Abstract
Background:
Anterior cruciate remnant preservation may be beneficial in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (ACLR). Gohil, Annear & Breidahl (Sept, 2007) used a grade 1 randomised controlled trial to compare the two methods and at short term follow-up, the minimal debridement technique demonstrated earlier revascularisation within the ACL graft at 2 months, and suggested improved strength at 6 months based on radiological imaging. Unfortunately, this did not translate through to clinical benefits in the early 12 month post operative period. Zhang, L et al. (May, 2013) and Naylor, AJ et al. (2013) reiterated that remnant preservation may improve graft revascularization and knee proprioception. Takazawa Y et al. (Sept, 2013) demonstrated that minimal debridement may facilitate recovery of function and decreased graft rupture at two years post primary reconstruction. However, studies have yet to show consistent significant clinical advantages and follow-up has only been analysed over 1-2 years.
Purpose:
This current study reported results over a long-term follow-up of 10 years post operation for the same participants from the Gohil, Annear & Breidahl (2007) study.
Study Design:
The review was based on level 1 randomised controlled trial chart review.
Methods:
All 49 participants (25 standard – group 1, and 24 remnant preserving group – group 2) from the previous study have been included for investigation. The chart review recorded demographic data, graft rupture, re-operation rates, and associated clinical failures of the ACLR. The review presents comparative data between the two groups.
Results:
At 10 year follow-up, the remnant retention ACLR group only had better outcomes for ipsilateral graft rupture (2 patients versus 3 patients). Standard ACLR group had improved outcomes for contralateral graft rupture (2 versus 3), ipsilateral other knee post operative surgery (5 versus 10), ipsilateral knee post operative complaints (7 versus 12), and other non-knee post operative issues (3 versus 4). Non of the differences were statistically significant.
Conclusion:
Overall our results suggested no statistically significant difference between the remnant retaining and standard technique for ACLR in these 49 subjects using chart review endpoints of graft revision and knee reoperation rates. The review is limited by a small study group and a chart only review. A larger study group with long term clinical outcome measures may offer more definitive conclusions as to the advantages of remnant sparing ACLR. In this 10 year follow-up post ACL reconstruction there has been no distinct advantage identified for either procedure.