PurposeThe Ligament Augmentation and Reconstruction System (LARS®) is a synthetic ligament consisting of fibres made of polyethylene terephthalate. Despite the LARS being used as an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) device for nearly 30 years and the well‐documented complications from earlier synthetic ligament designs, there is a paucity of published medium‐ to long‐term results. The aim of this study is to report the clinical and functional outcomes after ACL reconstruction using the LARS at a minimum follow‐up of 6 years. MethodsResults of a single surgeon’s entire cohort of 55 patients who underwent primary LARS ACL surgery were reviewed at a median of 7.8 years (6.0–9.4). Patient‐reported outcome measures including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score and 36‐Item Short Form Health Survey (SF‐36) were collected and clinical assessment consisted of range of motion (ROM) and the KT‐1000 arthrometer to assess the side–side difference in the operative and non‐operative knee. Mechanical failures of the graft were confirmed at revision surgery and a survivorship analysis was performed using the Kaplan–Meier method. ResultsThe overall mechanical failure rate was 17/51 (33.3%) with ruptures occurring at a median 3.9 years (0.6–8.8 years) following primary LARS ACL surgery. Secondary operative procedures were performed in 39.2% of patients. For intact grafts, there was no statistically significant difference is side‐to‐side ROM or anterior knee laxity and subjective scores revealed a median IKDC subjective score of 85.1 (26.4–100) and SF‐36 physical component score of 94.1. ConclusionThe rates of LARS ACL construct failure (33.3%) in this cohort are high and based on these results the LARS should not be considered as a graft option for primary ACL reconstruction. Level of evidenceIII, cohort study.

Background: Lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) has been used to augment primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction to reduce the risk of reinjury. Most LET procedures result in a construct that is fixed to both the femur and the tibia. In a modified Ellison procedure, the construct is only fixed distally, reducing the risk of inadvertently overconstraining the lateral compartment. Purpose: To evaluate the use of the modified Ellison procedure in a cohort of patients deemed to be at a high risk of further ACL injury after primary ACL reconstruction. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Included were 25 consecutive patients with at least 2 of the following risk factors: age <20 years at the time of surgery, previous contralateral ACL reconstruction, positive family history of ACL rupture (parent or sibling), generalized ligamentous laxity (Beighton ≥4), grade 3 pivot shift in the consulting room, a desire to return to a pivoting sport, and an elite or professional status. All patients underwent primary ACL reconstruction with an additional modified Ellison procedure. Postoperatively, patients completed the IKDC subjective knee evaluation form (International Knee Documentation Committee), KOOS Quality of Life subscale (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score), ACL–Return to Sport After Injury Scale, Marx Activity Rating Scale, and SANE score (Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation). Results: At 12-month follow-up, the mean outcome scores were as follows: SANE, 94/100; IKDC, 92/100; Marx, 13/16; ACL–Return to Sport, 85/100; and KOOS, 77/100. At 24 months, return-to-sport data were available for 23 of 25 patients; 17 (74%) were playing at the same level or higher than preinjury and 2 at a lower level. One patient (4%) sustained a contact mechanism graft rupture at 12 months. There were 2 (9%) contralateral ACL injuries, including 1 ACL graft rupture, at 11 and 22 months postoperatively. There was a further contralateral ACL graft rupture at 26 months. Conclusion: The use of the modified Ellison procedure as a LET augmentation of a primary ACL reconstruction to produce a low graft rupture rate appeared to be safe in a cohort considered to be at a high risk of reinjury. The procedure showed promise in terms of reducing further graft injuries.

