PURPOSE: To evaluate the stability and functional outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction by tensioning of the ACL remnant using pullout sutures compared with a remnant preservation technique only. METHODS: The data of 33 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction by a remnant tensioning technique (tensioning group) were reviewed retrospectively and compared with the data of 43 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction with remnant preservation without tensioning (preservation-only group) from September 2004 to April 2008 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The stability and function were assessed from the side-to-side difference with a KT-1000 arthrometer (MEDmetric, San Diego, CA) and Telos device (Austin & Associates, Fallston, MD), as well as International Knee Documentation Committee and Orthopadische Arbeitsgruppe Knie scores. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to the subjective and objective International Knee Documentation Committee scores (P = .808 and P = .152, respectively) and Orthopadische Arbeitsgruppe Knie score (P = .702) at the last follow-up. No significant differences in mechanical stability were observed with the KT-1000 arthrometer and stress radiographs between the groups (P = .650 and P = .791, respectively). The remnant tensioning group took a longer surgical time than the preservation-only group (156.4 minutes v 134.5 minutes, P = .117). CONCLUSIONS: The ACL remnant tensioning procedure did not improve the final results of an ACL reconstruction in terms of the clinical function and stability compared with an ACL reconstruction using the preservation-only technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the stability and functional outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction by tensioning of the ACL remnant using pullout sutures compared with a remnant preservation technique only. METHODS: The data of 33 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction by a remnant tensioning technique (tensioning group) were reviewed retrospectively and compared with the data of 43 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction with remnant preservation without tensioning (preservation-only group) from September 2004 to April 2008 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The stability and function were assessed from the side-to-side difference with a KT-1000 arthrometer (MEDmetric, San Diego, CA) and Telos device (Austin & Associates, Fallston, MD), as well as International Knee Documentation Committee and Orthopadische Arbeitsgruppe Knie scores. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the groups with respect to the subjective and objective International Knee Documentation Committee scores (P = .808 and P = .152, respectively) and Orthopadische Arbeitsgruppe Knie score (P = .702) at the last follow-up. No significant differences in mechanical stability were observed with the KT-1000 arthrometer and stress radiographs between the groups (P = .650 and P = .791, respectively). The remnant tensioning group took a longer surgical time than the preservation-only group (156.4 minutes v 134.5 minutes, P = .117). CONCLUSIONS: The ACL remnant tensioning procedure did not improve the final results of an ACL reconstruction in terms of the clinical function and stability compared with an ACL reconstruction using the preservation-only technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
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