Moran Thomas E, Ignozzi Anthony J, Taleghani Eric R, Bruce Amelia S, Hart Joseph M, Werner Brian C
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Orthop J Sports Med. 2022 Mar 16;10(3):23259671221083568. doi: 10.1177/23259671221083568. eCollection 2022 Mar.
Radiographic and cadaveric studies have suggested that anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) femoral tunnel drilling with the use of a flexible reaming system through an anteromedial portal (AM-FR) may result in a different graft and femoral tunnel position compared with using a rigid reamer through an accessory anteromedial portal with hyperflexion (AAM-RR). No prior studies have directly compared clinical outcomes between the use of these 2 techniques for femoral tunnel creation during ACLR.
To compare revision rates at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively for patients who underwent ACLR with AM-FR versus AAM-RR. The secondary objectives were to compare functional testing and patient-reported outcomes between the cohorts.
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
Included were consecutive patients at a single academic institution between 2013 and 2018 who underwent primary ACLR without additional ligamentous reconstruction. Patients were separated into 2 groups based on the type of anatomic femoral tunnel drilling: AM-FR or AAM-RR. Graft failure, determined by revision ACLR, was assessed with a minimum 2 years of postoperative follow-up. The authors also compared patient-reported outcome scores (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS]) and functional performance testing performed at 6 months postoperatively.
A total of 284 (AAM-RR, 232; AM-FR, 52) patients were included. The mean follow-up time was 3.7 ± 1.5 years, with a minimum 2-year follow-up rate of 90%. There was no significant difference in the rate of revision ACLR between the AAM-RR and AM-FR groups (10.8% vs 9.6%, respectively; = .806). At 6 months postoperatively, there were no significant between-group differences in peak knee extension strength, peak knee flexion strength, limb symmetry indices, or hop testing, as well as no significant differences in IKDC (AAM-RR, 81.1; AM-FR, 78.9; = .269) or KOOS (AAM-RR, 89.0; AM-FR, 86.7; = .104).
In this limited study, independent femoral tunnel drilling for ACLR using rigid or flexible reaming systems resulted in comparable rates of revision ACLR at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively, with no significant differences in strength assessments or patient-reported outcomes at 6 months postoperatively.
影像学和尸体研究表明,与通过辅助前内侧入口并极度屈曲使用刚性铰刀(AAM-RR)进行解剖学前交叉韧带重建(ACLR)股骨隧道钻孔相比,使用柔性扩孔系统通过前内侧入口(AM-FR)进行股骨隧道钻孔可能会导致移植物和股骨隧道位置不同。此前尚无研究直接比较这两种ACLR股骨隧道创建技术的临床结果。
比较采用AM-FR与AAM-RR进行ACLR的患者术后至少2年的翻修率。次要目的是比较两组之间的功能测试和患者报告的结果。
队列研究;证据等级,3级。
纳入2013年至2018年在单一学术机构连续接受初次ACLR且无额外韧带重建的患者。根据解剖学股骨隧道钻孔类型将患者分为两组:AM-FR或AAM-RR。通过翻修ACLR确定的移植物失败情况在术后至少随访2年时进行评估。作者还比较了患者报告的结果评分(国际膝关节文献委员会[IKDC]和膝关节损伤与骨关节炎疗效评分[KOOS])以及术后6个月进行的功能性能测试。
共纳入284例患者(AAM-RR组232例,AM-FR组52例)。平均随访时间为3.7±1.5年,至少2年的随访率为90%。AAM-RR组和AM-FR组的ACLR翻修率无显著差异(分别为10.8%和9.6%;P = 0.806)。术后6个月,两组在膝关节最大伸展力量、膝关节最大屈曲力量、肢体对称指数或单腿跳测试方面无显著组间差异,IKDC评分(AAM-RR组81.1分,AM-FR组78.9分;P = 0.269)或KOOS评分(AAM-RR组89.0分,AM-FR组86.7分;P = 0.104)也无显著差异。
在这项有限的研究中,使用刚性或柔性扩孔系统独立进行ACLR股骨隧道钻孔,术后至少2年的ACLR翻修率相当,术后6个月在力量评估或患者报告的结果方面无显著差异。