Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization Research Articles

Anterior cruciate ligament primary repair revision rates are increased in skeletally mature patients under the age of 21 compared to reconstruction, while adults (>21 years) show no significant difference: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

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). 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. 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. 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 factorand should be considered when deciding on the appropriate treatment option in proximal ACL tears. Level III.

Comparative analysis of five-year outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament tears repaired with different techniques

Introduction Primary repair of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) torn from the femur and the synovial membrane being intact can be an indication for two competing methods including dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) as the saving method and resection of the stump and primary autoplasty as a more traumatic option.The purpose was to evaluate the five-year results of DIS in comparison with early ACL reconstruction of the knee joint.Material and methods A review and statistical analysis of outcomes of 72 patients with ACL injuries (47 males and 25 females) were performed. The patients aged between 18 and 45 years (30.9 ± 8.5), with the length of time from injury ranging from 3 to 21 days (10.6 ± 5.0) and the Tegner activity score of 5 (1–9; 5.8 ± 0.9) prior to injury. DIS was performed for the first group of patients (n = 39) who arthroscopically were diagnosed with ACL torn off the femur with the synovial membrane preserved. Early ACL repair was performed for the controls (second group, n = 33).Results VAS scored 1.4 ± 0.8 in group I and 1.9 ± 0.8 in group II at 6 months, p = 0.004. Patient satisfaction scored 8.0 ± 0.8 in group I and 7.4 ± 0.8 in group II at 12 months, p = 0.003. Tegner activity level scored 6.5 ± 0.9 in group I and 6.3 ± 0.8 in group II at 12 months, p = 0.014. The Lysholm knee score measured 91.1 ± 2.2 in group I and 88.6 ± 3.5 in group II at 12 months, p = 0.001. Five-year dynamic observation showed relapses of anterior-medial instability of the knee joint in 10 patients (13.9 %), with 4 patients in group I (10.3 %) and 6 patients in group II (18.2 %).Discussion Outcomes of proximal ACL tears with intact synovium can be as good as with ACL repair. Removal of the torn cruciate ligament with the synovium being intact and grafting may be an unnecessary and aggressive approach.Conclusion Dynamic intraligamentous stabilization as compared to early ACL repair shows a faster recovery of physical activity at a short term and less relapses of knee joint instability at a long term.

Primary Repair of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tear

Background Initially, authors reported deterioration in the outcomes of ACL open primary repair. Consequently, authors considered ACL reconstruction surgery as the gold standard approach in treating ACL injuries. Recently, with the introduction of modern-day technology such as MRIs and arthroscopic repair, emerging reports gained interest in reevaluating the outcomes of primary repair. Aim of the Work We aim to evaluate to evaluate the results of different techniques regarding ACL repair, and determine the ideal candidates for this procedure Patients and Methods We conducted an electronic search via PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Google Scholar from their inception till August 2020. We included randomized, nonrandomized trials, prospective or retrospective cohort and case control studies that were published in English with full text available. We restricted our search to patients diagnosed with acute ACL tear whom underwent open or arthroscopic ACL repair. Outcomes of interest were Functional outcomes (Lysholm, Bivot and Lachman scores), complications and failure rates. Results From a total 2089 screened citations, 24 studies met our inclusion criteria. Eleven studies evaluated primary ACL suture repair of the (1 study used a biologic scaffold in the ACL repair, 4 used microfracturing techniques, and 5 used some form of mechanical augmentation). The remaining 11 studies used dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS). There was male predominance across the studies, with patients aged between 6 to 43.3 years and patients were follow-up to 16 years. There was a wide range of ACL repair survivorship between 60 % and 100% with reoperation rate ranged between 0 % and 51.5%. Re-rupture of the ACL, revision ACLR procedures, and implant removal were as high as 18.2%, 20%, and 100%, respectively. However, results were improved when ACL repair was combined with biological enhancers e.g. microfracturing and scaffolding. In the four comparative studies (primary repair vs. ACLR), there was no significant difference between both approaches regarding; IKDC, Lysholm, Tegner and Lachman, scores.but ACLR was slightly superior in certain outcomes e, g, failure rates and proper positioning. Conclusion We found that still ACL reconstruction is superior to ACL primary repair however, with strict selection criteria mainly; proximal ACL rupture and excellent tissue quality, primary ACL repair could be reconsidered as an effective treatment especially when combined with microfracturing and scaffolding.

