Cruciate ligament healing and injury prevention in the age of regenerative medicine and technostress: homeostasis revisited.

PURPOSE: This clinical concepts paper discusses the essential elements of cruciate ligament recuperation, micro-trauma repair, and remodeling. METHODS: Cruciate ligament mechanobiology and tissue heterogeneity, anatomy and vascularity, and synovial membrane and fluid functions are discussed in relationship to deficiency-induced inflammatory responses, nervous and immune system function, recuperation, repair and remodeling, and modern threats to homeostasis. RESULTS: Cruciate ligament surgical procedures do not appreciate the vital linked functions of the central, peripheral, and autonomic nervous systems and immune system function on knee ligament injury recuperation, micro-trauma repair, and remodeling. Enhanced knowledge of these systems could provide innovative ways to decrease primary non-contact knee injury rates and improve outcomes following reconstruction or primary repair. CONCLUSIONS: Restoration of knee joint homeostasis is essential to cruciate ligament recuperation, micro-trauma repair, and remodeling. The nervous and immune systems are intricately involved in this process. Varying combinations of high-intensity training, under-recovery, technostress, and environmental pollutants (including noise) regularly expose many athletically active individuals to factors that abrogate the environment needed for cruciate ligament recuperation, micro-trauma repair, and remodeling. Current sports training practice, lifestyle psychobehaviors, and environmental factors combine to increase both primary non-contact knee injury risk and the nervous and immune system dysregulation that lead to poor sleep, increased anxiety, and poorly regulated hormone and cytokine levels. These factors may create a worst-case scenario leading to poor ligament recuperation, micro-trauma repair, and remodeling. Early recognition and modification of these factors may decrease knee ligament injury rates and improve cruciate ligament repair or reconstruction outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V.

Quadriceps tendon autograft ACL reconstruction has less pivot shift laxity and lower failure rates than hamstring tendon autografts.

PURPOSE: Quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft ACL reconstruction was hypothesized to possess less anterior knee laxity, pivot shift laxity, and lower failure rates than hamstring tendon (HT) autografts. METHODS: Terms "hamstring tendon autograft" and "ACL reconstruction" or "quadriceps tendon autograft" and "ACL reconstruction" were searched in Embase and PubMed. Inclusion criteria required that studies included patients treated for primary ACL injury with reconstruction using either a QT autograft (Group 1) or a HT autograft (Group 2) and instrumented anterior knee laxity assessment. Extracted information included surgical fixation method, graft type, graft thickness or diameter, single vs. double bundle surgical method, publication year, time between the index knee injury and surgery, % women, initial and final subject number, subject age, follow-up length, side-to-side anterior knee laxity difference, Lysholm Score, Subjective IKDC score, anterior knee laxity side-to-side difference grade, ipsilateral pivot shift laxity grade, and failure rate. The Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies was used to evaluate study methodological quality. RESULTS: The QT group (Group 1) had 17 studies and the HT group (Group 2) had 61 studies. Overall, Group 2 had greater pivot shift laxity (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.05-1.59, p = 0.005). Group 2 suspensory femoral fixation had greater pivot shift laxity (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.01-1.58, p = 0.02) than Group 1 compression femoral fixation. Group 2 compression femoral fixation also had more anterior knee laxity (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.03-1.52, p = 0.01) than Group 1 compression femoral fixation and higher failure rates based on initial (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.18-2.4, p = 0.002) and final (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.32-2.71, p = 0.0003) subject number. Failure rate for HT compression femoral fixation was greater than suspensory femoral fixation based on initial (OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.52-2.84, p < 0.0001) and final (OR 2.26, 95% CI 1.63-3.16, p < 0.0001) subject number. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, QT autografts had less pivot shift laxity and lower failure rates based on final subject number than HT autografts. Compression QT autograft femoral fixation had lower pivot shift laxity than suspensory HT autograft femoral fixation. Compression QT autograft femoral fixation had less anterior knee laxity and lower failure rates than compression HT autograft femoral fixation. Suspensory HT autograft femoral fixation had lower failure rates than compression HT autograft femoral fixation. Greater knee laxity and failure rates may be related to a combination of HT autograft diameter and configuration (tissue quality and dimensions, strands, bundles, and suturing method) variability and fixation mode. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.