Literature DB >> 17828525

Proprioceptive comparison of allograft and autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions.

A Merter Ozenci1, Erkan Inanmaz, Haluk Ozcanli, Yetkin Soyuncu, Nehir Samanci, Tufan Dagseven, Nilüfer Balci, Semih Gur.   

Abstract

The aim of this study is to search if there is any proprioceptive difference between auto and allograft anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions, and also to determine if there is any relationship between instrumented anterior knee laxity and proprioception after an ACL reconstruction. The following four groups were constituted for this purpose: group I, control group; group II, autograft reconstructions; group III, allograft reconstructions and group IV, people with injured ACLs. Each group consisted of 20 patients/volunteers. Two subgroups were constituted according to the findings of KT-1,000 laxity testing in group II and III; patients/volunteers found to have a laxity of 3 mm or less were enrolled in the normal subgroup and those with a laxity of more than 3 mm were enrolled in the lax subgroup. Two proprioceptive tests were used: threshold to detect passive motion (TDPM) and joint position sense (JPS) by using Cybex Norm dynamometer. Patients underwent ten tests and the discrepancy in degrees was averaged for ten trials. Comparisons were made to evaluate the proprioceptive differences between groups/subgroups; ANOVA and t test was used for comparisons where appropriate, and the significance was set at P < 0.05. There was a significant difference in degrees between patients with injured ACLs and the other three groups in TDPM evaluations (injured: 1.93 degrees vs. control: 1.03 degrees , autograft: 1.01 degrees , allograft: 0.96 degrees ; P < 0.001). Auto and allograft reconstructions were not different from each other and controls. Allo and autograft ACL reconstructions are not different from each other according to proprioceptive measurements. Also, proprioception is not correlated to postoperative anterior knee laxity; many variables involve joint proprioception and mostly the anterior knee laxity may not be the sole determining element, and a lax ACL still may fulfill some of its afferent arc functions as long as it bridges the femur and tibia.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17828525     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-007-0404-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc        ISSN: 0942-2056            Impact factor:   4.342


  31 in total

1.  Joint position sense is not changed after acute disruption of the anterior cruciate ligament.

Authors:  L Good; H Roos; D J Gottlieb; P A Renström; B D Beynnon
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1999-04

2.  Bilateral proprioceptive defects in patients with a unilateral anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison between patients and healthy individuals.

Authors:  D Roberts; T Fridén; A Stomberg; A Lindstrand; U Moritz
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 3.494

3.  Clinical measurements of proprioception, muscle strength and laxity in relation to function in the ACL-injured knee.

Authors:  D Roberts; E Ageberg; G Andersson; T Fridén
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2006-06-22       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Proprioception in the nearly extended knee. Measurements of position and movement in healthy individuals and in symptomatic anterior cruciate ligament injured patients.

Authors:  T Fridén; D Roberts; R Zätterström; A Lindstrand; U Moritz
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 5.  Mechanoreceptors in joint function.

Authors:  T Hogervorst; R A Brand
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Comparison of performance-based and patient-reported measures of function in anterior-cruciate-ligament-deficient individuals.

Authors:  P A Borsa; S M Lephart; J J Irrgang
Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther       Date:  1998-12       Impact factor: 4.751

7.  Nerve supply of anterior cruciate ligaments and of cryopreserved anterior cruciate ligament allografts: a new method for the differentiation of the nervous tissues.

Authors:  B Fromm; W Kummer
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  1994       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  Allograft versus autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: 3- to 5-year outcome.

Authors:  C D Harner; E Olson; J J Irrgang; S Silverstein; F H Fu; M Silbey
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1996-03       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Proprioception and function after anterior cruciate reconstruction.

Authors:  D S Barrett
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1991-09

10.  Proprioception of the knee before and after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Bruce Reider; Michel A Arcand; Lee H Diehl; Kenneth Mroczek; Armand Abulencia; C Christopher Stroud; Melanie Palm; Jennifer Gilbertson; Patricia Staszak
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 4.772

View more
  20 in total

Review 1.  A systematic review of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autograft compared with allograft.

Authors:  James L Carey; Warren R Dunn; Diane L Dahm; Scott L Zeger; Kurt P Spindler
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 5.284

2.  Synovialization on second-look arthroscopy after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using Achilles allograft in active young men.

Authors:  Jung Ho Noh; Bo Gyu Yang; Young Hak Roh; Jun Suk Lee
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-03-16       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Restoration of sagittal and transverse plane proprioception following anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction.

Authors:  Takashi Nagai; Nicholas R Heebner; Timothy C Sell; Takumi Nakagawa; Freddie H Fu; Scott M Lephart
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-08-29       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Quadriceps tendon autograft ACL reconstructed subjects overshoot target knee extension angle during active proprioception testing.

Authors:  Hande Guney-Deniz; Gulcan Harput; Defne Kaya; John Nyland; Mahmut Nedim Doral
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-11-27       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Comparison of proprioception between osteoarthritic and age-matched unaffected knees: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Sung-Sahn Lee; Hyun-Jung Kim; Donghee Ye; Dae-Hee Lee
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2020-03-30       Impact factor: 3.067

6.  Dynamic-position-sense impairment's independence of perceived knee function in women with ACL reconstruction.

Authors:  Andrew E Littmann; Masaki Iguchi; Sangeetha Madhavan; Jamie L Kolarik; Richard K Shields
Journal:  J Sport Rehabil       Date:  2011-11-15       Impact factor: 1.931

7.  THE EFFECT OF CONSERVATIVELY TREATED ACL INJURY ON KNEE JOINT POSITION Sense.

Authors:  Nicola Relph; Lee Herrington
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2016-08

8.  Alterations in sensorimotor function after ACL reconstruction during active joint position sense testing. A systematic review.

Authors:  Aglaja Busch; Angela Blasimann; Frank Mayer; Heiner Baur
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-06-25       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  The effects of comprehensive warm-up programs on proprioception, static and dynamic balance on male soccer players.

Authors:  Abdolhamid Daneshjoo; Abdul Halim Mokhtar; Nader Rahnama; Ashril Yusof
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-12-12       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 10.  Properties of Knee Joint Position Sense Tests for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Andrew Strong; Ashokan Arumugam; Eva Tengman; Ulrik Röijezon; Charlotte K Häger
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-07-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.