Nonoperative or Surgical Treatment of Acute Achilles' Tendon Rupture.

BACKGROUND: Whether surgical repair of an acute Achilles' tendon rupture by an open-repair or minimally invasive approach is associated with better outcomes than nonsurgical treatment is not clear. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial that compared nonoperative treatment, open repair, and minimally invasive surgery in adults with acute Achilles' tendon rupture who presented to four trial centers. The primary outcome was the change from baseline in the Achilles' tendon Total Rupture Score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of tendon rerupture. RESULTS: A total of 554 patients underwent randomization, and 526 patients were included in the final analysis. The mean changes in the Achilles' tendon Total Rupture Score were -17.0 points in the nonoperative group, -16.0 points in the open-repair group, and -14.7 points in the minimally invasive surgery group (P = 0.57). Pairwise comparisons provided no evidence of differences between the groups. The changes from baseline in physical performance and patient-reported physical function were similar in the three groups. The number of tendon reruptures was higher in the nonoperative group (6.2%) than in the open-repair or minimally invasive surgery group (0.6% in each). There were 9 nerve injuries in the minimally invasive surgery group (in 5.2% of the patients) as compared with 5 in the open-repair group (in 2.8%) and 1 in the nonoperative group (in 0.6%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with Achilles' tendon rupture, surgery (open repair or minimally invasive surgery) was not associated with better outcomes than nonoperative treatment at 12 months. (Funded by the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority and Akershus University Hospital; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01785264.).

Concomitant full-thickness cartilage lesions do not affect patient-reported outcomes at minimum 10-year follow-up after ACL reconstruction.

PURPOSE: To compare patients with a concomitant full-thickness cartilage lesion and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury to patients with an isolated ACL injury at 10-15 years post ACL reconstruction. METHODS: This is a longitudinal follow-up of a cohort of 89 patients that were identified in the Norwegian National Knee Ligament Registry and included in the index study in 2007. The study group consisted of 30 patients that underwent ACL reconstruction and had a concomitant, isolated full-thickness cartilage lesion (International Cartilage Repair Society [ICRS] grade 3-4). Each study patient was matched with two control patients who underwent ACL reconstruction but had no cartilage lesions (ICRS grade 1-4) (n = 59). At a median follow-up of 10.2 years (range 9.9-15.6), 65 patients (74%) completed the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), which was the main outcome measure, resulting in 23 pairs after matching. RESULTS: At a follow-up of 10-15 years after ACL reconstruction, no significant differences in KOOS were found between patients with a concomitant full-thickness cartilage lesion and patients without cartilage lesions. There was also no significant difference between the two groups when comparing the change over time in KOOS scores from preoperative to follow-up. Both groups showed significant improvement in all KOOS subscales from preoperative to follow-up, except for in the Symptoms subscale for the control group. The greatest improvement was in the QoL subscale for the study group. CONCLUSION: ACL-reconstructed patients with a full-thickness cartilage lesion did not report worse outcomes at 10-15 years after surgery compared with patients with an isolated ACL injury. Our findings support that there is no long-term negative effect of a concomitant cartilage lesion in an ACL-reconstructed knee. These findings should be considered when discussing treatment and informing about the expected long-term outcome after ACL reconstruction to patients with such combined injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Effect of Concomitant Meniscal Lesions and Meniscal Surgery in ACL Reconstruction With 5-Year Follow-Up: A Nationwide Prospective Cohort Study From Norway and Sweden of 8408 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Increased knowledge of the factors predicting outcome after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is needed. PURPOSE: To determine the effect of concomitant meniscal lesions, and the surgical management thereof, on patient-reported outcomes 5 years after ACLR. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: A total of 15,706 patients who underwent primary unilateral ACLR between 2005 and 2008 were enrolled prospectively and evaluated longitudinally. All patients were part of the Norwegian and Swedish national knee ligament registries. Outcomes at 5-year follow-up were evaluated with the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). A multivariable linear regression model was used to assess possible effects on prognosis, as measured by KOOS, of a concomitant meniscal lesion and its associated surgical treatment. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 5.1 ± 0.2 years, KOOS data were available from 8408 patients: 4774 (57%) patients with no and 3634 (43%) patients with concomitant meniscal lesions (mean patient age, 33.8 ± 10.7 years). Patients with concomitant meniscal lesions reported equal crude mean scores compared with patients without meniscal lesions in all KOOS subscales 5 years after ACLR. The mean improvement in scores from preoperative to the 5-year follow-up was greater for patients with a concomitant meniscal lesion for the KOOS Pain, Activities of Daily Living (ADL), and Sport and Recreation subscales. In the adjusted regression analyses, using patients without concomitant meniscal lesions as the reference, neither no treatment nor resection or repair of medial meniscal lesions were significantly associated with KOOS scores 5 years after ACLR. Except for the ADL subscale, in which a repaired lateral meniscal lesion was associated with better outcome, no significant associations between any of the lateral meniscal lesion treatment categories and KOOS outcome at 5-year follow-up were identified. CONCLUSION: Concomitant meniscal lesions at the time of ACLR conferred no negative effects on patient-reported outcomes 5 years after ACLR. The improvement in selected KOOS subscales from preoperative to the 5-year follow-up was significantly greater for patients with concomitant meniscal lesions than for patients without such lesions.

