Efficacy of Nonaugmented, Static Augmented, and Dynamic Augmented Suture Repair of the Ruptured Anterior Cruciate Ligament: A Systematic Review of the Literature

• Published in: The American journal of sports medicine 2020-12, Vol.48 (14), p.3626-3637
• Main Authors: Hoogeslag, Roy A.G., Brouwer, Reinoud W., de Vries, Astrid J., Boer, Barbara C., Huis in ‘t Veld, Rianne
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Anterior Cruciate Ligament - surgery; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries - surgery; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction - methods; Humans; Ligaments; Rupture - surgery; Sports medicine; Suture Techniques; Systematic review
• ISSN: 0363-5465; 1552-3365
• DOI: 10.1177/0363546520904690

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament suture repair (ACLSR) was abandoned late last century in favor of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) because of overall disappointing results. However, in recent years there has been renewed and increasing interest in ACLSR for treatment of ACL ruptures. Several contemporary ACLSR techniques are being used, but any difference in effectiveness is unclear. Hypothesis: Contemporary nonaugmented (NA), static augmented (SA), and dynamic augmented (DA) ACLSR leads to (1) comparable outcomes overall and (2) comparable outcomes between proximal third, middle third, and combined ACL rupture locations (a) within and (b) between ACLSR technique categories. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: An electronic search was performed in the MEDLINE and Embase databases for the period between January 1, 2010, and August 7, 2019. All articles describing clinical and patient-reported outcomes for ACLSR were identified and included, and outcomes for NA, SA, and DA ACLSR categories were compared. Results: A total of 31 articles and 2422 patients were included. The majority of articles (65%) and patients (89%) reported outcomes of DA ACLSR. Overall, there was high heterogeneity in study characteristics and level as well as quality of evidence (19 level 4; 7 level 3; 3 level 2; and 2 level 1). Most studies indicated excellent patient-reported outcomes. Overall, the variability in (and the maximum of) the reported failure rate was high within all ACLSR categories. The variability in (and the maximum of) the reported rate of all other complications was highest for DA ACLSR. Regarding ACL rupture location, the failure rate was highest in proximal ACL ruptures within the SA and DA ACLSR categories; rates of all other reported complications were highest in combined ACL ruptures within the DA ACLSR category. However, no studies in the NA category and only 1 study in the SA ACLSR category evaluated combined ACL ruptures. The majority of studies comparing ACLSR and ACLR found no differences in outcomes. Conclusion: The amount of high-quality evidence for contemporary ACLSR is poor. This makes it difficult to interpret differences among ACLSR categories and among ACL rupture locations and, though promising, to establish the role of ACLSR in the treatment of ACL ruptures. More high-quality large randomized clinical trials with longer follow-up comparing ACLSR and ACLR are needed.