LAUSR

Abstract Purpose To evaluate the impact of age as a risk factor on the revision rates of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) primary repair (ACLPR), dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) and bridge‐enhanced ACL restoration (BEAR) compared to ACL reconstruction (ACLR). Methods A systematic literature search was performed for comparative studies comparing outcomes for ACLPR, DIS or BEAR to ACLR. A random‐effects meta‐analysis was performed to assess nondifferentiated and age‐differentiated (skeletally mature patients ≤21 and >21 years) ACL revision and reoperation risk, as well as results for subjective outcomes. Methodological study quality was assessed using the Risk of Bias Tool 2.0c and Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies tools. Results A total of 12 studies (n = 1277) were included. ACLR demonstrated a lower nonage‐stratified revision risk at 2 years versus ACLPR, DIS and BEAR, but a similar revision risk at 5 years when compared to DIS. However, an age‐stratified analysis demonstrated a significantly increased ACLPR revision risk as compared to ACLR in skeletally mature patients ≤21 years of age (risk ratios [RR], 6.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.18–33.87, p = 0.03), while adults (>21 years) showed no significant difference between groups (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.25–8.91, n.s.). Furthermore, DIS reoperation rates were significantly higher than respective ACLR rates (RR, 2.22; 95% CI, 1.35–3.65, p = 0.002), whereas BEAR (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.41–2.75, n.s.) and ACLPR (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.21–3.09, n.s.) showed no differences. IKDC scores were equivalent for all techniques. However, ACLPR exhibited significantly better FJS (mean difference, 11.93; 95% CI, 6.36–17.51, p < 0.0001) and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Symptoms (mean difference, 3.01; 95% CI, 0.42–5.60, p = 0.02), along with a lower Tegner activity reduction. Conclusions ACLPR in skeletally mature patients ≤21 years of age is associated with up to a six‐fold risk increase for ACL revision surgery compared to ACLR; however, adults (>21 years) present no significant difference. Based on the current data, age emerges as a crucial risk factor and should be considered when deciding on the appropriate treatment option in proximal ACL tears. Level of Evidence Level III.