Radford W J, Amis A A, Kempson S A, Stead A C, Camburn M
Mechanical Engineering Department, Imperial College, London, UK.
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1994;2(2):94-9. doi: 10.1007/BF01476480.
Work in vitro has previously shown superior restoration of knee stability using a double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction compared with single bundles taken through the condyle or 'over the top'. This paper describes an animal study designed to compare the three ACL reconstructions in vivo, in order to collect data that could support the clinical use of a double-bundle reconstruction. The three methods were compared in three groups of eight sheep, the ovine ACL having a distinct double-bundle structure. Biomechanically matched polyester fibre implants were used, with 6 months in vivo. The three methods led to similar intra-articular fibrous tissue integration of the implants and no evidence of implant damage, and biomechanical testing found greater laxity than normal for all three groups. The double-bundle group, however, had more joint surface degeneration than the other groups. It was concluded that clinical use of the double-bundle reconstruction was not indicated by the results of this experiment, in view of the more complex surgery and lack of superior performance.
此前的体外研究表明，与通过髁间或“过顶”单束重建相比，采用双束前交叉韧带（ACL）重建能更好地恢复膝关节稳定性。本文描述了一项动物研究，旨在比较这三种ACL重建方法在体内的效果，以便收集能支持双束重建临床应用的数据。在三组每组八只绵羊中比较这三种方法，绵羊的ACL具有明显的双束结构。使用生物力学匹配的聚酯纤维植入物，体内植入6个月。这三种方法导致植入物在关节内的纤维组织整合相似，且没有植入物损坏的迹象，生物力学测试发现所有三组的松弛度均大于正常情况。然而，双束组的关节表面退变比其他组更严重。鉴于手术更复杂且性能没有优势，得出的结论是本实验结果不支持双束重建的临床应用。
