Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Comparison of 2 femoral tunnel drilling techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A prospective randomized comparative study.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018 Dec 22; 19(1):454.BM

Abstract

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the length and position of femoral tunnel,and exam whether knee stability and clinical functional outcomes are superior in AMP method.

METHODS

From August 2014 to February 2015, we prospectively recruited 104 patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. They were randomized to anteromedial portal or transtibial method. All patients underwent Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee score,Tegner score at pre-operative and last follow-up point as subjective assessment of clinical function. The Lachman test, the Pivot-shift test and KT-1000 were performed at the last follow-up as a evaluation of knee joint stability. We measured the length of femoral tunnel intraoperatively and at 1 week post-operatively, CT-based three-dimensional reconstruction was used to assess femoral tunnel location.

RESULTS

The average follow-up time of anteromedial portal group was 25.7 ± 6.8 months (range:12-36.5 months), and the average follow-up time of the transtibial group was 24.9 ± 6.0 months (range:12-37 months). There was no significant difference between the groups pre-operative Lysholm score, IKDC score and Tegner scores. Both groups showed significantly improvement in these clinical function scores at follow up for their ACL reconstruction. However, there was no significant difference in the function scores between the two groups at last follow up. However, the mean femoral tunnel length in the anteromedial portal group was significantly shorter than that in the transtibial group. And tunnel location was significantly lower and deeper with the anteromedial portal technique than with the transtibial technique.

CONCLUSION

The use of anteromedial portal method resulted in a significantly lower and deeper placement of the femoral tunnel, and a shorter tunnel length compared to the transtibial method. However, there was no statistical difference in terms of clinical function and knee joint stability between the anteromedial portal method and the transtibial method.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Name of the registry: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. The registration number: ChiCTR1800014874 . The date of registration: 12 February, 2018. The study is retrospectively registered.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Qingdao University Medical College, Qingdao, China. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Qindao University Medical College Affiliated Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital, Yantai, Shandong, People's Republic of China.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Qindao University Medical College Affiliated Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital, Yantai, Shandong, People's Republic of China. gpz1731@163.com.

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Language

eng

PubMed ID

30579352

Citation

Geng, Yunhang, and Pengzhou Gai. "Comparison of 2 Femoral Tunnel Drilling Techniques in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. a Prospective Randomized Comparative Study." BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, vol. 19, no. 1, 2018, p. 454.
Geng Y, Gai P. Comparison of 2 femoral tunnel drilling techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A prospective randomized comparative study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018;19(1):454.
Geng, Y., & Gai, P. (2018). Comparison of 2 femoral tunnel drilling techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A prospective randomized comparative study. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 19(1), 454. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2376-0
Geng Y, Gai P. Comparison of 2 Femoral Tunnel Drilling Techniques in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. a Prospective Randomized Comparative Study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018 Dec 22;19(1):454. PubMed PMID: 30579352.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of 2 femoral tunnel drilling techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A prospective randomized comparative study. AU - Geng,Yunhang, AU - Gai,Pengzhou, Y1 - 2018/12/22/ PY - 2017/11/14/received PY - 2018/12/10/accepted PY - 2018/12/24/entrez PY - 2018/12/24/pubmed PY - 2019/4/10/medline KW - Anterior cruciate ligament KW - Anteromedial portal KW - Femoral tunnel KW - Transtibial SP - 454 EP - 454 JF - BMC musculoskeletal disorders JO - BMC Musculoskelet Disord VL - 19 IS - 1 N2 - BACKGROUND: To evaluate the length and position of femoral tunnel,and exam whether knee stability and clinical functional outcomes are superior in AMP method. METHODS: From August 2014 to February 2015, we prospectively recruited 104 patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. They were randomized to anteromedial portal or transtibial method. All patients underwent Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee score,Tegner score at pre-operative and last follow-up point as subjective assessment of clinical function. The Lachman test, the Pivot-shift test and KT-1000 were performed at the last follow-up as a evaluation of knee joint stability. We measured the length of femoral tunnel intraoperatively and at 1 week post-operatively, CT-based three-dimensional reconstruction was used to assess femoral tunnel location. RESULTS: The average follow-up time of anteromedial portal group was 25.7 ± 6.8 months (range:12-36.5 months), and the average follow-up time of the transtibial group was 24.9 ± 6.0 months (range:12-37 months). There was no significant difference between the groups pre-operative Lysholm score, IKDC score and Tegner scores. Both groups showed significantly improvement in these clinical function scores at follow up for their ACL reconstruction. However, there was no significant difference in the function scores between the two groups at last follow up. However, the mean femoral tunnel length in the anteromedial portal group was significantly shorter than that in the transtibial group. And tunnel location was significantly lower and deeper with the anteromedial portal technique than with the transtibial technique. CONCLUSION: The use of anteromedial portal method resulted in a significantly lower and deeper placement of the femoral tunnel, and a shorter tunnel length compared to the transtibial method. However, there was no statistical difference in terms of clinical function and knee joint stability between the anteromedial portal method and the transtibial method. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Name of the registry: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. The registration number: ChiCTR1800014874 . The date of registration: 12 February, 2018. The study is retrospectively registered. SN - 1471-2474 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/30579352/Comparison_of_2_femoral_tunnel_drilling_techniques_in_anterior_cruciate_ligament_reconstruction__A_prospective_randomized_comparative_study_ L2 - https://bmcmusculoskeletdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12891-018-2376-0 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -