Carlos Eduardo Franciozi1,2,3, Flávio Kazuo Minami4, Luiz Felipe Ambra1, Pedro Henrique Schmidt Alves Ferreira Galvão1, Felipe Conrado Schumacher1, Marcelo Seiji Kubota1. 1. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Napoleão de Barros Street, 715, 5th Fl, Vila Clementino, São Paulo, Brazil. 2. Knee Institute - Heart Hospital (Hospital do Coração - Hcor), São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Napoleão de Barros Street, 715, 5th Fl, Vila Clementino, São Paulo, Brazil. flaviominami@hotmail.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) remnant has been pointed out as a ligamentization enhancer. Nonetheless, the remaining tissue can be functional if it still provides some stability or nonfunctional. This study intends to compare the clinical results and knee stability of functional vs. nonfunctional remnant preservation ACL reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: One hundred and seventy-five patients with ACL injuries were included and underwent remnant preservation ACLR. They were divided into two groups accordingly to remnant tissue functionality: functional (Group F) and nonfunctional (Group NF). Primary outcome was defined as patient reported outcomes measured with Lysholm, IKDC and Tegner continuous scales and improvements. Secondary outcomes comprised of Lachman test, anterior drawer test, pivot shift test, extension and flexion deficit, graft coverage by remnant preserved tissue and failure rate (persistent instability or new ACL lesion). Menisci lesions, cartilage lesions and time to surgery were also recorded for each group. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-four patients were available at a mean of 30.2 ± 10.1 months: 69 Functional and 75 Nonfunctional. Lysholm, IKDC and Tegner functional outcomes demonstrated no difference between the groups, Functional compared to Nonfunctional: 88.4 ± 10.5 vs. 92.2 ± 4.9, n.s. and 83.2 ± 11.3 vs. 87 ± 5.3, n.s. and 6 (5-10) vs. 6 (5-9), n.s., respectively. Lysholm and IKDC functional outcomes improvements demonstrated differences between the groups: Functional compared to Nonfunctional (39.3 ± 9.4 vs. 42.3 ± 7.4, p = 0.014 and 37.7 ± 10 vs. 41.0 ± 6.6, p = 0.032); however, they were not clinically significant. Functional group showed more stability on physical examination pre- and post-operatively (p < 0.001, p < 0.001). There was no difference regarding extension deficit (n.s.); however, functional group had more flexion deficit (p = 0.02). Nonfunctional group had better graft coverage (p = 0.001). There was no difference regarding failure rate: 4% vs. 9%, (n.s.). CONCLUSION: Both remnant preservation ACLR techniques were able to achieve satisfactory functional outcomes. A functional remnant was not related to improved functional outcomes in comparison to a nonfunctional remnant; however, it was related to less laxity pre and postoperatively and inferior graft coverage. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
PURPOSE: The Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) remnant has been pointed out as a ligamentization enhancer. Nonetheless, the remaining tissue can be functional if it still provides some stability or nonfunctional. This study intends to compare the clinical results and knee stability of functional vs. nonfunctional remnant preservation ACL reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: One hundred and seventy-five patients with ACL injuries were included and underwent remnant preservation ACLR. They were divided into two groups accordingly to remnant tissue functionality: functional (Group F) and nonfunctional (Group NF). Primary outcome was defined as patient reported outcomes measured with Lysholm, IKDC and Tegner continuous scales and improvements. Secondary outcomes comprised of Lachman test, anterior drawer test, pivot shift test, extension and flexion deficit, graft coverage by remnant preserved tissue and failure rate (persistent instability or new ACL lesion). Menisci lesions, cartilage lesions and time to surgery were also recorded for each group. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-four patients were available at a mean of 30.2 ± 10.1 months: 69 Functional and 75 Nonfunctional. Lysholm, IKDC and Tegner functional outcomes demonstrated no difference between the groups, Functional compared to Nonfunctional: 88.4 ± 10.5 vs. 92.2 ± 4.9, n.s. and 83.2 ± 11.3 vs. 87 ± 5.3, n.s. and 6 (5-10) vs. 6 (5-9), n.s., respectively. Lysholm and IKDC functional outcomes improvements demonstrated differences between the groups: Functional compared to Nonfunctional (39.3 ± 9.4 vs. 42.3 ± 7.4, p = 0.014 and 37.7 ± 10 vs. 41.0 ± 6.6, p = 0.032); however, they were not clinically significant. Functional group showed more stability on physical examination pre- and post-operatively (p < 0.001, p < 0.001). There was no difference regarding extension deficit (n.s.); however, functional group had more flexion deficit (p = 0.02). Nonfunctional group had better graft coverage (p = 0.001). There was no difference regarding failure rate: 4% vs. 9%, (n.s.). CONCLUSION: Both remnant preservation ACLR techniques were able to achieve satisfactory functional outcomes. A functional remnant was not related to improved functional outcomes in comparison to a nonfunctional remnant; however, it was related to less laxity pre and postoperatively and inferior graft coverage. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.
Authors: Peter T Annear; Edward J Rohr; David M Hille; Satyen Gohil; Jay R Ebert Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2018-09-20 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Carlos Eduardo da Silveira Franciozi; Sheila Jean McNeill Ingham; Guilherme Conforto Gracitelli; Marcus Vinicius Malheiros Luzo; Freddie H Fu; Rene Jorge Abdalla Journal: Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med Date: 2014-09
Authors: Leonardo José Bernardes Albertoni; Felipe Conrado Schumacher; Matheus Henrique Araújo Ventura; Carlos Eduardo da Silveira Franciozi; Pedro Debieux; Marcelo Seiji Kubota; Geraldo Sérgio de Mello Granata; Marcus Vinícius Malheiros Luzo; Antônio Altenor Bessa de Queiroz; Mario Carneiro Filho Journal: Rev Bras Ortop Date: 2013-10-19