Early Complication Analysis of Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization versus Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Both dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) and reconstruction (RECO) are common treatment methods for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture. We report short term outcomes after DIS (Ligamys, Mathys, Bettlach, Switzerland) and RECO using semitendinosus tendon. We compared postoperative complications, deficits of range-of-motion (ROM), and revision rates between the two treatment options. A total of 690 patients (437 male, 253 female), after either DIS or RECO, were included. Of these, 147 patients (21%) received DIS and 543 (79%) underwent RECO. Follow-up examination focused on clinical examination, complications and revision rates. Anteroposterior instability and ROM deficits were analyzed in order to evaluate our policy of early intervention for all cases of ROM restrictions. Relevant ROM restrictions occurred at a significantly higher rate after DIS than after RECO (4.8% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.008). Flexion was more restricted after DIS than RECO (110° vs. 124°, p < 0.001). Extension deficits also occurred more frequently after DIS compared to RECO (49.7% vs. 24.5%; p < 0.001). Total revision surgery rate was 9.1%, with patients after DIS being significantly more frequently affected (20.4% vs. 6.1%; p < 0.001). Our findings indicate a significantly higher risk for ROM restriction after DIS compared to RECO, resulting in a significantly higher revision rate.

Clinical outcomes in dynamic intraligamentary stabilization technique for anterior cruciate ligament tear: A meta-analysis.

To compare the clinical outcome between dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in ACL tears. PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were searched to identify published articles on clinical studies comparing DIS versus ACL reconstruction. The results of the eligible studies were analyzed in terms of anteroposterior knee laxity translation (ΔATT) between the injured and contralateral knees, and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm score, Tegner score, and ipsilateral ACL failure, implant removal, and ACL revision. Five clinical studies including 429 patients with ACL tears met the inclusion criteria. DIS showed statistically comparable outcomes of ΔATT (P = .12), IKDC (P = .38), Tegner (P = .82), ACL failure (P = .50), ACL revision (P = .29) with ACL reconstruction. A significantly higher rate of implant removal (odds ratio for DIS vs ACL reconstruction, 7.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.72-22.00; P = .0001) but statistically higher Lysholm score (mean difference between DIS and ACL reconstruction, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.24-2.93; P = .02) were found in DIS group. Five clinical studies including 429 patients with ACL tears met the inclusion criteria. DIS showed statistically comparable outcomes of ΔATT (P = .12), IKDC (P = .38), Tegner (P = .82), ACL failure (P = .50), ACL revision (P = .29) with ACL reconstruction. A significantly higher rate of implant removal (odds ratio for DIS vs ACL reconstruction, 7.73; 95% CI, 2.72-22.00; P = .0001) but statistically higher Lysholm score (mean difference between DIS and ACL reconstruction, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.24-2.93; P = .02) were found in DIS group.

Graft failure and revision rate after ACL repair with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization. One-year results of a prospective case series of 155 patients

