Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

, Volume 139, Issue 5, pp 639–644 | Cite as

Dynamic intraligamentary stabilization of anterior cruciate ligament repair: hardware removal has no effect on knee laxity at 2-year follow-up

  • Janosch Häberli
  • Kathrin Susan BieriEmail author
  • Emin Aghayev
  • Stefan Eggli
  • Philipp Henle
Trauma Surgery



Dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) stabilizes the knee joint during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) healing. After 6 months, tibial hardware removal is offered to the patients if local discomfort at the implant site is present.


This study compared knee laxity and functional scores 2 years after DIS between patients with and without hardware removal. It is hypothesized that it does not affect ACL healing.

Materials and methods

The study retrospectively analyzed prospectively collected data from 173 patients with either hardware removal (n = 47) or no additional intervention (n = 126). Inverse probability of treatment weighting using the propensity score was applied to balance the groups for baseline characteristics. The primary outcome was the side-to-side difference in knee laxity measured with the rolimeter at manual maximum force (Δ-Lachman). Secondary outcomes were the pivot-shift test and subjective scores.


Mean age was 34 years in both groups, and female gender was 47% (hardware removal group) and 50% (control group), respectively. No significant differences were found for Δ-Lachman (p = 0.09), pivot-shift test (p = 0.41), and subjective scores (p > 0.10) two years after DIS.


Knee laxity 2 years after DIS in patients with tibial hardware removal and patients without hardware removal was not significantly different. The groups were also similar regarding all the assessed functional scores. This study confirms the hypothesis that the healing ACL resumes its stabilizing role, and the hardware can be removed beginning 6 months after surgery without adverse consequences for joint stability.

Level of evidence

Case–control study, Level III.


ACL Dynamic intraligamentary stabilization Ligamys Hardware removal Knee laxity Lachman 



The authors would like to thank Edith Hofer for her great work in coordinating, supervising, and completing the collection of the comprehensive data set for each patient. They would also like to thank Christopher Ritter for editorial assistance.


No funding was received for this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors have received reimbursements or funding from Mathys AG Bettlach, Switzerland, in the past 5 years. The authors are not compensated for this work.


