Joe Chih-Hao Chiu, Chih-Li Wang, Poyu Chen, Lei Hsia, Cheng-Pang Yang, Huan Sheu
{"title":"双束前交叉韧带和ALL重建与外向内双束前交叉韧带重建相比,股骨后外侧束隧道增宽较小。","authors":"Joe Chih-Hao Chiu, Chih-Li Wang, Poyu Chen, Lei Hsia, Cheng-Pang Yang, Huan Sheu","doi":"10.1177/10225536251376590","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>PurposeTo compare the clinical and radiological results of two double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) techniques. DB ACLR and anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) with internal brace (IB), and outside-in (OI) DB ACLR.HypothesisWe hypothesized that DB ACLR and ALLR with IB wound yield less femoral tunnel, especially femoral posterolateral bundle tunnel complications, than OI DB ACLR without ALLR because of better rotational control. Both techniques could provide good postoperative clinical outcomes.MethodsPatients who received DB ACLR and ALLR (ALLR group) and who received outside-in DB ACLR (non-ALLR group) were enrolled. Age, BMI, follow-up duration, meniscus repair, laterality, and knee range of motion (ROM) were collected. Lysholm, Tegner scale, and radiological results were compared.ResultsThirty-four and 33 patients were enrolled in the ALLR and non-ALLR groups. Patient demographics were similar between groups. Both groups showed postoperative improvements in Lysholm (ALLR group, 62.5 ± 6.8 preoperatively and 85.1 ± 5.7 postoperatively (<i>p</i> < 0.01); non-ALLR group, 63.5 ± 6.0 preoperatively and 82.9 ± 5.2 postoperatively (<i>p</i> < 0.01)) and Tegner Scale (ALLR group, 4.97 ± 0.52 preoperatively and 7.79 ± 0.41 postoperatively (<i>p</i> < 0.01); non-ALLR group, 4.91 ± 0.58 preoperatively and 7.7 ± 0.47 postoperatively (<i>p</i> < 0.01)) at final follow-up. There were no significant differences between groups preoperatively (Lysholm, <i>p</i> = 0.324, Tegner, <i>p</i> = 0.649) and postoperatively (Lysholm, <i>p</i> = 0.679, Tegner, <i>p</i> = 0.369). The ALLR group exhibited significantly lower percentages of femoral posterolateral bundle tunnel widening (<i>p</i> = 0.021) and a more femoral divergent angle (<i>p</i> < 0.001) than the non-ALLR group. Furthermore, no femoral tunnel coalescence was observed in the ALLR group, while 3% of the non-ALLR group showed coalescence.ConclusionsDB ACLR with ALLR yielded less femoral posterolateral bundle tunnel widening, no femoral tunnel coalescence, and more femoral divergent angle than OI DB ACLR. Both techniques provided good postoperative outcomes. Incorporating ALLR and IB may benefit patients undergoing DB ACLR.Level of evidenceLevel III, Retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.Clinical relevanceDB ACLR with ALLR and IB provides less femoral PL tunnel widening, no femoral tunnel coalescence, and more divergent angles between the two femoral tunnels compared with traditional OI DB ACLR. DB ACLR with ALLR and IB technique provides more flexibility during femoral tunnel preparation.</p>","PeriodicalId":16608,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery","volume":"33 3","pages":"10225536251376590"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Double-bundle ACL and ALL reconstruction results in less femoral posterolateral bundle tunnel widening than outside-in double-bundle ACL reconstruction.