The Comparison of Clinical Result between Primary Repair of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament with Additional Internal Bracing and Anatomic Single Bundle Reconstruction-A Retrospective Study

Creative Commons License

Szwedowski D., Paczesny L., Zabrzynski J., Gagat M., Domzalski M., HURİ G., ...Daha Fazla

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, cilt.10, sa.17, 2021 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 10 Sayı: 17
  • Basım Tarihi: 2021
  • Doi Numarası: 10.3390/jcm10173948
  • Dergi Adı: JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, EMBASE, Directory of Open Access Journals
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), primary ACL repair, internal bracing, knee laxity, DYNAMIC INTRALIGAMENTARY STABILIZATION, POSTOPERATIVE PHYSIOTHERAPY SUPERVISION, KNEE, ARTHROMETER, ROLIMETER, OUTCOMES, KT-1000, LAXITY, TEARS, INTERTESTER
  • Hacettepe Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Background: The current standard of treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is reconstruction (ACLR). This technique has some disadvantages: poor proprioception, donor site morbidity and the inability to restore joint kinematics. ACL repair could be an alternative treatment. The purpose of the study was to compare the stability and the function after ACL primary repair versus single-bundle ACLR. Methods: In a retrospective study, 12 patients underwent primary ACL repair with internal bracing, 15 patients underwent standard ACLR. Follow-up examinations were evaluated at up to 2 years postoperatively. One patient in the ACL repair group was lost to follow-up due to re-rupture. The absolute value of anterior tibial translation (ATT) and the side-to-side difference in the same patient (Delta ATT) were evaluated using the GNRB arthrometer. The Lysholm knee scoring was obtained. Re-ruptures and other complications were recorded. Results: Anterior tibial translation (ATT) was significantly decreased in the ACL repair group compared with the ACLR group (5.31 mm vs. 7.18 mm, respectively; p = 0.0137). Arthrometric measurements demonstrated a mean side-to-side difference (Delta ATT) 1.87 (range 0.2 to 4.9) mm significantly decreased compared to ACLR 3.36 (range 1.2-5.6 mm; p = 0.0107). The mean Lysholm score was 85.3 points in the ACL repair group and 89.9 in ACLR group. No significant differences between ACL repair and ACLR were found for the Lysholm score. There was no association between AP laxity and clinical outcomes. There were two complications in the internal bracing group: one patient had re-rupture and was treated by ACLR, another had limited extension and had arthroscopic debridement. Conclusions: Anterior tibial translation was significantly decreased after ACL repair. Additionally, the functional results after ACL repair with internal bracing were comparable with those after ACLR. It should be noted that the two complications occurred. The current study supports further development of ACL repair techniques.