Research Article

Retrospective Evaluation of Synthetic Ligament-Based Revision of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction for Postoperative Re-Rupture

DOI:

10.3791/68721

August 15th, 2025

In This Article

Summary

Loading...
$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

This study evaluates the clinical and technical outcomes of synthetic ligament-based revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction for postoperative re-rupture.

Abstract

Loading...
$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

Re-rupture following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction remains a challenging complication, necessitating effective revision strategies. To evaluate the clinical and technical outcomes of synthetic ligament-based revision ACL reconstruction for postoperative re-rupture, a retrospective analysis was conducted on patients undergoing synthetic ligament revision ACL reconstruction between January 2023 and January 2024. Preoperative assessments included laboratory tests (ESR, CRP, tuberculosis antibodies), radiographic imaging (X-ray, CT, MRI), and functional scoring (VAS, IKDC, Lysholm). Surgical protocols emphasized meticulous tunnel planning, arthroscopic debridement, synthetic ligament placement, and dual fixation with metallic interference screws. Postoperative care involved early mobilization, systematic rehabilitation, and regular follow-ups. Results showed that the procedure demonstrated technical feasibility, with successful ligament fixation and no intraoperative complications. Postoperative evaluations revealed improved functional scores (IKDC, Lysholm) and reduced pain (VAS). Imaging confirmed proper ligament positioning and graft integrity. No instances of infection, graft failure, or significant joint instability were reported during follow-up. Those results indicate that synthetic ligament revision ACL reconstruction offers a reliable solution for re-rupture cases, combining precise surgical techniques with rigorous postoperative rehabilitation. This approach addresses anatomical challenges, restores knee stability, and enhances patient outcomes, supporting its adoption in complex revision scenarios.

Introduction

Loading...
$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are among the most prevalent musculoskeletal disorders, particularly affecting active individuals and athletes, often leading to knee instability and functional impairment1,2. Primary ACL reconstruction, utilizing autografts or allografts, remains the gold standard for restoring knee stability and enabling return to activity. Postoperative re-rupture occurs in approximately 3%-15% of cases, necessitating revision surgery3,4. While multiple revisions yield inferior results compared to primary reconstructions, they can still provide functional stability5.

Ideal candidates for revision ACL reconstruction include patients with ACL re-rupture after primary reconstruction6, particularly those with limited autograft/allograft options such as prior hamstring harvest or allograft rejection, while exclusions comprise severe osteoarthritis (Kellgren-Lawrence grade ≥3)7, active knee infection, or multi-ligamentous instability requiring concurrent procedures. Primary indications are re-ruptures with moderate tunnel widening (<12 mm diameter) and patients needing immediate mechanical stability, with secondary considerations including prior graft failure due to biological incorporation issues or contraindications to biological grafts. Procedural limitations include severe osteolysis (>12 mm tunnel diameter)8, which may require adjunctive bone grafting and delay rehabilitation, and the need for advanced arthroscopic skills to ensure precise tunnel planning and avoid graft impingement.

Revision ACL reconstruction presents unique challenges, including compromised bone tunnel integrity, altered anatomy from prior procedures, and potential graft failure mechanisms, which demand innovative surgical strategies to optimize outcomes9,10. Traditional revision approaches often rely on autografts or allografts, yet these materials may be limited by donor site morbidity, graft availability, or biological incorporation issues11. Synthetic ligaments, composed of biocompatible polymers, have re-emerged as a viable alternative, offering advantages such as immediate mechanical strength, avoidance of harvest-related complications, and precise intraoperative customization12,13,14. Despite these benefits, concerns regarding long-term durability, synovitis, and foreign body reactions persist, with limited evidence supporting their efficacy in revision scenarios. This study evaluates the clinical and technical outcomes of synthetic ligament-based revision ACL reconstruction, addressing a critical gap in the literature by analyzing its feasibility in overcoming anatomical complexities and restoring knee function. Through a retrospective analysis of surgical techniques, postoperative rehabilitation, and objective outcome measures, this work aims to establish a protocol-driven framework for managing re-rupture cases, ultimately contributing to improved patient care in complex revision settings.

