Outcomes of Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Repair for Proximal Tears: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The purpose of this study is to compare failure rates among different techniques of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair for the treatment of proximal ACL ruptures. Meta-analysis and systematic review were completed, and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Studies from Embase, Cochrane, and PubMed published between June 2011 and June 2022 reporting outcomes of primary ACL repair on proximal tears with a minimum two-year follow-up were included. Primary ACL repair was divided into dynamic, static, and non-augmented repair. The primary outcome was failure rates, and the secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and anterior tibial stability (ATT). Eighteen studies on primary ACL repair were included, with a total of 614 patients (ages ranging from 6 to 65, 60% male). Only two studies were level 1 randomized controlled clinical trials. The static repair had a failure rate of 33 out of 261 (12.6%), non-augmented was 17 out of 179 (9.4%), and dynamic repair was 31 out of 174 (17.8%); no statistically significant difference was found comparing the failure rates (p = 0.090). PROs using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores had weighted averages of 91.7 (95% confidence interval (CI): 89.6-93.8) and 94.7 (95% CI: 92.7-96.7), respectively. ATT had a weighted average of 1.668 mm (95% CI: 1.002-2.334). The primary findings of this paper include a 12.6% combined failure rate for primary proximal ACL repair with no significant difference in failure rate or PROs when accounting for the methodology of repair at a minimum two-year follow-up. It is important to note the lack of high-quality randomized controlled trials, the heterogeneity of included studies, and the lack of long-term data. Despite these limitations, the findings of the current analysis suggest that primary repair may be a useful treatment option for indicated candidates with proximal ACL ruptures. Further long-term and higher-quality comparative studies on ACL reconstruction are warranted.