Tufts University.
Arthroscopy. 2020 Jul;36(7):1882-1883. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2020.04.021.
The search for an isometric, anatomic, biomechanically optimal anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction remains elusive. To better approximate the native ACL, surgeons have used a host of different graft options and repair techniques. Surgical techniques involving single-tunnel and double-tunnel (or even triple-tunnel!) fixation sites have been used in an attempt to re-create the "2 (or more) bundles" of the ACL. Transtibial and independent femoral drilling techniques are used in an effort to create a more "anatomic" femoral tunnel placement. Once the anatomic femoral attachment site is identified, there is then a debate on how best to "fill" the attachment site with the surgical graft. These are all important discussions and debates, but one question remains . . . Does any of it really matter?
对于解剖、等长、生物力学最优的前交叉韧带（ACL）重建，目前仍难以捉摸。为了更好地模拟 ACL ，外科医生已经使用了许多不同的移植物选择和修复技术。为了重建 ACL 的“2 束（或更多束）”，外科医生使用了涉及单隧道和双隧道（甚至三隧道！）固定部位的手术技术。胫骨隧道和独立股骨钻孔技术用于努力创建更“解剖学”的股骨隧道位置。一旦确定了解剖学的股骨附着部位，就会出现关于如何用外科移植物最佳填充附着部位的争论。这些都是非常重要的讨论和辩论，但仍有一个问题悬而未决......这一切真的重要吗？