A Controlled Comparison of Microfracture, Debridement, and No Treatment of Concomitant Full-Thickness Cartilage Lesions in Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Reconstructed Knees: A Nationwide Prospective Cohort Study From Norway and Sweden of 368 Patients With 5-Year Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: The effect of microfracture (MF) or surgical debridement of concomitant full-thickness cartilage lesions in anterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed knees on patient-reported outcomes remains to be determined. PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of debridement or MF compared with no surgical treatment of concomitant full-thickness cartilage lesions on patient-reported outcomes 5 years after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Included in this study were 644 patients who were registered in the Norwegian and the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registries from 2005 to 2008 as having undergone unilateral primary ACLR and having a concomitant full-thickness cartilage lesion (International Cartilage Repair Society [ICRS] grades 3-4). Of these patients, 129 were treated with debridement, 164 were treated with MF, and 351 received no surgical treatment simultaneously with ACLR. At 5-year follow-up, 368 (57%) patients completed results on the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). Multivariable linear regression was used to estimate the effect of surgical debridement or MF of concomitant full-thickness cartilage lesions on patient-reported outcomes 5 years after ACLR. RESULTS: Compared with no surgical treatment, there were no unadjusted or adjusted effects of debridement or MF of concomitant full-thickness cartilage lesions on KOOS scores at 5-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: Compared with leaving concomitant full-thickness cartilage lesions untreated at the time of ACLR, debridement and MF showed no effect on patient-reported outcomes 5 years after surgery.

No negative effect on patient-reported outcome of concomitant cartilage lesions 5-9 years after ACL reconstruction.

PURPOSE: To compare patient-reported outcome 5-9 years after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in patients with and without a concomitant full-thickness [International Cartilage Repair Society (ICRS) grade 3-4] cartilage lesion. METHODS: This is a prospective follow-up of a cohort of 89 patients that were identified in the Norwegian National Knee Ligament Registry and included in the current study in 2007, consisting of 30 primary ACL-reconstructed patients with a concomitant, isolated full-thickness cartilage lesion (ICRS grade 3 and 4) and 59 matched controls without cartilage lesions (ICRS grade 1-4). At a median follow-up of 6.3 years (range 4.9-9.1) after ACL reconstruction, 74 (84 %) patients completed the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), which was used as the main outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included radiographic evaluation according to the Kellgren-Lawrence criteria of knee osteoarthritis (OA). RESULTS: At follow-up, 5-9 years after ACL reconstruction, no statistically significant differences in KOOS were detected between patients with a concomitant full-thickness cartilage lesion and patients without concomitant cartilage lesions. Radiographic knee OA of the affected knee, defined as Kellgren and Lawrence ≥2, was significantly more frequent in subjects without a concomitant cartilage lesion (p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: ACL reconstruction performed in patients with an isolated concomitant full-thickness cartilage lesion restored patient-reported knee function to the same level as ACL reconstruction performed in patients without concomitant cartilage lesions, 5-9 years after surgery. This should be considered in the preoperative information given to patients with such combined injuries, in terms of the expected outcome after ACL reconstruction and in the counselling and decision-making on the subject of surgical treatment of the concomitant cartilage lesion. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic; prospective cohort study, Level I.

Microfracture technique versus osteochondral autologous transplantation mosaicplasty in patients with articular chondral lesions of the knee: a prospective randomized trial with long-term follow-up.

PURPOSE: To compare long-term functional and radiological outcome following microfracture technique (MF) versus osteochondral autologous transplantation (OAT) mosaicplasty for treating focal chondral lesions of the knee. METHODS: Twenty-five patients (mean age 32.3 years, SD 7.7) with a full-thickness (International Cartilage Repair Society grade 3 or 4) chondral lesion of the articulating surface of the femur were randomized to either MF (n = 11) or OAT mosaicplasty (n = 14). At a median follow-up of 9.8 years (range 4.9-11.4), the patients were evaluated using Lysholm score (n = 25), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS, n = 25), isokinetic quadriceps measurement and hamstring strength measurement (n = 22) and standing radiographs (n = 23). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in Lysholm score, KOOS, isokinetic muscle strength or radiographic osteoarthritis between MF-treated patients and OAT mosaicplasty-treated patients at follow-up. Mean Lysholm score at follow-up was 69.7 [95% confidence interval (CI), 55.1-84.4] for the MF group and 62.6 (95% CI, 52.6-72.6) for the OAT mosaicplasty group. CONCLUSION: At long-term follow-up, there were no significant differences between patients treated with MF and patients treated with OAT mosaicplasty in patient-reported outcomes, muscle strength or radiological outcome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, Level II.