BACKGROUND:

Primary repair of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) has some potential advantages over the reconstruction technique, which include but are not limited to better knee sensation due to preservation of the natural ACL tissue in patients compared with tendon graft. Proprioception is impaired after ACL injuries and the sense of the joint position is lost. PURPOSE/

HYPOTHESIS:

The purpose of this study was to compare arthroscopic ACL primary repair and ACL reconstruction techniques clinically and functionally and analyze the differences in proprioception. It was hypothesized that primary repair would restore knee joint proprioception more successfully because the original tissue of the ACL is preserved. STUDY

DESIGN:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS:

A total of 63 patients (34 underwent reconstruction and 29 underwent primary repair between 2017 and 2020) and 33 healthy controls, as well as the healthy knees of the operated groups, were evaluated between 24 and 48 months (mean, 29 months) postoperatively. Patients with proximal femoral avulsion tears and stump quality suitable for repair underwent primary repair, and those with tears outside these criteria underwent reconstruction using hamstring tendon autograft. Proprioception was evaluated using the active joint position sensation method during weightbearing, with a digital inclinometer used to measure differences between the target and achieved flexion angles of 15°, 30°, and 60°.

RESULTS:

At 15° of knee flexion, the deviation angles for the healthy knee of the reconstruction and primary repair groups were significantly smaller than those of the control group (P < .001), but there was no statistically significant difference between the groups in terms of deviation angle at 30° and 60° of flexion. The deviation angle of the operated knees was statistically significantly larger in the reconstruction group than in the primary repair group at all angles. The deviation angles at 15°, 30°, and 60° were 2.83°, 2.66°, and 2.66° in the reconstruction group and 1.00°, 1.00°, and 1.33° in the primary repair group, respectively (P < .001). There was no statistically significant difference between the reconstruction and primary repair groups in terms of clinical scores.

CONCLUSION:

Primary ACL repair can preserve proprioception in a well-selected patient group. In short-term follow-up, primary repair of the ACL in patients with proximal femoral avulsion tears and stump quality suitable for repair appears to be proprioceptively protective. Future studies are needed to clarify the long-term consequences of primary repair on proprioception in a larger population.