RESUMO
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of age as a risk factor on the revision rates of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) primary repair (ACLPR), dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) and bridge-enhanced ACL restoration (BEAR) compared to ACL reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed for comparative studies comparing outcomes for ACLPR, DIS or BEAR to ACLR. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to assess nondifferentiated and age-differentiated (skeletally mature patients ≤21 and >21 years) ACL revision and reoperation risk, as well as results for subjective outcomes. Methodological study quality was assessed using the Risk of Bias Tool 2.0c and Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies tools. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies (n = 1277) were included. ACLR demonstrated a lower nonage-stratified revision risk at 2 years versus ACLPR, DIS and BEAR, but a similar revision risk at 5 years when compared to DIS. However, an age-stratified analysis demonstrated a significantly increased ACLPR revision risk as compared to ACLR in skeletally mature patients ≤21 years of age (risk ratios [RR], 6.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18-33.87, p = 0.03), while adults (>21 years) showed no significant difference between groups (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.25-8.91, n.s.). Furthermore, DIS reoperation rates were significantly higher than respective ACLR rates (RR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.35-3.65, p = 0.002), whereas BEAR (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.41-2.75, n.s.) and ACLPR (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.21-3.09, n.s.) showed no differences. IKDC scores were equivalent for all techniques. However, ACLPR exhibited significantly better FJS (mean difference, 11.93; 95% CI, 6.36-17.51, p < 0.0001) and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Symptoms (mean difference, 3.01; 95% CI, 0.42-5.60, p = 0.02), along with a lower Tegner activity reduction. CONCLUSIONS: ACLPR in skeletally mature patients ≤21 years of age is associated with up to a six-fold risk increase for ACL revision surgery compared to ACLR; however, adults (>21 years) present no significant difference. Based on the current data, age emerges as a crucial risk factor and should be considered when deciding on the appropriate treatment option in proximal ACL tears. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: To intraoperatively evaluate the ability of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) primary repair (ACLPR) to restore anterior tibial translation (ATT) at time zero and to assess the influence of additional suture augmentation (SA) on ATT. METHODS: Patients with proximal ACL tears undergoing arthroscopic ACLPR with dual-suture anchor fixation were included in this time-zero clinical study. Laxity measurements were taken with a digital arthrometer to evaluate ATT stability preoperatively in the office (T0) as a standardized diagnostic tool, preoperatively under anesthesia (T1), at time zero intraoperatively after ACLPR but prior to SA fixation (T2), and after SA fixation (T3). RESULTS: A total of 27 patients (mean age ± standard deviation [SD], 35.1 ± 12.0 years) with proximal ACL tears and significant preoperative (T0) ATT side-to-side differences (SSDs) (mean ± SD, 4.1 ± 1.5 mm) were evaluated. ACLPR was shown to restore ATT SSD at time zero (mean ± SD, 0.2 ± 1.1 mm) given that a significant reduction in ATT SSD (mean difference ± standard error, -4.7 ± 0.21 mm; P < .001) was achieved when comparing preoperative and intraoperative measurements after separate refixation of both ACL bundles with suture anchors. Additional SA fixation did not further decrease ATT when comparing measurements of the ipsilateral leg after ACL refixation and after SA fixation (mean difference ± SD, 0.03 ± 0.22 mm; P = .496). CONCLUSIONS: ACLPR with dual-suture anchor fixation restores time-zero ATT laxity in adults with proximal ACL tears. Additional SA fixation in full knee extension does not further decrease ATT. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study provides important information about the effectiveness of ACLPR in restoring ATT. SA with the knee fixed in full knee extension does not further decrease ATT; therefore, augmentation may not lead to overconstraint of the knee or stress shielding of the repaired ACL.
RESUMO
Within the last decade, various highly diverse anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) preservation techniques have been proposed, as contemporary selective arthroscopic ACL preservation experienced a resurgence. Among surgical techniques, there are a variety of suturing, fixation, and augmentation methods, whereas a common thread, considering essential anatomic and biomechanical properties, is missing. This technique aims to anatomically reapproximate both the anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL) bundles to their respective femoral footprints. Additionally, a PL compression stitch is performed to increase the ligament-bone contact area and recreate the anatomic vectors of the native bundles, therefore, creating a more anatomic and biomechanical construct. This technique is a minimally invasive procedure, with no graft harvesting nor tunnel drilling, which leads to decreased pain levels, earlier return of full range motion (ROM), and faster rehabilitation, while failure rates seem to be comparable to that of ACL reconstruction. We present an updated surgical technique of anatomic arthroscopic primary repair with suture anchor fixation for patients with proximal ACL tears.
