scholarly journals Clinical and radiological results after Internal Brace suture versus the all-inside reconstruction technique in anterior cruciate ligament tears 12 to 18 months after index surgery

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georg Mattiassich ◽  
Reinhold Ortmaier ◽  
Harald Kindermann ◽  
Jürgen Barthofer ◽  
Imre Vasvary ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Anterior Tibial Translation ◽  
German Version ◽  
Anterior Tibial ◽  
Kt 1000 ◽  
Internal Brace ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Tibial Translation

Abstract Background Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury can lead to reduced function, meniscal lesions, and early joint degeneration. Preservation of a torn ACL using the Internal Brace technique might re-establish normal knee kinematics, avoid donor-site morbidity due to tendon harvesting, and potentially maintain proprioception of the knee. Methods Fifty subjects were recruited for this study between December 2015 and October 2016. Two groups of individuals who sustained a unilateral ACL rupture were included: those who underwent surgery with preservation of the injured ACL (Internal Brace technique; IB) and those who underwent ACL reconstruction using a hamstring tendon graft (all-inside technique; AI). Subjective self-administered scores were used: the German version of the IKDC Subjective Knee Form (International Knee Documentation Committee), the German version of the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index), SF-36 (short form), the German version of the KOOS (Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score), and the German version of themodified Lysholm Score by Lysholm and Gillquist. Anterior tibial translation was assessed using the KT-1000 Arthrometer (KT-1000 Knee Ligament Arthrometer, MEDmetric Corp., San Diego, CA, USA). Magnetic resonance evaluation was performed in all cases. Results Twenty-three subjects (46 %) were men, and the mean age was 34.7 years. The objective IKDC scores were “normal” in 15 and 14 patients, “nearly normal” in 11 and 7 patients, and “abnormal” in 1 and 2 patients, in the IB and AI groups, respectively. KT-1000 assessment showed a sideto-side difference of more than 3 mm on maximum manual testing in 11 (44 %) and 6 subjects (28.6 %) in the IB and AI groups, respectively. In the postoperative MRI, 20 (74 %) and 22 subjects (96 %) in the IB and AI groups had an intact ACL. Anterior tibial translation was significantly higher in the IB group compared with the AI group in the manual maximum test. Conclusions Preservation of the native ACL with the Internal Brace primary repair technique can achieve comparable results to ACL reconstruction using Hamstring autografts over a short term. Clinically relevant limitations such as a higher incidence of pathologic laxity, with patients more prone to pivot-shift phenomenon were observed during the study period.

Clinical and radiological results after Internal Brace ® suture versus the all-inside reconstruction technique in anterior cruciate ligament tears 12 to 18 months after index surgery.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georg Mattiassich ◽  
Reinhold Ortmaier ◽  
Harald Kindermann ◽  
Jürgen Barthofer ◽  
Imre Vasvary ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Anterior Tibial Translation ◽  
German Version ◽  
Anterior Tibial ◽  
Kt 1000 ◽  
Internal Brace ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Tibial Translation

Abstract Background Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury can lead to reduced function, meniscal lesions, and early joint degeneration. Preservation of a torn ACL using the Internal Brace® technique might re-establish normal knee kinematics, avoid donor-site morbidity due to tendon harvesting, and potentially maintain proprioception of the knee. Methods Fifty subjects were recruited for this study between December 2015 and October 2016. Two groups of individuals who sustained unilateral ACL rupture were included: those who underwent surgery with preservation of the injured ACL (Internal Brace® technique; IB) and those who underwent ACL reconstruction using a hamstring tendon graft (all-inside technique; AI). Subjective self-administered scores were used: the German Version of the IKDC Subjective Knee Form (International Knee Documentation Committee), the German Version of the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index), SF-36 (short form), the German Version of the KOOS (Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score), and the German Version of the modified Lysholm-score by Lysholm and Gillquist. Anterior tibial translation was assessed using the KT-1000 arthrometer® (KT-1000 Knee Ligament Arthrometer, MEDmetric Corp., San Diego, CA, USA). Magnetic resonance evaluation was performed in all cases. Results Twenty-three subjects (46%) were men, and the mean age was 34.7 years. The objective IKDC scores were “normal” in 15 and 14 patients, “nearly normal” in 11 and 7 patients, and “abnormal” in 1 and 2 patients, in the IB and AI groups, respectively. KT-1000 assessment showed a side-to-side difference of more than 3 mm on maximum manual testing in 11 (44%) and 6 subjects (28.6%) in the IB and AI groups, respectively. In the postoperative MRI, 20 (74%) and 22 subjects (96%) in the IB and AI groups showed an intact ACL. Anterior tibial translation was significantly higher in the IB group compared to the AI group in the manual maximum test. Conclusions Preservation of the native ACL with the Internal Brace ® primary repair technique can achieve comparable results to ACL reconstruction using Hamstring autografts over a short term. Clinically relevant limitations such as a higher incidence of pathologic laxity, with patients more prone to pivot shift phenomenon were observed during the study period.

