Ligament augmentation repair is broadly applied across different orthopaedic subspecialities: an ISAKOS international survey of orthopaedic surgeons.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate how ligament augmentation repair (LAR) techniques are currently used in different anatomic regions in orthopaedic sports medicine, and to identify the most common indications and limitations of LAR.

METHODS

We sent survey invitations to 4,000 members of the International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery and Orthopaedic Sports Medicine society. The survey consisted of 37 questions total, with members only receiving some branching questions specific to their area of specialisation. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, and the significance between groups was evaluated using chi-square tests of independence.

RESULTS

Of 515 surveys received, 502 were complete and included for the analysis (97% completion rate). 27% of respondents report from Europe, 26% South America, 23% Asia, 15% North America, 5.2% Oceania, and 3.4% Africa. 75% of all survey respondents report using LAR, most frequently using it for the anterior talofibular ligament ( 69%), acromioclavicular joint ( 58%), and the anterior cruciate ligament (51%). Surgeons in Asia report using LAR the most (80%), and surgeons in Africa the least (59%). LAR is most commonly indicated for additional stability (72%), poor tissue quality (54%), and more rapid return-to-play (47%). LAR users state their greatest limitation is cost (62%), while non-LAR users state their greatest reason not to use LAR is that patients do well without it (46%). We also find that the frequency of LAR use among surgeons may differ based on practice characteristics and training. For example, surgeons who treat athletes at the professional or Olympic level are significantly more likely to have a high annual use of LAR (20+ cases) compared to surgeons that treat only recreational athletes (45% and 25%, respectively, p ​= ​0.005).

CONCLUSION

LAR is broadly applied in orthopaedics but its rate of use is not homogeneous. Outcomes and perceived benefits vary depending on factors such as surgeon specialty and treatment population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V.