, Volume 102, Issue 1, pp 57–62 | Cite as

LARS™ in ACL reconstruction: evaluation of 60 cases with 5-year minimum follow-up

  • G. Bugelli
  • G. Dell’Osso
  • F. Ascione
  • E. Gori
  • V. Bottai
  • S. Giannotti
Original Article



The injury of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) causes joint instability and, in the absence of adequate treatment, progressive joint deterioration, meniscal lesions and development of post-traumatic osteoarthritis.


The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical, functional and radiographic outcomes and complications in a consecutive case series of 60 patients with minimum follow-up of 5 years who underwent an arthroscopic surgery for ACL reconstruction using LARS™ ligament. Patients with concomitant meniscal or chondral lesions in the same knee were excluded.


The subjective evaluation of the patients involved in the study (Lysholm score, IKDC score and Tegner activity level scale) shows good/excellent results. The range of movement is optimal in most patients, and pain symptoms are considered mild. A total of 31.25% of the patients did not change their lifestyle that they had before the injury. None of the patients underwent resurgery in the same knee. In 85.4% of cases, X-ray images showed no signs of osteoarthritis after ACL reconstruction.


Comparable with other series showed in the literature, this study assesses that the use of LARS™ in reconstruction of ACL is an excellent option for treating >40-year-old patients requesting rapid return to daily activities/sports also at the first surgery. By restoring knee stability, articular degeneration at short and medium follow-up was avoided.


ACL reconstruction LARS Synthetic ligament Knee Osteoarthritis 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. There has been no financial support or industry affiliation of all those involved in this project.


  1. 1.
    Miller SL, Gladstone JN (2002) Graft selection in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthop Clin N Am 33:675–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mascarenhas R, McDonald PR (2008) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a look at prosthetics-past, present and possible future. MJM 11(1):29–37PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kumar K, Maffulli N (1999) The ligament augmentation device: an historical perspective. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 15(4):422–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Michalitsis S, Vlychou M, Malizos KN, Thriskos P, Hantes ME (2015) Meniscal and articular cartilage lesions in the anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee: correlation between time from injury and knee scores. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(1):232–239CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Legnani et al (2010) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with synthetic grafts. Rev Lit Int Orthop 34(4):465–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen J et al (2015) A comparison of acute and chronic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using LARS artificial ligaments: a randomized prospective study with a 5-year follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135(1):95–102CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dell'Osso G, Bottai V, Bugelli G, Manisco T, Cazzella N, Celli F, Guido G, Giannotti S (2016) The biphasic bioresorbable scaffold (Trufit®) in the osteochondral knee lesions: long-term clinical and MRI assessment in 30 patients. Musculoskelet Surg 100(2):93–96. doi: 10.1007/s12306-015-0383-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dell’Osso G et al (2015) Up-to-date review and cases report on chondral defects of knee treated by ACI technique: clinical- instrumental and histological results. Surg Technol Int 26:317–323PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lysholm J, Gillquist J (1982) Evaluation of knee ligament surgery result with special emphasis on use of scoring scale. Am J Sports Med 10:150–154CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Makhmalbaf H, Moradi A, Ganji S, Omidi-Kashani F (2013) Accuracy of Lachman and anterior drawer tests for anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Arch Bone Joint Surg 1(2):94–97PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Petersson IF, Boegård T, Saxne T et al (1997) Radiographic osteoarthritis of the knee classified by the Ahlbäck and Kellgren & Lawrence systems for the tibiofemoral joint in people aged 35-54 years with chronic knee pain. Ann Rheum Dis 56(8):493–496CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Allum R (2003) Aspects of current management, complication of arthroscopic reconstruction of the Anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 85(B):12–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dericks G Jr (1995) Ligament advanced reinforcement system anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Op Tech Sports Med 3:187–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lavoie P, Fletcher J, Duval N (2000) Patient satisfaction needs as related to knee stability and objective findings after ACL reconstruction using the LARS artificial ligament. Knee 7:157–163CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nau T, Lavoie P, Duval N (2002) A new generation of artificial ligaments in reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Two-year follow-up of a randomised trial. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84(B):356–360PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cerulli G, Caraffa A, Antenucci R, Antinolfi P (2007) Il legamento artificiale. G.I.O.T 33(Suppl. 1):S238–S242Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gao K et al (2010) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with LARS artificial ligament: a multicenter study with 3- to 5-year follow-up. Arthrosc J Arthrosc Relat Surg 26(4):515–523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu Z, Zhang X, Jiang Y, Zeng B-F (2010) Four-strand hamstring tendon autograft versus LARS artificial ligament for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Int Orthop 34(1):45–49. doi:  10.1007/s00264-009-0768-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pan X, Wen H, Ge T (2013) Bone patellar tendon bone autograft versus LARS artificial ligament for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 23:819–823. doi: 10.1007/s00590-012-1073-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tiefenboeck TM et al (2015) Clinical and functional outcome after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the LARS system at a minimum follow-up of 10 years. Knee 22(6):565–568CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ciccotti MG, Lombardo SJ, Nonweiler B, Pink M (1994) Non-operative treatment of ruptures of the anterior cruciate ligament in middle-aged patients. Results after long-term follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am 76(9):1315–1321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fitzgerald GK, Axe MJ, Snyder-Mackler L (2000) A decision-making scheme for returning patients to high-level activity with nonoperative treatment after anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 8(2):76–82CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Strehl A, Eggli S (2007) The value of conservative treatment in ruptures of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). J Trauma 62(5):1159–1162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Muellner T, Menth-Chiari WA, Funovics M, Metz V, Vécsei V, Engebretsen L (2003) Shortening of the patellar tendon length does not influence the patellofemoral alignment in a cadaveric model. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 123(9):451–454CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kartus J, Movin T, Karlsson J (2001) Donor-site morbidity and anterior knee problems after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autografts. Arthroscopy 17(9):971–980CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Humanitas Clinical and Research CenterRozzanoItaly
  2. 2.Orthopedics and Traumatology DepartmentOspedale San LucaLuccaItaly
  3. 3.Orthopedics and Traumatology DepartmentSUNNaplesItaly
  4. 4.Casa di cura San CamilloForte dei MarmiItaly
  5. 5.Orthopedics and Traumatology DepartmentUniversity of PisaPisaItaly
  6. 6.Orthopedics and Traumatology DepartmentUniversity of SienaSienaItaly

Personalised recommendations