Primary repair vs arthroscopic reconstruction for proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears: a comparative study

Background. Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is the gold standard surgical option for ACL tears. Another treatment method is primary ACL repair. The latter has some limitations such as a small range of indications — proximal tears only. However, they still constitute a significant por...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Sergey A. Gerasimov, Ekaterina A. Morozova, Daria A. Naida, Denis O. Kolmakov, Andrey A. Zykin, Ekaterina V. Khramtsova
Format: Article
Language:Russian
Published: Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics 2024-12-01
Series:Travmatologiâ i Ortopediâ Rossii
Subjects:
Online Access:https://journal.rniito.org/jour/article/viewFile/17562/pdf
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1832594198542417920
author Sergey A. Gerasimov
Ekaterina A. Morozova
Daria A. Naida
Denis O. Kolmakov
Andrey A. Zykin
Ekaterina V. Khramtsova
author_facet Sergey A. Gerasimov
Ekaterina A. Morozova
Daria A. Naida
Denis O. Kolmakov
Andrey A. Zykin
Ekaterina V. Khramtsova
author_sort Sergey A. Gerasimov
collection DOAJ
description Background. Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is the gold standard surgical option for ACL tears. Another treatment method is primary ACL repair. The latter has some limitations such as a small range of indications — proximal tears only. However, they still constitute a significant portion of ACL injuries. Although the primary repair has been known for a long time and is still developing, recent publications show conflicting opinions regarding its application. The aim of study is to compare functional outcomes of patients who underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and primary repair. Methods. In the period from 2020 to 2023, we conducted randomized prospective multicenter control comparative study, which enrolled 170 patients with the ACL tear types A, B, E according to the Gächter classification. The injuries were no older than 3 months. The patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 — primary repair of the ACL, Group 2 — standard technique of the ACL reconstruction with a tendon autograft. Knee function was assessed before surgery and 3, 6, 12, 24 months postoperatively using the IKDC 2000 and Lysholm Knee Score. Results. Type E of ACL injury prevailed in the sample. The most common associated injury in both cohorts was medial meniscus tear — 39.3±0.05% and 45.3±0.05% for Group1 and 2, relatively. Chondrolabral defects were observed in 15.5±0.04% of patients with primary repair, and in 10.5±0.03% of patients from the reconstruction group. Pain relief therapy in the form of opioid analgesics received 46.03±0.06% patients in Group 2 and 25.35±0.05% in Group 1 (p0.05). The proportion of patients requiring reoperation for ACL injury in Group 1 was 3.5% and 1.2% in Group 2 (p0,05). Both groups had a statistically significant increase in functional outcomes according to the scales at 3, 6, 12 months (p0.05). The difference in knee function between the groups was not statistically significant (p0.05). Conclusion. Primary ACL repair still retains a large number of limitations. It cannot and should not replace ACL reconstruction. However, with strict adherence to the indications and surgical technique, primary ACL repair demonstrates comparable functional outcomes.
