LAUSR

Background: Contemporary techniques for repair of acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture have been receiving renewed interest recently because of reports of good outcomes. Methods: A literature search of PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Only RCTs published in English and comparing clinical outcomes of ACL repair versus reconstruction were included. Outcomes were evaluated using the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, visual analog scale pain score, anterior laxity, Lachman test, hop tests, knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score, extension deficit, revision rate, and re-rupture rate. Statistical analysis was performed with Review Manager 5.4 and Stata 14.0. Two-tailed P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Four RCTs (with a total of 293 patients) that met the eligibility criteria were included in this review. Over short-term follow-up, none of the studies found significant differences between the repair groups and reconstruction groups with respect to International Knee Documentation Committee, Lysholm, Tegner, visual analog scale, anterior laxity, Lachman test, re-rupture rate, extension deficit, and performance of 3 hop tests (P > .05). In both groups, the hop tests scores were >90%. Conclusion: ACL repair and ACL reconstruction appear to provide comparable short-term outcomes. The low revision rate after primary repair is encouraging. For patients with ACL injury, current repair techniques such as dynamic intraligamentary stabilization and bridge-enhanced ACL repair may be an effective alternative to reconstruction.