Nima Hosseinzadeh1, Mehdi Mohammadpour1, Mehdi Moghtadaei1, Hossein Farahini1, Ahmad Khazanchin1, Shirin Nasiri1, Amir Khazanchin2,3. 1. Bone and Joint Reconstruction Research Center, Department of Orthopedics, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, 1157637131, Iran. 2. Bone and Joint Reconstruction Research Center, Department of Orthopedics, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, 1157637131, Iran. Amir.khazanchin@yahoo.com. 3. Shafa Orthopedic Hospital, Baharestan Square, Mojahedin-e-Islam St, Shafa Yahyaian Educational and Medical Center, Iran University of Medical Science, Tehran, 1157637131, Iran. Amir.khazanchin@yahoo.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in patients with generalized joint laxity (GJL) are not clearly understood. In this study, we compared the outcomes of ACLR with quadruple hamstring autograft between GJL and non-GJL patients. METHODS: In a retrospective case-control study, 36 patients with GJL, according to the Beighton and Horan Joint Mobility Index, who underwent ACLR surgery, were included. Forty-four group-matched non-GJL patients were included in the control group. The mean follow-up of the patients was 20.65 ± 6.93 months. The outcomes of ACLR were evaluated by the Lachman test, pivot shift test, anterior tibial translation and KT-1000 side-to-side difference, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scale. RESULTS: The results of the Lachman and pivot shift test were not significantly different between the GJL and non-GJL patients (P = 0.67 and P = 0.27, respectively). The mean anterior tibial translation was 7.06 ± 1.41 mm in the GJL group and 6.11 ± 1.53 mm in the non-GJL group (P = 0.006). The mean KT-1000 side-to-side difference was 2.25 ± 1.31 mm in the case and 2.5 ± 1.44 mm in the control group (P = 0.42). The mean IKDC score of the patients was not significantly different between the GJL and non-GJL groups (66.1 ± 20.6 vs. 69.9 ± 16.1, P = 0.35). ACLR failure occurred in 2 (5.5%) patients of the GJL group and no patients of the control group (P = 0.21). CONCLUSION: The present findings suggest ACLR with quadruple hamstring autograft as an adequate treatment for GJL patients, at least in short-term follow-up.
PURPOSE: The outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in patients with generalized joint laxity (GJL) are not clearly understood. In this study, we compared the outcomes of ACLR with quadruple hamstring autograft between GJL and non-GJL patients. METHODS: In a retrospective case-control study, 36 patients with GJL, according to the Beighton and Horan Joint Mobility Index, who underwent ACLR surgery, were included. Forty-four group-matched non-GJL patients were included in the control group. The mean follow-up of the patients was 20.65 ± 6.93 months. The outcomes of ACLR were evaluated by the Lachman test, pivot shift test, anterior tibial translation and KT-1000 side-to-side difference, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scale. RESULTS: The results of the Lachman and pivot shift test were not significantly different between the GJL and non-GJL patients (P = 0.67 and P = 0.27, respectively). The mean anterior tibial translation was 7.06 ± 1.41 mm in the GJL group and 6.11 ± 1.53 mm in the non-GJL group (P = 0.006). The mean KT-1000 side-to-side difference was 2.25 ± 1.31 mm in the case and 2.5 ± 1.44 mm in the control group (P = 0.42). The mean IKDC score of the patients was not significantly different between the GJL and non-GJL groups (66.1 ± 20.6 vs. 69.9 ± 16.1, P = 0.35). ACLR failure occurred in 2 (5.5%) patients of the GJL group and no patients of the control group (P = 0.21). CONCLUSION: The present findings suggest ACLR with quadruple hamstring autograft as an adequate treatment for GJL patients, at least in short-term follow-up.