Quadriceps tendon grafts does not cause patients to have inferior subjective outcome after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction than do hamstring grafts: a 2-year prospective randomised controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 183-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Lind ◽  
Torsten Grønbech Nielsen ◽  
Ole Gade Soerensen ◽  
Bjarne Mygind-Klavsen ◽  
Peter Faunø
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Donor Site ◽  
Quadriceps Tendon ◽  
Donor Site Morbidity ◽  
Knee Stability ◽  
Subjective Outcome ◽  
Hop Test ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Hamstring Grafts

ObjectiveWe performed a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in patients undergoing ACL reconstruction (ACLR) using either quadriceps tendon graft (QT) or semitendinosus/gracilis hamstring (STG) graft. We compared subjective outcome (primary outcome) and knee stability, donor site morbidity and function (secondary outcomes).MethodsFrom 2013 to 2015, we included 99 adults with isolated ACL injuries in the RCT. Fifty patients were randomised to QT grafts and 49 to STG grafts and followed for 2 years. Patient evaluated outcomes were performed by subjective International Knee Documentation Committee, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Kujala and Tegner activity scores. Knee laxity was measured with a KT-1000 arthrometer. Donor site morbidity was evaluated by the ‘donor site-related functional problems following ACLR score’. One-leg hop test tested limp strength symmetry.ResultsAt 2-year follow-up, there was no difference between the two graft groups regarding subjective patient outcome, knee stability and reoperations. Also, at 2 years, donor site symptoms were present in 27% of patients in the QT group and 50% of patients in the STG group. The donor site morbidity score was 14 and 22 for the QT and STG, respectively. Hop test demonstrated lower limp symmetry for QT graft than STG graft of 91% and 97% respectively.ConclusionQT graft for ACLR did not result in inferior subjective outcome compared with STG graft. However, QT graft was associated with lower donor site morbidity than STG grafts but resulted in more quadriceps muscle strength deficiency than hamstring grafts. Both graft types had similar knee stability outcome.Trial registration numberNCT02173483.

scholarly journals Comparison of autologous osteoperiosteal cylinder and osteochondral graft transplantation in the treatment of large cystic osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLTs): a protocol for a non-inferiority randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e033850 ◽  
Author(s):  
En Deng ◽  
Weili Shi ◽  
Yanfang Jiang ◽  
Qinwei Guo
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Donor Site ◽  
Donor Site Morbidity ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Osteochondral Lesions ◽  
Osteochondral Transplantation ◽  
Autologous Osteochondral Transplantation ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Experimental Group

IntroductionLarge cystic osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLTs) have been shown to have inferior clinical outcomes after reparative techniques such as bone marrow stimulation. Autologous osteochondral transplantation has been viewed as an alternative choice for treating these lesions, but donor-site morbidity has limited its application. Excellent clinical outcomes have been shown in repairing these types of lesions with autologous osteoperiosteal grafts, and these outcomes are achieved at a low cost and without donor-site morbidity in the normal knee joint. This will be the first randomised controlled trial to compare the two surgical techniques, and recommendations for the treatment of patients with large cystic OLTs will be provided.Methods and analysisA non-inferiority randomised controlled trial will be conducted. A total of 70 participants with clinically diagnosed large cystic OLTs will be randomly allocated to either the experimental group or the control group at a ratio of 1:1. The experimental group will be treated with autologous osteoperiosteal cylinder graft transplantation, while the control group will be treated with autologous osteochondral transplantation. The primary outcome measure will be the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society Ankle-Hindfoot Score and the Short Form 12 (SF-12) questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures will include the secondary arthroscopy International Cartilage Repair Society score, the Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue score, the Tegner activity level score, the visual analogue scale, routine X-rays, CT and complications. These parameters will be evaluated preoperatively, as well as at 3, 6, 12, 24, 36 and 60 months postoperatively. In this trial, we hypothesised that both procedures offer good results for the treatment of patients with large cystic OLTs, and occurrence of donor-site morbidity in autologous osteoperiosteal cylinder graft transplantation group is less than that in autologous osteochondral transplantation group.Ethics and disseminationThe current study was approved by the board of research ethics of Peking University Third Hospital Medical Science Research Ethics Committee. The results of this study will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT03347877.

scholarly journals Prospective randomised controlled trial of Algisite™ M, Cuticerin™, and Sorbact® as donor site dressings in paediatric split-thickness skin grafts

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig A. McBride ◽  
Roy M. Kimble ◽  
Kellie A. Stockton
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Donor Site ◽  
Ethics Committee ◽  
Skin Grafts ◽  
Younger Patients ◽  
Research Ethics Committee ◽  
Thickness Skin ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background This is a parallel three-arm prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing Algisite™ M, Cuticerin™, and Sorbact® as donor site dressings in paediatric split-thickness skin grafts (STSG). All three were in current use within the Pegg Leditschke Children’s Burn centre (PLCBC), the largest paediatric burns centre in Queensland, Australia. Our objective was to find the best performing dressing, following on from previous trials designed to rationalise dressings for the burn wound itself. Methods All children for STSG, with thigh donor sites, were considered for enrolment in the trial. Primary outcome measures were days to re-epithelialisation, and pain. Secondary measures were cost, itch, and scarring at 3 and 6 months. Patients and parents were blinded to group assignment. Blinding of assessors was possible with the dressing in situ, with partial blinding following first dressing change. Blinded photographic assessments of re-epithelialisation were used. Scar assessment was blinded. Covariates for analysis were sex, age, and graft thickness (as measured from a central biopsy). Results There were 101 patients randomised to the Algisite™ M (33), Cuticerin™ (32), and Sorbact® (36) arms between April 2015 and July 2016. All were analysed for time to re-epithelialisation. Pain scores were not available for all time points in all patients. There were no significant differences between the three arms regarding pain, or time to re-epithelialisation. There were no significant differences for the secondary outcomes of itch, scarring, or cost. Regression analyses demonstrated faster re-epithelialisation in younger patients and decreased donor site scarring at 3 and 6 months with thinner STSG. There were no adverse effects noted. Conclusions There are no data supporting a preference for one trial dressing over the others, in donor site wounds (DSW) in children. Thinner skin grafts lead to less donor site scarring in children. Younger patients have faster donor site wound healing. Trial registration Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ACTRN12614000380695). Royal Children’s Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/14/QRCH/36). University of Queensland Medical Research Ethics Committee (#2014000447).

Filmed versus Live Social Contact Interventions to Reduce Stigma: A Randomised Controlled Trial

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Clement ◽  
Adrienne van Nieuwenhuizen ◽  
Aliya Kassam ◽  
Ian Norman ◽  
Clare Flach ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Social Contact ◽  
Randomised Controlled
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document