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Protocol

Loading...
$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

All procedures in this study were approved by the Ethics Committee of the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University. All patients provided consent for the publication of their clinical data under the condition that their identities remain undisclosed. From January 2023 to January 2025, a retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical and imaging data of patients undergoing revision surgery for re-rupture after ACL reconstruction using synthetic ligaments. Diagnosis of re-rupture was confirmed through imaging studies, specialized physical examinations, and arthroscopy. The consumables and equipment used are listed in the Table of Materials.

1. Preoperative preparation

To optimize surgical outcomes, preoperative preparation included comprehensive patient evaluation, advanced imaging, and meticulous planning to address the unique challenges of revision ACL reconstruction.

  1. Routine laboratory tests
    Preoperative laboratory evaluations were performed to ensure patient readiness and identify potential risks. A complete blood count (CBC) was obtained to assess hemoglobin levels, white blood cell count, and platelet counts; results were interpreted relative to institutional normal ranges (e.g., hemoglobin ≥12 g/dL for non-pregnant adults) to screen for anemia or infection. Basic metabolic panel (BMP) testing evaluated electrolyte balance (sodium, potassium, chloride), renal function (blood urea nitrogen, creatinine), and glucose levels, with abnormalities (e.g., potassium <3.5 mmol/L) prompting consultation with internal medicine to guide correction before surgery. Coagulation studies (prothrombin time [PT], international normalized ratio [INR], activated partial thromboplastin time [aPTT]) were reviewed to detect coagulopathies; an INR >1.5, hemoglobin <10 g/dL, or platelet count <100,000/µL necessitated delaying surgery until values normalized or corrective measures were administered. Liver function tests (alanine transaminase, aspartate transaminase, total bilirubin) were analyzed to assess hepatic synthetic capacity, with elevations (e.g., bilirubin >1.2 mg/dL) triggering further evaluation for liver disease. All laboratory results were documented in the electronic health record (EHR) and discussed in preoperative conferences to determine eligibility for surgery.
  2. Imaging studies
    Graft integrity was evaluated by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), meniscal pathology, and chondral damage. Sagittal T2-weighted sequences were used to identify residual ligament fibers and synovitis. Computed tomography (CT) with 3D reconstruction was used to quantify tunnel widening (>12 mm diameter indicating staged bone grafting and determine new tunnel trajectories to avoid convergence with prior tunnels (minimum 2 mm bone bridge). Long-leg weight-bearing radiographs were used to assess mechanical axis deviations (>3° varus/valgus), which, if present, mandate concurrent osteotomy planning.
  3. Clinical assessments
    Kellgren-Lawrence grading was applied to exclude advanced osteoarthritis (grade ≥3)15; The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores were used to establish baseline function.

2. Surgical procedure for revision ACL reconstruction using synthetic ligament

Single-step procedure was chosen if adequate bone stock (tunnel diameter ≤12 mm) was available and no tunnel overlap or active infection existed. A two-step procedure was applied if there was severe tunnel widening (>12 mm) or osteolysis, convergent tunnels, infection, or previous septic failure.

