Surgical Stabilization Results in Superior Clinical Outcome, Lower Recurrent Instability, and Reduced Risk of Meniscal Tears Relative to Nonoperative Treatment of ACL Rupture: A 3-Year Prospective Controlled Cohort Study.

IF 2.4 3区 医学 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Pub Date : 2025-03-21 eCollection Date: 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1177/23259671251320647
Mark D Porter, Bruce Shadbolt
{"title":"Surgical Stabilization Results in Superior Clinical Outcome, Lower Recurrent Instability, and Reduced Risk of Meniscal Tears Relative to Nonoperative Treatment of ACL Rupture: A 3-Year Prospective Controlled Cohort Study.","authors":"Mark D Porter, Bruce Shadbolt","doi":"10.1177/23259671251320647","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There has been renewed interest in nonoperative treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture following research suggesting that some ACL ruptures can heal naturally. However, the research is based on magnetic resonance imaging grading of ACL injuries rather than clinical signs, and the accuracy of the grading system is unknown. Nonoperative treatment of ACL ruptures has been associated with a higher risk of meniscal tears and recurrent instability, both of which may have long-term implications for the knee in terms of degeneration and the need for more complex stabilization surgery. More research into the nonoperative management of clinically significant ACL injuries is indicated before consideration for use in clinical practice.</p><p><strong>Hypothesis: </strong>Operative management of ACL rupture improves clinical outcome relative to nonoperative management.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Covid-19 pandemic temporarily stopped elective surgery during 2020. For 2 months, those patients with isolated ACL ruptures underwent nonoperative treatment with bracing and physical therapy (Nonop group) were compared with a matched cohort undergoing ACL reconstruction (ACLR group) immediately before this period. Groups were compared at baseline with regard to age, gender, body mass index (BMI), lateral posterior tibial slope (LPTS), and the following patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)-Tegner Activity Scale (TAS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Sport and Recreation subscale (Sport/Rec) of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Related Quality of Life (KR QoL) subscale of the KOOS, and Lysholm Knee Score (LKS)-as well as recurrent instability and meniscal tears, over a period of 3 years. Pearson chi-square test and analysis of variance were used for baseline characteristics, generalized linear models and multivariate tests for changes in PROMs, and chi-square tests for meniscal tears and recurrent instability. Statistical significance was accepted at <i>P</i> < .05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 82 patients were recruited, 41 in each group. The ACLR group and the Nonop group were similar with regard to all baseline variables, with the following mean ± SD values, respectively: age in years (22.1 ± 3.8 vs 21.3 ± 3.4; <i>P</i> = .23), BMI in kg/m<sup>2</sup> (21.0 ± 2.0 vs 20.4 ± 2.5; <i>P</i> = .39), LPTS (8.1° ± 1.3° vs 7.9° ± 2.0°; <i>P</i> = .65), and preinjury TAS (8.2 ± 1.1 vs 8.7 ± 1.0; <i>P</i> = .33). The male:female ratio was 15:26 vs 17:24 (<i>P</i> = .71), respectively. At 3-year follow-up, the ACLR group had greater improvement in all PROMs than the Nonop group: TAS, 8.0 ± 1.0 vs 5.5 ± 0.9; IKDC, 90.9 ± 3.8 vs 65.0 ± 8.1; Sport/Rec, 92.4 ± 7.6 vs 66.6 ± 6.1; KR QoL, 91.1 ± 5.5 vs 74.3 ± 6.6; and LKS, 92.2 ± 4.9 vs 66.9 ± 6.1, respectively (all <i>P</i> < .001). There was a lower risk of both recurrent instability (5% vs 88%; <i>P</i> < .001) and medial meniscal tears (5% vs 63%; <i>P</i> < .001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ACLR results in a highly statistically significantly better clinical outcome than nonoperative management of ACL rupture in terms of PROMs, as well as a lower risk of both recurrent instability and meniscal tears, over a period of 3 years.</p>","PeriodicalId":19646,"journal":{"name":"Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine","volume":"13 3","pages":"23259671251320647"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11930457/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671251320647","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There has been renewed interest in nonoperative treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture following research suggesting that some ACL ruptures can heal naturally. However, the research is based on magnetic resonance imaging grading of ACL injuries rather than clinical signs, and the accuracy of the grading system is unknown. Nonoperative treatment of ACL ruptures has been associated with a higher risk of meniscal tears and recurrent instability, both of which may have long-term implications for the knee in terms of degeneration and the need for more complex stabilization surgery. More research into the nonoperative management of clinically significant ACL injuries is indicated before consideration for use in clinical practice.

Hypothesis: Operative management of ACL rupture improves clinical outcome relative to nonoperative management.

Study design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods: The Covid-19 pandemic temporarily stopped elective surgery during 2020. For 2 months, those patients with isolated ACL ruptures underwent nonoperative treatment with bracing and physical therapy (Nonop group) were compared with a matched cohort undergoing ACL reconstruction (ACLR group) immediately before this period. Groups were compared at baseline with regard to age, gender, body mass index (BMI), lateral posterior tibial slope (LPTS), and the following patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)-Tegner Activity Scale (TAS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Sport and Recreation subscale (Sport/Rec) of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Related Quality of Life (KR QoL) subscale of the KOOS, and Lysholm Knee Score (LKS)-as well as recurrent instability and meniscal tears, over a period of 3 years. Pearson chi-square test and analysis of variance were used for baseline characteristics, generalized linear models and multivariate tests for changes in PROMs, and chi-square tests for meniscal tears and recurrent instability. Statistical significance was accepted at P < .05.

Results: A total of 82 patients were recruited, 41 in each group. The ACLR group and the Nonop group were similar with regard to all baseline variables, with the following mean ± SD values, respectively: age in years (22.1 ± 3.8 vs 21.3 ± 3.4; P = .23), BMI in kg/m2 (21.0 ± 2.0 vs 20.4 ± 2.5; P = .39), LPTS (8.1° ± 1.3° vs 7.9° ± 2.0°; P = .65), and preinjury TAS (8.2 ± 1.1 vs 8.7 ± 1.0; P = .33). The male:female ratio was 15:26 vs 17:24 (P = .71), respectively. At 3-year follow-up, the ACLR group had greater improvement in all PROMs than the Nonop group: TAS, 8.0 ± 1.0 vs 5.5 ± 0.9; IKDC, 90.9 ± 3.8 vs 65.0 ± 8.1; Sport/Rec, 92.4 ± 7.6 vs 66.6 ± 6.1; KR QoL, 91.1 ± 5.5 vs 74.3 ± 6.6; and LKS, 92.2 ± 4.9 vs 66.9 ± 6.1, respectively (all P < .001). There was a lower risk of both recurrent instability (5% vs 88%; P < .001) and medial meniscal tears (5% vs 63%; P < .001).

Conclusion: ACLR results in a highly statistically significantly better clinical outcome than nonoperative management of ACL rupture in terms of PROMs, as well as a lower risk of both recurrent instability and meniscal tears, over a period of 3 years.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine
Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
7.70%
发文量
876
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine (OJSM), developed by the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM), is a global, peer-reviewed, open access journal that combines the interests of researchers and clinical practitioners across orthopaedic sports medicine, arthroscopy, and knee arthroplasty. Topics include original research in the areas of: -Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, including surgical and nonsurgical treatment of orthopaedic sports injuries -Arthroscopic Surgery (Shoulder/Elbow/Wrist/Hip/Knee/Ankle/Foot) -Relevant translational research -Sports traumatology/epidemiology -Knee and shoulder arthroplasty The OJSM also publishes relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信