\",\"authors\":\"Joe Chih-Hao Chiu, Chih-Li Wang, Poyu Chen, Lei Hsia, Cheng-Pang Yang, Huan Sheu\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10225536251376590\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>PurposeTo compare the clinical and radiological results of two double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) techniques. DB ACLR and anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) with internal brace (IB), and outside-in (OI) DB ACLR.HypothesisWe hypothesized that DB ACLR and ALLR with IB wound yield less femoral tunnel, especially femoral posterolateral bundle tunnel complications, than OI DB ACLR without ALLR because of better rotational control. Both techniques could provide good postoperative clinical outcomes.MethodsPatients who received DB ACLR and ALLR (ALLR group) and who received outside-in DB ACLR (non-ALLR group) were enrolled. Age, BMI, follow-up duration, meniscus repair, laterality, and knee range of motion (ROM) were collected. Lysholm, Tegner scale, and radiological results were compared.ResultsThirty-four and 33 patients were enrolled in the ALLR and non-ALLR groups. Patient demographics were similar between groups. Both groups showed postoperative improvements in Lysholm (ALLR group, 62.5 ± 6.8 preoperatively and 85.1 ± 5.7 postoperatively (<i>p</i> < 0.01); non-ALLR group, 63.5 ± 6.0 preoperatively and 82.9 ± 5.2 postoperatively (<i>p</i> < 0.01)) and Tegner Scale (ALLR group, 4.97 ± 0.52 preoperatively and 7.79 ± 0.41 postoperatively (<i>p</i> < 0.01); non-ALLR group, 4.91 ± 0.58 preoperatively and 7.7 ± 0.47 postoperatively (<i>p</i> < 0.01)) at final follow-up. There were no significant differences between groups preoperatively (Lysholm, <i>p</i> = 0.324, Tegner, <i>p</i> = 0.649) and postoperatively (Lysholm, <i>p</i> = 0.679, Tegner, <i>p</i> = 0.369). The ALLR group exhibited significantly lower percentages of femoral posterolateral bundle tunnel widening (<i>p</i> = 0.021) and a more femoral divergent angle (<i>p</i> < 0.001) than the non-ALLR group. Furthermore, no femoral tunnel coalescence was observed in the ALLR group, while 3% of the non-ALLR group showed coalescence.ConclusionsDB ACLR with ALLR yielded less femoral posterolateral bundle tunnel widening, no femoral tunnel coalescence, and more femoral divergent angle than OI DB ACLR. Both techniques provided good postoperative outcomes. Incorporating ALLR and IB may benefit patients undergoing DB ACLR.Level of evidenceLevel III, Retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.Clinical relevanceDB ACLR with ALLR and IB provides less femoral PL tunnel widening, no femoral tunnel coalescence, and more divergent angles between the two femoral tunnels compared with traditional OI DB ACLR. DB ACLR with ALLR and IB technique provides more flexibility during femoral tunnel preparation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16608,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery\",\"volume\":\"33 3\",\"pages\":\"10225536251376590\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10225536251376590\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/9/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10225536251376590","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的比较两种双束前交叉韧带重建术(ACLR)的临床和影像学结果。DB ACLR和前外侧韧带重建(ALLR)与内支架(IB)和外向内(OI) DB ACLR。假设:我们假设IB伤口的DB ACLR和ALLR比没有ALLR的OI DB ACLR产生更少的股骨隧道,特别是股骨后外侧束隧道并发症,因为更好的旋转控制。两种技术均可提供良好的术后临床效果。方法纳入接受DB ACLR + ALLR治疗的患者(ALLR组)和接受外置-内置DB ACLR治疗的患者(非ALLR组)。收集年龄、BMI、随访时间、半月板修复、侧位和膝关节活动度(ROM)。比较Lysholm、Tegner评分和放射学结果。结果ALLR组34例,非ALLR组33例。两组患者的人口统计数据相似。两组Lysholm (ALLR组)术后均有改善,术前62.5±6.8分,术后85.1±5.7分(p < 0.01);非ALLR组,术前63.5±6.0分,术后82.9±5.2分(p < 0.01); Tegner量表(ALLR组,术前4.97±0.52分,术后7.79±0.41分(p < 0.01);非allr组术前为4.91±0.58,术后为7.7±0.47 (p < 0.01)。术前(Lysholm, p = 0.324, Tegner, p = 0.649)与术后(Lysholm, p = 0.679, Tegner, p = 0.369)组间比较差异无统计学意义。与非ALLR组相比,ALLR组股骨后外侧束隧道增宽比例明显降低(p = 0.021),股骨发散角明显增加(p < 0.001)。此外,在ALLR组中未观察到股骨隧道合并,而非ALLR组中有3%出现合并。结论sdb型ACLR与all型相比,股骨后外侧束隧道增宽较小,股骨隧道无合并,股骨发散角较大。两种技术均提供了良好的术后效果。合并ALLR和IB可能有利于接受DB ACLR的患者。证据水平:III级,回顾性比较治疗试验。与传统的OI - DB ACLR相比,与ALLR和IB联合的edb ACLR可减少股骨前侧隧道增宽,无股骨隧道合并,两条股骨隧道之间的角度更发散。DB ACLR结合ALLR和IB技术在股骨隧道准备过程中提供了更大的灵活性。
Double-bundle ACL and ALL reconstruction results in less femoral posterolateral bundle tunnel widening than outside-in double-bundle ACL reconstruction.
