» Articles » PMID: 23714401

The Anterior Cruciate Ligament Remnant: to Leave It or Not?

Overview
Journal Arthroscopy
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2013 May 30
PMID 23714401
Citations 21
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: The role of the anterior cruciate ligament remnant in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is debated. The purposes of this systematic review were (1) to summarize the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing remnant-preserving ACLR and (2) to investigate whether those outcomes were superior to standard ACLR.

Methods: The PubMed database was searched using specific inclusion and exclusion criteria for clinical studies reporting both preoperative conditions and postoperative outcomes of remnant-preserving ACLR. All reported postoperative complications were analyzed. In addition, a modified Coleman Methodology Score (CMS) system was used to assess the methodologic quality of the included studies.

Results: Thirteen studies were included with a mean CMS value of 71.7 (range, 57 to 92). In total, 546 patients underwent remnant-preserving ACLR by 3 different procedures: standard ACLR plus tibial remnant tensioning (n = 166), selective-bundle augmentation (n = 337), and standard ACLR plus tibial remnant sparing (n = 43). All clinical outcomes improved significantly (P < .05) at the final follow-up (mean, 27.9 months). Seven studies directly compared postoperative clinical outcomes between remnant-preserving ACLR and standard ACLR. In 6 of the 7 studies, similar postoperative clinical outcomes were reported between groups. One study reported superior clinical outcomes after remnant-preserving ACLR. There was no significant difference between groups regarding the overall rate of postoperative complications.

Conclusions: The mean CMS showed moderate methodologic quality for the included studies. This systematic review showed significant postoperative improvements in patients undergoing remnant-preserving ACLR in all of the studies. However, further comparisons between remnant-preserving ACLR and standard ACLR showed inconsistent results in the 7 comparative studies, with 6 reporting equivalent postoperative clinical outcomes between groups. There was no significant difference in the rate of total complications between groups. The currently available evidence is not sufficiently strong to support the superiority of remnant-preserving ACLR.

Level Of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of Level I-IV studies.

Citing Articles

Remnant-Sparing Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Results in Similar Clinical, Functional, and Quality-of-Life Outcomes to Anatomic Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Kopka M, Heard S, Buchko G, Hiemstra L, Lafave M, Kerslake S Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2024; 6(2):100898.

PMID: 38405580 PMC: 10883819. DOI: 10.1016/j.asmr.2024.100898.


Occurrence Rate of Cyclops Lesion After Anatomic Double-Bundle ACL Reconstruction: Comparison Between Remnant Tissue Preservation and Resection Methods.

Hishimura R, Kondo E, Suzuki Y, Matsuoka M, Iwasaki K, Onodera T Orthop J Sports Med. 2022; 10(10):23259671221130688.

PMID: 36324698 PMC: 9620259. DOI: 10.1177/23259671221130688.


Knee Cartilage Change within 5 Years after Aclr Using Hamstring Tendons with Preserved Tibial-Insertion: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Zhang Y, Liu S, Sun Y, Xie Y, Chen J J Clin Med. 2022; 11(20).

PMID: 36294478 PMC: 9605109. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11206157.


Preservation of the Tibial Stump During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Surgery Did Not Increase the Rate of Surgery for Symptomatic Cyclops Lesions.

Webster K, Murgier J, Feller J, Klemm H, Devitt B, Whitehead T Orthop J Sports Med. 2021; 9(4):2325967121992517.

PMID: 33889640 PMC: 8040594. DOI: 10.1177/2325967121992517.


Anterior cruciate ligament remnant-preserving and re-tensioning reconstruction: a biomechanical comparison study of three different re-tensioning methods in a porcine model.

Ryu D, Kwon K, Hong D, Park S, Park J, Wang J BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021; 22(1):132.

PMID: 33536007 PMC: 7860227. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-021-03955-w.