  1. Anesthesia and positioning
    General anesthesia was administered via endotracheal intubation, with neuromuscular blockade to facilitate tourniquet application (50 kPa). The patient was placed in supine position with a lateral post and foot roll to maintain 90° knee flexion during arthroscopy.
  2. Surgical site preparation
    Aseptic skin was prepared using chlorhexidine-alcohol solution, with sterile draping isolating the limb.
  3. Incision and portal placement
    Standard anterolateral and anteromedial arthroscopic portals were established with a 4 cm longitudinal incision over the tibial tubercle for graft passage. Outside-in drilling was facilitated by a lateral femoral incision.
  4. Bone tunnel planning
    ​Preoperative CT/MRI data-guided tunnel placement was applied to avoid prior tunnels. The tibial guide was positioned at the ACL footprint midpoint, and femoral drilling targeted the anatomic center.
  5. Operative steps
    1. Arthroscopic joint preparation
      ​Arthroscopic exploration and debridement were performed to prepare the joint for ligament reconstruction. Hyperplastic, hypertrophic, or villous synovium was debrided using a shaver to remove abnormal tissue and improve visualization. Meniscal tears or degeneration were addressed based on their type, location, and severity-partial tears were trimmed, while full-thickness tears required repair or resection depending on stability. Ligament continuity, tension, and morphology were assessed by probing the native ACL remnant; residual ruptured ligament tissue was debrided to eliminate mechanical interference. The intercondylar notch was evaluated for osteophytes or bony impingement, and a notchplasty was performed with a burr if necessary to create adequate space for graft passage. Articular cartilage was inspected for wear, delamination, or softening, with noted defects documented for postoperative management. Finally, the patellofemoral joint was examined for alignment abnormalities, cartilage wear, or subluxation to ensure proper tracking and minimize postoperative stress.
    2. Bone tunnel creation
      Bone tunnel creation involved precise arthroscopic guidance to establish femoral and tibial tunnels. For the tibial tunnel, the tibial guide was positioned under arthroscopic visualization at the midpoint between the medial meniscus and the intercondylar eminence. A guide pin was drilled through the guide, followed by reaming with a 7.5 mm reamer to create the tibial tunnel. On the femoral side, the tunnel was created anatomically within the native ACL footprint using an outside-in technique to enhance positional accuracy. Key anatomical landmarks, including the resident's ridge and lateral intercondylar ridge, were identified under arthroscopic guidance. A 2.4 mm guide pin was then drilled through a high anteromedial portal at an angle of 110°-120°, targeting the center of the ACL footprint (~8-10 mm anterior to the posterior cartilage margin). A tunnel measuring 7.5-8.5 mm in diameter was reamed to a depth of 25-30 mm, with care taken to preserve 1-2 mm of posterior wall integrity to avoid iatrogenic injury.
    3. Graft placement
      ​Ligament placement was performed by passing the synthetic ligament through the prepared tunnels under continuous arthroscopic visualization. The graft was advanced through the tibial tunnel, across the joint, and into the femoral tunnel until the entire length was seated within the femoral tunnel, with free strands remaining visible in the joint cavity to confirm proper positioning. Rotational tension was applied to the graft to align it with the native ACL anatomy and prevent kinking.
    4. Graft fixation
      ​Ligament fixation was achieved using metal interference screws on both the femoral and tibial sides. On the femoral side, the graft was fixed with a 9 mm metal interference screw at 30° of knee flexion under controlled tension to avoid over-constraint. Excess graft material beyond the screw was trimmed to prevent impingement. Similarly, on the tibial side, the graft was fixed with a 9 mm metal interference screw at 30° of knee flexion, with tension adjusted to match the femoral fixation and restore native ACL kinematics.
    5. Final intraoperative assessment
      Final assessment of the reconstruction involved verifying graft stability and absence of impingement using arthroscopic probing. Graft tension was tested dynamically throughout the knee range of motion (0° to 120°) to ensure no excessive laxity or tightness. Any adjustments, such as repositioning the graft or tightening screws, were made at this stage to optimize outcomes.
    6. Surgical closure and postoperative immobilization
      ​Closure was completed by inserting a small drainage tube into the joint cavity to reduce fluid accumulation and minimize the risk of postoperative hemarthrosis or infection. Incisions were closed meticulously using No. 1 absorbable sutures to promote optimal healing and reduce scarring, with subcuticular sutures used for cosmesis. A sterile dressing was applied, and the leg was immobilized in a hinged knee brace set to 0°-90° of flexion to protect the reconstruction during the initial recovery phase.

