Literature DB >> 31673741

Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction for chronic lesions: clinical experience with hamstring versus ligament advanced reinforcement system as graft.

D Saragaglia1, F Francony2, J Gaillot2, R Pailhé2, B Rubens-Duval2, G Lateur2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare clinical and laximetric results in chronic, isolated posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) rupture repairs, using either a hamstring graft or an artificial ligament (ligament advanced reinforcement system (LARS®)).
METHODS: Sixteen patients presenting with an isolated unilateral PCL rupture were included in this retrospective study. Initially, eight underwent a PCL reconstruction using a hamstring tendon autograft (hamstring group), and over a later period, eight further patients underwent a reconstruction using an artificial ligament with a new procedure.
RESULTS: Fifteen patients were male and one female, with an average age of 29.3 years. All patients were operated on within an average time of 18 months post-injury. Pre-operative posterior laxity was equivalent (p = 0.309), 18.25 mm on average for the hamstring group and 18.75 mm for the LARS group. With an average follow-up of 24 months, residual posterior laxity was significantly improved, decreasing from 18.25 to 7.37 mm for the hamstring group (p < 0.05) with a median at 7.5 mm and from 18.75 to 5.25 mm for the LARS group (p < 0.05) with a median at 5 mm. The improvement in laxity for the hamstring group was 60% and 71.5% for the LARS group. The LARS group compares favourably (p = 0.003 and 0.01). Tegner activity level improved significantly following ligamentoplasty, with no difference between the two groups (p = 0.4). Likewise, there was no significant difference in the Lysholm and IKDC scores between the two groups (p = 0.4).
CONCLUSION: The initial hypothesis of this study was proven correct. Nevertheless, a longer term study is necessary to assess the consequences of residual laxity in hamstring grafts and the long-term behaviour and tolerance of the LARS artificial ligament.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hamstring tendons; Ligament advanced reinforcement system (LARS); Reconstruction posterior cruciate ligament

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31673741     DOI: 10.1007/s00264-019-04434-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  30 in total

1.  Arthroscopic reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament: a comparison of quadriceps tendon autograft and quadruple hamstring tendon graft.

Authors:  Chih-Hwa Chen; Wen-Jer Chen; Chun-Hsiung Shih
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2002 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.772

2.  Four-strand hamstring tendon autograft versus LARS artificial ligament for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Zhong-tang Liu; Xian-long Zhang; Yao Jiang; Bing-Fang Zeng
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2009-04-25       Impact factor: 3.075

Review 3.  Posterior Cruciate Ligament: Anatomy and Biomechanics.

Authors:  Stephanie L Logterman; Frank B Wydra; Rachel M Frank
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2018-09

4.  Surgical management of PCL injuries: indications, techniques, and outcomes.

Authors:  Scott R Montgomery; Jared S Johnson; David R McAllister; Frank A Petrigliano
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2013-06

5.  Location of the femoral tunnel aperture during single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: outside-in versus inside-out techniques.

Authors:  Jun-Ho Kim; Hoon-Young Kim; Dae-Hee Lee
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-04-26       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  The natural history of acute, isolated, nonoperatively treated posterior cruciate ligament injuries. A prospective study.

Authors:  K D Shelbourne; T J Davis; D V Patel
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  1999 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.202

7.  Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries.

Authors:  Y Tegner; J Lysholm
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1985-09       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Endoscopic single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: results at minimum 2-year follow-up.

Authors:  David J Deehan; Lucy J Salmon; Vivianne J Russell; Leo A Pinczewski
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 4.772

9.  Effect of Posterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture on Biomechanical and Histological Features of Lateral Femoral Condyle.

Authors:  Zhenhan Deng; Yusheng Li; Hong Liu; Kanghua Li; Guanghua Lei; Bangbao Lu
Journal:  Med Sci Monit       Date:  2016-11-15

10.  Complex knee injuries treated in acute phase: Long-term results using Ligament Augmentation and Reconstruction System artificial ligament.

Authors:  John Gliatis; Konstantinos Anagnostou; Pantelis Tsoumpos; Evdokia Billis; Maria Papandreou; Spyridon Plessas
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2018-03-18
View more
  4 in total

1.  Global variation in isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Derrick M Knapik; Varun Gopinatth; Garrett R Jackson; Jorge Chahla; Matthew V Smith; Matthew J Matava; Robert H Brophy
Journal:  J Exp Orthop       Date:  2022-10-09

2.  Single versus double bundle in posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Filippo Migliorini; Andrea Pintore; Filippo Spiezia; Francesco Oliva; Frank Hildebrand; Nicola Maffulli
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-03-09       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Hamstring, bone-patellar tendon-bone, quadriceps and peroneus longus tendon autografts for primary isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review.

Authors:  Filippo Migliorini; Andrea Pintore; Gianluca Vecchio; Francesco Oliva; Frank Hildebrand; Nicola Maffulli
Journal:  Br Med Bull       Date:  2022-07-09       Impact factor: 5.841

4.  Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System (LARS) synthetic graft for PCL reconstruction: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Filippo Migliorini; Andrea Pintore; Gianluca Vecchio; Francesco Oliva; Frank Hildebrand; Nicola Maffulli
Journal:  Br Med Bull       Date:  2022-09-22       Impact factor: 5.841

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.