Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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 36:379–394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Klein W, Jensen KU (1992) Synovitis and artificial ligaments. Arthroscopy 8:116–124

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 20:246–252

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 7:157–163

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 26:515–523

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 198:43–49

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hefti E, Müller W, Jakob RP, Stäubli HU (1993) Evaluation of knee ligament injuries with the IKDC form. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1:226–234

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 66:344–352

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 25:35–39

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 26:20–29

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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 12:7061–7066

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  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 84:356–360

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tichi Ge.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pan, X., Wen, H., Wang, L. et al. Bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft versus LARS artificial ligament for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 23, 819–823 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-012-1073-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-012-1073-1

Keywords

Navigation