PurposeThe aim of this study was to assess graft failure, revision rate, and functional outcomes after treatment of acute ACL rupture with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) Ligamys device one year post surgery. Additionally, differences in functional outcome between patients with and without anteroposterior laxity were assessed. It was hypothesized that the failure rate of DIS was non-inferior to that of previously reported ACL reconstruction (10%).MethodsIn this prospectively designed multicenter study, including patients with an acute ACL rupture, DIS was performed within 21 days after rupture. Primary outcome was failure of the graft at 1 year post surgery, defined as 1) re-rupture of the graft, 2) revision of DIS, or 3) a > 3 mm side-to-side difference in anterior tibial translation compared to the non-operated knee (∆ATT), measured by the KT1000 device. Additional analysis was performed using a 5 mm threshold. The subjective International Knee Documentation Committee Score (IKDC) and Numerical Rating Scales (NRS) for pain and confidence were used to evaluate functional outcome.ResultsA total of 155 patients were included with a mean age at surgery of 27.8 years (SD 9.4). The mean interval from rupture to DIS was 16.4 days (SD 5.2). At a median follow-up of 13 months (IQR 12–18) the failure rate of the graft was 30.2% (95%CI:22.0–39.4); 11 patients (7%) required secondary reconstructive surgery and of the 105 patients who attended ATT measurement, 24 patients (23%) had an ∆ATT > 3 mm. Secondary analysis, based on a 5 mm threshold, revealed a failure rate of 22.4% (95%CI: 15.2; 31.1). A total of 39 patients (25%) reported at least one complication, comprising mainly arthrofibrosis, traumatic re-rupture and pain. In these patients, removal of the monoblock was performed in 21 cases (13.5%). At follow-up no significant differences in functional outcomes between patients with ∆ATT > 3 mm and stable ATT were observed.ConclusionThis prospective multicenter study found a high failure rate at one year follow-up of 30% (7% revision surgery and 23% > 3 mm side-to-side difference in anterior tibial translation) in patients treated by primary repair of the ACL with DIS, and did therefore not demonstrate non-inferiority to ACL reconstruction. For patients who did not require secondary reconstructive surgery, this study found good functional outcomes, also in case of persistent anteroposterior knee laxity (∆ATT > 3 mm).Level of evidenceLevel IV.

Early outcomes of primary repair versus reconstruction for acute anterior cruciate ligament injury: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Contemporary techniques for repair of acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture have been receiving renewed interest recently because of reports of good outcomes. A literature search of PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Only RCTs published in English and comparing clinical outcomes of ACL repair versus reconstruction were included. Outcomes were evaluated using the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, visual analog scale pain score, anterior laxity, Lachman test, hop tests, knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score, extension deficit, revision rate, and re-rupture rate. Statistical analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.4 and Stata 14.0. Two-tailed P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Four RCTs (with a total of 293 patients) that met the eligibility criteria were included in this review. Over short-term follow-up, none of the studies found significant differences between the repair groups and reconstruction groups with respect to International Knee Documentation Committee, Lysholm, Tegner, visual analog scale, anterior laxity, Lachman test, re-rupture rate, extension deficit, and performance of 3 hop tests (P > .05). In both groups, the hop tests scores were >90%. ACL repair and ACL reconstruction appear to provide comparable short-term outcomes. The low revision rate after primary repair is encouraging. For patients with ACL injury, current repair techniques such as dynamic intraligamentary stabilization and bridge-enhanced ACL repair may be an effective alternative to reconstruction.

Sports

The December 2022 Sports Roundup360 looks at: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization or anterior ACL at five years?; Femoroacetabular impingement in mild osteoarthritis: is hip arthroscopy the answer?; Steroids in Achilles tendinopathy: A randomized trial.

Trends in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair: A Bibliometric and Visualized Analysis.

