Suture Augmented Versus Standard Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Matched Comparative Analysis

Abstract

Purpose: To compare outcomes between standard anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using hamstring grafts with and without suture augmentation (SA). Methods: Patients who underwent ACLR with hamstring autografts or allografts with minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Patients undergoing ACLR with SA were matched 1:1 by age, gender, body mass index, graft type, and revision status to standard ACLR. Range of motion, pain, postoperative activity, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and complications were collected. Paired 2-tailed Student's t-tests and Pearson's χ2-tests were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. A multivariate analysis of variance was conducted. Return to preinjury activity level was assessed using Spearman's rho and Pearson's χ2-tests. Results: Sixty patients at a mean age of 29.50 ± 6.60 years, 43.4% male, body mass index 26.27 ± 3.37, and follow-up of 29.54 ± 5.37 months were included. Preoperative PROMs were not significantly different (P >. 05). Postoperative range of motion was similar between groups (P = .457). Postoperative average daily (0.60 ± 1.25 vs 1.66 ± 1.90) and maximum daily pain (1.57 ± 1.83 vs 3.35 ± 2.28) were significantly lower for SA (P < .014). SA predicted improvement in PROMs (P < .05) and maximum pain scores (P = .001). SA was significantly correlated with improved time to return to preinjury activity level (9.17 ± 2.06 vs 12.88 ± 3.94 months; P = .002) and percentage of preinjury activity level (93.33% ± 13.22% vs 83.17% ± 17.69%; P = .010). There was a trend toward improved rate of return to preinjury activity level for SA (76.7% vs 56.7%; P = .100). Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that SA hamstring ACLRs were associated with improved PROMs, less pain, and a higher percentage of and earlier return to preinjury activity level when compared with standard hamstring ACLRs without evidence of overconstraint. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study.