ACL reconstruction provides superior stability than ACL repair in patients with Schenck III and IV knee joint dislocations: first results of a 12 month follow-up study.

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Acute knee dislocation is a rare but devastating multi-ligamentous knee injury with only limited evidence-based surgical technique recommendations. The aim of this study was a comparison of two different anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) restoration techniques as part of an early total surgical care concept (1) repair of ACL with additional internal bracing (ACLIB) compared to; (2) ACL reconstruction with autograft (ACLR). METHODS: Retrospective, clinical-study of patients with an acute type III or IV knee dislocation (according to Schenck classification), in which the ACL was treated with ACLIB or ACLR within 12 days. The PCL was sutured and internally braced in all cases. Medial and lateral complex injuries were repaired and additionally laterally augmented by an Arciero reconstruction. After a minimum 12 months follow-up different patient-reported outcome measurements (IKDC, Lysholm, VAS, Tegner Score) and instrumental stability assessment by Rolimeter -test and stress radiographs (Telos™) were analyzed. Groups were compared by t test with p < 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: In total, 20 patients (5 IIIM, 5 IIIL and 10 IV) were included in this study with an average follow-up of 13.7 ± 2.6 months. There were significant differences in instrumental stability testing (side-to-side difference (SSD) of anterior tibial translation ACLIB 2.7 ± 1.5 mm vs. ACLR 1.3 ± 1.3; p = 0.0339) and stress radiography (SSD ACL ACLIB 3.4 ± 2.2 mm vs. ACLR 0.4 ± 2.7; p = 0.0249) between groups. ACLIB group showed greater ROM in terms of flexion (SSD Flexion ACLIB 7.8 ± 9.9° vs. ACLR 16 ± 7.0°; p = 0.0466; Total Flexion overall 125.5 ± 11.8°). No clinically relevant differences in patient-reported outcome scores (Lysholm Score ACLIB 82 ± 16.4 vs. ACLR 85 ± 10.4; IKDC subjective score ACLIB 70.4 ± 17 vs. ACLR 76.6 ± 8.3) were determined. CONCLUSION: ACLR provides superior translational stability than ACLIB in terms of instrumental testing and stress radiography. Both techniques were equivalent with respect to PROMS and led to good and excellent clinical results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Retrospective cohort study, III.