All-inside single-bundle and modified double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques guarantee stability and similar clinical results at over 5 year follow-up

IF 2.7 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics Pub Date : 2025-02-27 DOI:10.1002/jeo2.70100
Lorenzo Moretti, Raffaele Garofalo, Giuseppe Danilo Cassano, Roberto Calbi, Francesco Fiore, Giuseppe Solarino
{"title":"All-inside single-bundle and modified double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques guarantee stability and similar clinical results at over 5 year follow-up","authors":"Lorenzo Moretti,&nbsp;Raffaele Garofalo,&nbsp;Giuseppe Danilo Cassano,&nbsp;Roberto Calbi,&nbsp;Francesco Fiore,&nbsp;Giuseppe Solarino","doi":"10.1002/jeo2.70100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose</h3>\n \n <p>The aim of the present study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes between the all-inside single bundle (SB) and a modified double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions (ACLR) at over 5-year follow-up.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>This is an observational, retrospective comparative, two-centre study. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, and anterior tibial translation (ATT) was assessed using the KT-1000 arthrometer. Knee x-ray images were recorded, classified according to the KL grading and compared with radiographs of the same patient before surgery. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing ACLR, age between 18 and 45 years and negative knee history of major traumatic events after surgery. Exclusion criteria were congenital laxity, combined multiple knee ligament injuries, patients undergoing ACL revision surgery, history of infection, lower limb coronal axial deviation &gt;5°, patients undergoing lateral extra-articular tenodesis or anterolateral ligament reconstruction, patients with chondral damage Outerbridge grade &gt;2, patients with meniscal tears undergoing subtotal meniscectomy or meniscal repair and patients with knee OA Kellgren–Lawrance (KL) grade &gt;3.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>One hundred and fifty-two patients were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups according to surgical technique: Group A—ACLR with all-inside technique, and Group B—ACLR with modified DB technique. There were no statistical differences between groups for age, side, gender or time since surgery.</p>\n \n <p>There were no statistically significant differences between groups for Lysholm scores (<i>p</i> = 0.43), IKDC (<i>p</i> = 0.88), ATT (<i>p</i> = 0.105) and KL grade (<i>p</i> = 0.93 before surgery, 0.99 at the fu). KL grade increased significantly since pre-op.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>Our data show significant improvements in all clinical outcome measures, along with excellent KT-1000 arthrometer values and low clinical failure rates for both the SB all-inside and modified DB techniques at a mean follow-up of over 6 years. There were no significant differences in arthritic progression according to KL grade between groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Level of Evidence</h3>\n \n <p>Level III.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36909,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jeo2.70100","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://esskajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jeo2.70100","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of the present study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes between the all-inside single bundle (SB) and a modified double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions (ACLR) at over 5-year follow-up.

Methods

This is an observational, retrospective comparative, two-centre study. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, and anterior tibial translation (ATT) was assessed using the KT-1000 arthrometer. Knee x-ray images were recorded, classified according to the KL grading and compared with radiographs of the same patient before surgery. Inclusion criteria were patients undergoing ACLR, age between 18 and 45 years and negative knee history of major traumatic events after surgery. Exclusion criteria were congenital laxity, combined multiple knee ligament injuries, patients undergoing ACL revision surgery, history of infection, lower limb coronal axial deviation >5°, patients undergoing lateral extra-articular tenodesis or anterolateral ligament reconstruction, patients with chondral damage Outerbridge grade >2, patients with meniscal tears undergoing subtotal meniscectomy or meniscal repair and patients with knee OA Kellgren–Lawrance (KL) grade >3.

Results

One hundred and fifty-two patients were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups according to surgical technique: Group A—ACLR with all-inside technique, and Group B—ACLR with modified DB technique. There were no statistical differences between groups for age, side, gender or time since surgery.

There were no statistically significant differences between groups for Lysholm scores (p = 0.43), IKDC (p = 0.88), ATT (p = 0.105) and KL grade (p = 0.93 before surgery, 0.99 at the fu). KL grade increased significantly since pre-op.

Conclusions

Our data show significant improvements in all clinical outcome measures, along with excellent KT-1000 arthrometer values and low clinical failure rates for both the SB all-inside and modified DB techniques at a mean follow-up of over 6 years. There were no significant differences in arthritic progression according to KL grade between groups.

Level of Evidence

Level III.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
全内单束和改良双束前交叉韧带重建技术保证了5年以上随访的稳定性和相似的临床效果
目的:本研究的目的是比较全内单束(SB)和改良双束(DB)前交叉韧带重建(ACLR)在超过5年的随访中的临床和影像学结果。方法采用观察性、回顾性、比较、双中心研究。使用Lysholm和国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)评分评估临床结果,使用KT-1000关节计评估胫骨前平移(ATT)。记录膝关节x线图像,根据KL分级进行分类,并与同一患者术前x线片进行比较。纳入标准为行ACLR的患者,年龄在18 - 45岁之间,术后无重大创伤事件膝关节病史。排除标准为先天性松弛、合并多处膝关节韧带损伤、ACL翻修手术患者、感染史、下肢冠状轴向偏离(gt;5°)、外侧关节外肌腱固定或前外侧韧带重建患者、软骨损伤(Outerbridge级)患者;2 .半月板撕裂行半月板次全切除术或半月板修复术的患者和膝关节OA (kellgren - lawrence (KL)级)患者。结果共纳入152例患者。根据手术技术将患者分为两组:A-ACLR全内法组和B-ACLR改良DB法组。两组之间在年龄、侧面、性别和手术后时间上没有统计学差异。各组Lysholm评分(p = 0.43)、IKDC评分(p = 0.88)、ATT评分(p = 0.105)、KL评分(术前p = 0.93,术后p = 0.99)差异均无统计学意义。KL评分较术前明显增高。结论:我们的数据显示,在平均随访超过6年的时间里,所有的临床结果测量指标都有显著的改善,以及出色的KT-1000关节计值和较低的临床失败率。根据KL分级,两组间关节炎进展无明显差异。证据等级三级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics
Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
5.60%
发文量
114
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
Knee skin temperature following unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and its relationship with inflammatory indicators. Low all-cause 90-day mortality after revision knee arthroplasty: A study based on the Swedish Perioperative Register (SPOR), 2017-2022. Greater medial arterial supply revealed by 7-Tesla quantitative magnetic resonance imaging, histology and high-resolution computed tomography of the patellar tendon. Knee rotation significantly increases measured tibial tubercle-trochlear groove distance in female patients with anterior knee pain: Findings after rotational measurement correction. MRI-measured tendon retraction distance is associated with EMG-confirmed neurotrauma in proximal hamstring avulsion.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1