PurposeTo compare the clinical and radiological results of two double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) techniques. DB ACLR and anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) with internal brace (IB), and outside-in (OI) DB ACLR.HypothesisWe hypothesized that DB ACLR and ALLR with IB wound yield less femoral tunnel, especially femoral posterolateral bundle tunnel complications, than OI DB ACLR without ALLR because of better rotational control. Both techniques could provide good postoperative clinical outcomes.MethodsPatients who received DB ACLR and ALLR (ALLR group) and who received outside-in DB ACLR (non-ALLR group) were enrolled. Age, BMI, follow-up duration, meniscus repair, laterality, and knee range of motion (ROM) were collected. Lysholm, Tegner scale, and radiological results were compared.ResultsThirty-four and 33 patients were enrolled in the ALLR and non-ALLR groups. Patient demographics were similar between groups. Both groups showed postoperative improvements in Lysholm (ALLR group, 62.5 ± 6.8 preoperatively and 85.1 ± 5.7 postoperatively (p < 0.01); non-ALLR group, 63.5 ± 6.0 preoperatively and 82.9 ± 5.2 postoperatively (p < 0.01)) and Tegner Scale (ALLR group, 4.97 ± 0.52 preoperatively and 7.79 ± 0.41 postoperatively (p < 0.01); non-ALLR group, 4.91 ± 0.58 preoperatively and 7.7 ± 0.47 postoperatively (p < 0.01)) at final follow-up. There were no significant differences between groups preoperatively (Lysholm, p = 0.324, Tegner, p = 0.649) and postoperatively (Lysholm, p = 0.679, Tegner, p = 0.369). The ALLR group exhibited significantly lower percentages of femoral posterolateral bundle tunnel widening (p = 0.021) and a more femoral divergent angle (p < 0.001) than the non-ALLR group. Furthermore, no femoral tunnel coalescence was observed in the ALLR group, while 3% of the non-ALLR group showed coalescence.ConclusionsDB ACLR with ALLR yielded less femoral posterolateral bundle tunnel widening, no femoral tunnel coalescence, and more femoral divergent angle than OI DB ACLR. Both techniques provided good postoperative outcomes. Incorporating ALLR and IB may benefit patients undergoing DB ACLR.Level of evidenceLevel III, Retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.Clinical relevanceDB ACLR with ALLR and IB provides less femoral PL tunnel widening, no femoral tunnel coalescence, and more divergent angles between the two femoral tunnels compared with traditional OI DB ACLR. DB ACLR with ALLR and IB technique provides more flexibility during femoral tunnel preparation.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery is an open access peer-reviewed journal publishing original reviews and research articles on all aspects of orthopaedic surgery. It is the official journal of the Asia Pacific Orthopaedic Association.
The journal welcomes and will publish materials of a diverse nature, from basic science research to clinical trials and surgical techniques. The journal encourages contributions from all parts of the world, but special emphasis is given to research of particular relevance to the Asia Pacific region.