Journal of Orthopaedic Translation (Jul 2024)
Four-year comparative analysis of return to sport and psychological recovery following ACL revision: Artificial ligament vs. anterior tibial tendon allograft
Abstract
Background: Research on return to sport and psychological recovery in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision remains scarce. The clinical efficacy of artificial ligament in ACL revision requires further exploration. Our objectives were (1) to compare the midterm clinical outcomes of artificial ligament versus allogenic tendon graft in ACL revision and (2) to analyze the effects of employing artificial ligament on return to sport and psychological recovery in ACL revision. Methods: This cohort study included the cases receiving ACL revision from 2014 to 2021 in Sports Medicine Department of Huashan Hospital. The grafts used were Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System (LARS) and ATT allograft. We recorded patients' baseline data. The final follow-up assessment included subjective scales, physical examination, and return to sport status. We recorded the rates and timings of return to sport. Subjective scales included the 2000 International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, Lysholm Knee Scaling Score (LKSS), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Tegner activity score, Marx activity rating score, and Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI). Anterior knee stability was assessed using the KT-1000 arthrometer. Results: Fifty cases (LARS group: 27; ATT group: 23) enrolled and 45 (LARS group: 23; ATT group: 22) completed evaluations with a median follow-up period of 49 months. At recent follow-up, LARS group outperformed in knee stability (1.0 ± 1.9 mm vs. 2.6 ± 3.0 mm, P = 0.039), confidence (86.7 ± 12.4 vs. 69.4 ± 18.6, P < 0.001), emotion (82.7 ± 11.3 vs. 70.7 ± 16.2, P < 0.001), KOOS knee function (78.7 ± 8.8 vs. 69.5 ± 11.0, P = 0.003), quality of life (79.1 ± 16.1 vs. 66.4 ± 19.5, P = 0.014), Tegner score (6.3 ± 1.9 vs. 5.2 ± 2.1, P < 0.001), and Marx activity score (10.7 ± 3.7 vs. 7.9 ± 4.0, P = 0.012). The LARS group had significantly higher return rates: recreational (91.3 % vs. 63.6 %, P = 0.026), knee cutting and pivoting (87.0 % vs. 59.1 %, P = 0.035), competitive (78.3 % vs. 45.5 %, P = 0.023), and pre-injury (56.5 % vs. 27.3 %, P = 0.047). For return timings, the LARS group was earlier at recreational (11.2 ± 3.9 vs. 27.8 ± 9.0 weeks, P < 0.001), knee cutting and pivoting (17.2 ± 5.8 vs. 35.6 ± 13.8 weeks, P < 0.001), competitive (24.8 ± 16.2 vs. 53.2 ± 22.0 weeks, P < 0.001), and pre-injury levels (32.8 ± 11.0 vs. 72.8 ± 16.9 weeks, P < 0.001). Conclusion: In ACL revision, using LARS demonstrated improved joint stability and functionality compared to using allogenic ATT four years postoperative. Patients accepting the LARS procedure exhibited higher rates and earlier timings of return to various levels of sport, indicating enhanced confidence and emotional resilience. The translational potential of this article: In ACL revision, the choice of artificial ligament to shorten recovery time, thereby enabling patients to return to sport more quickly and effectively, is thought-provoking. The research value extends beyond mere graft selection, guiding future clinical trials and studies. This research enhances our understanding of the application value of artificial ligament in ACL revision, emphasizing the importance of psychological recovery and updating our perceptions of return to sport levels post-revision. It stimulates exploration into personalized rehabilitation programs and treatment strategies, aiming to optimize clinical outcomes and meet the real-world needs of patients with failed ACL reconstruction.