Background:The internet is a valuable tool, but concerns exist regarding the quality and accuracy of medical information available online.Purpose:To evaluate the source and quality of information on the internet relating to anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) compared with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).Study Design:Cross-sectional study.Methods:A questionnaire was administered to 50 ACLR patients in Australia to determine their use of the internet to research their operation and their familiarity with the anterolateral ligament (ALL) of the knee. The most common search terms were determined, and the first 70 websites returned by the 5 most popular search engines were used to assess the quality of information about ACLR and ALLR. Each site was categorized by type and was assessed for quality and validity using the DISCERN score, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and a novel specific content score for each procedure. The presence of the Health on the Net Code (HONcode) seal was also recorded.Results:The majority (84%) of ACLR patients used the internet to research their operation. The quality of information available for ALLR was significantly inferior to that for ACLR according to the DISCERN score (37.3 ± 3.4 vs 54.4 ± 4.6; P < .0001) and specific content score (5.3 ± 1.3 vs 11.0 ± 1.5; P < .0001). ACLR websites were predominantly physician produced, while the majority of ALLR websites were academic. In contrast to ACLR websites, the majority of ALLR websites did not provide information on the indication for treatment or potential complications. ALLR websites scored better on the JAMA benchmark criteria due to the predominance of academic websites. A greater proportion of ACLR websites (14.6%) versus ALLR websites (2.5%) provided an HONcode seal. Correlation was demonstrated between the DISCERN score and specific content scores for both ACLR and ALLR but not with JAMA benchmark criteria. The specific content score had high reliability for both ACLR and ALLR.Conclusion:The majority of patients undergoing ACLR in Australia used the internet to research the procedure. The quality of information on the internet relating to ALLR was significantly inferior to information about ACLR. Most ALLR websites failed to include crucial information about the indication or options for treatment, prognosis, and potential complications. Surgeons should be aware of the information to which their patients are exposed through the internet and should be proactive in directing patients to appropriate websites.

Background: Younger patients are at increased risk for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft rupture and contralateral injury after ACL reconstruction (ACLR). Increasing the amount of time between surgery and the resumption of competitive sport may reduce this risk. Purpose: To determine the rates of graft rupture and injury to the contralateral native ACL at 3- to 5-year follow-up in younger patients who were advised to delay a return to competitive sport until 12 months after surgery and compare this with a nondelayed cohort. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The primary study cohort consisted of 142 eligible patients aged <20 years when they underwent their first primary ACLR. All were informed about the risk of further injury and advised not to return to competitive sport before 12 months postoperatively. Return-to-sport status and the number of subsequent ACL injuries (graft rupture or a contralateral injury to the native ACL) were determined at 3- to 5-year follow-up and compared with a historic cohort of 299 patients with ACLR who were not advised to delay their return to sport for a set period. The cohorts were then combined, and injury rates were compared between those who returned to sport before and after 12 months postoperatively. Results: The follow-up rate was 91% (129/142). In the delayed cohort, 63% returned to competitive sport after 12 months (mean, 14 months). Few patients (n = 10) returned before 9 months. In the delayed group, 33% had a subsequent ACL injury; this was not significantly different when compared with the nondelayed group (31% rate), in which a majority (58%) returned to competitive sport before 12 months. Subsequent ACL injury rates were also similar when compared between patients who returned before and after 12 months postoperatively (33% vs 32%, respectively). Conclusion: At midterm follow-up, the overall rates of subsequent ACL injury were high, even for patients who delayed their return until 12 months after surgery. More research is required to identify strategies to reduce the high reinjury rate in younger athletes.

Background: Preservation of the tibial stump during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is controversial. While proposed benefits include enhanced graft revascularization, improved proprioception, and decreased graft rupture rates, a potential complication is the development of a symptomatic cyclops lesion. It is therefore important to determine whether any benefits outweigh potential complications. Purpose: To determine whether greater preservation of the tibial stump remnant would be associated with a decreased graft rupture rate without a concomitant increase in the rate of surgery for symptomatic cyclops lesions at 2 years after ACLR. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A cohort of 658 patients in whom the amount of tibial stump preserved was classified as no stump (n = 228), <50% (n = 342), or >50% (n = 88) was followed up for 2 years, with graft ruptures and surgical treatment for cyclops lesions recorded. Contingency and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used to determine trends among the 3 remnant preservation groups in terms of graft rupture rates and surgery for cyclops lesions. Subgroup analysis was also conducted to examine sex-based differences. Results: There was no significant association between graft rupture rates and remnant preservation. There was a significant trend for fewer operations for symptomatic cyclops lesions with greater remnant preservation when the entire cohort was analyzed ( P = .04) and also when only female patients were analyzed ( P = .04). Conclusion: Although preservation of the tibial stump remnant was not associated with a reduced graft rupture rate, it was also not associated with increased rates of surgery for symptomatic cyclops lesions.