Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between Modern Augmented ACL Repair and Autograft ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Studies With Minimum 2-Year Follow-up

Abstract

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been the gold standard for primary ACL rupture since the 1990s. In the past decade, ACL repair has received renewed attention and increased research. Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes of modern augmented ACL repair versus autograft reconstruction for ACL ruptures. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A search of the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library databases was conducted for prospective or retrospective comparative studies published between January 1, 2010, and January 3, 2023, with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Two independent reviewers performed data extraction and methodological quality assessment. Sensitivity analysis was performed to maintain the stability of results. Results: Nine studies were included (minimum follow-up period, 24-60 months). The total sample size was 833 patients (augmented repair group: 358 patients; autograft ACL reconstruction group: 475 patients). There were 4 randomized controlled trials (level 1), 1 prospective comparative study (level 2), 2 retrospective comparative studies (level 3), and 2 case-control studies (level 3). The augmented ACL repair group attained significantly higher Lysholm score (weighted mean difference [WMD] = 1.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14-3.01; P = .03) and hamstring strength (WMD = 36.69; 95% CI, 29.07-44.31; P < .01) but had higher rates of hardware removal (odds ratio [OR] = 6.30; 95% CI, 2.44-16.23; P = .0001), reoperation (OR = 1.87; 95% CI, 1.33-2.62; P = .0003), and failure (OR = 1.58; 95% CI, 1.03-2.43; P = .0003) compared with the autograft ACL reconstruction group. No significant differences were observed between the repair and reconstruction groups regarding postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee scores, Tegner scores, knee laxity, satisfaction, ACL revisions, complications, and reoperation rather than revision. Conclusion: Augmented ACL repair was associated with higher rates of reoperation, hardware removal, and failure compared with autograft ACL reconstruction in studies with minimum 2-year follow-up data. However, augmented ACL repair had higher Lysholm scores and hamstring strength versus autograft ACL reconstruction.

Evaluating the Efficacy of Reconstruction: Systematic Review of Six-Strand Hamstring Autografts for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Biomechanical and Clinical Outcomes

“…Yang et al [14] highlighted the efficacy of 6HS autografts in achieving high knee functionality and significantly low re-injury rates, demonstrating their reliability in clinical practice. Recent clinical evaluations, like those by Ren et al [31], observed that patients with 6HS autografts tend to have a faster return to sports and a higher likelihood of regaining pre-injury activity levels compared to those with traditional four-strand grafts. These findings suggest that 6HS autografts facilitate a more effective rehabilitation process, possibly due to their biomechanical properties that closely align with the native ACL [32].…”