3. Postoperative care

  1. Drain Management
    The drainage tube was removed when the output was <50 mL/day, typically within 24 h.
  2. Antibiotic prophylaxis
    Antibiotic prophylaxis was administered to reduce surgical site infection (SSI) risk, aligned with institutional guidelines and the Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP) protocols. Cefazolin (2 g intravenous [IV]) was selected as the first-line agent for clean-contaminated procedures; for patients with penicillin allergy, clindamycin (600 mg IV) or vancomycin (1 g IV) was substituted based on allergy severity and local resistance patterns. Dosing adjustments were made for patients with renal impairment (cefazolin reduced to 1 g IV if creatinine clearance <30 mL/min), or morbid obesity (vancomycin loading dose of 15 mg/kg followed by 10-15 mg/kg every 12 h). Antibiotics were administered within 60 min of surgical incision by the anesthesia care team, with verification via a preoperative checklist to confirm patient identity, drug name, dose, route, and timing. For prolonged surgeries (>4 h), a repeat dose of cefazolin (1 g IV) was given intraoperatively to maintain therapeutic levels. Postoperative antibiotic continuation was avoided unless clinically indicated (e.g., evidence of active infection), adhering to SCIP guidelines to minimize resistance. All antibiotic selections, dosages, and administration times were recorded in the EHR and cross-checked with the surgical and pharmacy teams to ensure compliance.
  3. Early mobilization
    Ambulation was encouraged within 24 h to reduce lower extremity venous thrombosis risk.
  4. Rehabilitation
    A structured rehabilitation program was implemented and supervised by a physiotherapist.
  5. Follow-Up
    Regular evaluations were scheduled to monitor recovery, including functional assessments, imaging, and laboratory tests.

4. Statistical analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (Version 27.0), with continuous variables (e.g., VAS, IKDC, Lysholm scores) expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and categorical variables (e.g., graft integrity) as frequencies and percentages. Normality was assessed via Shapiro-Wilk test, and within-group comparisons of preoperative versus postoperative outcomes used paired-sample t-tests (p < 0.05).

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Results

Loading...
$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

A total of 28 patients (mean age: 32.4 years ± 6.8 years; 18 males, 10 females) underwent synthetic ligament revision ACL reconstruction during the study period, with a mean follow-up duration of 12.3 months ± 2.1 months (range: 6-18 months). Preoperative functional assessments revealed significant knee impairment, with mean VAS pain scores of 6.8 ± 1.2, IKDC scores of 45.3 ± 7.5, and Lysholm scores of 52.1 ± 8.9. Postoperatively, all patients exhibited marked improvements: VAS scores decreased to 1.5 ± 0.8 (p &...

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Discussion

Loading...
$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

The current study demonstrates that synthetic ligament-based revision ACL reconstruction provides reliable clinical outcomes, with significant improvements in knee stability and function (IKDC: 45.3 -82.6; Lysholm: 52.1- 88.7; p < 0.001) and low complication rates. The findings of this study underscore the technical feasibility and clinical efficacy of synthetic ligament-based revision of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in addressing postoperative re-rupture. This approach demonstrated signif...

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Acknowledgements

Loading...
$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,

The study was funded by the "Tian Chi Ying Cai" Young Doctors' Talent Introduction Program of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, Xinjiang "Tianshan Talents" Medical and Health High-level Talent Program (TSYC202301B077), and the Major Scientific Research Project Cultivation Project of Xinjiang Medical University (No: XYD2024ZX09).

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS:
QM led the clinical data collection, surgical execution, and drafting of the manuscript. LS and AM jointly oversaw study design, funding, ethical compliance, and final manuscript revisions. All authors read and approved the final version of the submitted manuscript.

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Materials

List of materials used in this article
NameCompanyCatalog NumberComments
9 mm metallic interference screwsArthrexAR-1390E9 mm × 20 mm cannulated interference screw for emoral and tibial graft fixation
Arthroscopic burrDePuy Mitekwww.jnjmedtech.com/en-US/product/vue-arthroscopic-equipment-solutionsBone preparation
Arthroscopic shaverStryker System 8www.surgicaldirect.com/m_product_page.php?item=Stryker+System+8+LGModel: 8205-000-000 (System 8 Dual-Trigger Rotary Handpiece)
DrillArthrex Drill GuideAR-8956G-202.0 mm drill guide
Guide pinsSmith & Nephew410236Richards guide pin, 230 mm × 2.4 mm
Polyethylene terephthalate-based synthetic ligamentLARS Ligament (Corin)www.coringroup.com/healthcare-professionals/products/larsGraft material for revision ACL reconstruction
Reamers (7.5 mm)ArthrexAR-1407.5Cannulated headed reamer, 7.5 mm
SPSSIBMwww.ibm.com/products/spss-statisticsSoftware; Version 27.3

