Dynamic augmented ACL suture repair is not inferior to ACL reconstruction in terms of subjective patient-reported outcomes as measured with the IKDC subjective score 2 years postoperatively. However, for reasons other than revision ACL surgery due to rerupture, a higher number of related adverse events leading to repeat surgery were seen in the dynamic augmented ACL suture repair group within 2 years postoperatively. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Dynamic augmented ACL suture repair might be a viable treatment option for patients with an acute ACL rupture. REGISTRATION: NCT02310854 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Adaptation, validity and reliability of the modified painDETECT questionnaire for patients with subacromial pain syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The identification of a neuropathic component to subacromial pain may lead to different pain management strategies. The purpose of this study was to adapt the Dutch modified painDETECT (mPDQ-NL) Knee, which discriminates between nociceptive and neuropathic pain, to fit patients with subacromial pain syndrome and subsequently assess its validity and reliability. METHODS: The mPDQ-NL Knee was adapted into the mPDQ-NL Shoulder to fit and use for patients with subacromial pain syndrome. The study population consisted of patients suffering from subacromial pain syndrome who were asked to fill in the Dutch mPDQ-NL Shoulder, the self-completed Leeds Assessment of Neuropathic Symptoms and Signs (S-LANSS) and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) to determine construct validity (structural validity, hypotheses testing) of the mPDQ-NL Shoulder. Regarding reliability, internal consistency was determined and the mPDQ-NL Shoulder was assessed a second time with a two-week interval to determine measurement error and reliability. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients were included in the validity analysis and 58 in the reliability analysis. Validity (86% of predefined hypotheses met), internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.8) and reliability (ICC 0.7) of the mPDQ-NL Shoulder were good, however, a systematic bias might be present. CONCLUSION: The mPDQ-NL Shoulder was successfully modified from the mPDQ-NL Knee. This study shows that the mPDQ-NL Shoulder seems to reflect neuropathic-like pain symptoms experienced by patients with SAPS. Whether it may also be used as a tool to record change over time or after treatment has to be further assessed.

Self-reported functional recovery after reconstruction versus repair in acute anterior cruciate ligament rupture (ROTOR): a randomized controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is today's surgical gold standard for ACL rupture. Although it provides satisfactory results, not all patients return to their previous activity level and moreover, early posttraumatic osteoarthritis is not prevented. As such, a renewed interest has emerged in ACL suture repair combined with dynamic augmentation. Compared to ACL reconstruction, the hypothesized advantages of ACL suture repair are earlier return to sports, reduction of early posttraumatic osteoarthritis and preservation of the patient's native ACL tissue and proprioceptive envelope of the knee. In recent literature, ACL suture repair combined with dynamic augmentation tends to be at least equally effective compared to ACL reconstruction, but no randomized comparative study has yet been conducted. METHODS/DESIGN: This study is a prospective, stratified, block randomized controlled trial. Forty-eight patients with an ACL rupture will be assigned to either a suture repair group with dynamic augmentation and microfracture of the femoral notch, or an ACL reconstruction group with autologous semitendinosis graft and all-inside technique. The primary objective is to investigate the hypothesis that suture repair of a ruptured ACL results in at least equal effectiveness compared with an ACL reconstruction in terms of patient self-reported outcomes (IKDC 2000 subjective scale) 1 year postoperatively. Secondary objectives are to evaluate patient self-reported outcomes (IKDC 2000, KOOS, Tegner, VAS), re-rupture rate, rehabilitation time required for return to daily and sports activities, achieved levels of sports activity, clinimetrics (Rolimeter, LSI, Isoforce) and development of osteoarthritis, at short term (6 weeks, 3, 6 and 9 months and 1 year), midterm (2 and 5 years) and long term (10 years) postoperatively. DISCUSSION: A renewed interest has emerged in ACL suture repair combined with dynamic augmentation in the treatment of ACL rupture. Recent cohort studies show good short- and midterm results for this technique. This randomized controlled trial has been designed to compare the outcome of suture repair of a ruptured ACL, combined with DIS as well as microfracture of the femoral notch, with ACL reconstruction using autologous semitendinosus. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Register NCT02310854 (retrospectively registered on December 1st, 2014).