Suppr超能文献

第二代悬吊式植入物能否避免前交叉韧带重建术后第一代植入物造成的隧道增宽?

Does Second-Generation Suspensory Implant Negate Tunnel Widening of First-Generation Implant Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction?

作者信息

Sundararajan Silvampatti Ramasamy, Sambandam Balaji, Singh Ajay, Rajagopalakrishnan Ramakanth, Rajasekaran Shanmuganathan

机构信息

Department of Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine, Ganga Medical Centre & Hospital, Coimbatore, India.

Department of Orthopaedics and Spine Surgery, Ganga Medical Centre & Hospital, Coimbatore, India.

出版信息

Knee Surg Relat Res. 2018 Dec 1;30(4):341-347. doi: 10.5792/ksrr.18.005.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Tunnel widening following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is commonly observed. Graft micromotion is an important contributing factor. Unlike fixed-loop devices that require a turning space, adjustable-loop devices fit the graft snugly in the tunnel. The purpose of this study is to compare tunnel widening between these devices. Our hypothesis is that the adjustable-loop device will create lesser tunnel widening.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety-eight patients underwent ACL reconstruction from January 2013 to December 2014. An adjustable-loop device was used in 54 patients (group 1) and a fixed-loop device was used in 44 patients (group 2). Maximum tunnel widening at 1 year was measured by the L'Insalata's method. Functional outcome was measured at 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

The mean widening was 4.37 mm (standard deviation [SD], 2.01) in group 1 and 4.09 mm (SD, 1.98) in group 2 (p=0.511). The average International Knee Documentation Committee score was 78.40 (SD, 9.99) in group 1 and 77.11 (SD, 12.31) in group 2 (p=0.563). The average Tegner-Lysholm score was 87.25 (SD, 3.97) in group 1 and 87.29 in group 2 (SD, 4.36) (p=0.987). There was no significant difference in tunnel widening and functional outcome between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The adjustable-loop device did not decrease the amount of tunnel widening when compared to the fixed-loop device. There was no significant difference in outcome between the two fixation devices.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 3, Retrospective Cohort.

摘要

目的

前交叉韧带(ACL)重建术后隧道增宽较为常见。移植物微动是一个重要的促成因素。与需要旋转空间的固定环装置不同,可调环装置能将移植物紧密贴合于隧道内。本研究的目的是比较这两种装置之间的隧道增宽情况。我们的假设是可调环装置产生的隧道增宽较小。

材料与方法

2013年1月至2014年12月期间,98例患者接受了ACL重建。54例患者使用可调环装置(第1组),44例患者使用固定环装置(第2组)。采用L'Insalata法测量1年时的最大隧道增宽。在2年随访时评估功能结果。

结果

第1组平均增宽为4.37mm(标准差[SD],2.01),第2组为4.09mm(SD,1.98)(p = 0.511)。第1组国际膝关节文献委员会平均评分为78.40(SD,9.99),第2组为77.11(SD,12.31)(p = 0.563)。第1组Tegner-Lysholm平均评分为87.25(SD,3.97),第2组为87.29(SD,4.36)(p = 0.987)。两组之间在隧道增宽和功能结果方面无显著差异。

结论

与固定环装置相比,可调环装置并未减少隧道增宽量。两种固定装置在结果上无显著差异。

证据水平

3级,回顾性队列研究。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/7dba/6254873/6e97c4d64c23/ksrr-30-341f1.jpg

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