Plaweski Stéphane, Lanternier Hubert
Clinique Universitaire de Chirurgie Orthopédique Et Traumatologie du Sport, Hôpital Sud CHU Grenoble, 38047, Grenoble, France.
Clinique de L'Europe, Saint Nazaire, France.
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol. 2020 Dec;30(8):1473-1479. doi: 10.1007/s00590-020-02729-9. Epub 2020 Jul 2.
The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of ST4 with those of STGs with a minimum follow-up of 3 years. The hypothesis was that functional outcomes of the ST4 technique are at least as good as those of the STG technique.
Cohort study. Level of evidence, 3 METHODS: Eighty-seven consecutive patients underwent isolated ACL reconstruction, 50 with the ST4 and 37 with STG. At the femoral side for both groups, the system of the fixation of the graft used a cortical fixation support and at the tibial side the group STG used an interference screw and the ST4 group used a tape locked system fixed by an interference screw. Clinical results were compared: IKDC score, KT-1000 arthrometry, radiologic evaluation of the differential laxity, as well as the Tegner score and the KOOS score.
Two patients had a rerupture (STG), one in the ST4 group. The analysis of the subjective clinical results showed no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups. Differential laximetry was 0.7 mm ± 0.4 (0 to 2 mm) for the ST4 group and 1.6 ± 0.5 mm (0 to 3 mm) for the STG group with a statistically significant difference in favor of the ST4 group (p < 0.05). Age, sex, and presence of meniscal lesions were the factors influencing the KOOS score.
This study comparing the clinical and laximetric results at the minimum 3-year follow-up of 2 ACL reconstruction techniques (ST4 vs STG) confirms the working hypothesis with an overall better score for the ST4 group.
本研究的目的是比较ST4与STG的临床结果,最短随访时间为3年。假设是ST4技术的功能结果至少与STG技术的功能结果一样好。
队列研究。证据等级,3级。
87例连续患者接受了单纯前交叉韧带重建,50例采用ST4,37例采用STG。两组在股骨侧,移植物固定系统均使用皮质固定支架;在胫骨侧,STG组使用挤压螺钉,ST4组使用由挤压螺钉固定的带锁系统。比较临床结果:国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)评分、KT-1000关节测量仪测量结果、差异松弛度的影像学评估,以及Tegner评分和膝关节损伤与骨关节炎疗效评分(KOOS)。
2例患者出现再断裂(STG组),ST4组1例。主观临床结果分析显示两组之间无统计学显著差异。ST4组的差异松弛度为0.7 mm±0.4(0至2 mm),STG组为1.6±0.5 mm(0至3 mm),ST4组有统计学显著优势(p<0.05)。年龄、性别和半月板损伤的存在是影响KOOS评分的因素。
本研究比较了两种前交叉韧带重建技术(ST4与STG)在最短3年随访时的临床和松弛度结果,证实了工作假设,ST4组的总体评分更好。