Marie Bagger Bohn1, Henrik Sørensen2, Mette Krintel Petersen3, Kjeld Søballe4, Martin Lind5. 1. Division of Sportstrauma, Department of Orthopedics, Aarhus University Hospital, Tage Hansens Gade 2, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark. 2. Department of Public Health, Section of Sports Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 3. Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Aarhus University Hospital and Centre of Research in Rehabilitation, Institute of Clinical Medicine and Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 4. Department of Orthopedics, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 5. Division of Sportstrauma, Department of Orthopedics, Aarhus University Hospital, Tage Hansens Gade 2, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark. martinlind@dadlnet.dk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the ability of three different anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction techniques to normalize rotational knee stability 1 year after ACL reconstruction. Two of these techniques are so-called anatomic techniques. METHODS: Three different ACL reconstruction techniques were tested for their ability to normalize rotational knee stability in a prospective randomized study. Forty-seven ACL-deficient (ACLD) patients were randomized to transtibial single-bundle (SB), anatomic SB, and double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Three-dimensional motion analysis was performed preoperatively and at 1-year follow-up to evaluate tibial rotation and rotational stiffness. Motion data were captured using an eight-camera motion analysis system. Tibial rotation was determined during walking, running, and a pivoting task. Other outcome parameters were KT-1000 knee laxity measurements and the subjective outcome scores KOOS and IKDC. RESULTS: Three-dimensional motion analysis demonstrated that the tibial internal rotation and the rotational stiffness did not differ between the ACL reconstruction techniques during walking, running, and pivoting at 1-year follow-up. Objective knee stability and subjective outcome scores did not differ between the reconstruction groups. CONCLUSION: No significant difference in rotational stability walking, running, and pivoting was seen between anatomic and nonanatomic ACL reconstruction techniques at 1-year follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, Level I.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the ability of three different anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction techniques to normalize rotational knee stability 1 year after ACL reconstruction. Two of these techniques are so-called anatomic techniques. METHODS: Three different ACL reconstruction techniques were tested for their ability to normalize rotational knee stability in a prospective randomized study. Forty-seven ACL-deficient (ACLD) patients were randomized to transtibial single-bundle (SB), anatomic SB, and double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Three-dimensional motion analysis was performed preoperatively and at 1-year follow-up to evaluate tibial rotation and rotational stiffness. Motion data were captured using an eight-camera motion analysis system. Tibial rotation was determined during walking, running, and a pivoting task. Other outcome parameters were KT-1000 knee laxity measurements and the subjective outcome scores KOOS and IKDC. RESULTS: Three-dimensional motion analysis demonstrated that the tibial internal rotation and the rotational stiffness did not differ between the ACL reconstruction techniques during walking, running, and pivoting at 1-year follow-up. Objective knee stability and subjective outcome scores did not differ between the reconstruction groups. CONCLUSION: No significant difference in rotational stability walking, running, and pivoting was seen between anatomic and nonanatomic ACL reconstruction techniques at 1-year follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, Level I.
Authors: Mininder S Kocher; J Richard Steadman; Karen K Briggs; William I Sterett; Richard J Hawkins Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2004 Apr-May Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Stavros Ristanis; Nicholas Stergiou; Kostas Patras; Elias Tsepis; Constantina Moraiti; Anastasios D Georgoulis Journal: Clin J Sport Med Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 3.638
Authors: Sufian S Ahmad; Johannes C Meyer; Anna M Krismer; Suhaib S Ahmad; Dimitrios S Evangelopoulos; Sven Hoppe; Sandro Kohl Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2016-10-14 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Benoit Pairot-de-Fontenay; Richard W Willy; Audrey R C Elias; Ryan L Mizner; Marc-Olivier Dubé; Jean-Sébastien Roy Journal: Sports Med Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Marco Cuzzolin; Davide Previtali; Marco Delcogliano; Giuseppe Filardo; Christian Candrian; Alberto Grassi Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-07-12