Additional suture augmentation to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring autografts bring no benefits to clinical results, graft maturation and graft-bone interface healing.

Publisher: BioMed Central Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 100968565 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1471-2474 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 14712474 NLM ISO Abbreviation: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: London : BioMed Central, [2000-

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries*/surgery ; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction*/methods; Humans ; Autografts/surgery ; Anterior Cruciate Ligament/surgery ; Retrospective Studies ; Knee Joint/surgery ; Sutures

Background: From the perspective of graft protection and early rehabilitation during the maturation and remodeling phases of graft healing, suture augmentation (SA) for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) has attracted more and more attention.
Study Design: Retrospective study.
Purpose: To determine whether the additional SA affects clinical results, graft maturation and graft-bone interface healing during two years follow-up after ACLR.
Methods: 20 ACLRs with additional SA (ACLR-SA group) and 20 ACLRs without additional SA (ACLR group) were performed between January 2020 and December 2021 by the same surgeon and were retrospectively analyzed. Pre- and postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, Lysholm scores, graft failure and reoperation were evaluated. The signal/noise quotient (SNQ) of autografts and the signal intensity of graft-bone interface were analyzed. All 40 patients in ACLR-SA group and ACLR group completed 2-years follow-up.
Results: There was no patient in the two cohorts experienced graft failure and reoperation. The postoperative IKDC and Lysholm scores have been significantly improved compared with preoperative scored in both ACLR-SA group and ACLR group, however, there was no significant difference between two groups. The SNQ of proximal graft of ACLR-SA group (14.78 ± 8.62 vs. 8.1 ± 5.5, p = 0.041) was significantly greater while the grades of graft-bone interface healing of posterior tibial was significantly lower than that of ACLR group at 1-year postoperatively (p = 0.03), respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups of the SNQ of proximal, distal medial graft segments, and the graft-bone interface healing grades of anterior femoral, posterior femoral, anterior tibial and posterior tibial at other time points (p>0.05).
Conclusions: The additional SA in ACLR had no effect on IKDC scores, Lysholm scores, graft maturation and graft-bone interface healing at 2-year postoperatively. Our research does not support the routine use of SA in ACLR.
(© 2024. The Author(s).)

Arthroscopy. 2021 Feb;37(2):609-616. (PMID: 33144236)
Arthroscopy. 2020 Feb;36(2):490-491. (PMID: 31816364)
Arthroscopy. 2021 Nov;37(11):3344-3346. (PMID: 34740409)
Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2021 Dec 31;4(2):e545-e551. (PMID: 35494286)
Arthrosc Tech. 2023 Nov 27;12(12):e2335-e2341. (PMID: 38196875)
Rev Bras Ortop. 2018 Sep 19;53(6):661-667. (PMID: 30377597)
Am J Sports Med. 2020 Feb;48(2):285-297. (PMID: 31940222)
Arthroscopy. 2018 Feb;34(2):490-499. (PMID: 29275984)
Am J Sports Med. 2021 Dec;49(14):3802-3808. (PMID: 34672797)
Arthroscopy. 2023 Feb;39(2):308-319. (PMID: 35840071)
Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol. 2021 May 11;25:8-15. (PMID: 34094881)
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Oct;89(10):2250-9. (PMID: 17908903)
Arthroscopy. 2011 Nov;27(11):1573-83. (PMID: 21862277)
Br J Sports Med. 2021 Nov;55(22):1245-1246. (PMID: 34103335)
J Mater Sci Mater Med. 1999 Mar;10(3):185-90. (PMID: 15348167)
Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2015 Jun;44(6):253-8. (PMID: 26046994)
Am J Sports Med. 2012 Feb;40(2):315-24. (PMID: 22088579)
Arthroscopy. 2021 Feb;37(2):617-618. (PMID: 33546799)
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006 May;88(5):1071-8. (PMID: 16651582)
Am J Sports Med. 2010 Sep;38(9):1768-77. (PMID: 20805412)
Arthroscopy. 2020 Feb;36(2):481-489. (PMID: 31901386)
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015 Apr;23(4):954-60. (PMID: 24196576)
N Engl J Med. 2019 Jun 13;380(24):2341-2348. (PMID: 31189037)
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021 Jun;29(6):1734-1741. (PMID: 32772135)
Arthroscopy. 2015 Sep;31(9):1777-83. (PMID: 25980920)
J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2014 Apr;22(1):65-9. (PMID: 24781617)
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2022 Oct;30(10):3258-3267. (PMID: 34739559)
Phys Sportsmed. 2021 May;49(2):123-129. (PMID: 32897799)
Arthroscopy. 2019 Jul;35(7):2123-2126. (PMID: 31272631)
Arthroscopy. 2019 Jul;35(7):2114-2122. (PMID: 31167738)

BMU2023YFJHMX008 Peking University Medicine Sailing Program for Young Scholars' Scientific & Technological Innovation; BYSYZHKC2023114 Innovation and Transformation Fund Project of Peking University Third Hospital

Keywords: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; Graft maturation; Graft-bone interface healing; Suture augmentation

Date Created: 20240417 Date Completed: 20240419 Latest Revision: 20240425

20240425

PMC11022449

10.1186/s12891-024-07426-w

38632590