An international survey on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction practices

Chechik, Ofir; Amar, Eyal; Khashan, Morsi; Lador, Ran; Eyal, Gil; Gold, Aviram

doi:10.1007/s00264-012-1611-9

Cited by 167 publications

(158 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

145

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…As reported in literature, even if the results using LARS™ have been encouraging, the autologus transplants remain the golden standard in ACL reconstruction, especially in young people [35]. We conclude that the LARS™ ligament can be considered a suitable option for ACL reconstruction in carefully selected cases, especially for older patients needing a fast functional recovery.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with LARS™ artificial ligament results at a mean follow-up of eight years

Parchi

Ciapini

Dolfi

et al. 2013

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The aim of this study was to review patients that underwent ACL reconstruction with the LARS™ ligament in the First Orthopaedic Division of Pisa University during the period between January 2003 and December 2005. Methods Twenty-six patients were reviewed with an average follow-up of 95.3 months (7.9 years). The review protocol was articulated in three phases: (1) a subjective evaluation using three grading scales: VAS, KOOS and the Cincinnati knee rating scale, (2) a clinical and objective evaluation, and (3) a biomechanical evaluation of the knee stability. Results A global positive result was obtained in 92.3 % of the patients (16 optimal results and eight good results), with a fast functional recovery and a high knee stability. A global poor result was reported in two cases. In our series we did not record cases of infection or knee synovitis. We recorded only one case of mechanical graft failure. The results obtained from our study are encouraging and similar to those in the literature. Conclusions We conclude that the LARS™ ligament can be considered a suitable option for ACL reconstruction in carefully selected cases, especially for older patients needing a fast functional recovery.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with LARS™ artificial ligament results at a mean follow-up of eight years

Parchi

Ciapini

Dolfi

et al. 2013

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite the popularity of the procedure, there remains a considerable amount of controversy over whether an autograft or an allograft should be used for primary ACL reconstruction [2,3]. Reconstruction with autografts has the major benefits of earlier incorporation and no rejection or disease transmission, but lead to potential donor-site morbidity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Allograft versus autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an up-to-date meta-analysis of prospective studies

et al. 2012

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Although a large number of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions are performed annually, there remains a considerable amount of controversy over whether an autograft or an allograft should be used. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of allograft and autograft in primary ACL reconstruction. Methods The authors systematically searched electronic databases to identify prospective studies which compared allografts with autografts for primary ACL reconstruction. The results of the eligible studies were analysed in terms of instrumented laxity measurements, Lachman test, Pivot Shift test, objective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Scores, Lysholm Scores, Tegner Scores, and clinical failures. Study quality was assessed and relevant data were extracted independently by two reviewers. A random effect model was used to pool the data. Statistical heterogeneity between trials was evaluated by the chi-square and I-square tests. Results Nine studies, with 410 patients in the autograft and 408 patients in the allograft group, met the inclusion criteria. Five studies compared bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) grafts, and four compared soft-tissue grafts. Four studies were randomized controlled trials, and five were prospective cohort studies. The results of the meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences between allograft and autograft on all the outcomes in terms of instrumented laxity measurements (P 00.59), Lachman test (P 00.41), Pivot

show abstract

“…This trend is also seen in the international survey performed by Chechik at al. [4] in this issue. Interestingly this shift is not clearly seen among the members of the ACL Study Group.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The knee joint in sports medicine

Kampen

2013

International Orthopaedics (SICOT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An international survey on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction practices

Cited by 167 publications

References 26 publications

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with LARS™ artificial ligament results at a mean follow-up of eight years

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with LARS™ artificial ligament results at a mean follow-up of eight years

Allograft versus autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an up-to-date meta-analysis of prospective studies

The knee joint in sports medicine

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About