Fawzy Hamido1,2, Abdelrahman A Habiba3, Yousef Marwan3,4, Aymen S I Soliman5, Tarek A Elkhadrawe5, Mohamed G Morsi5, Wael Shoaeb3, Ahmed Nagi3. 1. Division of Sports Medicine, Al-Razi Orthopaedic Hospital, Ministry of Health, Kuwait, Kuwait. fhf19633@yahoo.com. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Al-Razi Orthopaedic Hospital, Safat, P.O. Box 24923, 13110, Kuwait, Kuwait. fhf19633@yahoo.com. 3. Division of Sports Medicine, Al-Razi Orthopaedic Hospital, Ministry of Health, Kuwait, Kuwait. 4. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Health Sciences Center, Kuwait University, Kuwait, Kuwait. 5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with those of combined ACL and anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction in ACL-deficient knees. The objective of this study was to improve knowledge regarding the treatment of ACL-deficient knees with combined ACL and ALL reconstruction. Combined ACL and ALL reconstruction has been hypothesized to result in better clinical and functional outcomes than isolated ACL reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS:One-hundred and seven adult male athletes with ACL tears and high-grade pivot shifts were randomized into two groups. Those in group A (n = 54) underwent ACLR, while those in group B (n = 53) underwent combined ACL and ALL reconstruction. The median age was 26 (18-40) and 24 (18-33) years in groups A and B, respectively, and the median follow-up was 60 (55-65) months. Physical examination findings, instrumented knee laxity tested using a KT-1000 arthrometer, and International Knee Documentation Committee Scale (IKDC) scores were used to evaluate the outcomes. RESULTS: One-hundred and two patients were available for follow-up: 52 in group A and 50 in group B. Postoperatively, the pivot shift was normal in 43 (82.7%) and 48 (96%) patients in groups A and B, respectively (p < 0.001). The median instrumented knee laxity was 2.5 ± 0.7 (1.2-6.1) mm in patients in group A and 1.2 ± 0.7 (1.2-3.2) mm in patients in group B (p < 0.001). Additionally, 44 (84.6%) patients in group A had normal IKDC scores and 3 (5.8%) had nearly normal scores, while 48 (96.0%) patients in group B had normal IKDC scores and 2 (4%) had nearly normal scores (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION:Combined ACL and ALL reconstruction, compared with isolated ACLR resulted in favourable clinical and functional outcomes, as demonstrated by decreased rotational instability and instrumented knee laxity, a lower graft rupture rate and better postoperative IKDC scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with those of combined ACL and anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction in ACL-deficient knees. The objective of this study was to improve knowledge regarding the treatment of ACL-deficient knees with combined ACL and ALL reconstruction. Combined ACL and ALL reconstruction has been hypothesized to result in better clinical and functional outcomes than isolated ACL reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: One-hundred and seven adult male athletes with ACL tears and high-grade pivot shifts were randomized into two groups. Those in group A (n = 54) underwent ACLR, while those in group B (n = 53) underwent combined ACL and ALL reconstruction. The median age was 26 (18-40) and 24 (18-33) years in groups A and B, respectively, and the median follow-up was 60 (55-65) months. Physical examination findings, instrumented knee laxity tested using a KT-1000 arthrometer, and International Knee Documentation Committee Scale (IKDC) scores were used to evaluate the outcomes. RESULTS: One-hundred and two patients were available for follow-up: 52 in group A and 50 in group B. Postoperatively, the pivot shift was normal in 43 (82.7%) and 48 (96%) patients in groups A and B, respectively (p < 0.001). The median instrumented knee laxity was 2.5 ± 0.7 (1.2-6.1) mm in patients in group A and 1.2 ± 0.7 (1.2-3.2) mm in patients in group B (p < 0.001). Additionally, 44 (84.6%) patients in group A had normal IKDC scores and 3 (5.8%) had nearly normal scores, while 48 (96.0%) patients in group B had normal IKDC scores and 2 (4%) had nearly normal scores (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Combined ACL and ALL reconstruction, compared with isolated ACLR resulted in favourable clinical and functional outcomes, as demonstrated by decreased rotational instability and instrumented knee laxity, a lower graft rupture rate and better postoperative IKDC scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.
Entities:
Keywords:
ACL repair; ACL + ALL reconstruction; Knee rotational stability
Authors: Matthew Daggett; Andrew C Ockuly; Matthew Cullen; Kyle Busch; Christian Lutz; Pierre Imbert; Bertrand Sonnery-Cottet Journal: Arthroscopy Date: 2015-12-23 Impact factor: 4.772
Authors: V Chouliaras; S Ristanis; C Moraiti; V Tzimas; N Stergiou; A D Georgoulis Journal: J Sports Med Phys Fitness Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 1.637
Authors: Kevin M Bell; Ata A Rahnemai-Azar; Sebastian Irarrazaval; Daniel Guenther; Freddie H Fu; Volker Musahl; Richard E Debski Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2017-08-29 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Andrew G Geeslin; Jorge Chahla; Gilbert Moatshe; Kyle J Muckenhirn; Bradley M Kruckeberg; Alex W Brady; Ashley Coggins; Grant J Dornan; Alan M Getgood; Jonathan A Godin; Robert F LaPrade Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Brian M Devitt; Stuart W Bell; Clare L Ardern; Taylor Hartwig; Tabitha J Porter; Julian A Feller; Kate E Webster Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2017-10-24