Literature DB >> 10927209

Patient satisfaction needs as related to knee stability and objective findings after ACL reconstruction using the LARS artificial ligament.

.   

Abstract

The purposes of this study are to compare patient satisfaction with the objective measurement of knee stability and assess early complications following ACL reconstruction using a LARS artificial ligament. Forty-seven patients were reviewed 8-45 months after surgery. Assessment was made by the Knee and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for patient satisfaction, a modified International Knee Documentation Committee form for clinical knee stability, and a Telos stress radiography for PA stability. Complications were assessed at interview and were double-checked with charts. The LARS artificial ligament may be a safe device to reconstruct an ACL tear. Documenting mechanical stability of the knee is inadequate when reporting follow-up studies and a questionnaire assessing patient satisfaction should be added to provide a better picture of the outcome and results.

Entities:  

Year:  2000        PMID: 10927209     DOI: 10.1016/s0968-0160(00)00039-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee        ISSN: 0968-0160            Impact factor:   2.199


  32 in total

1.  Repair of rectus femoris rupture with LARS ligament.

Authors:  Clare Taylor; Rathan Yarlagadda; Jonathan Keenan
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2012-03-20

2.  Reconstruction with scapular hemiarthroplasty endoprosthesis after scapulectomy for malignant tumour.

Authors:  Li Min; Yong Zhou; Fan Tang; Wenli Zhang; Yi Luo; Hong Duan; Chongqi Tu
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2017-03-06       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Four-strand hamstring tendon autograft versus LARS artificial ligament for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Zhong-tang Liu; Xian-long Zhang; Yao Jiang; Bing-Fang Zeng
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2009-04-25       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with LARS™ artificial ligament results at a mean follow-up of eight years.

Authors:  Paolo Domenico Parchi; Ciapini Gianluca; Lorenzo Dolfi; Alessandro Baluganti; Piolanti Nicola; Fabio Chiellini; Michele Lisanti
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-06-29       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 5.  ACL Reconstruction: Choosing the Graft.

Authors:  Giuliano Cerulli; Giacomo Placella; Enrico Sebastiani; Matteo Maria Tei; Andrea Speziali; Francesco Manfreda
Journal:  Joints       Date:  2013-06-12

6.  Biomechanical evaluation of four femoral fixation configurations in a simulated anterior cruciate ligament replacement using a new generation of Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System (LARS™ AC).

Authors:  Olivier Barbier; Sandra Guérard; Philippe Boisrenoult; Patricia Thoreux
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2015-01-30

7.  LARS™ in ACL reconstruction: evaluation of 60 cases with 5-year minimum follow-up.

Authors:  G Bugelli; G Dell'Osso; F Ascione; E Gori; V Bottai; S Giannotti
Journal:  Musculoskelet Surg       Date:  2017-09-05

8.  Second-look arthroscopic findings and clinical results after polyethylene terephthalate augmented anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Johannes Struewer; Ewgeni Ziring; Bernd Ishaque; Turgay Efe; Tim Schwarting; Benjamin Buecking; Karl F Schüttler; Steffen Ruchholtz; Thomas M Frangen
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-09-14       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 9.  Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the ligament augmentation and reconstruction system: a systematic review.

Authors:  Simon D S Newman; Henry D E Atkinson; Charles A Willis-Owen
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2012-09-14       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  Effect of culture complex of BMSCs and sodium hydroxide- and GRGDSPC-treated PET on the reconstruction of injured anterior cruciate ligament in a rabbit model.

Authors:  Jianming Huang; Fengrong Chen; Guojian Jian; Zhiyang Ye; Zimin Wang; Haoyuan Liu; Yifan Kang
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2015-05-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.