scholarly journals Comparison Between Early and Late Retensioning of an Adjustable-Loop Cortical Suspension Device During Hamstring ACL Reconstruction

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. 232596712110423
Author(s):  
Nam-Hong Choi ◽  
Bong-Seok Yang ◽  
Hang-Ki Kang ◽  
Kyu-Wan Kim ◽  
Han-Bit Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Knot Tying ◽  
Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: Biomechanical studies have demonstrated significant loosening of the adjustable-loop device as compared with the fixed-loop device used in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Retensioning of the adjustable loop has been recommended; however, the timing of the retensioning is unknown. Hypothesis: Early (ER) and late retensioning (LR) will show similar gapping between the femoral tunnel and graft on follow-up magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and similar clinical outcomes. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: This study included 101 patients who underwent hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the adjustable-loop device for femoral fixation between June 2016 and January 2018. All patients a had follow-up MRI on postoperative day 1. Patients with revision surgery and those with reinjury after reconstruction were excluded. In the ER group, retensioning and knot tying of the initially tightened adjustable loop were performed after the flip of the button and before the graft was fixed at the tibia. In the LR group, retensioning and knot tying were performed after initial tightening of the adjustable loop and graft fixation at the tibial side. The tunnel-graft gap measured on multiplanar reformatted images of MRI scans was compared between the groups, as were clinical outcomes. Results: The mean age of the patients at the time of surgery was 30.3 years (range, 14-61 years). ER and knot tying were performed in 56 patients and LR and knot tying in 45. Preoperative characteristics of the 2 groups showed no significant differences. The mean ± SD tunnel-graft gap was 1.5 ± 2.0 mm in the ER group and 5.4 ± 4.0 mm in the LR group ( P < .001). There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the groups. Conclusion: ER and knot tying demonstrated less tunnel-graft gap than that of LR. However, there were no differences in clinical outcomes according to the timing of retensioning.

Outcomes of 1- Versus 2-Stage Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
pp. 036354652092309
Author(s):  
Matthew Colatruglio ◽  
David C. Flanigan ◽  
Joseph Long ◽  
Alex C. DiBartola ◽  
Robert A. Magnussen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a common orthopaedic sports medicine procedure, but graft failure is not uncommon and often leads to revision ACLR. Revision surgery can be performed in a 1- or 2-stage fashion. Hypothesis: Graft failure risk, patient-reported outcomes, and anterior knee laxity are similar after 1- and 2-stage revision ACLR. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed to evaluate patient outcomes after 1- versus 2-stage revision ACLR. A search was performed with the phrase “revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction” across Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and SportDiscus from the beginning of their archives through July 12, 2019. Results: Thirteen studies met inclusion criteria and included 524 patients: 319 patients who underwent 1-stage revision ACLR and 205 patients who underwent 2-stage revision ACLR. Two studies compared outcomes of 1- versus 2-stage revision ACLR; 4 studies reported outcomes after 2-stage revision ACLR; and the remaining 7 studies documented outcomes after 1-stage ACLR. The mean follow-up was 4.1 years. The 2 studies that compared 1- versus 2-stage ACLR reported no differences in functional, radiologic, or patient-reported outcomes or failure risk. Overall, 9 studies reported subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores; 4 studies, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score values; 8 studies, Lysholm scores; and 7 studies, Tegner scores; 8 studies measured anterior laxity with a KT-1000 arthrometer. The mean weighted subjective IKDC score for all studies including this outcome at final follow-up was 66.6 for 1-stage revisions and 65.9 for 2-stage revisions. Conclusion: The available evidence comparing 1- versus 2-stage revision ACLR is retrospective and limited. The results of each approach are similar in appropriately selected patients.

scholarly journals Comparison of clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autogenous hamstring tendons and peroneus longus allograft

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (2_suppl2) ◽  
pp. 2325967117S0004
Author(s):  
Rodi Ertoğrul ◽  
Hasan Basri Sezer ◽  
Raffi Armağan ◽  
Muharrem Kanar ◽  
Osman Tugrul Eren
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Peroneus Longus ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
Autograft Group

In this study we reported the early clinical and functional results of 40 patients admitted to our hospital for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (20 with autogenous hamstring tendon graft and 20 with peroneus longus allograft)retrospectively between august 2012 and september 2014. All patients in the autograft group were male and only three patients in the allograft group were female. The mean age in the autograft group was 29,60±4,55 and 34,25±6,73 in the allograft group. The mean time period before the surgery was 10,35(1-84) months and the mean postoperative follow up time was 33,8(12-46) months. Only 2 patients in the autograft group and 4 patients in the allograft group were injured by direct trauma. We noted the patients’ occupation, activity level and sport activities. Joint effusion, pain and restriction in the joint motion were documented. Patients were evaluated with Lachman, anterior drawer and pivot shift tests at the last follow up examination. The joint instability was tested with KT 1000 and the muscle contractions were tested with Cybex devices. Modified Cincinnati, Lysholm and IKDC activity scale were used to evaluate the activity level of patients. There were no difference neither clinically, nor functionally between two groups at the last follow up (p>0,05).Taken into consideration the risks and advantages of autogenous hamstring graft and allograft use we conclude that the peroneus longus allograft is a reasonable option for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

scholarly journals Prospective Comparative Study of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using the Double-Bundle and Single-Bundle Techniques

2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (9) ◽  
pp. 1705-1711 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eun Kyoo Song ◽  
Luke S. Oh ◽  
Thomas J. Gill ◽  
Guoan Li ◽  
Hemanth R. Gadikota ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Double Bundle ◽  
Single Bundle ◽  
Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

Background The intent of double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is to reproduce the normal anterior cruciate ligament anatomy and improve knee joint rotational stability. However, no consensus has been reached on the advantages of this technique over the single-bundle technique. Hypothesis We hypothesized that double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction could provide better intraoperative stability and clinical outcome than single-bundle reconstruction. Type of study: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods Forty patients with anterior cruciate ligament injury in one knee were recruited; 20 were allocated to a double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction group and 20 to a single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction group. Intraoperative stabilities at 30° of knee flexion were compared between the 2 groups using a navigation system. Clinical outcomes including Lysholm knee scores, Tegner activity scores, Lachman and pivot-shift test results, and radiographic stabilities were also compared between the 2 groups after a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Results Intraoperative anterior and rotational stabilities after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the double-bundle group were significantly better than those in single-bundle group (P = .020 and P < .001, respectively). Nineteen patients (95%) in each group were available at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Clinical outcomes including Lysholm knee and Tegner activity scores were similar in the 2 groups at 2-year follow-up (P > .05). Furthermore, stability results of the Lachman and pivot-shift tests, and radiologic findings at 2-year follow-up failed to reveal any significant intergroup differences (P > .05). Conclusion Although double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction produces better intraoperative stabilities than single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, the 2 modalities were found to be similar in terms of clinical outcomes and postoperative stabilities after a minimum of 2 years of follow-up.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document