Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Leads to Improved Patient-Reported Outcomes Compared to Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Introduction Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears occur frequently in young athletes, and ligament repair and reconstruction are surgical treatments. Although there are suggested benefits for both approaches, there is a lack of direct comparisons between ACL repair and reconstruction.This study aims to compare the mid-term functional outcomes and quality of life measures between patients that have undergone ACL repair versus reconstruction. Methods A retrospective review was conducted for demographic and operative report data of patients who underwent an ACL repair or reconstruction between 2012 and 2018. Patients were contacted over the phone and underwent a Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) survey evaluating pain interference, mobility, and function. Patients were excluded from the study if there was an incomplete operative note, missing contact information, or failure to answer phone calls. Results A total of 74 eligible patients were included, with n = 54 in the ACL reconstruction group (73.0%) and n = 20 in the ACL repair group (27.0%). Reconstruction patients had a PROMIS (median (IQR)) physical function score of 22.50 (16.00-59.00), as compared to repair patients' physical function score of 60.00 (21.50-60.00). There was a significant difference favoring repair (p = 0.040). In addition, ACL reconstruction patients had a significantly higher rate of additional procedures, with 63.0% of reconstruction patients receiving an additional operation as compared to 30.0% of repair patients (p = 0.017). The surgery type did not show a significant effect on physical function scores, while additional procedures remained significant in the linear regression analysis. Conclusion Although ACL repair is associated with improved physical function scores as compared to reconstruction in the univariate analysis, surgery type did not show significance when controlling for other variables. Further studies are necessary to compare patients with similar injuries to account for differences in additional procedures, but the results remain promising in assisting with patient-driven treatment decisions.

Outcomes of multiligament knee injury treated with versus without internal brace suture augmentation.

PURPOSE: To compare the postoperative outcomes between Internal Brace (IB) and non-IB patients who underwent surgical management of multiple-ligament knee injuries (MLKI). METHODS: Patients who underwent surgical management of MLKI at two institutions between 2010 and 2020 were identified and offered participation in the study via the collection of postoperative functional outcomes for MLKI; Lysholm Knee score, Multiligament Quality of Life (ML-QOL), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer adaptive testing (CAT), Pain Interference (PI), Physical Function (PF), and Mobility instruments (MI). The postoperative outcomes and reoperation rates were compared between the IB group and non-IB group. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-six patients were analyzed; 89 were included in the IB group (31.5% female; age 35.6 ± 1.4 years), and 37 were included in the non-IB group (25.7% female; age 38.8 ± 2.4 years). Mean follow-up time of the entire cohort was 37.9 ± 4.7 months [IB: 21.8 + 1.63; non-IB: 76.4 ± 6.2, p < 0.001). The IB group achieved similar PROMIS CAT [PROMIS Pain (51.8 + 1.1 vs. 52.1 + 1.6, p = 0.8736), Physical Function (46.6 + 1.2 vs. 46.4 + 1.8, p = 0.9168), Mobility (46.0 + 1.0 vs. 43.7 + 1.6, p = 0.2185)], ML-QOL [ML-QOL Physical Impairment (36.6 + 2.5 vs. 43.5 ± 4.2, p = 0.1485), Emotional Impairment (42.5 + 2.9 vs. 48.6 ± 4.6, p = 0.2695), Activity Limitation (34.5 + 2.8 vs. 36.2 ± 4.3, p = 0.7384), Societal Involvement (39.1 + 3.0 vs. 41.7 + 4.2, p = 0.6434)] and Lysholm knee score (64.9 + 2.5 vs. 60.4 + 4.0, p = 0.3397) postoperatively compared the non-IB group, but the differences were not significant. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients with MLKI treated with versus without IB, outcomes and reoperation rates trended toward favoring IB, but the study was not sufficiently powered to reach statistical significance. Internal bracing could be useful in the management of MLKI. In the future, matched patient cohorts with more patients are warranted to further evaluate the clinical impact of the internal brace in MLKI.

A comparison of postoperative pain between anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and repair.

PURPOSE: To determine if patients who underwent ACL repair experienced less short-term postoperative pain versus patients who underwent ACL reconstruction. METHODS: Electronic charts were retrospectively reviewed of patients who underwent ACL surgery from November 2014 through April 2019 by a single surgeon. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether they underwent ACL repair or ACL reconstruction. A two-tailed equal variance t-test was used to evaluate visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores at the first postoperative visit. A chi-squared test of independence was used to evaluate narcotic prescription refills at the first postoperative visit. RESULTS: 36 ACL repair patients and 71 ACL reconstruction patients were included. The mean visual analog scale (VAS) pain score at the first postoperative visit (12.9 ± 3.7 days post-op) for ACL repair patients (2.81 ± 1.79) was significantly lower (p = .004) compared to ACL reconstruction patients (4.07 ± 2.26). The number of narcotic prescription refills at the first postoperative visit was significantly lower (p = .027, ARR = 21.4%, NNT = 4.67) in the ACL repair group (7 of 36, 19.4%) compared to the ACL reconstruction group (29 of 71, 40.8%). CONCLUSION: Patients who underwent ACL repair experienced less short-term postoperative pain and were prescribed fewer narcotics compared to patients who underwent ACL reconstruction.