Suppr超能文献

一项关于四股半腱肌肌腱前交叉韧带重建的前瞻性随机研究,比较单束和双束技术。

A prospective randomized study of 4-strand semitendinosus tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction comparing single-bundle and double-bundle techniques.

作者信息

Muneta Takeshi, Koga Hideyuki, Mochizuki Tomoyuki, Ju Young-Jin, Hara Kenji, Nimura Akimoto, Yagishita Kazuyoshi, Sekiya Ichiro

机构信息

Orthopedic Surgery, Graduate School, Tokyo Medical and Dental University, Tokyo, Japan.

出版信息

Arthroscopy. 2007 Jun;23(6):618-28. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2007.04.010.

Abstract

PURPOSE

A randomized clinical study was conducted to compare the outcome between double-bundle (DB) and single-bundle (SB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions with 4-strand semitendinosus tendon (ST).

METHODS

We divided 68 patients with unilateral ACL injury into 2 groups according to their birth date, and they were followed up in person for a mean of 25 months (range, 18 to 41 months). Each group of 34 patients underwent either DB or SB ACL reconstruction using 4-strand ST with EndoButton femoral fixation (Smith & Nephew Endoscopy, Andover, MA) and anchor staple tibial fixation. There was no difference between the 2 groups with regard to age at surgery, sex, follow-up period, period before surgery, combined meniscus injuries, and athletic activity level. All patients followed the same postoperative program. They were evaluated using manual knee laxity tests, instrumented anterior laxity measurements (KT-1000 arthrometer [MEDmetric, San Diego, CA]), knee extension and flexion strength testing, and so on. General knee condition was evaluated by use of the Lysholm knee score and subjective rating scale.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the 2 groups with regard to range of motion, thigh girth, muscle strength, and Lysholm score. Manual knee laxity testing revealed that negative Lachman and pivot-shift test results were found in more patients in the DB group than in the SB group. KT measurements averaged 2.4 mm in the SB group and 1.4 mm in the DB group, which was statistically significantly different. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference regarding all of the modified International Knee Documentation Committee-categorized data between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

This randomized controlled trial indicated that DB ACL reconstruction via 4-strand ST is superior to the SB technique with regard to anterior and rotational stability; however, it fails to show any subjective difference.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, prospective randomized controlled clinical study.

摘要

目的

开展一项随机临床研究,比较采用4股半腱肌肌腱(ST)进行双束(DB)和单束(SB)前交叉韧带(ACL)重建的效果。

方法

我们将68例单侧ACL损伤患者按出生日期分为2组,平均随访25个月(范围18至41个月)。每组34例患者分别接受DB或SB ACL重建,采用4股ST,股骨端用EndoButton固定(史赛克内镜公司,安多弗,马萨诸塞州),胫骨端用锚钉固定。两组在手术年龄、性别、随访时间、术前时间、合并半月板损伤情况及运动活动水平方面无差异。所有患者遵循相同的术后方案。采用手动膝关节松弛度测试、仪器化前向松弛度测量(KT-1000关节测量仪[MEDmetric公司,圣地亚哥,加利福尼亚州])、膝关节屈伸力量测试等对患者进行评估。使用Lysholm膝关节评分和主观评分量表评估膝关节总体状况。

结果

两组在活动范围、大腿围度、肌肉力量和Lysholm评分方面无显著差异。手动膝关节松弛度测试显示,DB组Lachman试验和轴移试验阴性结果的患者多于SB组。KT测量结果在SB组平均为2.4 mm,在DB组平均为1.4 mm,差异有统计学意义。统计分析显示,两组间所有改良国际膝关节文献委员会分类数据均无显著差异。

结论

这项随机对照试验表明,采用4股ST进行DB ACL重建在前后稳定性和旋转稳定性方面优于SB技术;然而,在主观方面未显示出差异。

证据水平

I级,前瞻性随机对照临床研究。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验