Szwedowski Dawid, Paczesny Łukasz, Zabrzyński Jan, Gagat Maciej, Domżalski Marcin, Huri Gazi, Widuchowski Wojciech
Orthopaedic Arthroscopic Surgery International (OASI) Bioresearch Foundation, 20133 Milan, Italy.
Citomed Healthcare Center, Department of Orthopaedics, Orvit Clinic, Sklodowskiej 73, 87-100 Toruń, Poland.
J Clin Med. 2021 Aug 31;10(17):3948. doi: 10.3390/jcm10173948.
The current standard of treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is reconstruction (ACLR). This technique has some disadvantages: poor proprioception, donor site morbidity and the inability to restore joint kinematics. ACL repair could be an alternative treatment. The purpose of the study was to compare the stability and the function after ACL primary repair versus single-bundle ACLR.
In a retrospective study, 12 patients underwent primary ACL repair with internal bracing, 15 patients underwent standard ACLR. Follow-up examinations were evaluated at up to 2 years postoperatively. One patient in the ACL repair group was lost to follow-up due to re-rupture. The absolute value of anterior tibial translation (ATT) and the side-to-side difference in the same patient (ΔATT) were evaluated using the GNRB arthrometer. The Lysholm knee scoring was obtained. Re-ruptures and other complications were recorded.
Anterior tibial translation (ATT) was significantly decreased in the ACL repair group compared with the ACLR group (5.31 mm vs. 7.18 mm, respectively; = 0.0137). Arthrometric measurements demonstrated a mean side-to-side difference (ΔATT) 1.87 (range 0.2 to 4.9) mm significantly decreased compared to ACLR 3.36 (range 1.2-5.6 mm; = 0.0107). The mean Lysholm score was 85.3 points in the ACL repair group and 89.9 in ACLR group. No significant differences between ACL repair and ACLR were found for the Lysholm score. There was no association between AP laxity and clinical outcomes. There were two complications in the internal bracing group: one patient had re-rupture and was treated by ACLR, another had limited extension and had arthroscopic debridement.
Anterior tibial translation was significantly decreased after ACL repair. Additionally, the functional results after ACL repair with internal bracing were comparable with those after ACLR. It should be noted that the two complications occurred. The current study supports further development of ACL repair techniques.
目前前交叉韧带(ACL)的治疗标准是重建术(ACLR)。该技术存在一些缺点:本体感觉差、供区并发症以及无法恢复关节运动学。ACL修复可能是一种替代治疗方法。本研究的目的是比较初次ACL修复与单束ACLR后的稳定性和功能。
在一项回顾性研究中,12例患者接受了带内部支撑的初次ACL修复,15例患者接受了标准ACLR。术后随访检查最长至2年。ACL修复组有1例患者因再次断裂失访。使用GNRB关节测量仪评估胫骨前移(ATT)的绝对值以及同一患者的两侧差值(ΔATT)。获得Lysholm膝关节评分。记录再次断裂及其他并发症。
与ACLR组相比,ACL修复组的胫骨前移(ATT)显著降低(分别为5.31 mm和7.18 mm;P = 0.0137)。关节测量显示,平均两侧差值(ΔATT)为1.87(范围0.2至4.9)mm,与ACLR组的3.36(范围1.2 - 5.6 mm;P = 0.0107)相比显著降低。ACL修复组的平均Lysholm评分为85.3分,ACLR组为89.9分。ACL修复与ACLR之间的Lysholm评分未发现显著差异。前后向松弛与临床结果之间无关联。内部支撑组有2例并发症:1例患者再次断裂并接受了ACLR治疗,另1例伸展受限并接受了关节镜清创术。
ACL修复后胫骨前移显著降低。此外,带内部支撑的ACL修复后的功能结果与ACLR后的相当。需要注意的是出现了这2例并发症。本研究支持ACL修复技术的进一步发展。