References

Loading...
$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$ $$\longleftharp{xx}$$, $$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
  1. Floyd, E. R., et al. Evaluation of knee outcomes and anterior cruciate ligament graft failure when comparing medial collateral ligament reconstruction versus mcl repair in patients with multiple ligament knee injuries: A systematic review. Orthop J Sports Med. 13 (2), 23259671241302095(2025).
  2. Napolitano, J., Duerson, D., MacDonald, J. Anterior cruciate ligament injuries in female athletes. JAMA. 332 (8), 662-663 (2024).
  3. Balendra, G., et al. Factors affecting return to play and graft re-rupture after primary ACL reconstruction in professional footballers. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 30 (7), 2200-2208 (2022).
  4. Volz, R., Borchert, G. H. Re-rupture rate and the post-surgical meniscal injury after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the Press-Fit-Hybrid-technique in comparison to the interference screw technique: a retrospective analysis of 200 patients with at least 3 years follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 143 (2), 935-949 (2023).
  5. D'Ambrosi, R., et al. Multiple revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: not the best but still good. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 31 (2), 559-571 (2023).
  6. Legnani, C., et al. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with synthetic grafts. A review of literature. Int Orthop. 34, 465-471 (2010).
  7. Kohn, M. D., Sassoon, A. A., Fernando, N. D. Classifications in brief: Kellgren-Lawrence classification of osteoarthritis. Clin. Orthop. Relat. Res. 474, 1886-1893 (2016).
  8. Sarraj, M., et al. Over-the-top ACL reconstruction yields comparable outcomes to traditional ACL reconstruction in primary and revision settings: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 27 (2), 427-444 (2019).
  9. Marx, J. S., et al. Revision ACL reconstruction has higher incidence of 30-day hospital readmission, reoperation, and surgical complications relative to primary procedures. Knee Surg. Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 30 (5), 1605-1610 (2022).
  10. Meena, A., et al. No difference in patient reported outcomes, laxity, and failure rate after revision ACL reconstruction with quadriceps tendon compared to hamstring tendon graft: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 31 (8), 3316-3329 (2023).
  11. Meena, A., et al. Quadriceps tendon autograft with or without bone block have comparable clinical outcomes, complications and revision rate for ACL reconstruction: A systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 31 (6), 2274-2288 (2023).
  12. Ventura, A., et al. Revision surgery after failed ACL reconstruction with artificial ligaments: clinical, histologic and radiographic evaluation. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 24 (1), 93-98 (2014).
  13. Nukuto, K., et al. Current development in surgical techniques, graft selection and additional procedures for anterior cruciate ligament injury: A path towards anatomic restoration and improved clinical outcomes-a narrative review. Ann Jt. 8, 39(2023).
  14. Batty, L. M., et al. Synthetic devices for reconstructive surgery of the cruciate ligaments: a systematic review. Arthroscopy. 31 (5), 957-968 (2015).
  15. Gopinatth, V., et al. Consistent indications and good outcomes despite high variability in techniques for two-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review. Arthroscopy. 39 (9), 2098-2111 (2023).
  16. Kentel, M., et al. Treatment results and safety assessment of the LARS system for the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Adv Clin Exp Med. 30 (4), 379-386 (2021).
  17. Barrett, G. R., Brown, T. D. Femoral tunnel defect filled with a synthetic dowel graft for a single-staged revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 23 (7), 796.e1-796.e4 (2007).
  18. Di Benedetto, P., et al. Histological analysis of ACL reconstruction failures due to synthetic-ACL (LARS) ruptures. Acta Biomed. 91 (4-S), 136(2020).
