Samuel R Montgomery, Sharif Garra, Michael Moore, Sarah Levitt, Robyn Lipschultz, Eric Strauss, Daniel Kaplan, Laith Jazrawi
{"title":"接触性与非接触性前交叉韧带损伤的胫骨后斜角。","authors":"Samuel R Montgomery, Sharif Garra, Michael Moore, Sarah Levitt, Robyn Lipschultz, Eric Strauss, Daniel Kaplan, Laith Jazrawi","doi":"10.1007/s00590-024-04104-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Increased Posterior Tibial Slope (PTS) angle has been reported to be a risk factor for primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. However, it is unknown whether increased PTS has an associated increased risk for non-contact versus contact ACL injury.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study is to determine whether patients with non-contact ACL injury have a higher PTS angle than those with contact ACL injury.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 1700 patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction between January 2011 and June 2023 at a single academic institution were initially included. Electronic medical records were reviewed for demographic information as well as evidence that the patient sustained a contact or non-contact ACL injury. Patients in the contact cohort were propensity score matched to patients in the non-contact cohort by age, sex and BMI. Additionally, patients in the contact cohort were then propensity score matched to a control group of patients with intact ACLs also by age, sex and BMI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred and two patients with contact injury were initially identified and 1598 patients with non-contact injuries were identified. Of the 102, 67 had knee X-rays that were suitable for measurement. These 67 contact injury patients were propensity score matched to 67 noncontact patient and 67 patients with intact ACLs based on age, sex and BMI. There were no significant differences between contact and non-contact cohorts in age (28.7±6.3 vs. 27.1±6.5, p = 0.147), sex (Female: 36.0% vs. 34.3%, p = 0.858), or BMI (26.7±5.6 vs 26.1±3.4, p = 0.475). There was no significant difference in PTS angle between contact versus non-contact ACL injury patients (11.6±3.0 vs.11.6±2.8, p = 0.894). There was a significant difference in PTS between the contact ACL injury and the intact cohort (11.6±3.0 vs. 10.0±3.9, p = 0.010) and the non-contact ACL injury and the intact cohort (11.6±2.8 vs. 10.0±3.9, p = 0.010).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was no significant difference in the degree of PTS between patients who sustained contact versus non-contact ACL injuries. Additionally, there was a significantly increased PTS in both the contact and non-contact ACL injury cohorts compared to patients with intact ACLs.</p>","PeriodicalId":50484,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology","volume":" ","pages":"4037-4042"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Posterior tibial slope angle in contact versus non-contact anterior cruciate ligament injuries.\",\"authors\":\"Samuel R Montgomery, Sharif Garra, Michael Moore, Sarah Levitt, Robyn Lipschultz, Eric Strauss, Daniel Kaplan, Laith Jazrawi\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00590-024-04104-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Increased Posterior Tibial Slope (PTS) angle has been reported to be a risk factor for primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. However, it is unknown whether increased PTS has an associated increased risk for non-contact versus contact ACL injury.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study is to determine whether patients with non-contact ACL injury have a higher PTS angle than those with contact ACL injury.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 1700 patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction between January 2011 and June 2023 at a single academic institution were initially included. Electronic medical records were reviewed for demographic information as well as evidence that the patient sustained a contact or non-contact ACL injury. Patients in the contact cohort were propensity score matched to patients in the non-contact cohort by age, sex and BMI. Additionally, patients in the contact cohort were then propensity score matched to a control group of patients with intact ACLs also by age, sex and BMI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>One hundred and two patients with contact injury were initially identified and 1598 patients with non-contact injuries were identified. Of the 102, 67 had knee X-rays that were suitable for measurement. These 67 contact injury patients were propensity score matched to 67 noncontact patient and 67 patients with intact ACLs based on age, sex and BMI. There were no significant differences between contact and non-contact cohorts in age (28.7±6.3 vs. 27.1±6.5, p = 0.147), sex (Female: 36.0% vs. 34.3%, p = 0.858), or BMI (26.7±5.6 vs 26.1±3.4, p = 0.475). There was no significant difference in PTS angle between contact versus non-contact ACL injury patients (11.6±3.0 vs.11.6±2.8, p = 0.894). There was a significant difference in PTS between the contact ACL injury and the intact cohort (11.6±3.0 vs. 10.0±3.9, p = 0.010) and the non-contact ACL injury and the intact cohort (11.6±2.8 vs. 10.0±3.9, p = 0.010).