Suture-Augmented Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair for Proximal Avulsion or High-Grade Partial Tears Shows Similar Side-to-Side Difference and No Clinical Differences at Two Years Versus Conventional Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction for Mid-Substance Tears or Poor Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tissue Quality

Purpose: To compare objective and subjective clinical outcomes between suture-augmented anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair (SAACLR) and conventional ACL reconstruction (CACLR) with minimum 2 -year follow-up. Methods: In this nonrandomized, prospective study, 30 patients underwent SAACLR for proximal ACL avulsion or high -grade partial ACL tear (Sherman grade 1 or 2) and 30 patients underwent CACLR for proximal one-third/distal two-thirds junction tears and midsubstance tears (Sherman grade 3 or 4) tear types by 1 surgeon between 2018 and 2020. Failure was defined as ACL reinjury. Outcome measures were KT -1000 for side -to -side knee laxity evaluation, Visual Analog Scale for pain, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Severity Score (KOOS), Tegner Activity Scale, Western Ontario and McMasterUniversities Osteoarthritis Index, Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated for IKDC and KOOS subscores. Results: Three failures (10%) occurred in the SAACLR group, with no failures in the CACLR group (P = .24). A total of 23 (85%) SAACLR patients and 27 (90%) CACLR patients had patient-reported outcomes and physical examination at minimum 2 years. Two-year KT -1000 testing with 20 lbs showed less than 1 mm side -to -side difference between the groups. No significant differences in the percentage of patients meeting the MCID were found between the SAACLR and CACLR groups at 2 years: IKDC, 10.81 (82%) versus 10.54 (93%) (P = .48); KOOS Pain, 11.55 (73%) versus 10.58 (78%) (P = .94); KOOS Symptoms, 8.15 (77%) versus 10.32 (74%) (P = 1.0); KOOS Activities of Daily Living, 12.19 (59%) versus 12.28 (70%) (P = .60); 18.99 (71%) versus 16.77 (86%) (P = .42). Significantly higher IKDC scores were observed with SAACLR versus CACLR at 3 months (P = .01) and 6 months (P = .02), and significantly higher Lysholm scale, Tegner Activity Scale, and all KOOS subscale scores were observed at 6 months. Conclusions: At 2 years after surgery, KT -1000 testing showed less than 1 mm side -to -side difference and no differences were observed between the groups in the percentage of patients who met or exceeded the MCID. Significantly higher early patient-reported outcome scores were found with SAACLR versus CACLR. The rerupture rate between the groups was not significantly different. Level of Evidence: Level II, Prospective cohort study.