ACL femoral avulsion repair using suture pull-out technique: A case series of thirteen patients

Mukhopadhyay, Reetadyuti; Shah, Nishith; Vakta, Rohan; Bhatt, Jaymin

doi:10.1016/j.cjtee.2018.07.001

Cited by 26 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…reported outcomes at medium-to long-term follow-up (range of mean follow-up 43.3-79 months) 41,48,49,52 including the mean IKDC subjective score (range 87.3-100), the mean Lysholm score (range 85.3-100), and the mean Tegner activity score (range 5-7). The remaining 10 studies 36,40,[42][43][44][45][46]50,51,53 reported the same outcome measures at short-term follow-up (range of mean follow up 12-38.4 months). At final follow-up, these studies reported a mean IKDC subjective score of 89.5-98, a mean Lysholm score of 93-100, and a mean Tegner activity score of 5-7.…”

Section: Clinical Outcomes Reported In Comparative Studiesmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…The remaining 14 studies were Level IV cases series. [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] The flowchart for the search strategy is depicted in Figure 1.…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A total of 1002 patients who underwent arthroscopic primary ACL repair formed the overall population evaluated in this systematic review. These patients underwent ACL repair with either suture anchor repair (SAR) (n ¼ 158), 37,39,42,46,48,49 dynamic intraligamentary stabilization with Ligamys (DIS Ligamys) (n ¼ 779), 35,36,40,41,43,44,[50][51][52][53] bridge-enhanced ACL repair technique (i.e., BEAR) (n ¼ 10), 38 suture pullout repair (n ¼ 13), 45 or augmented ACL repair using suture tape reinforcement with internal brace (IB) (Internal Brace Ligament Augmentation Repair; Arthrex, Naples, FL) 47 (n ¼ 42).…”

Section: Arthroscopic Primary Acl Repair Techniquesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, several series reported that no patients underwent a subsequent ACL reconstruction, at mean final follow-ups ranging between 31.3 and 72 months, but all of these studies comprised very small numbers of patients. 41,45,48 In contrast, in the noncomparative studies that evaluated DIS Ligamys, 7 studies 37,41,44,45,[51][52][53] reported a wide range of reintervention for hardware removal (1.8%-100%). The greatest rate was reported by Ateschrang et al 43 because their study eligibility criteria required that all included patients had undergone implant removal.…”

Section: Clinical Outcomes Of Noncomparative Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seventeen of the included studies [35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]52,53 reported the postoperative rehabilitation and return to sport protocols and these are summarized in Table 6. All of the comparative studies used the same rehabilitation protocol in both ACL repair and reconstruction groups.…”

Section: Postoperative Rehabilitation Protocolmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Clinical Outcomes of Arthroscopic Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair: A Systematic Review from the Scientific Anterior Cruciate Ligament Network International Study Group

Kandhari

Vieira

Ouanezar

et al. 2020

Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To perform a systematic review of contemporary studies reporting clinical outcomes of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair to determine whether these studies demonstrate any significant benefit of ACL repair and whether there is evidence of a deterioration of mid-term outcomes as seen in historical data. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. A PubMed search using the keywords "repair" AND "Anterior Cruciate Ligament" was performed (limits: English language, publication date between January 1, 2014, and January 13, 2019). All identified studies reporting clinical outcomes of arthroscopic ACL repair were included. Critical appraisal was conducted using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Clinical Trials and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies. Basic parameters of each study including population characteristics, repair technique, physical examination findings, and clinical outcome scores were recorded and evaluated. Results: Nineteen eligible studies were identified (including 5 comparative studies). None of the comparative studies showed any significant difference between repair and reconstruction groups with respect to International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, Tegner, side-to-side laxity difference, Lachman, pivot shift tests, or graft rupture rates. Four non-comparative studies reported outcomes at medium-to long-term follow up (range of mean follow up 43.3-79 months) with a mean Lysholm score between 85.3 and 100, mean IKDC subjective score between 87.3 and 100, and mean Tegner activity score between 5 and 7. Conclusions: Comparative studies identified no significant differences between ACL repair and reconstruction with respect to Lysholm, IKDC, side-to-side laxity difference, pivot shift grade, or graft rupture rates. However, these studies had major limitations including small numbers and short durations of follow up. Case series demonstrated that excellent outcomes can be achieved at medium-to long-term follow up with the SAR technique. Level of Evidence: IV; Systematic review of Level II to IV investigations. See related article on page 613 H istorical results of open primary repair of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) have been characterized in the literature by good initial clinical outcomes, 1-6 with a significant deterioration at midterm follow-up and high rates of additional surgery (64%), including reoperation for ACL reconstruction (13%

show abstract

Section: Clinical Outcomes Reported In Comparative Studiesmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…The remaining 14 studies were Level IV cases series. [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53] The flowchart for the search strategy is depicted in Figure 1.…”

Section: Study Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%