Bibliometrics is a methodology that measures the scientific output of an author, institution, or country. Visualized analysis is the transformation of data into visible form by software, highlighting important features, including commonalities and anomalies, allowing users to easily and quickly perceive significant aspects of their data. To conduct a bibliometric analysis of the literature on anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair, with visualization of trends, in order to identify the areas of interest and the primary researchers involved in ACL repair. Cross-sectional study. The PubMed database was queried on April 14, 2022, for publications that reported on ACL repair from 1960 onward. The initial search resulted in 1392 publications. Filter settings were applied to remove publications with weak correlation, such as those on meniscal repair and ACL reconstruction. Publication information, citations, authors, commonly used terms, and affiliated institutions and countries were analyzed by VOSviewer and Python. A total of 553 articles were included for analysis. Three techniques were visualized: bridge-enhanced ACL repair, internal brace, and dynamic intraligamentary stabilization. The most published authors were Martha Murray (51 articles), Gregory Difelice (35 articles), and Braden Fleming (31 articles). The most cited article was "Collagen-Platelet Rich Plasma Hydrogel Enhances Primary Repair of the Porcine Anterior Cruciate Ligament" by Murray et al. The journals with the most publications on ACL repair were the American Journal of Sports Medicine (n = 49); Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (n = 49); and Arthroscopy (n = 48). The top 3 institutions by publication number were the Hospital for Special Surgery (n = 51), Boston Children's Hospital (n = 49), and Brown University (n = 31), with the most publications coming from the United States (n = 242), Germany (n = 83), and the United Kingdom (n = 47). The results demonstrate that the research on ACL repair comes from a small number of authors and corresponding institutions; the top sports medicine journals and the developed countries have an interest in this topic.

Comparable Instrumented Knee Joint Laxity and Patient-Reported Outcomes After ACL Repair With Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization or ACL Reconstruction: 5-Year Results of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Technical innovation has led to the renaissance of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair in the past decade. Purpose/Hypothesis: The present study aimed to compare instrumented knee joint laxity and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after ACL repair with those after primary ACL reconstruction for acute isolated ACL tears. It was hypothesized that ACL repair would lead to comparable knee joint stability and PROs at 5 years postoperatively in comparison with ACL reconstruction. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A total of 85 patients with acute ACL tears were randomized to undergo either ACL repair using dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) or primary ACL reconstruction with a semitendinosus tendon autograft. The primary outcome was the side-to-side difference in anterior tibial translation (ΔATT) assessed by Rolimeter testing at 5 years postoperatively. Follow-up examinations were performed at 1, 2, and 5 years. PROs were assessed using the Tegner activity scale, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, and the Lysholm score. Furthermore, the rates of recurrent instability, other complications, and revision surgery were recorded. A power analysis was performed a priori, and the Friedman test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Bonferroni correction were applied for statistical comparisons with significance set at P < .05. Results: The mean age at inclusion was 28.3 ± 11.5 years in the ACL repair group and 27.1 ± 11.5 years in the ACL reconstruction group. At 5 years postoperatively, a total of 64 patients (ACL repair: n = 34 of 43 [79%]; ACL reconstruction: n = 30 of 42 [71%]) were available for follow-up. At 5 years, ΔATT was 1.7 ± 1.6 mm in the ACL repair group and 1.4 ± 1.3 mm in the ACL reconstruction group (P = .334). Preinjury PROs were restored as soon as 1 year after surgery and plateaued until 2 and 5 years postoperatively in both groups. At the 5-year follow-up, the mean Lysholm score was 97.0 ± 5.4 versus 94.5 ± 5.5 (P = .322), respectively, and the mean IKDC subjective score was 94.1 ± 9.9 versus 89.9 ± 7.8 (P = .047), respectively, in the ACL repair group versus ACL reconstruction group. At 5 years postoperatively, 12 patients in the ACL repair group (35%; age <25 years: n = 10/12; Tegner score ≥7: n = 10/12) had recurrent instability, of whom 10 underwent single-stage revision ACL reconstruction. In the ACL reconstruction group, there were 6 patients with recurrent instability (20%; age <25 years: n = 6/6; Tegner score ≥7: n = 5/6); however, in 5 patients, staged revision was required. Differences between both groups regarding recurrent instability (P = .09) or ACL revision surgery (P = .118) were not statistically significant. Recurrent instability was associated with age <25 years and Tegner score >7 in both groups. Conclusion: At 5 years after ACL repair with DIS, instrumented knee joint laxity and PROs were comparable with those after ACL reconstruction. Although no significant difference was found between repair and reconstruction, a critical appraisal of the rates of recurrent instability (35% vs 20%, respectively) and revision surgery (38% vs 27%, respectively) is needed. Young age and a high preinjury activity level were the main risk factors for recurrent instability in both groups. However, single-stage revision ACL reconstruction was possible in each case in the ACL repair group. Although ACL reconstruction remains the gold standard in the treatment of ACL tears, the present study supports the use of ACL repair with DIS as a feasible option to treat acute ACL tears in patients aged ≥25 years with low to moderate activity levels (Tegner score <7). Registration: DRKS00015466 (German Clinical Trials Register).

