Literature DB >> 29189882

The transportal technique shows better clinical results than the transtibial techniques for single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Kyung-Han Ro1, Hyun-Jung Kim2, Dae-Hee Lee3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Although anatomical and independent drilling techniques, such as transportal (TP) technique, have become more popular in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, the TP technique has not been shown to yield superior clinical or functional outcomes compared to the transtibial (TT) technique. The aim of the current meta-analysis was to compare clinical outcomes of the TP and TT techniques, as determined by patient-reported outcome scores and knee joint laxity tests. It was hypothesized that the TP and TT techniques of ACL reconstruction would yield similar patient-reported functional outcomes and similar results on knee joint laxity tests.
METHODS: Studies were included if they reported at least one of the following clinical outcomes: IKDC score, IKDC examination, Lysholm knee score, and Tegner activity score. Knee stability was evaluated by single or multiple parameters of the following knee laxity examinations: the Lachman test, the pivot shift test, and side-to-side difference on the instrumented knee laxity test.
RESULTS: Sixteen studies were finally included in this meta-analysis. The proportions of patients with normal grade on the IKDC examination [odds ratio (OR) 2.23; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41-3.53; P = 0.0006] and Lysholm score (mean difference 1.27; 95% CI 0.23-2.31; P = 0.02) after surgery were higher with the TP than with the TT technique, but there were no differences in IKDC and Tegner scores. The postoperative proportion of normal knee joint stability was significantly higher with the TP than the TT technique, on both Lachman (OR 2.29; 95% CI 1.35-3.92; P = 0.002) and pivot shift (OR 2.13; 95% CI 1.12-4.05; P = 0.02) tests. The pooled mean side-to-side difference was 0.73 mm lower with the TP than the TT technique (95% CI - 1.14 to - 0.32 mm; P = 0.0005).
CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis showed that the clinical outcomes of ACL reconstruction were better with the TP than the TT technique, both on knee functional outcome scales and knee laxity tests. The findings thus suggest that the TP technique would be a better option for single-bundle ACL reconstruction compared to the TT technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; Anteromedial portal; Clinical outcome; Transportal; Transtibial

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29189882     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-017-4786-1

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


  29 in total

1.  Knee stability and graft function following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Comparison between 11 o'clock and 10 o'clock femoral tunnel placement. 2002 Richard O'Connor Award paper.

Authors:  John C Loh; Yukihisa Fukuda; Eiichi Tsuda; Richard J Steadman; Freddie H Fu; Savio L Y Woo
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 4.772

2.  Comparison of 4 femoral tunnel drilling techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Andrew I Larson; Daniel P Bullock; Tomas Pevny
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2012-03-10       Impact factor: 4.772

3.  Nonanatomic tunnel position in traditional transtibial single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction evaluated by three-dimensional computed tomography.

Authors:  Sebastian Kopf; Brian Forsythe; Andrew K Wong; Scott Tashman; William Anderst; James J Irrgang; Freddie H Fu
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 5.284

4.  Femoral bone tunnel placement using the transtibial tunnel or the anteromedial portal in ACL reconstruction: a radiographic evaluation.

Authors:  Jens Dargel; Rüdiger Schmidt-Wiethoff; Sören Fischer; Konrad Mader; Jürgen Koebke; Thomas Schneider
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2008-10-09       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Femoral tunnel placement during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an in vivo imaging analysis comparing transtibial and 2-incision tibial tunnel-independent techniques.

Authors:  Ermias S Abebe; C T Moorman; T Scott Dziedzic; Charles E Spritzer; R Lee Cothran; Dean C Taylor; William E Garrett; Louis E DeFrate
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2009-08-17       Impact factor: 6.202

6.  Comparison of two methods of femoral tunnel preparation in single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Qiang Zhang; Shu Zhang; Rui Li; Ya Liu; Xuecheng Cao
Journal:  Acta Cir Bras       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 1.388

7.  Transtibial versus anteromedial portal anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using soft-tissue graft and expandable fixation.

Authors:  Mary K Mulcahey; Tal S David; David M Epstein; Michael J Alaia; Kenneth D Montgomery
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2014-08-08       Impact factor: 4.772

8.  [Comparative study on arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with transtibial technique and through anteromedial approach].

Authors:  Zhaolan Wei; Fuming Li; Weiqiu Peng; Baochen Wei; Libiao Qiu; Chaoxi Wei
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2014-03

9.  Anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction is possible with use of the modified transtibial technique: a comparison with the anteromedial transportal technique.

Authors:  Joon Kyu Lee; Sahnghoon Lee; Sang Cheol Seong; Myung Chul Lee
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2014-04-16       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Arthroscopic Control for Safe and Secure Seating of Suspensory Devices for Femoral Fixation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Three Different Techniques.

Authors:  Seo Goo Kang; Yong Seuk Lee
Journal:  Knee Surg Relat Res       Date:  2017-03-01
View more
  7 in total

1.  Reply to the letter to the editor: Comment on "Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction performed within 12 months of the index injury is associated with a lower rate of medial meniscus tears".

Authors:  Ying Ren Mok; Lingaraj Krishna
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2019-05-13       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 2.  An increased posterior tibial slope is associated with a higher risk of graft failure following ACL reconstruction: a systematic review.

Authors:  Zhongcheng Liu; Jin Jiang; Qiong Yi; Yuanjun Teng; Xuening Liu; Jinwen He; Kun Zhang; Lifu Wang; Fei Teng; Bin Geng; Yayi Xia; Meng Wu
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2022-02-06       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Graft isometry during anatomical ACL reconstruction has little effect on surgical outcomes.

Authors:  Hyun-Soo Moon; Chong-Hyuk Choi; Je-Hyun Yoo; Min Jung; Tae-Ho Lee; Kee-Bum Hong; Sung-Hwan Kim
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-07-15       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  [Progress of different methods for femoral tunnel positioning in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction].

Authors:  Biying Huang; Wenyu Deng; Tao Li; Qi Li
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2021-01-15

Review 5.  Anteromedial Portal Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Yields Similar Outcomes to Non-AMP Femoral Drilling Double-Bundle Techniques: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies.

Authors:  Tushar Tejpal; Arnav Gupta; Ajaykumar Shanmugaraj; Nolan S Horner; Nicole Simunovic; Devin C Peterson; Olufemi R Ayeni
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2019-12-11

Review 6.  Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Anteromedial Portal Versus Transtibial Technique in ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Marios Loucas; Rafael Loucas; Riccardo D'Ambrosi; Michael Elias Hantes
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2021-07-02

7.  Safe femoral condyle range for the reverse Rigidfix femoral fixation device in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Zhongliu Luo; Yong Hu; Qingmin Han; Zhi Gao; Songmiao Cheng
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-03-25       Impact factor: 2.362

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.