Literature DB >> 8864005

Single versus two-incision arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

R A Arciero1, C R Scoville, R J Snyder, J M Uhorchak, D C Taylor, D J Huggard.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare single (endoscopic) versus two-incision arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using bone-patellar tendon-bone in a population of young athletes. All patients followed a similar postoperative rehabilitation program. The Lysholm knee score, the International Knee Documentation Committee Score, KT-1000 arthrometric measurements, Lachman tests, pivot shift tests, isokinetic and functional testing, and perioperative complications were used to compare the two techniques. Anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were also evaluated and compared. Group I comprised 51 patients who underwent two-incision arthroscopic ACL reconstruction. The average age was 19.8 years, with a range of 18 to 22. The average follow-up in this group was 31 months (range, 24 to 43 months). Group II, the endoscopic group, consisted of 31 patients with an average age of 19.4 years (range, 18 to 22). The average follow-up was 25 months (range, 24 to 31 months). There were no significant differences between the two groups using subjective, objective, and functional criteria. There did appear to be a trend toward a residual pivot glide in the endoscopic group, but this did not achieve statistical significance. Radiographic analysis demonstrated an increased incidence of screw divergence in the endoscopic group. Intraoperative complications were more common with the endoscopic method.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8864005     DOI: 10.1016/s0749-8063(96)90041-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthroscopy        ISSN: 0749-8063            Impact factor:   4.772


  8 in total

1.  Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament: comparison of outside-in and all-inside techniques.

Authors:  S Brandsson; E Faxén; B I Eriksson; L Swärd; O Lundin; J Karlsson
Journal:  Br J Sports Med       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 13.800

2.  Optimal entry position on the lateral femoral surface for outside-in drilling technique to restore the anatomical footprint of anterior cruciate ligament.

Authors:  Hirokazu Matsubara; Ken Okazaki; Kanji Osaki; Yasutaka Tashiro; Hideki Mizu-Uchi; Satoshi Hamai; Yukihide Iwamoto
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-11-28       Impact factor: 4.342

3.  Anterior cruciate ligament femoral socket drilling with a retrograde reamer: lessons from the learning curve.

Authors:  Victor Ferraz; Paul Westerberg; Jefferson C Brand
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2013-10-07

Review 4.  One-incision versus two-incision techniques for arthroscopically assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in adults.

Authors:  Fernando C Rezende; Vinícius Y Moraes; Carlos Es Franciozi; Pedro Debieux; Marcus V Luzo; João Carlos Belloti
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-12-15

5.  Gait knee kinematics after ACL reconstruction: 3D assessment.

Authors:  Bujar Shabani; Dafina Bytyqi; Sebastien Lustig; Laurence Cheze; Cen Bytyqi; Philippe Neyret
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2014-12-31       Impact factor: 3.075

6.  The function of the human anterior cruciate ligament and analysis of single- and double-bundle graft reconstructions.

Authors:  Frank R Noyes
Journal:  Sports Health       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 3.843

7.  Femoral tunnel placement in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: rationale of the two incision technique.

Authors:  Raffaele Garofalo; Biagio Moretti; Cyril Kombot; Lorenzo Moretti; Elyazid Mouhsine
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2007-05-21       Impact factor: 2.359

8.  Long-term Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Patients 60 Years and Older.

Authors:  Champ L Baker; Jaclyn C Jones; Jeff Zhang
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2014-12-12
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.