Failure of primary ACL repair with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization may result in a high risk of two-stage ACL reconstruction: a case series of ten patients

PurposeDynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization (DIS) is a technique for the repair of acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries. The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential challenges of ACL reconstruction (ACLR) following failure of DIS.MethodsA retrospective analysis of patients with failure of primary ACL repair performed with DIS was undertaken. Failure was defined as abnormal knee laxity (positive Lachman and/or pivot shift) and/or severely restricted range of motion. Medical and surgical records were reviewed and preoperative standard anteroposterior and lateral X-rays were assessed.ResultsBetween July 2015 and May 2022, 10 patients (3 males, 7 females, median age 28 years, range 18–52 years) with failure of DIS were referred to and surgically treated at a single centre. In four patients, single-stage ACLR was performed following the removal of the tibial monoblock. In six patients, arthrofibrosis and excessive tibial tunnel enlargement following the removal of the monoblock prevented single-stage ACLR. These patients underwent arthroscopic arthrolysis and tibial tunnel bone grafting as a first-stage revision procedure.ConclusionIn the present case series, single-stage ACLR was performed in only four (40%) of ten patients following failure of ACL repair with DIS. Arthrofibrosis and excessive tibial tunnel enlargement following the removal of the monoblock prevented single-stage ACLR in six (60%) patients. It is important for clinicians to inform patients that, in the event of failure of ACL repair with DIS, they may run a high risk of undergoing two-stage ACLR.Level of EvidenceLevel IV, Case Series.

Collagen wrapping and local platelet-rich fibrin do not improve the survival rates of ACL repair with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization: a retrospective case series after ≥5 years postoperatively

PurposeAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair has been recommended as a treatment principle for ACL tears. Several authors have advocated a potential role for primary repair techniques in the ACL decision tree. However, long-term results have been controversial. This study aims to determine the survival of the primarily repaired ACL after dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) with and without augmentation.MethodsBetween 2014 and 2019, 102 patients with isolated proximal ACL ruptures underwent DIS repair within 21 days from injury and were available for follow-up either clinically or telephonically after ≥5 years postoperatively. In 45 cases, DIS repair was augmented with collagen fleece wrapping, platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) or both. Failure was defined as traumatic re-rupture or conversion to ACL reconstruction. The patients being available for physical examination underwent a.-p. stability measurement with a KT-1000 device. Functional outcome was measured with the IKDC, Tegner and Lysholm scores. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, Log-Rank Test and Binominal logistic regression were performed.ResultsAfter a minimum 5-year follow-up, 71/102 (69.6%) DIS repairs were not re-reptured and clinically and/or subjectively stable. Augmentation did not improve survival rates (p = 0.812). The identified factors influencing failure were a younger age and a pre-injury Tegner activity level of ≥7. 95.7% of those patients with an intact ACL repair had normal or near normal knee function based on the IKDC scoring system.ConclusionsThe 5-year overall survival rate of DIS was 69.6%. Collagen fleece wrapping and local PRF application did not improve survival. Patients not suffering failure of repair demonstrated high satisfaction. Nevertheless, the results are inferior to those of established ACL reconstruction procedures.Level of evidenceCase series, Level IV.

Anterior cruciate ligament repair using dynamic intraligamentary stabilization provides a similarly successful outcome as all-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a faster psychological recovery in moderately active patients.

