Literature DB >> 34028623

Outcomes of retro-drilled all-inside tibial tunnel vs complete tibial tunnel techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction-a comparative study.

Tarun Goyal1, Lakshmana Das2, Souvik Paul3, Arghya Kundu Choudhury3, Siddharth S Sethy3.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The all-inside tibial tunnel preparation technique of arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction differs from traditional complete tibial tunnel technique in using closed tibial sockets, dual-cortical suspensory graft-fixation, quadrupled semitendinosus tendon graft and lesser bone removal. The study aims to find out if all-inside technique differs from complete tibial tunnel technique of single bundle ACL reconstruction in terms of graft dimensions, functional and clinical outcomes.
METHODS: A prospective comparative study was conducted including 80 patients with isolated ACL tears, divided into 2 groups of 40 patients each without any randomization. The two techniques differed in tibial tunnel preparation. Group 1 underwent ACL reconstruction with a complete tibial tunnel drilled from the anteromedial tibial cortex and group 2 underwent all-inside tibial socket preparation. Duration of the surgery, perioperative and midterm complications were noted. All patients had 24 month follow-up. Functional outcome scores (Tegner-Lysholm knee scoring scale and IKDC score) were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 months and 24 months. Hamstring and quadriceps muscle strength was assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 months, 9 months and 24 months. Visual analogue score (VAS) for knee pain was assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at day 2, 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 6 months and 24 months.
RESULTS: Quadrupled semitendinosus tendon graft was significantly thicker than doubled semitendinosus and gracilis tendons graft (8.17 ± 0.58 vs 8.71 ± 0.4, p < 0.0001). The VAS score for knee pain at 2 and 6 weeks were lower in group 2 (5.75 ± 0.6 and 1.78 ± 1.0) as compared to group 1 (6.50 ± 0.5 and 2.5 ± 0.8) and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.0007 and p = 0.002 respectively). There were no statistically significant differences in functional outcome scores and quadriceps muscle strength between the two groups. However, there were significant difference in hamstring power in two groups.
CONCLUSION: The all-inside technique has the advantages of using a single tendon graft, lesser early postoperative pain with similar clinical and functional outcomes compared to the complete tibial tunnel technique. Level of Evidence IIProspective comparative study.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  All-inside; Anterior cruciate ligament; Cortical suspensory fixation; Retro-drill; Tibial tunnel

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34028623     DOI: 10.1007/s00590-021-03011-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol        ISSN: 1633-8065


  14 in total

1.  Structural properties of six tibial fixation methods for anterior cruciate ligament soft tissue grafts.

Authors:  H E Magen; S M Howell; M L Hull
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  1999 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 6.202

2.  A biomechanical comparison of femoral cortical suspension devices for soft tissue anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction under high loads.

Authors:  Jared S Johnson; Sean D Smith; Christopher M LaPrade; Travis Lee Turnbull; Robert F LaPrade; Coen A Wijdicks
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2014-10-17       Impact factor: 6.202

Review 3.  Suspensory Versus Aperture Fixation of a Quadrupled Hamstring Tendon Autograft in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis.

Authors:  William M Browning; Melissa A Kluczynski; Christian Curatolo; John M Marzo
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 6.202

4.  Surgical Efficiency of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Outpatient Surgical Center Versus Hospital Operating Room.

Authors:  Nathan C Patrick; Christopher A Kowalski; William L Hennrikus
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2017-06-30       Impact factor: 1.390

5.  TriLink: Anatomic Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Authors:  Sam K Yasen; James S Logan; James O Smith; Tamara Nancoo; Mike J Risebury; Adrian J Wilson
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2013-11-28

6.  Pain evaluation after all-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and short term functional results of a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Horea Benea; Henri d'Astorg; Shahnaz Klouche; Thomas Bauer; Gheorghe Tomoaia; Philippe Hardy
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2013-10-05       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  The Effect of Autologous Hamstring Graft Diameter on the Likelihood for Revision of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Authors:  Lindsey Spragg; Jason Chen; Raffy Mirzayan; Rebecca Love; Gregory Maletis
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2016-03-21       Impact factor: 6.202

8.  Monoarticular synovitis of knee: dealing with the dilemma.

Authors:  Tarun Goyal; Souvik Paul; Arghya Kundu Choudhury; Tushar Kalonia
Journal:  SICOT J       Date:  2020-12-11

9.  Biomechanical testing of fixed and adjustable femoral cortical suspension devices for ACL reconstruction under high loads and extended cyclic loading.

Authors:  Sarvpreet Singh; Sonia Ramos-Pascual; Kinga Czerbak; Muzaffar Malik; Peter J Schranz; Anthony W Miles; Vipul Mandalia
Journal:  J Exp Orthop       Date:  2020-05-11

10.  Safety of the application of Rigidfix cross-pin system via different tibial tunnels for tibial fixation during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Jian Wang; Hua-Qiang Fan; Wenli Dai; Hong-Da Li; Yang-Pan Fu; Zhenhuang Liu; Chang-Ming Huang; Zhanjun Shi
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2020-11-11       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.