Suppr超能文献

双束与单束前交叉韧带重建:随机临床和磁共振成像研究,随访 2 年。

Double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: randomized clinical and magnetic resonance imaging study with 2-year follow-up.

机构信息

Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland.

出版信息

Am J Sports Med. 2011 Aug;39(8):1615-22. doi: 10.1177/0363546511405024. Epub 2011 May 24.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

One aspect of the debate over the reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament is whether it should be carried out with the single-bundle or double-bundle technique.

HYPOTHESIS

The double-bundle technique results in fewer graft failures than the single-bundle technique in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

A total of 153 patients were prospectively randomized into 2 groups of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring autografts using aperture interference screw fixation: single-bundle technique (SB group, n = 78) and double-bundle technique (DB group, n = 75). The evaluation methods were clinical examination, KT-1000 arthrometric measurement, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and the Lysholm knee scores, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) evaluation. All of the operations were performed by 1 experienced orthopaedic surgeon, and all clinical assessments were made by 2 blinded and independent examiners. A musculoskeletal radiologist blinded to the clinical data made the MRI interpretation.

RESULTS

There were no differences between the study groups preoperatively. Ninety percent of patients (n = 138) were available at a minimum 2-year follow-up (range, 24-37 months). Eight patients (7 in the SB group and 1 in the DB group) had graft failure during the follow-up and had anterior cruciate ligament revision surgery (P = .04). In addition, 7 patients (5 in the SB group and 2 in the DB group) had an invisible graft on the MRI assessment at the 2-year follow-up. Also, the anteromedial bundle was partially invisible in 2 patients and the posterolateral bundle in 9 patients. Together, the total number of failures and invisible grafts were significantly higher in the SB group (12 patients, 15%) than the DB group (3 patients, 4%) (P = .024). No significant group differences were found in the knee scores or stability evaluations at the follow-up.

CONCLUSION

This 2-year randomized trial showed that the revision rate of the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was significantly lower with the double-bundle technique than that with the single-bundle technique. However, additional years of follow-up are needed to reveal the long-term results.

摘要

背景

前交叉韧带重建的争论之一是采用单束还是双束技术。

假设

双束技术在前交叉韧带重建中导致移植物失败的情况少于单束技术。

研究设计

随机对照试验;证据水平,1。

方法

前瞻性随机将 153 例患者分为两组,均采用关节内韧带重建术,使用孔径干扰螺钉固定:单束技术(SB 组,n = 78)和双束技术(DB 组,n = 75)。评估方法包括临床检查、KT-1000 关节测量、国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)和 Lysholm 膝关节评分以及磁共振成像(MRI)评估。所有手术均由 1 名经验丰富的骨科医生完成,所有临床评估均由 2 名盲法和独立的检查者进行。1 名对临床数据盲法的肌肉骨骼放射科医生进行 MRI 解读。

结果

术前两组间无差异。90%的患者(n = 138)可获得至少 2 年的随访(范围,24-37 个月)。8 例患者(SB 组 7 例,DB 组 1 例)在随访中出现移植物失败并进行了前交叉韧带翻修手术(P =.04)。此外,7 例患者(SB 组 5 例,DB 组 2 例)在 2 年随访的 MRI 评估中发现移植物不可见。另外,2 例患者前内侧束部分不可见,9 例患者后外侧束不可见。SB 组的失败和不可见移植物总数明显高于 DB 组(12 例,15%)比 DB 组(3 例,4%)(P =.024)。在随访时,膝关节评分或稳定性评估两组间无显著差异。

结论

这项为期 2 年的随机试验表明,双束技术在前交叉韧带重建中的翻修率明显低于单束技术。然而,需要更多年的随访来揭示长期结果。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验