Suppr超能文献

外侧关节外腱固定术联合 ACL 重建术与单独 ACL 重建术相比,在至少 2 年的随访中,患者报告的结果更好。

Lateral extra-articular tenodesis with ACL reconstruction demonstrates better patient-reported outcomes compared to ACL reconstruction alone at 2 years minimum follow-up.

机构信息

Department of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, University College London Hospital, 235 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BU, UK.

The Princess Grace Hospital, 42 Nottingham Place, London, W1U 5NY, UK.

出版信息

Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2019 Oct;139(10):1425-1433. doi: 10.1007/s00402-019-03218-3. Epub 2019 Jul 11.

Abstract

PURPOSE

The role for extra-articular procedures in addition to ACL reconstruction to restore rotational stability is debated. We use lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LEAT) for patients that meet criteria. Our null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between two groups of patients that were treated with ACL reconstruction alone or ACL reconstruction with LEAT according to criteria.

METHODS

A prospectively collected database of patients that were treated primarily according to the presence of a high-grade pivot shift with LEAT at the time of ACL reconstruction was propensity-matched with a group of patients that underwent ACL reconstruction alone. Minimum follow-up was 2 years. Stratified variable analysis of the groups was also performed.

RESULTS

There were 218 and 55 patients in the ACL reconstruction group and ACL reconstruction with LEAT group, respectively. There were 125 patients and 46 patients after propensity matching with a median follow-up of 52 months and 27 months, respectively. Post-operative Lysholm score (P = 0.005), Tegner activity index (P = 0.003) and time to return to sport (P < 0.001) favoured ACL reconstruction with LEAT compared to ACL reconstruction alone. Sports with frequent change of direction maneuvers and higher rates of ACL injury (rugby, soccer, skiing) favoured ACL reconstruction with LEAT versus ACL reconstruction alone (P = 0.001). No significant difference in re-operation rate or type of surgery was found between the two surgical groups after propensity matching but 13 patients in the ACL reconstruction-only group re-injured their ACL, 8 of whom required supplementary LEAT at the time of revision surgery.

CONCLUSION

Patient-reported outcomes and return to multi-directional sports after ACL reconstruction favour LEAT at the time of ACL reconstruction when narrow inclusion criteria are applied.

摘要

目的

对于除 ACL 重建之外还能恢复旋转稳定性的关节外手术的作用存在争议。我们对符合条件的患者使用外侧关节外肌腱固定术(LEAT)。我们的零假设是,根据标准仅接受 ACL 重建或 ACL 重建加 LEAT 治疗的两组患者之间不会有差异。

方法

我们对一组主要根据 LEAT 时存在高级别的膝关节旋转不稳定而接受 ACL 重建的患者进行前瞻性数据库收集,并根据标准对接受 ACL 重建加 LEAT 的患者进行倾向匹配。最低随访时间为 2 年。还对两组进行了分层变量分析。

结果

ACL 重建组和 ACL 重建加 LEAT 组分别有 218 例和 55 例患者。经倾向匹配后,分别有 125 例和 46 例患者,中位随访时间分别为 52 个月和 27 个月。与仅接受 ACL 重建相比,ACL 重建加 LEAT 术后 Lysholm 评分(P=0.005)、Tegner 活动指数(P=0.003)和重返运动时间(P<0.001)更好。经常进行变向运动且 ACL 损伤率较高的运动(橄榄球、足球、滑雪)更倾向于 ACL 重建加 LEAT 而非 ACL 重建(P=0.001)。但在倾向匹配后,两组手术的再次手术率或手术类型无显著差异,但在仅接受 ACL 重建组中有 13 例患者 ACL 再次受伤,其中 8 例在再次手术时需要补充 LEAT。

结论

当采用严格的纳入标准时,ACL 重建时使用 LEAT 可改善 ACL 重建后的患者报告结局和重返多向运动的能力。

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