Objectives This study aims to comparatively evaluate early to midterm clinical results of case-matched patient groups of primary repairs with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) or all-inside anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) by an independent group.Patients and methods Between March 2015 and September 2018, a total of 16 patients operated for ACL injuries with the repair technique were retrospectively identified. Cases were stratified by treatment: DIS technique versus all-inside ACLR and matched at a ratio of 1:2. The ACLR patients were selected from a patient group with an injury-tooperation time interval of fewer than three months. A total of 32 patients were included in the all inside ACLR group. Pre-injury and postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, Tegner and Lysholm scores had been obtained. Additionally, ACLReturn to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI) scale scores, clinical results, and complications were noted.Results One (6%) patient in the DIS group and two (6%) patients in the ACLR group were lost-to-follow-up and, for a total of 45 patients, 15 in the DIS group and 30 in the ACLR group, were included in the study. The mean postoperative follow-up was 50.8±13.5 months and 48.2±11.4 months in the DIS and ACLR groups, respectively. The Tegner, Lysholm, and IKDC subjective scores were non-significantly different between the groups at any time points. The ACL-RSI scale scores were significantly higher at six (p<0.001) and 12 (p=0.01) months in the repair group. The pivot-shift test was negative in all cases postoperatively. One re-rupture occurred in each group. The reoperation rate at any cause was 25% for the repair and 10% for the ACLR group.Conclusion Primary ACL repair using the DIS technique provides a similar clinical outcome to these by an all-inside ACLR technique in moderately active patients. The DIS technique is reliable and reproducible, and associated with an early and speedier psychological recovery in a carefully selected, non-athlete patient group as observed by an independent group.

Occurrence of inadequate ACL healing after Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization and functional outcome—a multicentre case series

IntroductionDynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization (DIS) is a technique for preservation, anatomical repair and stabilization of a freshly injured anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). The main purpose of this study was to evaluate the short-term re-operation rate when compared to traditional autograft reconstruction.MethodsFour, from the developer independent, centres enrolled patients that underwent ACL repair by DIS, according to the specific indications given by MRI imaging at a minimum follow-up of 12 months. The re-operation rate was recorded as primary outcome. Secondary outcome measures were the postoperative antero-posterior knee laxity (using a portable Rolimeter®), as well as the Tegner, Lysholm and IKDC Scores.ResultsA total of 105 patients were investigated with a median follow-up of 21 months. Thirteen patients were lost to follow-up. Of the remaining 92 patients 15 (16.3%) had insufficient functional stability and required subsequent ACL reconstruction. These patients were excluded from further analysis, leaving 77 consecutive patients for a 12 months follow-up. The median age at time of surgery was 30 years for that group. At time of follow-up a median antero-posterior translation difference of 2 mm was measured. None of these patients reported subjective insufficiency (giving way), but in 14 patients (18.2%), the difference of antero-posterior translation was more than 3 mm. We found a median Tegner Score of 5.5, a median Lysholm Score of 95.0 and a median IKDC Score of 89.4.ConclusionThe main finding of this multicentre study is a relevant re-operation rate of 16.3%. Another 18.2% showed objective antero-posterior laxity (≥ 3 mm) during testing raising the suspicion of postoperative non-healing. The failure rate of DIS in this study is higher than for reconstruction with an autologous tendon graft. However, our successfully treated patients had a good clinical and functional outcome based on antero-posterior knee laxity and clinical scores, comparable to patients treated by autograft reconstruction.

Rehabilitation Principles to Consider for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair.