  19. Tulloch, S. J., Devitt, B. M., Norsworthy, C. J., Mow, C. Synovitis following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the LARS device. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol. Arthrosc. 27 (8), 2592-2598 (2019).
  20. Niki, Y., Matsumoto, H., Enomoto, H., Toyama, Y., Suda, Y. Single-stage anterior cruciate ligament revision with bone-patellar tendon-bone: a case-control series of revision of failed synthetic anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Arthroscopy. 26 (8), 1058-1065 (2010).
  21. Ciapini, G., et al. ACL replacement with synthetic vs. biological tendon grafts: Long-term follow-up comparison using objective evaluations. Surg Technol Int. 39, 369-374 (2021).
  22. Lubowitz, J. H. Editorial commentary: Synthetic ACL grafts are more important than clinical nonbelievers may realize. Arthroscopy. 31 (5), 969-970 (2015).
  23. Barnaś, M., Kentel, M., Morasiewicz, P., Witkowski, J., Reichert, P. Clinical assessment and comparison of ACL reconstruction using synthetic graft (Neoligaments versus FiberTape). Adv Clin Exp Med. 30 (5), 491-498 (2021).
  24. Mulford, J. S., Chen, D. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review of polyethylene terephthalate grafts. ANZ J Surg. 81 (11), 785-789 (2011).
  25. Codorean, I. B., et al. The Use of the Ligament Augmentation and Reconstruction System (LARS) in clinical practice. Key Eng Mater. 745, 111-123 (2017).
  26. McDermott, E., et al. Biomechanical comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction fixation methods and implications on clinical outcomes. Ann Jt. 8, 15(2023).
  27. D'Ambrosi, R., et al. Combining an anterolateral complex procedure with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction reduces graft reinjury without increasing the rate of complications: A Systematic Review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Sports Med. 52 (8), 2129-2147 (2025).
  28. Panagiotopoulos, E., Prodromidis, A. D., Zampeli, F. Synthetic versus biological grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 29 (3), 741-754 (2021).
  29. Legnani, C., Ventura, A. Synthetic grafts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstructive surgery. Med Eng Phys. 117, 103992(2023).
  30. Takashima, Y., et al. The influence of ruptured scar pattern of human anterior cruciate ligament remnant tissue on tendon-bone healing in vivo. J Orthop Res. 41 (3), 500-510 (2023).
  31. Özbek, E. A., et al. Failure rates and complications after multiple-revision ACL reconstruction: comparison of the over-the-top and transportal drilling techniques. Orthop J Sports Med. 11 (7), 23259671231186972(2023).
  32. Grassi, A., et al. What is the mid-term failure rate of revision ACL reconstruction? A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. , 2484-2499 (2017).
  33. Jackson, D. W., Heinrich, J. T., Simon, T. M. Biologic and synthetic implants to replace the anterior cruciate ligament. Arthroscopy. 10 (4), 442-452 (1994).
  34. Melinte, R. M., et al. Synthetic grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery in professional female handball players-a viable option. Diagnostics. 14 (17), 1951(2024).
  35. Ostojic, M., et al. Graft selection in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A comprehensive review of current trends. Medicina. 60 (12), 2090(2024).
  36. Gharpinde, M. R., Jaiswal, A. M., Dhanwani, Y. A Comprehensive review of graft choices and surgical techniques in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: An outcome analysis. Cureus. 16 (9), e68701(2024).
  37. Yu, C., et al. Application of nondegradable synthetic materials for tendon and ligament injury. Macromol Biosci. 23 (12), 2300259(2023).
  38. Yu, C., et al. Primary ACL reconstruction using the LARS device is associated with a high failure rate at minimum of 6-year follow-up. Knee Surg Sports TraumatolArthrosc. 27, 3626-3632 (2019).

Access restricted. Please log in or start a trial to view this content.

Reprints and Permissions

Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article

Request Permission

Tags

Synthetic LigamentACL ReconstructionRevision SurgeryLigament Re RuptureArthroscopic DebridementTunnel PlanningMetallic Interference ScrewsFunctional ScoringPostoperative RehabilitationKnee Stability
Video Coming Soon

Related Articles