8–11 year results of LARS augmented hamstring in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: Incidence of synovitis and failures

IF 1.5 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS

Journal of orthopaedics Pub Date : 2025-07-01 DOI:10.1016/j.jor.2025.06.033

Sol Qurashi , Wagdy Ashaia , Janna Maier , William Ridley , Tat Chao , Muhaimen Jassim , Sam Aktas , Femi E. Ayeni , Raj Narulla

{"title":"8–11 year results of LARS augmented hamstring in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: Incidence of synovitis and failures","authors":"Sol Qurashi , Wagdy Ashaia , Janna Maier , William Ridley , Tat Chao , Muhaimen Jassim , Sam Aktas , Femi E. Ayeni , Raj Narulla","doi":"10.1016/j.jor.2025.06.033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury account for the majority of sport related knee ligament injuries and ACL reconstruction surgery is one of the most performed operations in the young adult population. Various graft types have been used to reconstruct the ACL, however there is no consensus on the best option. Concerns about quality and size of the graft and its effects on success of the reconstruction remain. Synthetic grafts have also been used for a long time as a substitute or to augment biological grafts however, concerns about early failure and particle related synovitis have limited their intra-articular use. The most common synthetic graft option still in use is the Ligament Augmentation and Reconstruction System (LARS).</div></div><div><h3>Method</h3><div>The study is a case controlled retrospective comparison of 102 consecutive cases reporting 8–11 year results in relation to clinical outcomes revision rates and synovitis of ACL reconstruction surgery using LARS synthetic grafts as an augment when compared with hamstring graft alone.</div></div><div><h3>Result</h3><div>The study found a mean follow up was 9 years and one month (8–11 years) and revision rate was 5.7 % for the LARS augmented group and 12.5 % for the Hamstring group, but not significantly different, odds ratio 0.4 (C.I: 0.1179–1.555, p = 0.255). LARS augmented autograft ACL reconstruction had similar results at 8–11 years when compared to autograft only reconstructions. No synovitis was noted in either group.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>LARS ensures an appropriately sized graft, is safe and not associated with synovitis in our cohort at 8–11 year follow up.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16633,"journal":{"name":"Journal of orthopaedics","volume":"66 ","pages":"Pages 252-256"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of orthopaedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0972978X25002570","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury account for the majority of sport related knee ligament injuries and ACL reconstruction surgery is one of the most performed operations in the young adult population. Various graft types have been used to reconstruct the ACL, however there is no consensus on the best option. Concerns about quality and size of the graft and its effects on success of the reconstruction remain. Synthetic grafts have also been used for a long time as a substitute or to augment biological grafts however, concerns about early failure and particle related synovitis have limited their intra-articular use. The most common synthetic graft option still in use is the Ligament Augmentation and Reconstruction System (LARS).

Method

The study is a case controlled retrospective comparison of 102 consecutive cases reporting 8–11 year results in relation to clinical outcomes revision rates and synovitis of ACL reconstruction surgery using LARS synthetic grafts as an augment when compared with hamstring graft alone.

Result

The study found a mean follow up was 9 years and one month (8–11 years) and revision rate was 5.7 % for the LARS augmented group and 12.5 % for the Hamstring group, but not significantly different, odds ratio 0.4 (C.I: 0.1179–1.555, p = 0.255). LARS augmented autograft ACL reconstruction had similar results at 8–11 years when compared to autograft only reconstructions. No synovitis was noted in either group.

Conclusion

LARS ensures an appropriately sized graft, is safe and not associated with synovitis in our cohort at 8–11 year follow up.

查看原文本刊更多论文

LARS增强腘绳肌在前交叉韧带重建手术中8-11年的结果：滑膜炎和失败的发生率

前交叉韧带（ACL）损伤占运动相关膝关节韧带损伤的大多数，前交叉韧带重建手术是年轻人中最常进行的手术之一。各种类型的移植物已被用于重建前交叉韧带，但没有共识的最佳选择。对移植物的质量和大小及其对重建成功的影响的关注仍然存在。合成移植物也被用作替代或增强生物移植物，然而，对早期失败和颗粒相关滑膜炎的担忧限制了它们在关节内的应用。目前仍在使用的最常见的合成移植物选择是韧带增强和重建系统（LARS）。方法本研究是一项病例对照的回顾性研究，对102例连续报告8-11年临床结果的病例进行比较，与单独腘绳肌移植相比，使用LARS合成移植物作为增强的ACL重建手术的临床结果修正率和滑膜炎。结果平均随访时间为9年零1个月（8 ~ 11年），LARS增强组和腘绳肌组的修复率分别为5.7%和12.5%，差异无统计学意义，优势比为0.4 （ci: 0.1179 ~ 1.555, p = 0.255）。LARS增强自体ACL重建与单纯自体移植重建相比，在8-11岁时的结果相似。两组均未见滑膜炎。结论：在8-11年的随访中，lars可确保移植物大小合适、安全且不与滑膜炎相关。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of orthopaedics ORTHOPEDICS-

CiteScore

3.50

自引率

6.70%

发文量

202

审稿时长

56 days

期刊介绍： Journal of Orthopaedics aims to be a leading journal in orthopaedics and contribute towards the improvement of quality of orthopedic health care. The journal publishes original research work and review articles related to different aspects of orthopaedics including Arthroplasty, Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, Trauma, Spine and Spinal deformities, Pediatric orthopaedics, limb reconstruction procedures, hand surgery, and orthopaedic oncology. It also publishes articles on continuing education, health-related information, case reports and letters to the editor. It is requested to note that the journal has an international readership and all submissions should be aimed at specifying something about the setting in which the work was conducted. Authors must also provide any specific reasons for the research and also provide an elaborate description of the results.