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, Mattia Fabbri, Andrea Redler, Edoardo Gaj, Angelo De Carli, Giuseppe Argento, Adnan Saithna, 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, Mattia Fabbri, Andrea Redler, Edoardo Gaj, Angelo De Carli, Giuseppe Argento, Adnan Saithna, 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}
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.