Arthroscopic primary repair of the anterior cruciate ligament in adults: a systematic review. Issue 1 (19th August 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Papalia, Rocco; Torre, Guglielmo; Papalia, Giuseppe; Campi, Stefano; Maffulli, Nicola; Denaro, Vincenzo
• Is Part Of: British medical bulletin. Volume 131:Issue 1(2019)
• Page Start: 29
• Page End: 42
• Publication Date: 2019-08-19
• Subjects: knee -- arthroscopy -- anterior cruciate ligament -- primary repair -- sport medicine; Medicine -- Periodicals; 610.5
• DOI: 10.1093/bmb/ldz019
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0007-1420

Abstract

Abstract: Background: The most common procedure to manage a torn anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is surgical reconstruction. Primary repair of the ACL is returning on the forefront in the management of acute ACL, aiming to be less invasive and preserve the original ligament. Several techniques have been reported; the present systematic review investigates the clinical outcomes of ACL primary repair in adults. Sources of data: Following an electronic search through Medline, Cochrane and Google Scholar databases, articles of interest were retrieved and evaluated, including case series, retrospective studies, case-control studies and randomized controlled trials. The main outcome data were extracted and summarized in tables and text. The methodology of the studies was assessed using the Coleman methodology score (CMS). Areas of agreement: Of the articles included, one was of level I, two of level III and the remaining of level IV. The direct intraligamentary stabilization technique was the most widely and accurately reported technique, with acceptable success and improvement of functional outcomes. The CMS averaged 58.75 (range 48 to 69), with no significant association with year of publication (Pearson's regression r = −0.397, P = 0.207). Areas of controversy: Concerning stump sutures and suture anchors repair, although leading to good results, also in comparison with ACL reconstruction, no sufficient evidence was available to support these techniques. Growing points: The overall good results were reported also for other techniques are not supported by adequate evidence. More and better trials are required to improve our knowledge and understanding in this controversial area.