A Novel Graft Fixation Technique for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Hamstring Tendon Grafts

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Guoan Li ◽  
Ali Hosseini ◽  
Hemanth Gadikota ◽  
Thomas Gill
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Reconstruction Technique ◽  
Tibial Rotation ◽  
Pullout Strength ◽  
Anterior Tibial ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Tibial Translation ◽  
Intact Knee

This study evaluated the biomechanical efficacy of single-tunnel double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction technique. The graft construct is achieved using a novel fixation device that splits an ACL (SPACL) graft into two bundles, recreating the anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL) bundles for ACL reconstruction. A pullout strength test of the SPACL was performed using a 7-mm bovine digital extensor tendon graft. The capability in restoration of knee kinematics after SPACL reconstruction was investigated using cadaveric human knees on a robotic testing system under an anterior tibial load of 134 N and a simulated quadriceps load of 400 N. The data indicated that the SPACL graft has a pullout strength of 823.7±172.3 N. Under the 134 N anterior tibial load, the anteroposterior joint laxity had increased constraint using the SPACL reconstruction but not significantly (p > 0.05) at all selected flexion angles. Under the 400 N quadriceps load, no significant differences were observed between the anterior tibial translation of intact knee and SPACL conditions at all selected flexion angles, but the SPACL graft induced a significant increase in external tibial rotation compared to the intact knee condition at all selected flexion angles with a maximal external rotation of −3.20 deg ±3.6 deg at 90 deg flexion. These data showed that the SPACL technique is equivalent or superior to existing ACL reconstruction techniques in restoration of knee laxity and kinematics. The new SPACL reconstruction technique could provide a valuable alternation to contemporary ACL reconstruction surgery by more closely recreating native ACL kinematics.

The Position of the Tibia during Graft Fixation Affects Knee Kinematics and Graft Forces for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

2001 ◽  
Vol 29 (6) ◽  
pp. 771-776 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jürgen Höher ◽  
Akihiro Kanamori ◽  
Jennifer Zeminski ◽  
Freddie H. Fu ◽  
Savio L-Y. Woo
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Knee Kinematics ◽  
Anterior Tibial Translation ◽  
Posterior Tibial ◽  
Anterior Tibial ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Tibial Translation ◽  
Intact Knee

Ten cadaveric knees (donor ages, 36 to 66 years) were tested at full extension, 15°, 30°, and 90° of flexion under a 134-N anterior tibial load. In each knee, the kinematics as well as in situ force in the graft were compared when the graft was fixed with the tibia in four different positions: full knee extension while the surgeon applied a posterior tibial load (Position 1), 30° of flexion with the tibia at the neutral position of the intact knee (Position 2), 30° of flexion with a 67-N posterior tibial load (Position 3), and 30° of flexion with a 134-N posterior tibial load (Position 4). For Positions 1 and 2, the anterior tibial translation and the in situ forces were up to 60% greater and 36% smaller, respectively, than that of the intact knee. For Position 3, knee kinematics and in situ forces were closest to those observed in the intact knee. For Position 4, anterior tibial translation was significantly decreased by up to 2 mm and the in situ force increased up to 31 N. These results suggest that the position of the tibia during graft fixation is an important consideration for the biomechanical performance of an anterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed knee.

The Effectiveness of Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Using the Novel Knot/Press-Fit Technique

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 856-863 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert H.P. Kilger ◽  
Maribeth Thomas ◽  
Scott Hanford ◽  
Dimosthenis A. Alaseirlis ◽  
Hans H. Paessler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Knee Kinematics ◽  
Hamstring Tendon ◽  
Anterior Tibial Translation ◽  
Press Fit ◽  
Anterior Tibial ◽  
Tendon Grafts ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Tibial Translation

Background A variety of fixation devices are used for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with hamstring tendon grafts. These devices increase costs and can present artifacts in magnetic resonance imaging as well as complications in revision surgery. Therefore, a novel knot/press-fit technique that requires no implantable devices has been introduced. Null Hypothesis The knot/press-fit technique restores knee kinematics as well as the more commonly used EndoButton CL fixation and has similar biomechanical properties as other devices published in the literature. Study Design Controlled laboratory study. Methods Eight fresh-frozen cadaveric knees (52 ± 7 years) were tested using a robotic/universal force-moment sensor testing system. The knee kinematics of the intact, anterior cruciate ligament-deficient, EndoButton-reconstructed, and knot/pressfit-reconstructed knee in response to both a 134-N anterior tibial load and a combined rotatory load at multiple knee flexion angles was determined. Differences between the 4 knee states were evaluated with a 2-factor repeated-measures analysis of variance (P <. 05). To determine the stiffness and strength of the knot/press-fit fixation, the femur-graft-tibia complex was tested in uniaxial tension. Results In response to an anterior tibial load, the anterior tibial translation for the knot/press-fit reconstruction was found to be not significantly different from that of the intact anterior cruciate ligament as well as that of the EndoButton reconstruction (P >. 05). In response to a combined rotatory load, neither reconstruction procedure could effectively reduce the coupled anterior tibial translation to that of the intact knee, and no significant difference between the 2 reconstructions could be detected (P >. 05). The stiffness of the knot/press-fit complex was found to be 37.8 ± 9.6 N/mm, and the load at failure was 540 ± 97.7 N, which is equal to other devices published in the literature. Clinical Relevance The experiment suggests that the knot/press-fit technique may be a reliable alternative for the femoral fixation of hamstring tendon grafts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document