  1. 1.
    Ahn JH, Lee YS, Jeong HJ, Park JH, Cho Y, Kim KJ et al (2017) Comparison of transtibial and retrograde outside-in techniques of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in terms of graft nature and clinical outcomes: a case control study using 3T MRI. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:357–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Austin PC (2011) An Introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res 46:399–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beyaz S, Guler UO, Demir S, Yuksel S, Cinar BM, Ozkoc G et al (2017) Tunnel widening after single- versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomized 8-year follow-up study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:1547–1555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bierbaum M, Schoffski O, Schliemann B, Kosters C (2017) Cost-utility analysis of dynamic intraligamentary stabilization versus early reconstruction after rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament. Health Econ Rev 7:8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bieri KS, Scholz SM, Kohl S, Aghayev E, Staub LP (2017) Dynamic intraligamentary stabilization versus conventional ACL reconstruction: a matched study on return to work. Injury. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Buchler L, Regli D, Evangelopoulos DS, Bieri K, Ahmad SS, Krismer A et al (2016) Functional recovery following primary ACL repair with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization. Knee 23:549–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dahlstedt L, Dalén N, Jonsson U (1990) Goretex prosthetic ligament vs. Kennedy ligament augmentation device in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized 3-year follow-up of 41 cases. Acta Orthop 61:217–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eggli S, Kohlhof H, Zumstein M, Henle P, Hartel M, Evangelopoulos DS et al (2015) Dynamic intraligamentary stabilization: novel technique for preserving the ruptured ACL. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:1215–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Eggli S, Roder C, Perler G, Henle P (2016) Five year results of the first ten ACL patients treated with dynamic intraligamentary stabilisation. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 17:105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Engebretsen L, Benum P, Fasting O, Mølster A, Strand T (1990) A prospective, randomized study of three surgical techniques for treatment of acute ruptures of the anterior cruciate ligament. Am J Sport Med 18:585–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Engelman GH, Carry PM, Hitt KG, Polousky JD, Vidal AF (2014) Comparison of allograft versus autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction graft survival in an active adolescent cohort. Am J Sports Med 42:2311–2318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Feagin J Jr, Curl WW (1975) Isolated tear of the anterior cruciate ligament: 5-year follow-up study. Am J Sport Med 4:95–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Groot JA, Jonkers FJ, Kievit AJ, Kuijer PP, Hoozemans MJ (2017) Beneficial and limiting factors for return to work following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:155–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Haberli J, Jaberg L, Bieri K, Eggli S, Henle Ph (2017) Reinterventions after Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization in Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair. Submitted to KSSTAGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Henle P, Bieri KS, Brand M, Aghayev E, Bettfuehr J, Haeberli J et al (2017) Patient and surgical characteristics that affect revision risk in dynamic intraligamentary stabilization of the anterior cruciate ligament. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Henle P, Roder C, Perler G, Heitkemper S, Eggli S (2015) Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization (DIS) for treatment of acute anterior cruciate ligament ruptures: case series experience of the first three years. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 16:27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jaecker V, Zapf T, Naendrup JH, Pfeiffer T, Kanakamedala AC, Wafaisade A et al (2017) High non-anatomic tunnel position rates in ACL reconstruction failure using both transtibial and anteromedial tunnel drilling techniques. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 137:1293–1299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kohl S, Evangelopoulos D, Schär M, Bieri K, Müller T, Ahmad S (2016) Dynamic intraligamentary stabilisation. Bone Joint J 98:793–798CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kohl S, Evangelopoulos DS, Ahmad SS, Kohlhof H, Herrmann G, Bonel H et al (2014) A novel technique, dynamic intraligamentary stabilization creates optimal conditions for primary ACL healing: a preliminary biomechanical study. Knee 21:477–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kohl S, Evangelopoulos DS, Kohlhof H, Hartel M, Bonel H, Henle P et al (2013) Anterior crucial ligament rupture: self-healing through dynamic intraligamentary stabilization technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:599–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kohl S, Stock A, Ahmad SS, Zumstein M, Keel M, Exadaktylos A et al (2015) Dynamic intraligamentary stabilization and primary repair: A new concept for the treatment of knee dislocation. Injury 46:724–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kosters C, Herbort M, Schliemann B, Raschke MJ, Lenschow S (2015) Dynamic intraligamentary stabilization of the anterior cruciate ligament: Operative technique and short-term clinical results. Unfallchirurg 118:364–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lam MH, Fong DT, Yung P, Ho EP, Chan WY, Chan KM (2009) Knee stability assessment on anterior cruciate ligament injury: Clinical and biomechanical approaches. Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Ther Technol 1:20Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lee JH, Heo JW, Lee DH (2018) Comparative postural stability in patients with lateral meniscus versus medial meniscus tears. Knee 25:256–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mayr HO, Hoell A, Bernstein A, Hube R, Zeiler C, Kalteis T et al (2011) Validation of a measurement device for instrumented quantification of anterior translation and rotational assessment of the knee. Arthroscopy 27:1096–1104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Musahl V, Bedi A, Citak M, O’Loughlin P, Choi D, Pearle AD (2011) Effect of single-bundle and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions on pivot-shift kinematics in anterior cruciate ligament- and meniscus-deficient knees. Am J Sports Med 39:289–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nyland J, Gamble C, Franklin T, Caborn DNM (2017) Permanent knee sensorimotor system changes following ACL injury and surgery. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25:1461–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Pinczewski LA, Lyman J, Salmon LJ, Russell VJ, Roe J, Linklater J (2007) A 10-year comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions with hamstring tendon and patellar tendon autograft: a controlled, prospective trial. Am J Sports Med 35:564–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Scheffler SU, Unterhauser FN, Weiler A (2008) Graft remodeling and ligamentization after cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 16:834–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schliemann B, Herbort M, Lenschow S, Raschke MJ, Kösters C (2015) Dynamische intraligamentäre Stabilisierung frischer Rupturen des vorderen Kreuzbandes (Ligamys). Trauma und Berufskrankheit. Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schuster AJ (2004) A new mechanical testing device for measuring anteroposterior knee laxity. Am J Sports Med 32:1731–1735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Walker PS, Arno S, Bell C, Salvadore G, Borukhov I, Oh C (2015) Function of the medial meniscus in force transmission and stability. J Biomech 48:1383–1388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Weiler A, Peine R, Pashmineh-Azar A, Abel C, Sudkamp NP, Hoffmann RF (2002) Tendon healing in a bone tunnel. Part I: Biomechanical results after biodegradable interference fit fixation in a model of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in sheep. Arthroscopy 18:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Woods GA, Indelicato PA, Prevot TJ (1991) The Gore-Tex anterior cruciate ligament prosthesis Two versus three year results. Am J Sports Med 19:48–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zaffagnini S, De Pasquale V, Marchesini Reggiani L, Russo A, Agati P, Bacchelli B et al (2010) Electron microscopy of the remodelling process in hamstring tendon used as ACL graft. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 18:1052–1058CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sonnenhof Orthopaedic CenterBernSwitzerland
  2. 2.Swiss RDL, Institute of Social and Preventive MedicineUniversity of BernBernSwitzerland
  3. 3.Spine CenterSchulthess KlinikZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations