Treatment results and safety assessment of the LARS system for the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament

被引:6
|
作者
Kentel, Maciej [1 ]
Barnas, Michal [1 ]
Witkowski, Jaroslaw [2 ]
Reichert, Pawel [3 ]
机构
[1] eMKa Med Med Ctr, Orthopaed & Traumatol Dept, Wroclaw, Poland
[2] Wroclaw Med Univ, Fac Hlth Sci, Dept Physiotherapy, Div Sports Med, Wroclaw, Poland
[3] Wroclaw Med Univ, Fac Med, Dept Trauma & Hand Surg, Wroclaw, Poland
来源
ADVANCES IN CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE | 2021年 / 30卷 / 04期
关键词
ACL reconstruction; LARS graft; arthroscopy; synthetic graft; autograft; POSTOPERATIVE PHYSIOTHERAPY SUPERVISION; ACL RECONSTRUCTION; FOLLOW-UP; ARTIFICIAL GRAFT; ALLOGRAFT; AUTOGRAFT; METAANALYSIS; DURATION; COST;
D O I
10.17219/acem/132037
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Background. Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is the prevailing procedure in cases of ACL rupture. Objectives. To assess the long-term safety of implementing a synthetic ligament with the Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System (LARS) in primary reconstruction of the ACL. Material and methods. The retrospective analysis involved 403 patients who had undergone ACL reconstruction with the same results in clinical and functional assessments. The patients comprised 2 groups. In group I, a LARS graft was implemented, while in group II, an autograft was used. The Lachman test, anterior drawer test, pivot-shift test, Lysholm scale, IKDC 2000, pain posited to be experienced, the possibility of postoperative complications, the time required to return to work, and revision surgery were all considered and analyzed. Results. The visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score in group I ranged from 37.34 +/- 8.22 mm on day 3 to 17.21 +/- 5.45 mm on day 28. In group II, it ranged from 64.72 +/- 10.20 mm on day 3 (p < 0.05) to 18.67 +/- 6.57 mm on day 28. The period of time taken to return to office work in group I was 7.04 +/- 1.82 weeks, and 9.21 +/- 1.75 weeks in group II (p < 0.05). The time taken to return to physical work in group I was 20.50 +/- 2.91 weeks, and 21.12 +/- 3.12 weeks in group II. Postoperative scar and local complications were statistically less prominent in group I. The cost and number of revision surgeries were greater in the first group. Conclusions. Reconstruction of the ACL using a synthetic graft such as LARS yields similar results to an autograft in a cohort follow-up. Long-term results show a large number of revision surgeries when LARS is used. This method should be used with caution.
引用
收藏
页码:379 / 386
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Allograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Indications, Techniques, and Outcomes
    Vyas, Dharmesh
    Rabuck, Stephen J.
    Harner, Christopher D.
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC & SPORTS PHYSICAL THERAPY, 2012, 42 (03) : 196 - 207
  • [22] Patient Preferences for Graft Selection in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
    Pearsall, Christian
    Chen, Aaron Z.
    Abdelaziz, Abed
    Saltzman, Bryan M.
    Piasecki, Dana P.
    Popkin, Charles A.
    Redler, Lauren H.
    Levine, William N.
    Ahmad, Christopher S.
    Trofa, David P.
    ORTHOPAEDIC JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2024, 12 (08)
  • [23] Revision of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with patellar tendon allograft and autograft: 2- and 5-year results
    Mayr, Hermann O.
    Willkomm, Doerthe
    Stoehr, Amelie
    Schettle, Mathias
    Suedkamp, Norbert P.
    Bernstein, Anke
    Hube, Robert
    ARCHIVES OF ORTHOPAEDIC AND TRAUMA SURGERY, 2012, 132 (06) : 867 - 874
  • [24] POSTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION •• ARE THE RESULTS SIMILAR TO ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION?
    Mestriner, Marcos Barbieri
    Hirosse, Fabio Eidi
    dos Anjos Rabelo, Nayra Deise
    dos Santos Netto, Alfredo
    de Oliveira, Victor Marques
    de Paula Leite Cury, Ricardo
    ACTA ORTOPEDICA BRASILEIRA, 2023, 31 (02):
  • [25] Prediction of Patient-Reported Outcome After Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
    Kowalchuk, Deborah A.
    Harner, Christopher D.
    Fu, Freddie H.
    Irrgang, James J.
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2009, 25 (05) : 457 - 463
  • [26] No difference in postoperative efficacy and safety between autograft and allograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study in 112 patients
    Zhao, Bin-An
    Yao, Yi-Yong
    Ji, Qing-Xin
    Li, Zhen-Yu
    Cheng, Biao
    Pan, Jian-Feng
    ANNALS OF TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE, 2022, 10 (06)
  • [27] Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with LARS™ artificial ligament results at a mean follow-up of eight years
    Paolo Domenico Parchi
    Ciapini Gianluca
    Lorenzo Dolfi
    Alessandro Baluganti
    Piolanti Nicola
    Fabio Chiellini
    Michele Lisanti
    International Orthopaedics, 2013, 37 : 1567 - 1574
  • [28] Synovitis following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the LARS device
    Tulloch, Scott John
    Devitt, Brian Meldan
    Norsworthy, Cameron John
    Mow, Chris
    KNEE SURGERY SPORTS TRAUMATOLOGY ARTHROSCOPY, 2019, 27 (08) : 2592 - 2598
  • [29] How Variable Are Achilles Allografts Used for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction? A Biomechanical Study
    Weber, Alexander E.
    Mayer, Erik N.
    Nathani, Amit
    Chen, Dan X.
    Kelly, Anne M.
    Rodeo, Scott A.
    Bedi, Asheesh
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2018, 46 (08) : 1870 - 1876
  • [30] Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision Reconstruction
    Miller, Mark D.
    Kew, Michelle E.
    Quinn, Courtney A.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS, 2021, 29 (17) : 723 - 731