Suture Augmented Versus Standard Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Matched Comparative Analysis
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Purpose: To compare outcomes between standard anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using hamstring grafts with and without suture augmentation (SA).
Methods: Patients who underwent ACLR with hamstring autografts or allografts with minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Patients undergoing ACLR with SA were matched 1:1 by age, gender, body mass index, graft type, and revision status to standard ACLR. Range of motion, pain, postoperative activity, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and complications were collected. Paired 2-tailed Student's t-tests and Pearson's χ-tests were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. A multivariate analysis of variance was conducted. Return to preinjury activity level was assessed using Spearman's rho and Pearson's χ-tests.
Results: Sixty patients at a mean age of 29.50 ± 6.60 years, 43.4% male, body mass index 26.27 ± 3.37, and follow-up of 29.54 ± 5.37 months were included. Preoperative PROMs were not significantly different (P >. 05). Postoperative range of motion was similar between groups (P = .457). Postoperative average daily (0.60 ± 1.25 vs 1.66 ± 1.90) and maximum daily pain (1.57 ± 1.83 vs 3.35 ± 2.28) were significantly lower for SA (P < .014). SA predicted improvement in PROMs (P < .05) and maximum pain scores (P = .001). SA was significantly correlated with improved time to return to preinjury activity level (9.17 ± 2.06 vs 12.88 ± 3.94 months; P = .002) and percentage of preinjury activity level (93.33% ± 13.22% vs 83.17% ± 17.69%; P = .010). There was a trend toward improved rate of return to preinjury activity level for SA (76.7% vs 56.7%; P = .100).
Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that SA hamstring ACLRs were associated with improved PROMs, less pain, and a higher percentage of and earlier return to preinjury activity level when compared with standard hamstring ACLRs without evidence of overconstraint.
Level Of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
Garside J, Bellaire C, Perraut G, Argintar E Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2025; 35(1):79.
PMID: 40009107 DOI: 10.1007/s00590-025-04203-w.
Stokes D, Elrick B, Cram T, Schantz K, Shinsako K, Frank R Arthrosc Tech. 2025; 13(12):103147.
PMID: 39780892 PMC: 11704913. DOI: 10.1016/j.eats.2024.103147.
Wen Y, Huang W, Li M, Jiang Y, Tong Y, Mei H J Orthop Surg Res. 2025; 20(1):19.
PMID: 39773522 PMC: 11705829. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-025-05451-6.
Novaretti J, Dias Junior C, Lima L, Amaro J, Gomes D, Cohen M Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo). 2024; 59(6):e868-e875.
PMID: 39711619 PMC: 11663066. DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1785663.
Garside J, Bellaire C, Birhiray D, Kirloskar K, Argintar E Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2024; 35(1):14.
PMID: 39567400 DOI: 10.1007/s00590-024-04129-9.