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was no significant difference in the degree of PTS between patients who sustained contact versus non-contact ACL injuries. Additionally, there was a significantly increased PTS in both the contact and non-contact ACL injury cohorts compared to patients with intact ACLs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50484,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"4037-4042\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-024-04104-4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-024-04104-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:据报道,胫骨后斜坡(PTS)角度增大是原发性前交叉韧带(ACL)撕裂的一个危险因素。目的:本研究旨在确定非接触性前交叉韧带损伤患者的 PTS 角度是否高于接触性前交叉韧带损伤患者:初步纳入了 2011 年 1 月至 2023 年 6 月期间在一家学术机构接受初级前交叉韧带重建术的 1700 名患者。研究人员查阅了电子病历,以了解人口统计学信息以及患者是否受到接触性或非接触性前交叉韧带损伤的证据。根据年龄、性别和体重指数对接触组患者与非接触组患者进行倾向评分匹配。此外,根据年龄、性别和体重指数,将接触组患者与前交叉韧带完好的对照组患者进行倾向性评分匹配:结果:初步确定了 112 名接触性损伤患者和 1598 名非接触性损伤患者。在 102 名患者中,67 人的膝关节 X 光片适合测量。根据年龄、性别和体重指数,将这 67 名接触性损伤患者与 67 名非接触性损伤患者和 67 名前交叉韧带完好的患者进行倾向评分匹配。在年龄(28.7±6.3 vs. 27.1±6.5,p = 0.147)、性别(女性:36.0% vs. 34.3%,p = 0.858)或体重指数(26.7±5.6 vs. 26.1±3.4,p = 0.475)方面,接触伤与非接触伤之间没有明显差异。接触性与非接触性前交叉韧带损伤患者的 PTS 角度无明显差异(11.6±3.0 vs. 11.6±2.8,p = 0.894)。接触性前交叉韧带损伤与完好者(11.6±3.0 vs. 10.0±3.9,p = 0.010)和非接触性前交叉韧带损伤与完好者(11.6±2.8 vs. 10.0±3.9,p = 0.010)的PTS有明显差异:结论:接触性与非接触性前交叉韧带损伤患者的创伤后应激反应程度没有明显差异。此外,与前交叉韧带完好的患者相比,接触性和非接触性前交叉韧带损伤患者的创伤后应激反应明显增加。
Posterior tibial slope angle in contact versus non-contact anterior cruciate ligament injuries.
Background: Increased Posterior Tibial Slope (PTS) angle has been reported to be a risk factor for primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. However, it is unknown whether increased PTS has an associated increased risk for non-contact versus contact ACL injury.
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to determine whether patients with non-contact ACL injury have a higher PTS angle than those with contact ACL injury.
Methods: A total of 1700 patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction between January 2011 and June 2023 at a single academic institution were initially included. Electronic medical records were reviewed for demographic information as well as evidence that the patient sustained a contact or non-contact ACL injury. Patients in the contact cohort were propensity score matched to patients in the non-contact cohort by age, sex and BMI. Additionally, patients in the contact cohort were then propensity score matched to a control group of patients with intact ACLs also by age, sex and BMI.
Results: One hundred and two patients with contact injury were initially identified and 1598 patients with non-contact injuries were identified. Of the 102, 67 had knee X-rays that were suitable for measurement. These 67 contact injury patients were propensity score matched to 67 noncontact patient and 67 patients with intact ACLs based on age, sex and BMI. There were no significant differences between contact and non-contact cohorts in age (28.7±6.3 vs. 27.1±6.5, p = 0.147), sex (Female: 36.0% vs. 34.3%, p = 0.858), or BMI (26.7±5.6 vs 26.1±3.4, p = 0.475). There was no significant difference in PTS angle between contact versus non-contact ACL injury patients (11.6±3.0 vs.11.6±2.8, p = 0.894). There was a significant difference in PTS between the contact ACL injury and the intact cohort (11.6±3.0 vs. 10.0±3.9, p = 0.010) and the non-contact ACL injury and the intact cohort (11.6±2.8 vs. 10.0±3.9, p = 0.010).
Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the degree of PTS between patients who sustained contact versus non-contact ACL injuries. Additionally, there was a significantly increased PTS in both the contact and non-contact ACL injury cohorts compared to patients with intact ACLs.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology (EJOST) aims to publish high quality Orthopedic scientific work. The objective of our journal is to disseminate meaningful, impactful, clinically relevant work from each and every region of the world, that has the potential to change and or inform clinical practice.