Are re-injured ligaments equivalent mechanically to injured ligaments: The role of re-injury severity?

Abstract

The consequences of ligament re-injury have received limited attention. Although the mechanical properties of injured ligaments improve over time, these properties are never fully recaptured, rendering these injured ligaments susceptible to re-injury. Previous injury is a significant risk factor for recurrent injury, and this re-injury can result in longer absence from activity than the initial injury. A rabbit medial collateral ligament model was used to compare mechanically re-injured right medial collateral ligaments to injured left medial collateral ligaments. Two groups of different re-injury severity were investigated: ‘minor’ re-injury comparing transection re-injured right medial collateral ligaments to transection injured left medial collateral ligaments; ‘major’ re-injury comparing gap re-injured right medial collateral ligaments to transection injured left medial collateral ligaments. Initial injuries for both groups were right medial collateral ligament transections 1 week before re-injury. After 5–6 weeks of healing, mechanical testing was performed to determine (dimensionally) cross-sectional area; (structurally) medial collateral ligament laxity, failure load, and stiffness; and (materially) cyclic creep strain and failure stress. Because we wanted to evaluate whether the mechanical properties of re-injured ligaments were equivalent or, at least, no worse than injured ligaments, we used equivalence/noninferiority testing. This approach evaluates a research hypothesis of equivalence, rather than difference, and determines whether comparisons are ‘statistically equivalent’, ‘noninferior’, or ‘potentially inferior’. Transection re-injured and gap re-injured ligaments were ‘statistically equivalent’ structurally to transection injured ligaments. Transection re-injured ligaments were ‘noninferior’ both materially and dimensionally to transection injured ligaments. Gap re-injured ligaments were ‘potentially inferior’ both materially and dimensionally to transection injured ligaments. Two differences between the re-injuries, which affect healing, may explain the mechanical outcomes: the presence or lack of healing products and the proximity of ligament ends at the time of re-injury. Our findings suggest that (in the short term) there is a severity of re-injury below which there is no additional disadvantage to the healing process, mechanical behaviour, and resulting potential for re-injury.