Suppr超能文献

在膝关节前交叉韧带重建中,与内侧前入路相比,辅助内侧前入路可能无法提供临床上更优的结果。

Accessory Anteromedial Portal may not Provide Clinically Superior Results Compared with the Anteromedial Portal in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

作者信息

Ye Shu-Ming, Jing Jue-Hua, Lv Hao, Zhang Ji-Sen, Xu Xin-Zhong, Xu Chun-Gui, Zhou Yun, Xu You-Jia

机构信息

Department of Orthopedics Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou, Jiangsu Province, China.

Department of Orthopedics Surgery, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei Province, China.

出版信息

J Knee Surg. 2018 Sep;31(8):716-722. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1607074. Epub 2017 Oct 6.

Abstract

Techniques using the anteromedial portal (AMP) and accessory anteromedial portal (AAMP) are commonly used in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The aim of this study was to investigate the radiological and clinical outcomes of arthroscopic single-bundle ACL reconstruction using the AMP or AAMP technique to drill the femoral tunnel. The records of 157 patients who underwent single-bundle ACL reconstruction using the AMP or AAMP technique between 2011 and 2015 were reviewed. The femoral tunnel clock-face position and femoral tunnel and tibial tunnel anterior-posterior (AP) inclination angles were assessed on axial or AP magnetic resonance images. At last follow-up, the Lachman test and pivot-shift test were used to evaluate AP and rotational stability, respectively. The Lysholm knee scoring scale and the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form were used to evaluate clinical and functional results. No statistically significant differences were found between the groups in patient age, sex, follow-up period, or affected side distribution. The mean femoral tunnel inclination angle was 31.13 ± 8.06 degrees in the AMP group and 30.17 ± 9.02 degrees in the AAMP group ( = 0.513). The tibial tunnel inclination angle in the AMP group (16.28 ± 7.89 degrees) was not different from that in the AAMP group (13.70 ± 6.08 degrees). No significant differences were observed between the two groups in the Lachman test, pivot-shift test, Lysholm knee scoring scale, or IKDC scores. The AAMP technique was not clinically superior to the AMP technique in ACL reconstruction. This is a retrospective comparative study and its level of evidence is III.

摘要

使用前内侧入路(AMP)和辅助前内侧入路(AAMP)的技术常用于前交叉韧带(ACL)重建。本研究的目的是调查采用AMP或AAMP技术钻取股骨隧道的关节镜下单束ACL重建的影像学和临床结果。回顾了2011年至2015年间157例行单束ACL重建且采用AMP或AAMP技术的患者记录。在轴向或前后位磁共振成像上评估股骨隧道的钟面位置以及股骨隧道和胫骨隧道的前后(AP)倾斜角度。在末次随访时,分别采用Lachman试验和轴移试验评估前后向和旋转稳定性。采用Lysholm膝关节评分量表和国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)表格评估临床和功能结果。两组在患者年龄、性别、随访期或患侧分布方面未发现统计学上的显著差异。AMP组的平均股骨隧道倾斜角度为31.13±8.06度,AAMP组为30.17±9.02度(P = 0.513)。AMP组的胫骨隧道倾斜角度(16.28±7.89度)与AAMP组(13.70±6.08度)无差异。两组在Lachman试验、轴移试验、Lysholm膝关节评分量表或IKDC评分方面未观察到显著差异。在ACL重建中,AAMP技术在临床上并不优于AMP技术。这是一项回顾性比较研究,其证据水平为III级。

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