Injury to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is among the most common orthopaedic injuries, and reconstruction of a ruptured ACL is a common orthopaedic procedure. In general, surgical intervention is necessary to restore stability to the injured knee, and to prevent meniscal damage. Along with surgery, intense postoperative physical therapy is needed to restore function to the injured extremity. ACL reconstruction (ACLR) has been the standard of care in recent decades, and advances in surgical technology have reintroduced the prospect of augmented primary repair of the native ACL via a variety of methods. A search of PubMed database of articles and reviews available in English was performed through 2020. The search terms ACLR, anterior cruciate ligament repair, bridge enhanced acl repair, suture anchor repair, dynamic intraligamentary stabilization, internal bracing, suture ligament augmentation, and internal brace ligament augmentation were used. Clinical review. Level 5. No exact consensus exists on effective rehabilitation protocols after ACL repair techniques, as the variation in published protocols seem even greater than the variation in those for ACLR. For some techniques such as internal bracing and dynamic interligamentary stabilization, it is likely permissible for the patients to progress to full weightbearing and discontinue bracing sooner. However, caution should be applied with regard to earlier return to sport than after ACLR as to minimize risk for retear. More research is needed to address how physical therapies must adapt to these innovative repair techniques. Until that is accomplished, we recommend that physical therapists understand the differences among the various ACL surgery techniques discussed here and work with the surgeons to develop a rehabilitation protocol for their mutual patients. C.

Primary stability of single-stage revision reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament in case of failure of dynamic intraligamentary stabilization depends on implant position during ACL repair

IntroductionThe object of this study was to evaluate the primary stability of tibial interference screw (IFS) fixation in single-stage revision surgery of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in the case of recurrent instability after ACL repair with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS), dependent on the implant position during DIS.Materials and methodsTibial aperture fixation in ACL reconstruction (ACL-R) was performed in a porcine knee model using an IFS. Native ACL-R was performed in the control group (n = 15). In the intervention groups DIS and subsequent implant removal were performed prior to single-stage revision ACL-R. A distance of 20 mm in group R-DIS1 (n = 15) and 5 mm in group R-DIS2 (n = 15) was left between the joint line and the implant during DIS. Specimens were mounted in a material-testing machine and load-to-failure was applied in a worst-case-scenario.ResultsLoad to failure was 454 ± 111 N in the R-DIS1 group, 154 ± 71 N in the R-DIS2 group and 405 ± 105 N in the primary ACL-R group. Load-to-failure, stiffness and elongation of the group R-DIS2 were significantly inferior in comparison to R-DIS1 and ACL-R respectively (p < 0.001). No significant difference was found between load-to-failure, stiffness and elongation of R-DIS1 and the control group.ConclusionPrimary stability of tibial aperture fixation in single-stage revision ACL-R in case of recurrent instability after DIS depends on monobloc position during ACL repair. Primary stability is comparable to aperture fixation in primary ACL-R, if a bone stock of 20 mm is left between the monobloc and the tibial joint line during the initial procedure.

Anterior cruciate ligament – to repair or not to repair?

Anterior cruciate ligament injuries are one of the most frequent knee joint injuries, leading to instability which limits return to sport activity, and is one of osteoarthritis risk factors. Treatment issues are present since 1895, when Mayo Robertson performed first documented open ACL repair. Positive short-term results of open suturing led to rising popularity of this method, which in 70’s and 80’s became golden standard of ACL injury treatment. Feagin in his longterm observations noticed that nearly half of patients after open ACL repair, during first 5 years suffered from reappearing ACL tear. Since then, for many years reconstruction techniques with graft use became most popular technique. Increasing knowledge of ligament healing biology, creation of Sherman’s ACL injury location classification, development of arthroscopic techniques, connected with growing tendency for biological treatment caused increase in repair techniques interest. Most important potential benefits of this techniques are: limitation of perioperative trauma – no need to harvest graft, drill large tunnels, possible retention of additional ACL proprioceptive feeling, easier eventual reoperation. Effort to save patient’s ACL is especially indicated in case of acute trauma (depending on source up to 3-14 weeks from injury), with proximal tear (type I in Sherman classification) with good remnant quality. Most popular techniques of ACL repair are: proximal ACL attachment reinsertion, IBLA – Internal Bracing Ligament Augmentation and DIS – Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization. The aim of this study was to present actual state of knowledge concerning options of primary ACL repair, it’s results, indications, and sharing authors own experiences in this treatment methods. Preliminary, available in literature, results of studies concerning methods mentioned above are good and very good, comparable, and sometimes even superior to results of classical ACL reconstruction. However, there is lack of long-term studies, that might confirm increase in survivorship rate of repaired ACLs comparing to previous open suturing technique.

