de Padua Vitor Barion C, Saithna Adnan, Chagas Eduardo Federighi B, Zutin Tereza Lais M, Piazzalunga Lucas Fernandes, Patriarcha Luis Fernando, Gelas Paulo Jose de Lorenzetti, Helito Camilo P
University of Marilia (UNIMAR) Marilia, Brazil.
AZBSC Orthopedics, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA.
Orthop J Sports Med. 2021 Oct 6;9(10):23259671211037324. doi: 10.1177/23259671211037324. eCollection 2021 Oct.
Remnant preservation during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) is controversial, and it is unclear whether the stump aids or obscures tibial tunnel positioning.
PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to determine whether the rate of tibial tunnel malposition is influenced by remnant preservation. The hypothesis was that using a remnant-preserving technique to drill entirely within the tibial stump would result in a significant reduction in tibial tunnel malposition as determined by postoperative 3-dimensional computed tomography (3D-CT).
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.
Patients undergoing ACLR between October 2018 and December 2019 underwent surgery with a remnant-preserving technique (RP group) if they had a large stump present (>50% of the native ACL length) or if there was no remnant or if it was <50% of the native length of the ACL, they underwent remnant ablation (RA group) and use of standard landmarks for tunnel positioning. The postoperative tunnel location was reported as a percentage of the overall anteroposterior (AP) and mediolateral (ML) dimensions of the tibia on axial 3D-CT. The tunnel was classified as anatomically placed if the center lay between 30% and 55% of the AP length and between 40% and 51% of the ML length.
Overall, 52 patients were included in the study (26 in each group). The mean tunnel positions were 36.8% ± 5.5% AP and 46.7% ± 2.9% ML in the RP group and 35.6% ± 4.8% AP and 47.3% ± 2.3% ML in the RA group. There were no significant differences in the mean AP ( = .134) and ML ( = .098) tunnel positions between the groups. Inter- and intraobserver reliability varied between fair to excellent and good to excellent, respectively. There was no significant difference in the rate of malposition between groups (RP group, 7.7%; RA group, 11.5%; ≥ .999).
Drilling entirely within the ACL tibial stump using a remnant-preserving reconstruction technique did not significantly change the rate of tunnel malposition when compared with stump ablation and utilization of standard landmarks.
在前交叉韧带(ACL)重建(ACLR)过程中保留残端存在争议,目前尚不清楚残端对胫骨隧道定位是有帮助还是会造成干扰。
目的/假设:本研究的目的是确定胫骨隧道位置不当的发生率是否受残端保留的影响。假设是,采用保留残端技术在胫骨残端内完全钻孔,与术后三维计算机断层扫描(3D-CT)结果相比,将显著降低胫骨隧道位置不当的发生率。
队列研究;证据等级,2级。
2018年10月至2019年12月接受ACLR的患者,如果有较大残端(>原始ACL长度的50%),则采用保留残端技术进行手术(RP组);如果没有残端或残端<原始ACL长度的50%,则进行残端切除(RA组)并使用标准标志进行隧道定位。术后隧道位置在轴向3D-CT上报告为胫骨前后(AP)和内外侧(ML)总尺寸的百分比。如果隧道中心位于AP长度的30%至55%之间以及ML长度的40%至51%之间,则将隧道分类为解剖位置。
总体而言,52例患者纳入本研究(每组26例)。RP组平均隧道位置为AP 36.8%±5.5%和ML 46.7%±2.9%,RA组为AP 35.6%±4.8%和ML 47.3%±2.3%。两组之间平均AP(P = 0.134)和ML(P = 0.098)隧道位置无显著差异。观察者间和观察者内可靠性分别在一般到优秀和良好到优秀之间变化。两组之间位置不当发生率无显著差异(RP组,7.7%;RA组,11.5%;P≥0.999)。
与残端切除和使用标准标志相比,采用保留残端重建技术在ACL胫骨残端内完全钻孔并未显著改变隧道位置不当的发生率。