No abstract

Background:The purpose of this trial was to determine whether anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with anterolateral structure augmentation (ALSA) would result in better clinical outcomes in patients with a high risk of clinical failure.Methods:From February 2017 to June 2018, 120 young, active adults with chronic anterior cruciate ligament injury and high risk of clinical failure were randomized. The patients were followed for >2 years, with 5 being lost to follow-up and 1 being withdrawn from the study. Clinical characteristics, operative findings, and postoperative clinical outcomes were analyzed.Results:The analysis included data from 114 patients, including 95 men and 19 women with a mean age (and standard deviation) of 30.1 ± 6.7 years in the ACLR group and 30.1 ± 6.4 years in the ALSA group. The rate of clinical failure was 20.4% (11 of 54 patients) and 3.3% (2 of 60 patients) in the ACLR and ALSA groups, respectively (difference, 17.1%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.3% to 29.8%; p = 0.007). Significantly higher rates of return to the preinjury level of sports (48.3% versus 27.8%; difference, 20.5%; 95% CI, 2.7% to 36.6%; p = 0.024) and to a competitive level of play (63.3% versus 42.6%; difference, 22.3%; 95% CI, 4.1% to 38.8%; p = 0.027) was found in the ALSA group.Conclusions:Compared with isolated ACLR, combined ACLR and ALSA resulted in a reduction in persistent rotatory laxity and higher rates of return to preinjury and competitive levels of play at 2 years of follow-up in the population studied. Our study suggests that patients with high risk of clinical failure appear to be candidates for the ALSA approach.Level of Evidence:Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Aim Our aim was to evaluate the literature investigating proprioception improvement after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and test the hypothesis that ACL tibial remnant-preserving reconstruction (ACLR-R) is more beneficial than standard technique (ACLR-S) in terms of postoperative proprioceptive function with various reported tests, including joint position sense (JPS) and threshold to detect passive motion (TTDPM). Methods An online search was performed in Embase, MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases before 5 October 2020, on the basis of the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Key terms [(‘ACLR’ or ‘ACL-R’ or ‘anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction’) AND (‘remnant’ or ‘stump’) AND (‘proprioception’ or ‘proprioceptive’)] were used. The Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and The McMaster Critical Review Form for Quantitative Studies were used for quality assessment. In total, four articles comparing proprioceptive functions between ACLR-R and ACLR-S were included, two of which were randomized clinical trials rated as level of evidence II, and two were retrospective cohort studies rated as level of evidence III. The outcomes were then compared. Evaluation of proprioception involved joint position sense (JPS) [reproduction of active positioning (RAP) and reproduction of passive positioning (RPP)] and threshold to detect passive motion (TTDPM) tests. Results Only four studies were included, with a total of 234 patients (119 ACLR-R patients and 115 ACLR-S patients). High heterogeneity in characteristics and outcome measurements was observed among the studies. Three studies performed sparing technique, and one performed tensioning technique. One study tested RAP and reported better results at an average of 7 months follow-up in ACLR-R (P < 0.05). Three studies tested RPP, one of which measured RPP within 12 months after surgery and reported better results in ACLR-R than in ACLR-S (P < 0.05). The other two studies reported similar results; however, the findings of one study were statistically insignificant. TTDPM was tested in one study, with no statistically significant difference found. Conclusion The current literature, although limited, reported proprioception improvement after ACLR-R (compared with ACLR-S) in terms of JPS. However, owing to the heterogeneity of the relevant studies, further research is required to determine remnant preservation effect on knee proprioceptive restoration. Level of evidence Level III, systematic review of Level II and III studies.