Abstract
We have undertaken a randomized clinical trial comparing two methods of reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament in patients with chronic instability. We used an ipsilateral bone-patellar-tendon-bone autograft in 27 patients and the Ligament Advancement Reinforcement System (LARS) artificial ligament in 26. Assessment before and at two, six, 12 and 24 months after surgery, included the history, physical examination, a modified International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, the Tegner score, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and instrumented laxity testing.
There were no cases of reactive synovitis or of infection of the knee, and there was no difference regarding the failure rate between the two groups. The IKDC showed no significant differences between the two groups at any stage of the follow-up. The KOOS evaluation showed consistently better results in all subscales for the LARS group during the first year of follow-up. After 24 months these differences were no longer evident. Instrument-tested laxity was greater in the LARS group at all stages of follow-up, but the differences were not significant at 24 months.
Our findings suggest that at follow-up at 24 months the LARS ligament seems to be a satisfactory treatment option, especially when an early return to high levels of activity is demanded.
