Background: Contemporary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) suture repair techniques have been subject to renewed interest in recent years. Although several clinical studies have yielded good short-term results, high-quality evidence is lacking in regard to the effectiveness of this treatment compared with ACL reconstruction. Hypothesis: Dynamic augmented ACL suture repair is at least as effective as anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction for the treatment of acute ACL rupture in terms of patient self-reported outcomes at 2 years postoperatively. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: After stratification and randomization, 48 patients underwent either dynamic augmented ACL suture repair or ACL reconstruction with a single-bundle, all-inside, semitendinosus technique. The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score at 2 years postoperatively was the primary outcome measure. Patient-reported outcomes (IKDC subjective score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Tegner score, visual analog scale for satisfaction), clinical outcomes (IKDC physical examination score, leg symmetry index for the quadriceps, hamstrings strength, and jump test battery), and radiological outcomes as well as adverse events including reruptures were recorded. Analyses were based on an intention-to-treat principle. Results: The lower limit for the median IKDC subjective score of the repair group (86.2) fell within the prespecified noninferiority margin, confirming noninferiority of dynamic augmented ACL suture repair compared with ACL reconstruction. No statistical difference was found between groups for median IKDC subjective score (repair, 95.4; reconstruction, 94.3). Overall, 2 reruptures (8.7%) occurred in the dynamic ACL suture repair group and 4 reruptures (19.0%) in the ACL reconstruction group; further, 5 repeat surgeries—other than for revision ACL surgery—took place in 4 patients from the dynamic ACL suture repair group (20.8%) and in 3 patients from the ACL reconstruction group (14.3%). Conclusion: Dynamic augmented ACL suture repair is not inferior to ACL reconstruction in terms of subjective patient-reported outcomes as measured with the IKDC subjective score 2 years postoperatively. However, for reasons other than revision ACL surgery due to rerupture, a higher number of related adverse events leading to repeat surgery were seen in the dynamic augmented ACL suture repair group within 2 years postoperatively. Clinical Relevance: Dynamic augmented ACL suture repair might be a viable treatment option for patients with an acute ACL rupture. Registration: NCT02310854 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament suture repair (ACLSR) was abandoned late last century in favor of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) because of overall disappointing results. However, in recent years there has been renewed and increasing interest in ACLSR for treatment of ACL ruptures. Several contemporary ACLSR techniques are being used, but any difference in effectiveness is unclear. Hypothesis: Contemporary nonaugmented (NA), static augmented (SA), and dynamic augmented (DA) ACLSR leads to (1) comparable outcomes overall and (2) comparable outcomes between proximal third, middle third, and combined ACL rupture locations (a) within and (b) between ACLSR technique categories. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: An electronic search was performed in the MEDLINE and Embase databases for the period between January 1, 2010, and August 7, 2019. All articles describing clinical and patient-reported outcomes for ACLSR were identified and included, and outcomes for NA, SA, and DA ACLSR categories were compared. Results: A total of 31 articles and 2422 patients were included. The majority of articles (65%) and patients (89%) reported outcomes of DA ACLSR. Overall, there was high heterogeneity in study characteristics and level as well as quality of evidence (19 level 4; 7 level 3; 3 level 2; and 2 level 1). Most studies indicated excellent patient-reported outcomes. Overall, the variability in (and the maximum of) the reported failure rate was high within all ACLSR categories. The variability in (and the maximum of) the reported rate of all other complications was highest for DA ACLSR. Regarding ACL rupture location, the failure rate was highest in proximal ACL ruptures within the SA and DA ACLSR categories; rates of all other reported complications were highest in combined ACL ruptures within the DA ACLSR category. However, no studies in the NA category and only 1 study in the SA ACLSR category evaluated combined ACL ruptures. The majority of studies comparing ACLSR and ACLR found no differences in outcomes. Conclusion: The amount of high-quality evidence for contemporary ACLSR is poor. This makes it difficult to interpret differences among ACLSR categories and among ACL rupture locations and, though promising, to establish the role of ACLSR in the treatment of ACL ruptures. More high-quality large randomized clinical trials with longer follow-up comparing ACLSR and ACLR are needed.

Purpose To evaluate the rate of return to pre-injury type of sports (RTS type) in patients after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) compared to patients after revision ACLR without LET. Methods Seventy-eight patients who underwent revision ACLR with an autologous ipsilateral bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft with and without LET were included at least one year after surgery (mean follow-up: 43.9, SD: 29.2 months). All patients filled in a questionnaire about RTS type, the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form (IKDCsubjective), and the Tegner activity score. Results The RTS type for revision ACLR with LET was 22 of 42 (52%), whereas 11 of 36 (31%) of the patients who underwent revision ACLR without LET returned to the pre-injury type of sport (p = 0.05). No significant differences were found in KOOS subscores, IKDCsubjective, and Tegner activity scores. Conclusion An additional LET increases the rate of RTS type after revision ACLR. Level of evidence III.

In contrast to non-augmented ACL suture repair and static tape augmentation, only dynamic augmentation resulted in restoration of ATT values similar to the ACL-intact knee and decreased ATT values when compared to the ACL-deficient knee immediately post-operation and also after cyclic loading, across the arc of flexion, thus allowing the null hypotheses to be rejected. This may assist healing of the ruptured ACL. Therefore, this study would support further clinical evaluation of dynamic augmentation of ACL repair.

III.