format Article
id doaj-art-2ef1f2077f674b829ba426b20efae33c
institution Kabale University
issn 2311-2905
2542-0933
language Russian
publishDate 2024-12-01
publisher Vreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and Orthopedics
record_format Article
series Travmatologiâ i Ortopediâ Rossii
spelling doaj-art-2ef1f2077f674b829ba426b20efae33c2025-01-20T02:43:24ZrusVreden Russian Research Institute of Traumatology and OrthopedicsTravmatologiâ i Ortopediâ Rossii2311-29052542-09332024-12-01304829110.17816/2311-2905-175621367Primary repair vs arthroscopic reconstruction for proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears: a comparative studySergey A. Gerasimov0https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3179-9770Ekaterina A. Morozova1https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7548-9398Daria A. Naida2https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4567-2612Denis O. Kolmakov3https://orcid.org/0009-0005-6669-0838Andrey A. Zykin4https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6321-3631Ekaterina V. Khramtsova5https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1737-1214Privolzhsky Research Medical UniversityPrivolzhsky Research Medical UniversityMain Military Clinical Hospital named after academician N.N. BurdenkoCentral Clinical Hospital “RZD-Medicine”Privolzhsky Research Medical UniversityPrivolzhsky Research Medical UniversityBackground. Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is the gold standard surgical option for ACL tears. Another treatment method is primary ACL repair. The latter has some limitations such as a small range of indications — proximal tears only. However, they still constitute a significant portion of ACL injuries. Although the primary repair has been known for a long time and is still developing, recent publications show conflicting opinions regarding its application. The aim of study is to compare functional outcomes of patients who underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and primary repair. Methods. In the period from 2020 to 2023, we conducted randomized prospective multicenter control comparative study, which enrolled 170 patients with the ACL tear types A, B, E according to the Gächter classification. The injuries were no older than 3 months. The patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 — primary repair of the ACL, Group 2 — standard technique of the ACL reconstruction with a tendon autograft. Knee function was assessed before surgery and 3, 6, 12, 24 months postoperatively using the IKDC 2000 and Lysholm Knee Score. Results. Type E of ACL injury prevailed in the sample. The most common associated injury in both cohorts was medial meniscus tear — 39.3±0.05% and 45.3±0.05% for Group1 and 2, relatively. Chondrolabral defects were observed in 15.5±0.04% of patients with primary repair, and in 10.5±0.03% of patients from the reconstruction group. Pain relief therapy in the form of opioid analgesics received 46.03±0.06% patients in Group 2 and 25.35±0.05% in Group 1 (p0.05). The proportion of patients requiring reoperation for ACL injury in Group 1 was 3.5% and 1.2% in Group 2 (p0,05). Both groups had a statistically significant increase in functional outcomes according to the scales at 3, 6, 12 months (p0.05). The difference in knee function between the groups was not statistically significant (p0.05). Conclusion. Primary ACL repair still retains a large number of limitations. It cannot and should not replace ACL reconstruction. However, with strict adherence to the indications and surgical technique, primary ACL repair demonstrates comparable functional outcomes.https://journal.rniito.org/jour/article/viewFile/17562/pdfanterior cruciate ligament injuryacl reconstructionprimary repairarthroscopyknee joint instability
spellingShingle Sergey A. Gerasimov
Ekaterina A. Morozova
Daria A. Naida
Denis O. Kolmakov
Andrey A. Zykin
Ekaterina V. Khramtsova
Primary repair vs arthroscopic reconstruction for proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears: a comparative study
Travmatologiâ i Ortopediâ Rossii
anterior cruciate ligament injury
acl reconstruction
primary repair
arthroscopy
knee joint instability
title Primary repair vs arthroscopic reconstruction for proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears: a comparative study
title_full Primary repair vs arthroscopic reconstruction for proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears: a comparative study
title_fullStr Primary repair vs arthroscopic reconstruction for proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears: a comparative study
title_full_unstemmed Primary repair vs arthroscopic reconstruction for proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears: a comparative study
title_short Primary repair vs arthroscopic reconstruction for proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears: a comparative study
title_sort primary repair vs arthroscopic reconstruction for proximal anterior cruciate ligament tears a comparative study
topic anterior cruciate ligament injury
acl reconstruction
primary repair
arthroscopy
knee joint instability
url https://journal.rniito.org/jour/article/viewFile/17562/pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT sergeyagerasimov primaryrepairvsarthroscopicreconstructionforproximalanteriorcruciateligamenttearsacomparativestudy
AT ekaterinaamorozova primaryrepairvsarthroscopicreconstructionforproximalanteriorcruciateligamenttearsacomparativestudy
AT dariaanaida primaryrepairvsarthroscopicreconstructionforproximalanteriorcruciateligamenttearsacomparativestudy
AT denisokolmakov primaryrepairvsarthroscopicreconstructionforproximalanteriorcruciateligamenttearsacomparativestudy
AT andreyazykin primaryrepairvsarthroscopicreconstructionforproximalanteriorcruciateligamenttearsacomparativestudy
AT ekaterinavkhramtsova primaryrepairvsarthroscopicreconstructionforproximalanteriorcruciateligamenttearsacomparativestudy