Large variation in indications, preferred surgical technique and rehabilitation protocol for primary anterior cruciate ligament repair: a survey among ESSKA members.

To assess current surgical preferences and practice patterns regarding primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair among European Society for Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) members. A web-based survey was designed, including questions regarding indications for primary repair, outcomes of primary repair, and rehabilitation protocols. An invitation for study participation was sent by email to all ESSKA e-mail contacts. Descriptive statistics were performed. A total of 169 surgeons responded to the survey (7% response rate of active members). Lack of supporting scientific evidence is the main reason for not using repair as a surgical treatment (63%). Most important indications were proximal avulsion tears (84%), younger age (49%), and older age (34%). Among those currently utilizing repair as a treatment option, transosseous tunnel fixation repair (34%) and repair with internal brace using transosseous tunnel fixation (32%) were the most preferred techniques. Eleven percent indicated dynamic intraligamentary stabilization as their preferred technique. A similar rate of progression for rehabilitation for repair and reconstruction techniques was noted among respondents. This practice survey shows that the majority of surgeons indicated the main reason for not incorporating primary repair in their current practices was a lack of supporting scientific evidence. Among those holding favourable attitudes and beliefs, most surgeons indicated patients with proximal tears, younger-aged, and older-aged patients might be eligible for repair. Prospective studies with higher levels of evidence are warranted to establish guidelines for repair, including indications, optimal surgical technique, and rehabilitation protocols. V (expert opinion).

Repair With Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization Versus Primary Reconstruction of Acute Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears: 2-Year Results From a Prospective Randomized Study

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)

Study protocol: a single-blind, multi-center, randomized controlled trial comparing dynamic intraligamentary stabilization, internal brace ligament augmentation and reconstruction in individuals with an acute anterior cruciate ligament rupture: LIBR\u018e study

BackgroundThe current gold standard for the treatment of an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is reconstruction with tendon graft. Recently, two surgical ACL repair techniques have been developed for treating an acute ACL rupture: Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization (DIS, Ligamys®) and Internal Brace Ligament Augmentation (IBLA, InternalBrace™). We will conduct a single-blind, multi-center, randomized controlled trial which compares DIS, IBLA and reconstruction for relative clinical efficacy and economic benefit.MethodsSubjects, aged 18–50 years, with a proximal, primary and repairable ACL rupture will be included. DIS is preferably performed within 4 weeks post-rupture, IBLA within 12 weeks and reconstruction after 4 weeks post-rupture. Patients are included in study 1 if they present within 0–4 weeks post-rupture and surgery is feasible within 4 weeks post-rupture. Patients of study 1 will be randomized to either DIS or IBLA. Patients are included in study 2 if they present after 4 weeks post-rupture and surgery is feasible between 5 and 12 weeks post-rupture. Patients of study 2 will be randomized to either IBLA or reconstruction. A total of 96 patients will be included, with 48 patients per study and 24 patients per study arm. Patients will be followed-up for 2 years. The primary outcome is change from baseline (pre-rupture) in International Knee Documentation Committee score to 6 months post-operatively. The main secondary outcomes are the EQ-5D-5 L, Tegner score, Lysholm score, Lachman test, isokinetic and proprioceptive measurements, magnetic resonance imaging outcome, return to work and sports, and re-rupture/failure rates. The statistical analysis will be based on the intention-to-treat principle. The economic impact of the surgery techniques will be evaluated by the cost-utility analysis. The LIBRƎ study is to be conducted between 2018 and 2022.DiscussionThis LIBRƎ study protocol is the first study to compare DIS, IBLA and ACL reconstruction for relative clinical efficacy and economic benefit. The outcomes of this study will provide data which could aid orthopaedic surgeons to choose between the different treatment options for the surgical treatment of an acute ACL rupture.Trial registrationThis study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT03441295. Date registered 13.02.2018.