Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the ligament augmentation and reconstruction system: a systematic review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
International Orthopaedics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The Ligament Augmentation and Reconstruction System (LARS) is a third generation of synthetic ligament, designed to overcome the issues of graft failure and synovitis which led previous generations of synthetic ligaments to fall out of favour. The theoretical benefits of LARS are appealing but this has not led to widespread uptake of the system in preference to autograft. The aim of this systematic review is to assess whether the evidence exists to support the use of LARS with respect to outcomes and complications.

Methods

A systematic search process was undertaken from January 1990 to June 2012 to identify primary evidence relating to the use of LARS in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) single ligament reconstruction.

Results

Nine studies were found meeting the search criteria including a single randomised controlled trial, two comparative series and six further observational case series. Overall the methodological quality of the studies was poor with follow-up to a maximum of five years. Reported outcome scores were good for LARS and comparable to autograft techniques. Complication rates were low and comparable to those published for autograft techniques within the wider literature. Two reported incidences of synovitis were identified in case reports.

Conclusions

The current literature supports the use of LARS in the short to medium term. However, high-quality studies with long-term follow-up are required to determine whether the use of LARS is preferable to autograft for ACL reconstruction over the longer term. Synovitis appears to be a rare complication closely related to imperfect graft positioning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ventura A, Terzaghi C, Legnani C, Borgo E, Albisetti W (2010) Synthetic grafts for anterior cruciate ligament rupture: 19-year outcome study. Knee 17(2):108–113

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Yamamoto H, Ishibashi T, Muneta T, Furuya K, Mizuta T (1992) Effusions after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the ligament augmentation device. Arthroscopy 8(3):305–310

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Downs S, Black N (1998) The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 52:377–384

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Phillips R, Ball C, Sackett D (2009) Oxford centre for evidence based medicine—levels of evidence. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025. Accessed 15 May 2012

  5. Hamido F, Misfer KA, Al Harran H et al (2011) The use of the LARS artificial ligament to augment a short or undersized ACL hamstrings tendon graft. Knee 18(6):373–378

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Gao K, Chen S, Wang L et al (2010) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with LARS artificial ligament: a multicenter study with 3- to 5-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 26(4):515–523

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Liu Z, Zhang X, Jiang Y, Zeng B-F et al (2010) Four-strand hamstring tendon autograft versus LARS artificial ligament for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Int Orthop 34(1):45–49

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Huang J, Wang Q, Shen F, Wang Z, Kang Y (2010) Cruciate ligament reconstruction using LARS artificial ligament under arthroscopy: 81 cases report. Chin Med J (Engl) 123(2):160–164

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fan Q, Fan J (2008) Comparison between four-strand semitendinosus tendon autograft and ligament advanced reinforcement system for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by arthroscopy. Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi 22(6):676–679

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cerulli G (2007) ACL reconstruction using artificial ligaments: five years follow-up. SIOT 33(3 Suppl 1):8238–8242

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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(3):356–360

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 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(3):157–163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Dericks G (1995) Ligament advanced reinforcement system anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Oper Tech Sports Med 3(3):187–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Laboute E, Savalli L, Puig P et al (2010) Analysis of return to competition and repeat rupture for 298 anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions with patellar or hamstring tendon autograft in sportspeople. Ann Phys Rehabil Med 53(10):598–614

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Mihelic R, Jurdana H, Jotanovic Z, Madjarevic T, Tudor A (2011) Long-term results of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison with non-operative treatment with a follow-up of 17–20 years. Int Orthop 35(7):1093–1097

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Wright RW, Magnussen RA, Dunn WR, Spindler KP (2011) Ipsilateral graft and contralateral ACL rupture at five years or more following ACL reconstruction: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(12):1159–1165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Li H, Yao Z, Jiang J et al (2012) Biologic failure of a ligament advanced reinforcement system artificial ligament in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a report of serious knee synovitis. Arthroscopy 28(4):583–586

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Glezos CM, Waller A, Bourke HE, Salmon LJ, Pinczewski LA (2012) Disabling synovitis associated with LARS artificial ligament use in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a case report. Am J Sports Med 40(5):1167–1171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Barenius B, Nordlander M, Ponzer S, Tidermark J, Eriksson K (2010) Quality of life and clinical outcome after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using patellar tendon graft or quadrupled semitendinosus graft: an 8-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med 38(8):1533–1541

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Biau DJ, Tournoux C, Katsahian S, Schranz PJ, Nizard RS (2006) Bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts versus hamstring autografts for reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: meta-analysis. BMJ 332(7548):995–1001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Holm I, Oiestad BE, Risberg MA, Aune AK (2010) No difference in knee function or prevalence of osteoarthritis after reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with 4-strand hamstring autograft versus patellar tendon-bone autograft: a randomized study with 10-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 38(3):448–454

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mastrokalos DS, Springer J, Siebold R et al (2005) Donor site morbidity and return to the preinjury activity level after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using ipsilateral and contralateral patellar tendon autograft: a retrospective, nonrandomized study. Am J Sports Med 33(1):85–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sajovic M, Strahovnik A, Dernovsek MZ, Skaza K (2011) Quality of life and clinical outcome comparison of semitendinosus and gracilis tendon versus patellar tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an 11-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med 39(10):2161–2169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Imperial College London, Level 7 East Wing, Charing Cross Hospital, Fulham Palace Road, London, W6 8RF, UK

    Simon D. S. Newman

  2. South London Healthcare NHS Trust, Sidcup, UK

    Charles A. Willis-Owen

  3. North Middlesex University Hospital, Sterling Way, London, N18 1QX, UK

    Henry D. E. Atkinson

  4. London Sports Orthopaedics, London, EC2N 1HN, UK

    Henry D. E. Atkinson

Authors
  1. Simon D. S. Newman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Henry D. E. Atkinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Charles A. Willis-Owen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simon D. S. Newman.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Newman, S.D.S., Atkinson, H.D.E. & Willis-Owen, C.A. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the ligament augmentation and reconstruction system: a systematic review. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 37, 321–326 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1654-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-012-1654-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation