Advertisement

Bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft versus LARS artificial ligament for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

  • Xiaoyun Pan
  • Hong Wen
  • Lide Wang
  • Tichi GeEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

The optimized graft for use in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is still in controversy. The bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) autograft has been accepted as the gold standard for ACL reconstruction. However, donor site morbidities cannot be avoided after this treatment. The artificial ligament of ligament advanced reinforcement system (LARS) has been recommended for ACL reconstruction. The purpose of this study is to compare the midterm outcome of ACL reconstruction using BPTB autografts or LARS ligaments. Between July 2004 and March 2006, the ACL reconstruction using BPTB autografts in 30 patients and LARS ligaments in 32 patients was performed. All patients were followed up for at least 4 years and evaluated using the Lysholm knee score, Tegner score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, and KT-1000 arthrometer test. There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to the data of Lysholm scores, Tegner scores, IKDC scores, and KT-1000 arthrometer test at the latest follow-up. Our study demonstrates that the similarly good clinical results are obtained after ACL reconstruction using BPTB autografts or LARS ligaments at midterm follow-up. In addition to BPTB autografts, the LARS ligament may be a satisfactory treatment option for ACL rupture.

Keywords

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction Autograft Artificial ligament Ligament advanced reinforcement system 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the clinical foundation of medical association of Zhejiang province (2011ZYC-A024) and Science and Technology Project of Wenzhou City (Y20120027).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Busam ML, Provencher MT, Bach BR (2008) Complications of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone constructs. Care and prevention. Am J Sports Med 36:379–394PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Klein W, Jensen KU (1992) Synovitis and artificial ligaments. Arthroscopy 8:116–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Paulos LE, Rosenberg TD, Grewe SR, Tearse DS, Beck CL (1992) The GORE-TEX anterior cruciate ligament prosthesis. A long-term followup. Am J Sports Med 20:246–252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lavoie P, Fletcher J, Duval N (2000) Patient satisfaction needs as related to knee stability and objective findings after ACL reconstruction using the LARS artificial ligament. Knee 7:157–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gao K, Chen S, Wang L, Zhang W, Kang Y, Dong Q, Zhou H, Li L (2010) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with lars artificial ligament: a multicenter study with 3 to 5-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 26:515–523PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dericks G (1995) Ligament advanced reinforcement system anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Oper Tech Sports Med 3:187–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 198:43–49PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hefti E, Müller W, Jakob RP, Stäubli HU (1993) Evaluation of knee ligament injuries with the IKDC form. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1:226–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Noyes FR, Butler DL, Grood ES, Zernicke RF, Hefzy MS (1984) Biomechanical analysis of human ligament grafts used in knee-ligament repairs and reconstructions. J Bone Joint Surg Am 66:344–352PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Park MJ, Lee MC, Seong SC (2001) A comparative study of the healing of tendon autograft and tendon-bone autograft using patellar tendon in rabbits. J Int Orthop 25:35–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bach BR, Tradonsky S, Bojchuk J, Levy ME, Bush-Joseph CA, Khan NH (1998) Arthroscopically assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using patellar tendon autograft. Five to nine-year follow-up evaluation. Am J Sports Med 26:20–29PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yu S, Dong Q, Wang Y, Zuo Z, Li D (2008) Histological characteristics and ultrastructure of polyethylene terephthalate LARS ligament following the reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament in rabbits. J Clin Rehabil Tissue Eng Res 12:7061–7066Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nau T, Lavoie P, Duval N (2002) A new generation of artificial ligaments in reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Two-year follow-up of a randomised trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:356–360PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Orthopaedic DepartmentThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical CollegeWenzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Orthopaedic DepartmentThe First Affiliated Hospital of Dalian Medical UniversityDalianPeople’s Republic of China
  3. 3.Emergency DepartmentThe Third Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical CollegeRuiAnPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations