Suppr超能文献

前交叉韧带(ACL)修复采用皮质或锚定固定与缝线带增强与 ACL 重建:比较生物力学分析。

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair using cortical or anchor fixation with suture tape augmentation vs ACL reconstruction: A comparative biomechanical analysis.

机构信息

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, UConn Health Center, Farmington, CT 06030, United States; Department of Orthopedic Sports Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Germany.

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, UConn Health Center, Farmington, CT 06030, United States.

出版信息

Knee. 2022 Jan;34:76-88. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2021.09.003. Epub 2021 Dec 4.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The purpose was to compare knee kinematics in a cadaveric model of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair using an adjustable-loop femoral cortical suspensory (AL-CSF) or independent bundle suture anchor fixation (IB-SAF) with suture tape augmentation to a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

Twenty-seven cadaveric knees were randomly assigned to one of three surgical techniques: (1) ACL repair using the AL-CSF technique with suture tape augmentation, (2) ACL repair using the IB-SAF technique with suture tape augmentation, (3) ACL reconstruction using a BPTB autograft. Each specimen underwent three conditions according to the state of the ACL (native, proximal transection, repair/reconstruction) with each condition tested at four different angles of knee flexion (0°, 30°, 60°, 90°). Anterior tibial translation (ATT) and internal tibial rotation (ITR) were evaluated using 3-dimensional motion tracking software.

RESULTS

ACL transection resulted in a significant increase in ATT and ITR when compared to the native state (P < 0.001, respectively). ACL repair with the AL-CSF or IB-SAF technique as well as BPTB reconstruction restored native ATT and ITR at all tested angles of knee flexion, while showing significantly less ATT at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° as well as significantly less ITR at 30°, 60°, and 90° of knee flexion when compared to the ACL-deficient state. There were no significant differences in ATT and ITR between the three techniques utilized.

CONCLUSION

ACL repair using the AL-CSF or IB-SAF technique with suture tape augmentation as well as BPTB ACL reconstruction each restored native anteroposterior and rotational laxity, without significant differences in knee kinematics between the three techniques utilized.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Controlled Laboratory Study.

摘要

背景

本研究旨在比较前交叉韧带(ACL)修复中使用可调环股骨皮质悬吊(AL-CSF)或独立束缝线锚钉固定(IB-SAF)联合缝线袢增强与骨-髌腱-骨(BPTB)ACL 重建治疗的膝关节运动学。

方法

27 个尸体膝关节随机分为 3 种手术技术组:(1)AL-CSF 技术联合缝线袢增强的 ACL 修复,(2)IB-SAF 技术联合缝线袢增强的 ACL 修复,(3)BPTB 自体移植物的 ACL 重建。每个标本根据 ACL 的状态(正常、近端切断、修复/重建)进行三种情况测试,每种情况在四个不同的膝关节屈曲角度(0°、30°、60°、90°)下进行测试。使用三维运动跟踪软件评估胫骨前移(ATT)和胫骨内旋(ITR)。

结果

与正常状态相比,ACL 切断后 ATT 和 ITR 显著增加(分别为 P<0.001)。AL-CSF 或 IB-SAF 技术联合缝线袢增强的 ACL 修复以及 BPTB 重建可在所有测试的膝关节屈曲角度恢复正常的 ATT 和 ITR,而在 0°、30°、60°和 90°时 ATT 明显减少,在 30°、60°和 90°时 ITR 明显减少与 ACL 缺失状态相比。三种技术之间的 ATT 和 ITR 无显著差异。

结论

AL-CSF 或 IB-SAF 技术联合缝线袢增强的 ACL 修复以及 BPTB ACL 重建均恢复了正常的前后和旋转松弛度,三种技术之间的膝关节运动学无显著差异。

证据等级

对照实验室研究。

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