Junsuke Nakase1, Yasushi Takata2, Kengo Shimozaki2, Kazuki Asai2, Rikuto Yoshimizu2, Mitsuhiro Kimura2, Hiroyuki Tsuchiya2. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kanazawa University, 13-1 Takaramachi, 920-0934, Kanazawa, Japan. nakase1007@yahoo.co.jp. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Graduate School of Medical Sciences, Kanazawa University, 13-1 Takaramachi, 920-0934, Kanazawa, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was that to compare clinical results between the rounded rectangular femoral tunnel ACL reconstruction (RFTR) and the conventional round femoral tunnel ACL reconstruction using a hamstring tendon. The hypothesis was that ACL reconstruction performed using the rounded rectangular dilator technique was better than that performed using the conventional round femoral tunnel technique in terms of clinical results and bone tunnel enlargement. METHODS: We conducted retrospective study. After exclusions, 40 patients were included in the conventional anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction (ASBR) group and 40 patients were included in the RFTR group. The evaluation items were knee stability, Lysholm knee score, IKDC subjective score at 2 years after surgery and bone tunnel enlargement. RESULTS: The RFTR group had a larger femoral tunnel area (average area, 53.1 ± 4.0 mm2 vs. 46.1 ± 7.0 mm2; P < 0.01), better anteroposterior stability, and higher Lysholm scores than the ASBR group (average side-to-side difference for anterior tibial translation, 0.6 ± 0.8 mm vs. 1.6 ± 1.4 mm; P < 0.01; average Lysholm score, 98.5 ± 2.1 vs. 97.5 ± 3.5; P < 0.01). Further, bone tunnel enlargement ratio was significantly lower in the RFTR group (73 ± 38% vs. 107 ± 41%; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We designed and developed an original rounded rectangular dilator to perform a novel ACL surgery. This technique can create a larger bone tunnel and improve clinical results than the conventional round anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction.
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was that to compare clinical results between the rounded rectangular femoral tunnel ACL reconstruction (RFTR) and the conventional round femoral tunnel ACL reconstruction using a hamstring tendon. The hypothesis was that ACL reconstruction performed using the rounded rectangular dilator technique was better than that performed using the conventional round femoral tunnel technique in terms of clinical results and bone tunnel enlargement. METHODS: We conducted retrospective study. After exclusions, 40 patients were included in the conventional anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction (ASBR) group and 40 patients were included in the RFTR group. The evaluation items were knee stability, Lysholm knee score, IKDC subjective score at 2 years after surgery and bone tunnel enlargement. RESULTS: The RFTR group had a larger femoral tunnel area (average area, 53.1 ± 4.0 mm2 vs. 46.1 ± 7.0 mm2; P < 0.01), better anteroposterior stability, and higher Lysholm scores than the ASBR group (average side-to-side difference for anterior tibial translation, 0.6 ± 0.8 mm vs. 1.6 ± 1.4 mm; P < 0.01; average Lysholm score, 98.5 ± 2.1 vs. 97.5 ± 3.5; P < 0.01). Further, bone tunnel enlargement ratio was significantly lower in the RFTR group (73 ± 38% vs. 107 ± 41%; P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: We designed and developed an original rounded rectangular dilator to perform a novel ACL surgery. This technique can create a larger bone tunnel and improve clinical results than the conventional round anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction.
Authors: Paolo Aglietti; Francesco Giron; Michele Losco; Pierluigi Cuomo; Antonio Ciardullo; Nicola Mondanelli Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2009-09-30 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Christopher C Kaeding; Angela D Pedroza; Emily K Reinke; Laura J Huston; Kurt P Spindler Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2015-04-21 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Thorkell Snaebjörnsson; Eric Hamrin Senorski; Olufemi R Ayeni; Eduard Alentorn-Geli; Ferid Krupic; Fredrik Norberg; Jón Karlsson; Kristian Samuelsson Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 6.202