Literature DB >> 19896049

Standard anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction versus isolated single-bundle augmentation with hamstring autograft.

Kyoung Ho Yoon1, Dae Kyung Bae, Seung Mok Cho, Soo Yeon Park, Jung Hwan Lee.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze differences in injury mechanism, preoperative physical examination findings, combined injury pattern, and postoperative clinical results among arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, anteromedial (AM) augmentation, and posterolateral (PL) augmentation with hamstring autograft. We also evaluated the availability of routine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detection of ACL remnant fibers.
METHODS: From January 2005 to May 2007, we analyzed 82 cases of ACL reconstruction, 40 cases of AM augmentation, and 42 cases of PL augmentation. We compared injury mechanism, combined injury pattern, and preoperative and postoperative measurements including range of motion, Lachman test, pivot-shift test, KT-1000 arthrometer test (MEDmetric, San Diego, CA), and International Knee Documentation Committee knee examination form. We also analyzed the availability of the routine coronal view on MRI for detecting ACL remnant fibers.
RESULTS: A direct injury mechanism was involved more in the AM augmentation group than in the PL augmentation group (P = .029). MRI diagnosis for the detection of a remnant AM or PL bundle presented excellent intraobserver and interobserver agreement. The incidence of medial meniscus tears was highest in the reconstruction group (P < .001 v AM augmentation group and P = .003 v PL augmentation group), and it was higher in the PL augmentation group than in the AM augmentation group (P = .018). The AM augmentation group had a higher incidence of medial collateral ligament injury than the other groups (P = .006 v reconstruction group and P = .037 v PL augmentation group). The AM augmentation group presented with a lower incidence of a preoperative grade 2 or 3 positive pivot-shift test (P = .008 v reconstruction group and P = .016 v PL augmentation group), but no difference was found in the other clinical assessments.
CONCLUSIONS: The AM augmentation group was injured more by a direct injury mechanism, and it presented with a greater incidence of medial collateral ligament tear than the PL augmentation group. The incidence of a preoperative grade 2 or 3 positive pivot-shift test was lower in the AM augmentation group than in the other 2 groups. MRI was useful for detection of remnant ACL fibers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19896049     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2009.05.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthroscopy        ISSN: 0749-8063            Impact factor:   4.772


  15 in total

1.  CORR Insights®: how useful is MRI in diagnosing isolated bundle ACL injuries?

Authors:  Bruce A Levy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-06-14       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Comparison of double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and single-bundle reconstruction with remnant pull-out suture.

Authors:  Seong Hwan Kim; Young Bok Jung; Min Ku Song; Sang Hak Lee; Ho Joong Jung; Han Jun Lee; Hyoung Seok Jung; Hawa-Tahir Siti
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-07-27       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 3.  Clinical outcomes of remnant preserving augmentation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review.

Authors:  Jianzhong Hu; Jin Qu; Daqi Xu; Tao Zhang; Jingyong Zhou; Hongbin Lu
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-11-02       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  MRI analysis of the attachment of the anteromedial and posterolateral bundles of anterior cruciate ligament using coronal oblique images.

Authors:  Yoshinari Tanaka; Yoshiki Shiozaki; Yasukazu Yonetani; Takashi Kanamoto; Akira Tsujii; Shuji Horibe
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-04-30       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Clinical outcomes and biomechanical analysis of posterolateral bundle augmentation in patients with partial anterior cruciate ligament tears.

Authors:  Takehiko Matsushita; Ryosuke Kuroda; Yuichiro Nishizawa; Daisuke Araki; Yuichi Hoshino; Kanto Nagai; Tomoyuki Matsumoto; Masahiro Kurosaka
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-07-11       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  How useful is MRI in diagnosing isolated bundle ACL injuries?

Authors:  Moon Jong Chang; Chong Bum Chang; Ja-Young Choi; Ho Hyun Won; Tae Kyun Kim
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-05-10       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Single-Bundle Augmentation for a Partial Tear of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament.

Authors:  Allison J Rao; Gregory L Cvetanovich; William A Zuke; Beatrice Go; Brian Forsythe
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2017-06-26

8.  MRI analysis of single-, double-, and triple-bundle anterior cruciate ligament grafts.

Authors:  Yoshinari Tanaka; Yasukazu Yonetani; Yoshiki Shiozaki; Takashi Kanamoto; Keisuke Kita; Hiroshi Amano; Masashi Kusano; Masashi Hirakawa; Shuji Horibe
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-06-09       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 9.  Surgical management of partial tears of the anterior cruciate ligament.

Authors:  Rocco Papalia; Francesco Franceschi; Biagio Zampogna; Andrea Tecame; Nicola Maffulli; Vincenzo Denaro
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-12-23       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Remodelling of human hamstring autografts after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Rob P A Janssen; Jasper van der Wijk; Anja Fiedler; Tanja Schmidt; Harm A G M Sala; Sven U Scheffler
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-02-04       Impact factor: 4.342

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.