Wenqiang Yan1, Xingquan Xu1, Qian Xu1,2, Ziying Sun1, Dongyang Chen1, Zhihong Xu1, Qing Jiang1,2, Dongquan Shi1. 1. State Key Laboratory of Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, Department of Sports Medicine and Adult Reconstructive Surgery, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, The Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University Medical School, Nanjing 210008, China. 2. Laboratory for Bone and Joint Disease, Model Animal Research Center (MARC), Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The factors that influence functions of knees after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) still remains uncertain. The functional restoration of knees after ACLR can be reflected on gait kinematics restoration. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the gait kinematics and clinical outcomes of knees after anatomical and non-anatomical single-bundle ACLR during level walking. METHODS: Thirty-four patients with unilateral primary single-bundle ACLR and 18 healthy people were recruited. Patients were divided into anatomical reconstruction group (AR group; n=13) and non-anatomical reconstruction group (Non-AR group; n=21) according to Bernard Quadrant method. The ACL graft orientations on coronal and sagittal planes were measured on 3D models from medical images. The 6 degrees of freedom (DOF) kinematics of knees and range of motion (ROM) of 6 DOF kinematics were measured with a portable optical tracking system. The comparison of 6 DOF kinematics and ROM of 6 DOF kinematics were performed between the ACLR knees and contralateral knees. The following assessments were also performed including clinical examination, KT-2000 arthrometer measurement, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores. RESULTS: All patients reached a minimum follow-up of 6 months (10±4 months). For AR group and Non-AR group, no statistically significant differences were observed in gait kinematics between the ACLR knees and contralateral knees. No statistically significant differences between the ACLR knees and contralateral knees were observed in terms of ROM of 6 DOF kinematics in AR group. However, in Non-AR group, the ACLR knees exhibited significant ROM of anterior-posterior translation by approximately 0.5 cm than contralateral knees (P=0.0080). No statistically significant differences between the two groups were observed regarding IKDC subjective score, Lysholm score and KT-2000 arthrometer test. CONCLUSIONS: The anatomical ACLR can restore close to normal gait kinematics and ROM of 6 DOF kinematics compared with non-anatomical ACLR. The ACL graft after anatomical ACLR simulated native ACL fibers to function in terms of graft orientation. 2019 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.
BACKGROUND: The factors that influence functions of knees after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) still remains uncertain. The functional restoration of knees after ACLR can be reflected on gait kinematics restoration. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the gait kinematics and clinical outcomes of knees after anatomical and non-anatomical single-bundle ACLR during level walking. METHODS: Thirty-four patients with unilateral primary single-bundle ACLR and 18 healthy people were recruited. Patients were divided into anatomical reconstruction group (AR group; n=13) and non-anatomical reconstruction group (Non-AR group; n=21) according to Bernard Quadrant method. The ACL graft orientations on coronal and sagittal planes were measured on 3D models from medical images. The 6 degrees of freedom (DOF) kinematics of knees and range of motion (ROM) of 6 DOF kinematics were measured with a portable optical tracking system. The comparison of 6 DOF kinematics and ROM of 6 DOF kinematics were performed between the ACLR knees and contralateral knees. The following assessments were also performed including clinical examination, KT-2000 arthrometer measurement, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores. RESULTS: All patients reached a minimum follow-up of 6 months (10±4 months). For AR group and Non-AR group, no statistically significant differences were observed in gait kinematics between the ACLR knees and contralateral knees. No statistically significant differences between the ACLR knees and contralateral knees were observed in terms of ROM of 6 DOF kinematics in AR group. However, in Non-AR group, the ACLR knees exhibited significant ROM of anterior-posterior translation by approximately 0.5 cm than contralateral knees (P=0.0080). No statistically significant differences between the two groups were observed regarding IKDC subjective score, Lysholm score and KT-2000 arthrometer test. CONCLUSIONS: The anatomical ACLR can restore close to normal gait kinematics and ROM of 6 DOF kinematics compared with non-anatomical ACLR. The ACL graft after anatomical ACLR simulated native ACL fibers to function in terms of graft orientation. 2019 Annals of Translational Medicine. All rights reserved.
Authors: Volker Musahl; Anton Plakseychuk; Andrew VanScyoc; Tomoyuki Sasaki; Richard E Debski; Patrick J McMahon; Freddie H Fu Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2005-02-16 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Donald C Fithian; Elizabeth W Paxton; Mary Lou Stone; William F Luetzow; Rick P Csintalan; Daniel Phelan; Dale M Daniel Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Mark E Steiner; Todd C Battaglia; James F Heming; Jason D Rand; Anthony Festa; Michael Baria Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2009-09-02 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Carl Imhauser; Craig Mauro; Daniel Choi; Eric Rosenberg; Stephen Mathew; Joseph Nguyen; Yan Ma; Thomas Wickiewicz Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 6.202