Niclas Højgaard Eysturoy1, Torsten G Nielsen1, Martin C Lind2. 1. Division of Sports Trauma, Orthopedic Department, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. 2. Division of Sports Trauma, Orthopedic Department, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. Electronic address: martinlind@dadlnet.dk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare anteromedial (AM) and transtibial (TT) femoral drilling hole techniques in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, using the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Register, comparing revision rates and clinical outcomes from 2 time periods, 2007 to 2010 and 2012 to 2015. METHODS: A total of 8,386 primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions were registered between January 2007 to December 2010 and 8,818 in the period January 2012 to December 2015. Revision ACL was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were the objective and subjective clinical outcomes. Crude and adjusted relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: The adjusted RR for revision surgery in the AM (2007-10) group compared with the TT (2007-10) group was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.17-1.78; P < .05), but when comparing the AM (2012-15) group with TT (2012-15) group, the RR was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.68-1.45; P = .96). One-year postoperative objective stability testing showed an RR = 1.38 (95% CI, 1.19-1.60; P < .01) for rotational stability and an RR = 1.37 (95% CI, 0.99-1.89; P < .01) for sagittal stability when comparing AM (2007-10) to TT (2007-10). No significant difference in objective stability was found in the more recent period. Lastly, comparing the subjective scores, the AM (2012-15) had a significantly higher Tegner score 1 year postoperatively compared with the TT-group (2012-15). CONCLUSIONS: This study found an increased RR of revision anterior cruciate ligament and rotational and sagittal instability 1 year postoperatively for the AM technique in the period from 2007 to 2010. However, there was no significant difference in revision surgery and objective measures between the techniques from 2012 to 2015. Nevertheless, a higher activity level was found in the AM group. The results could indicate that the results found in the period 2007 to 2010 may have been caused by a learning curve when introducing a new and more complex procedure (AM). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative trial.
PURPOSE: To compare anteromedial (AM) and transtibial (TT) femoral drilling hole techniques in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, using the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Register, comparing revision rates and clinical outcomes from 2 time periods, 2007 to 2010 and 2012 to 2015. METHODS: A total of 8,386 primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions were registered between January 2007 to December 2010 and 8,818 in the period January 2012 to December 2015. Revision ACL was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were the objective and subjective clinical outcomes. Crude and adjusted relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: The adjusted RR for revision surgery in the AM (2007-10) group compared with the TT (2007-10) group was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.17-1.78; P < .05), but when comparing the AM (2012-15) group with TT (2012-15) group, the RR was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.68-1.45; P = .96). One-year postoperative objective stability testing showed an RR = 1.38 (95% CI, 1.19-1.60; P < .01) for rotational stability and an RR = 1.37 (95% CI, 0.99-1.89; P < .01) for sagittal stability when comparing AM (2007-10) to TT (2007-10). No significant difference in objective stability was found in the more recent period. Lastly, comparing the subjective scores, the AM (2012-15) had a significantly higher Tegner score 1 year postoperatively compared with the TT-group (2012-15). CONCLUSIONS: This study found an increased RR of revision anterior cruciate ligament and rotational and sagittal instability 1 year postoperatively for the AM technique in the period from 2007 to 2010. However, there was no significant difference in revision surgery and objective measures between the techniques from 2012 to 2015. Nevertheless, a higher activity level was found in the AM group. The results could indicate that the results found in the period 2007 to 2010 may have been caused by a learning curve when introducing a new and more complex procedure (AM). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative trial.
Authors: Marco Cuzzolin; Davide Previtali; Marco Delcogliano; Giuseppe Filardo; Christian Candrian; Alberto Grassi Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2021-07-12
Authors: Thorkell Snaebjörnsson; Eric Hamrin Senorski; Eleonor Svantesson; Olof Westin; Andreas Persson; Jon Karlsson; Kristian Samuelsson Journal: JB JS Open Access Date: 2019-12-12