Litcius/Paper detail

Sustained Clinical and Functional Outcomes After Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair: A Minimum 5-Year Follow-up Study

Sebastian Rilk, Gabriel C. Goodhart, Fidelius von Rehlingen‐Prinz, Jelle P. van der List, Kyle N. Kunze, Fabian Tomanek, Robert O’Brien, Gregory S. DiFelice

2025The American Journal of Sports Medicine10 citationsDOI

Abstract

Background: Primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair (ACLPR) demonstrates promising short-term clinical outcomes in select patients; however, it remains poorly understood as to whether previously reported short-term outcomes are maintained at midterm follow-up. Purpose: To determine whether short-term (2-year) outcomes are maintained at 5 years after ACLPR, evaluate age-stratified failure and reoperation rates, and identify preoperative risk factors for failure. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: This prospective study included the first 113 consecutive patients with proximal (type I/II) ACL tears who underwent ACLPR between 2008 and 2017 with a minimum 5-year follow-up. Failure rates were recorded based on instrumented laxity (>3-mm anterior tibial translation side-to-side difference), pivot-shift grade (grade ≥2), and subjective instability. Patient Acceptable Symptom State thresholds were established based on collected patient-reported outcome measure scores. Logistic regression models were constructed to determine associations with independent risk factors for failure. Results: A total of 107 patients (median age, 35.5 years [interquartile range, 22.4-43.1 years]) were available at final follow-up (median, 6.0 years [interquartile range, 5.3-7.0 years]). No significant differences were reported in failure rates between 2- and 5-year follow-up: overall non–age-differentiated: 11.5% versus 15.9%, respectively ( P = .34); ≤21 years: 37.0% versus 38.5%, respectively ( P = .92); and >21 years: 3.5% versus 8.6%, respectively ( P = .16). No failures occurred in patients aged ≤21 years, while 4 failures occurred in patients aged >21 years. Additionally, no significant differences were observed in overall non–age-differentiated reoperation rates (6.2% vs 7.5%, respectively; P = .71) and contralateral ACL injury rates (3.5% vs 4.7%, respectively; P = .67). Clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcome measure scores did not significantly differ between time points, and most patients met Patient Acceptable Symptom State thresholds (88% for International Knee Documentation Committee form, 91% for Lysholm scale, 93% for Forgotten Joint Score–12, and 84% for ACL–Return to Sport after Injury scale; all P < .001). Preoperative risk factor analysis only revealed younger age as negatively impacting ipsilateral ACL failure, as the odds decreased by 12.5% for each year of increasing age ( P = .002). Conclusion: Sustained clinical and functional outcomes for ACLPR were observed between short-term and midterm follow-up, with failure rates of 11.5% and 15.9%, respectively. Although younger age was an important risk factor for ipsilateral ACL failure, with a high failure rate of 37.0% in patients aged ≤21 years at short-term follow-up, no additional failures were observed at midterm follow-up. In contrast, patients aged >21 years experienced modest failure rates, increasing from 3.5% at short-term follow-up to 8.6% at midterm follow-up, with no significant change.

Topics & Concepts

MedicineInterquartile rangeAnterior cruciate ligamentProspective cohort studySurgeryTearsLogistic regressionContext (archaeology)Internal medicineBiologyPaleontologyKnee injuries and reconstruction techniquesTotal Knee Arthroplasty OutcomesOsteoarthritis Treatment and Mechanisms