Literature DB >> 32999555

Is in-vivo 80 N tensioned quadrupled hamstring graft better than conventional unmeasured pull for arthroscopic ACL reconstruction.

Ananta Kumar Naik1, Vijay Kumar Jain1, Ankit Goyal2, Prasanth Bhavani2, Manmohan Shakya1, Skand Sinha2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To find clinical outcome of in-vivo standard 80 N tensioning of quadrupled hamstring graft during arthroscopic single bundle ACL reconstruction in comparison to traditional graft tensioning.
METHODS: Sixty cases of isolated ACL tears were included in this study. All cases underwent Arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with Tibial attachment sparing quadrupled hamstring graft. Cases were divided into group I and group II (30 cases each). Graft Tensioning in group 1 was conventional one-handed unmeasured pull and in group II it was measured tension of 80 N with tensionometer during graft fixation. Pre-operative and post-operative (12 months) Anterior tibial translation (ATT) was measured with KT-1000 arthrometer. Clinical outcome was measured using Lysholm knee scoring system at 6weeks, 3months, 6months, 12 months and compared statistically among both groups.
RESULTS: The mean pre-op ATT of 10.6 ± 2.04 mm (group I) & 10.83 ± 2 mm (group II) improved to 3.63 ± 1.16 mm (group I) & 3.63 ± 0.92 (group II) respectively at one year without significant difference (p value 1). The mean pre-op Lysholm score was 46.73 ± 6.77 (group I) and 45.97 ± 8.68 (group II). The mean Lysholm score at 6 weeks was 91.5 ± 2.78 (group I) and 93.43 ± 3.02 (group II) with significant difference (p value 0.014). At 3 months it was 95.4 ± 2.99 (group I) and 97.07 ± 2.07 (group II) with significant difference (p value 0.025). At 6 months it was 95.53 ± 2.46 (group I) and 97.5 ± 1.2 (group II) with significant difference (p value 0.0002). At 1 year it was 95.73 ± 2.22 (group I) and 97.8 ± 0.979 (group II) with significance (p value 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: The clinical score of ACL reconstruction is better when in-vivo 80 N tension is applied using tensionometer during graft fixation in comparison to conventional manual tensioning but there is no difference in ATT.
© 2020 Delhi Orthopedic Association. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ACL; Graft tension; Hamstring graft; Lysholm score; Tensionometer; Unmeasured tension

Year:  2020        PMID: 32999555      PMCID: PMC7503074          DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2020.06.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma        ISSN: 0976-5662


  21 in total

1.  Graft tension and knee stability after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Shinichi Yoshiya; Masahiro Kurosaka; Kiyoshi Ouchi; Ryosuke Kuroda; Kosaku Mizuno
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  The effect of graft stiffness on knee joint biomechanics after ACL reconstruction--a 3D computational simulation.

Authors:  Jeremy Suggs; Conrad Wang; Guoan Li
Journal:  Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 2.063

3.  The effects of graft tensioning on the laxity and kinematics of the anterior cruciate ligament reconstructed knee.

Authors:  A Melby; J S Noble; M J Askew; A A Boom; F W Hurst
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 4.772

Review 4.  Graft tensioning in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Shalinder Arneja; Mark O McConkey; Kishore Mulpuri; Patrick Chin; Michael K Gilbart; William D Regan; Jordan M Leith
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2008-09-19       Impact factor: 4.772

5.  Tibiofemoral compression force differences using laxity- and force-based initial graft tensioning techniques in the anterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed cadaveric knee.

Authors:  Braden C Fleming; Mark F Brady; Michael P Bradley; Rahul Banerjee; Michael J Hulstyn; Paul D Fadale
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2008-06-30       Impact factor: 4.772

6.  Effects of initial graft tension on clinical outcome after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Autogenous doubled hamstring tendons connected in series with polyester tapes.

Authors:  K Yasuda; J Tsujino; Y Tanabe; K Kaneda
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  1997 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 6.202

7.  A Randomized Clinical Trial to Assess the Clinical Effectiveness of a Measured Objective Tensioning Device in Hamstring Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Authors:  Peter David Grunau; Shalinder Arneja; Jordan Michael Leith
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2016-03-15       Impact factor: 6.202

8.  Graft tension in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. An in vivo study in dogs.

Authors:  S Yoshiya; J T Andrish; M T Manley; T W Bauer
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  1987 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 6.202

9.  Anterior cruciate ligament graft tensioning. Is the maximal sustained one-handed pull technique reproducible?

Authors:  Barry J O'Neill; Fergus J Byrne; Kieran M Hirpara; William F Brennan; Peter E McHugh; William Curtin
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2011-07-20

10.  Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Tibial Attachment Preserving Hamstring Graft without Implant on Tibial Side.

Authors:  Skand Sinha; Ananta Kumar Naik; Mridul Maheshwari; Sumedh Sandanshiv; Durgashankar Meena; Rajendra K Arya
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2018 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.251

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.