Abstract
Introduction & Aims:
An injury to the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) stands out as a frequently observed musculoskeletal injury in knee joint, whereby one of the treatments is reconstruction. ACL sprains and tears incidences are at a range of 100,000 to 200,000 cases annually in the United States. ACL reconstruction is commonly executed using an autograft, allograft (donor tissue), or synthetic graft, and is generally carried out through knee arthroscopy. This case series aims to highlight the contrast of the utilization of brands manufactured in the United States and India, focusing on ACL Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI) score and tear recurrence.
Materials & Methods:
We enrolled individuals who had experienced an ACL tear and had undergone reconstruction during the period of January 2020 to February 2023, with a minimum follow-up period of at least six months. Participants with multi-ligament knee injuries, mid-substance tears, and tibial avulsion fractures were not included. We collected data on demographic details and outcomes reported by the patients. The ACL-RSI score and tear recurrence were used as a measure to assess the success of the reconstruction.
Results:
The mean follow-up duration was 18.25 ± 9.64 months. Twelve patients met the inclusion criteria, with an average age of 35.0 ± 5.74 years. Those patients had a mean ACL-RSI score of 81.33 ± 9.11. Nine patients underwent arthroscopic ACL reconstruction using India-made bone fixation brand, while the rest were managed using United States-made bone fixation brand. Tear recurrence rate in India-made brand was found to be at 22.22% and ACL-RSI mean score of 78.22 ± 8.33, while United States-made brand had no tear recurrence and ACL-RSI mean score of 90.67 ± 2.08.
Conclusions:
This case series shows that United States-made brand had a better tear recurrence rate and ACL-RSI mean score.