SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Şişli Etfal Hastanesi Tıp Bülteni / 2019 / Cilt: 53 - Sayı: 4

Effects of Graft Selection in Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Midterm Functional Results

Ömer CENGİZ
Necdet DEMİR
Ferdi DIRVAR
Pages
419–425
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results were satisfactory in both groups in the postoperative period in terms ofthe length of time until a return to sports, IKDC score, Tegner-Lysholm score, range of motion, quadriceps circumference, and laxity,with no significant difference between the groups (p>0.05).Conclusion: The results of this study suggested that midterm clinical outcomes of ACL reconstruction with an ATT allograft or anHT autograft are similar when the correct technique is used according to the appropriate indications by an experienced surgeonand a successful rehabilitation program implemented after the operation.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: This study is a comparison of the midterm clinical results of patients who underwent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)reconstruction using an allograft and those who had an autograft procedure.Methods: The results of 70 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction with an anterior tibial tendon (ATT) allograft (n=18) ora hamstring (HT) autograft (n=52) were evaluated retrospectively.
📊
Key Findings & Data:At the last follow-up, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Tegner-Lysholm scores were used to assess functional status, as well as results of the Lachman test, the anteriordrawer test, and the pivot-shift test.Results: There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of age, gender, length of time before operation, graftthickness, or femoral tunnel length (p>0.05).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results were satisfactory in both groups in the postoperative period in terms ofthe length of time until a return to sports, IKDC score, Tegner-Lysholm score, range of motion, quadriceps circumference, and laxity,with no significant difference between the groups (p>0.05).Conclusion: The results of this study suggested that midterm clinical outcomes of ACL reconstruction with an ATT allograft or anHT autograft are similar when the correct technique is used according to the appropriate indications by an experienced surgeonand a successful rehabilitation program implemented after the operation.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objectives: This study is a comparison of the midterm clinical results of patients who underwent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)reconstruction using an allograft and those who had an autograft procedure.Methods: The results of 70 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction with an anterior tibial tendon (ATT) allograft (n=18) ora hamstring (HT) autograft (n=52) were evaluated retrospectively. At the last follow-up, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Tegner-Lysholm scores were used to assess functional status, as well as results of the Lachman test, the anteriordrawer test, and the pivot-shift test.Results: There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in terms of age, gender, length of time before operation, graftthickness, or femoral tunnel length (p>0.05). The results were satisfactory in both groups in the postoperative period in terms ofthe length of time until a return to sports, IKDC score, Tegner-Lysholm score, range of motion, quadriceps circumference, and laxity,with no significant difference between the groups (p>0.05).Conclusion: The results of this study suggested that midterm clinical outcomes of ACL reconstruction with an ATT allograft or anHT autograft are similar when the correct technique is used according to the appropriate indications by an experienced surgeonand a successful rehabilitation program implemented after the operation.

🔖

Cite This Article

CENGİZ, Ö., DEMİR, N., DIRVAR, F. (2019). Effects of Graft Selection in Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Midterm Functional Results. Şişli Etfal Hastanesi Tıp Bülteni, Cilt: 53 - Sayı: 4, 419–425. https://ajindex.com/articles/363424

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Brown TD, Johnston RC, Saltzman CL, Marsh JL, Buckwalter JA. Posttraumatic osteoarthritis: a first estimate of incidence, prevalence, and burden of disease. J Orthop Trauma 2006;20:739–44
  2. Tandoğan NR, Kayaalp A. Ön Çapraz Bağ Cerrahisinde Güncel Kavramlar. Ankara: Sincan Matbaası; 2014. p. 47
  3. Romanini E, D'Angelo F, De Masi S, Adriani E, Magaletti M, Lacorte E, et al. Graft selection in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Traumatol 2010;11:211–9
  4. Sherman OH, Banffy MB. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: which graft is best? Arthroscopy 2004;20:974–80
  5. Hospodar SJ, Miller MD. Controversies in ACL reconstruction: bone-patellar tendon-bone anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction remains the gold standard. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 2009;17:242–6
  6. Allum R. Complications of arthroscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003;85:12–6
  7. Rahimi A, Minoonejad H, Norouzi Fashkhami A, Sohani S. Which acl-reconstruction surgery is better? A comparative study of the complications of the bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTPB) and Hamstring Tendon (4-Strand) Techniques (A Review of the Literature). World J Sport Sci 2009;2:100–5
  8. West RV, Harner CD. Graft selection in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2005;13:197–207
  9. Clark JC, Rueff DE, Indelicato PA, Moser M. Primary ACL reconstruction using allograft tissue. Clin Sports Med 2009;28:223–44
  10. Aslan A, Ozer O, Baydar ML, Yorgancigil H, Ozerdemoğlu RA, Aydoğan NH. Anterior cruciate ligament injuries: does surgical treatment with autograft versus allograft option affect the clinical results? Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg 2012;18:153–61
  11. Barenius B, Webster WK, McClelland J, Feller J. Hamstring tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: does gracilis tendon harvest matter? Int Orthop 2013;37:207–12
  12. Vardi G. Sciatic nerve injury following hamstring harvest. Knee 2004;11:37–9
  13. Mariscalco MW, Magnussen RA, Mehta D, Hewett TE, Flanigan DC, Kaeding CC. Autograft versus nonirradiated allograft tissue for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 2014;42:492–9
  14. Jia YH, Sun PF. Comparison of Clinical Outcome of Autograft and Allograft Reconstruction for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears. Chin Med J (Engl) 2015;128:3163–6 15. Carey JL, Dunn WR, Dahm DL, Zeger SL, Spindler KP. A systematic review of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a