Objective:
To compare the clinical efficacy of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with 4-strand hamstring tendon autograft (4SHG), allograft and the Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System (LARS) ligament, and to find the causes of cumulative failure or nonreturn to sport.
Design:
Retrospective case series.
Setting:
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, the second affiliated hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu, China.
Patients:
Three hundred six patients with isolated ACL deficiency were included. Two hundred twenty-nine patients met the inclusion/exclusion criteria, and finally, 185 of these patients participated in this study.
Interventions:
Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using 4SHG, allograft, and LARS.
Main Outcome Measures:
Objective knee function, subjective knee function, and information regarding return to sport, cumulative failure, and complications. Secondary: distribution of tunnel position and tunnel enlargement.
Results:
There were no statistically significant differences between the 3 groups regarding all the clinical objective and subjective results, return to sport, complications, or cumulative failures (P > 0.05). One hundred twenty-eight patients (69.2%, 128/185) returned to sport. Preoperative (after injury) Tegner scores were inferior to postoperative Tegner scores, and postoperative Tegner scores were inferior to preinjury Tegner scores (P < 0.01). The femoral tunnel malposition was significantly associated with cumulative failure (P < 0.05).
Conclusions:
There were no statistically significant differences among the 4SHG, allograft, and LARS ligament in terms of the clinical outcomes after ACL reconstruction (ACLR) at 5-years follow-up. Interestingly, ACLR could improve the functional and motorial level of the knee, but patients had great difficulty in regaining the level of preinjury movement. In addition, the malposition of the femoral tunnel was an important cause of cumulative failure.
Citing Articles
Outperformance of Combined Artificial Anterolateral Ligament and ACL Reconstruction Compared With Isolated Artificial ACL Reconstruction in Knees With Anterolateral Structure and ACL Deficiency: A Biomechanical Analysis.
Cheng R, Dimitriou D, Yao G, Li X, Lv X, Yang Y
Orthop J Sports Med. 2025; 13(2):23259671241309270.
PMID: 39944773
PMC: 11815784.
DOI: 10.1177/23259671241309270.
New Graft Choices for ACL Reconstruction: Update Article.
Lara P, Novaretti J, Nunes G, Cohen M, Ramos L
Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo). 2024; 59(5):e642-e649.
PMID: 39649040
PMC: 11624934.
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1779335.
Anatomic Double-Bundle Transtibial Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System.
Tang J, Zhao J
Arthrosc Tech. 2024; 13(8):103014.
PMID: 39233793
PMC: 11369952.
DOI: 10.1016/j.eats.2024.103014.
Four-year comparative analysis of return to sport and psychological recovery following ACL revision: Artificial ligament vs. anterior tibial tendon allograft.
Chen T, Dong Y, Li Y, Chen S
J Orthop Translat. 2024; 47:29-38.
PMID: 38994236
PMC: 11237355.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jot.2024.05.003.
Various Definitions of Failure Are Used in Studies of Patients Who Underwent Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.
Aldag L, Dallman J, Henkelman E, Herda A, Randall J, Tarakemeh A
Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2023; 5(6):100801.
PMID: 37766857
PMC: 10520319.
DOI: 10.1016/j.asmr.2023.100801.
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Autologous Hamstrings Augmented with Ligament Augmentation and Reconstruction Systems (LARS) or Synthetic Meshwork of LARS Compared with Four-Strand Hamstring Tendon Grafts Alone, a Prospective,....
Zaid H, Yang G, Hua X
Indian J Orthop. 2023; 57(9):1497-1509.
PMID: 37609011
PMC: 10441880.
DOI: 10.1007/s43465-023-00956-w.
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Quadrupled Semitendinosus Graft or Synthetic Ligament: Knee Stability and Clinical Outcomes at Three Years Follow-Up.
Moretti L, Cassano G, Caricato A, Caiaffa E, DAprile M, Angiulli F
Adv Orthop. 2023; 2023:4022441.
PMID: 37520887
PMC: 10374376.
DOI: 10.1155/2023/4022441.
Dynamic Tensile Stress Promotes Regeneration of Achilles Tendon in a Panda Rope Bridge Technique Mice Model.
Li Z, Sun X, Shen C, Deng Z, Tang K, Xie Y
Ann Biomed Eng. 2023; 51(12):2735-2748.
PMID: 37482574
DOI: 10.1007/s10439-023-03320-z.
Massive foreign body reaction and osteolysis following primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the ligament augmentation and reconstruction system (LARS): a case report with histopathological and physicochemical analysis.
Ambrosio L, Vadala G, Castaldo R, Gentile G, Nibid L, Rabitti C
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2022; 23(1):1140.
PMID: 36581922
PMC: 9801556.
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-022-05984-5.
The safety, efficacy, and functional outcomes on arthroscopic fixation of posterior cruciate ligament avulsion fracture by a bio-absorbable anchor or traditional pull-out technique: A prospective cohort study.
Ren X, Wang J, Yang S, Liu Z, Wang T, Zhang T
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022; 10:1055176.
PMID: 36466345
PMC: 9708702.
DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.1055176.
Outcome of cranial cruciate ligament replacement with an enhanced polyethylene terephthalate implant in the dog: A pilot clinical trial.
Johnson T, Conzemius M
Vet Surg. 2022; 51(8):1215-1222.
PMID: 36165283
PMC: 9827950.
DOI: 10.1111/vsu.13889.
The efficacy and medium-term outcomes of ligament advanced reinforcement system compared with auto-grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: At least 2 years follow-up.
Ma B, Wang Y, Xu Y
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022; 10:960075.
PMID: 36118581
PMC: 9479140.
DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.960075.
[Core techniques and adverse events in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a new generation of artificial ligaments: the consensus of Chinese specialists based on a modified Delphi method (Part 2)].
Chinese Specialist Consensus Group On New Generation Artificial Ligaments Used For Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2022; 36(9):1047-1055.
PMID: 36111464
PMC: 9626301.
DOI: 10.7507/1002-1892.202206026.
Optimal Graft Choice in Athletic Patients with Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries: Review and Clinical Insights.
Sim K, Rahardja R, Zhu M, Young S
Open Access J Sports Med. 2022; 13:55-67.
PMID: 35800660
PMC: 9255990.
DOI: 10.2147/OAJSM.S340702.
[Research progress of internal tension relieving technique in assisting anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction].
Xu F, Li Y, Wang G, Liu D
Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi. 2021; 35(12):1630-1636.
PMID: 34913322
PMC: 8669186.
DOI: 10.7507/1002-1892.202106080.
Patellar tendon versus artificial grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Fan D, Ma J, Zhang L
J Orthop Surg Res. 2021; 16(1):478.
PMID: 34348750
PMC: 8336077.
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-021-02624-x.
Small Size Autograft versus Large Size Allograft in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.
Kurtoglu A, Basar B, Basar G, Gezginaslan O, Basar H
Clin Orthop Surg. 2021; 13(1):47-52.
PMID: 33747377
PMC: 7948033.
DOI: 10.4055/cios20008.
