Digging around online, firing new questions about ACL treatments into google, brought me to this article, which I thought would be worth a share.
We tend to think that things have always been done a certain way: Here's the problem; here's the solution - particularly when it comes to treating mechanical medical problems. But when you stop to think about it, that clearly isn't the case, and treatments are constantly evolving.
When the Macintosh procedure was first mentioned as a possibility to me, of course, I googled it. The articles I found weren't good - one even told someone asking about it to run away from any surgeon who suggested it (without any wider context as to why it had been mentioned in the first place).
I guess this is the danger of the internet. A world of information but not necessarily the right context or lens to read it through!
After further digging, I learned that Macintosh used to be the treatment of choice for ACL injuries but had fallen out of favour as intra-articular/arthroscopic ACL reconstruction techniques developed during the 1980's. 'Poor outcomes' are mentioned, but not specified, in several articles.
For me this wasn't about a Macintosh repair as the single fix, but as a secondary procedure to the primary arthroscopic ACL reconstruction. A belt and braces approach, if you like. So, on that basis, I was happy.
(More recent articles outlining this approach can be found here)
Anyway, the surgeon's decision to reinforce the intra-articular fix with the Macintosh procedure may have saved the donor graft from being completely ruptured earlier this year and gives me a chance of avoiding further reconstructive surgery.
Is this 'outdated' procedure part of the new 'gold standard' after all?