使用生物可吸收螺钉重建前交叉韧带时,与全内固定技术与悬吊固定相比,会导致胫骨隧道变宽。

Edoardo Monaco, Mattia Fabbri, Andrea Redler, Edoardo Gaj, Angelo De Carli, Giuseppe Argento, Adnan Saithna, Andrea Ferretti
{"title":"使用生物可吸收螺钉重建前交叉韧带时,与全内固定技术与悬吊固定相比,会导致胫骨隧道变宽。","authors":"Edoardo Monaco,&nbsp;Mattia Fabbri,&nbsp;Andrea Redler,&nbsp;Edoardo Gaj,&nbsp;Angelo De Carli,&nbsp;Giuseppe Argento,&nbsp;Adnan Saithna,&nbsp;Andrea Ferretti","doi":"10.1007/s00167-018-5275-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare clinical outcomes and tunnel widening following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) performed with an all-inside technique (Group A) or with a bioabsorbable tibial screw and suspensory femoral fixation (Group B).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Tunnel widening was assessed using computed tomography (CT) and a previously validated analytical best fit cylinder technique at approximately 1-year following ACLR. Clinical follow-up comprised evaluation with IKDC, KSS, Tegner, Lysholm scores, and knee laxity assessment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study population comprised 22 patients in each group with a median clinical follow-up of 24 months (range 21-27 months). The median duration between ACLR and CT was 13 months (range 12-14 months). There were no significant differences in clinical outcome measures between groups. There were no differences between groups with respect to femoral tunnel widening. However, there was a significantly larger increase in tibial tunnel widening, at the middle portion, in Group B (2.4 ± 1.5 mm) compared to Group A (0.8 ± 0.4 mm) (p = 0.027), and also at the articular portion in Group B (1.5 ± 0.8 mm) compared to Group A (0.8 ± 0.8 mm) (p = 0.027).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Tibial tunnel widening after ACLR using hamstring tendon autograft is significantly greater with suspensory femoral fixation and a bioabsorbable tibial interference screw when compared to an all-inside technique at a median follow-up of 2 years. The clinical relevance of this work lies in the rebuttal of concerns arising from biomechanical studies regarding the possibility of increased tunnel widening with an all-inside technique.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>III.</p>","PeriodicalId":520702,"journal":{"name":"Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA","volume":" ","pages":"2577-2584"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00167-018-5275-x","citationCount":"25","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is associated with greater tibial tunnel widening when using a bioabsorbable screw compared to an all-inside technique with suspensory fixation.\",\"authors\":\"Edoardo Monaco,&nbsp;Mattia Fabbri,&nbsp;Andrea Redler,&nbsp;Edoardo Gaj,&nbsp;Angelo De Carli,&nbsp;Giuseppe Argento,&nbsp;Adnan Saithna,&nbsp;Andrea Ferretti\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00167-018-5275-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare clinical outcomes and tunnel widening following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) performed with an all-inside technique (Group A) or with a bioabsorbable tibial screw and suspensory femoral fixation (Group B).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Tunnel widening was assessed using computed tomography (CT) and a previously validated analytical best fit cylinder technique at approximately 1-year following ACLR. Clinical follow-up comprised evaluation with IKDC, KSS, Tegner, Lysholm scores, and knee laxity assessment.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study population comprised 22 patients in each group with a median clinical follow-up of 24 months (range 21-27 months). The median duration between ACLR and CT was 13 months (range 12-14 months). There were no significant differences in clinical outcome measures between groups. There were no differences between groups with respect to femoral tunnel widening. However, there was a significantly larger increase in tibial tunnel widening, at the middle portion, in Group B (2.4 ± 1.5 mm) compared to Group A (0.8 ± 0.4 mm) (p = 0.027), and also at the articular portion in Group B (1.5 ± 0.8 mm) compared to Group A (0.8 ± 0.8 mm) (p = 0.027).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Tibial tunnel widening after ACLR using hamstring tendon autograft is significantly greater with suspensory femoral fixation and a bioabsorbable tibial interference screw when compared to an all-inside technique at a median follow-up of 2 years. The clinical relevance of this work lies in the rebuttal of concerns arising from biomechanical studies regarding the possibility of increased tunnel widening with an all-inside technique.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>III.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520702,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"2577-2584\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00167-018-5275-x\",\"citationCount\":\"25\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5275-x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2018/11/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5275-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/11/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25

摘要

目的:比较全内技术(A组)和生物可吸收胫骨螺钉+股骨悬吊固定(B组)进行前交叉韧带重建(ACLR)后的临床结果和隧道拓宽情况。方法:在ACLR后大约1年,使用计算机断层扫描(CT)和先前验证的分析最合适的圆柱体技术评估隧道拓宽情况。临床随访包括IKDC、KSS、Tegner、Lysholm评分和膝关节松弛度评估。结果:研究人群包括每组22例患者,中位临床随访时间为24个月(21-27个月)。ACLR和CT的中位持续时间为13个月(范围12-14个月)。两组之间的临床结果测量无显著差异。两组间股骨隧道扩宽无差异。然而,与a组(0.8±0.4 mm)相比,B组胫骨隧道中间部分的宽度(2.4±1.5 mm)明显增加(p = 0.027), B组关节部分的宽度(1.5±0.8 mm)也比a组(0.8±0.8 mm)明显增加(p = 0.027)。结论:在中位随访时间为2年的ACLR术后,与全内固定技术相比,采用腘绳肌腱自体移植物与股骨悬吊固定和生物可吸收胫骨干扰螺钉的胫骨隧道加宽明显更大。这项工作的临床意义在于反驳了生物力学研究中关于全内技术增加隧道拓宽可能性的担忧。证据水平:III。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is associated with greater tibial tunnel widening when using a bioabsorbable screw compared to an all-inside technique with suspensory fixation.

Purpose: To compare clinical outcomes and tunnel widening following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) performed with an all-inside technique (Group A) or with a bioabsorbable tibial screw and suspensory femoral fixation (Group B).

Methods: Tunnel widening was assessed using computed tomography (CT) and a previously validated analytical best fit cylinder technique at approximately 1-year following ACLR. Clinical follow-up comprised evaluation with IKDC, KSS, Tegner, Lysholm scores, and knee laxity assessment.

Results: The study population comprised 22 patients in each group with a median clinical follow-up of 24 months (range 21-27 months). The median duration between ACLR and CT was 13 months (range 12-14 months). There were no significant differences in clinical outcome measures between groups. There were no differences between groups with respect to femoral tunnel widening. However, there was a significantly larger increase in tibial tunnel widening, at the middle portion, in Group B (2.4 ± 1.5 mm) compared to Group A (0.8 ± 0.4 mm) (p = 0.027), and also at the articular portion in Group B (1.5 ± 0.8 mm) compared to Group A (0.8 ± 0.8 mm) (p = 0.027).

Conclusion: Tibial tunnel widening after ACLR using hamstring tendon autograft is significantly greater with suspensory femoral fixation and a bioabsorbable tibial interference screw when compared to an all-inside technique at a median follow-up of 2 years. The clinical relevance of this work lies in the rebuttal of concerns arising from biomechanical studies regarding the possibility of increased tunnel widening with an all-inside technique.

Level of evidence: III.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信