SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Anadolu Kliniği Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 3

Comparison of Outcomes of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions Using Patellar Tendon or Hamstring Tendon Autografts with Femoral Cross-pin Fixation

Femoral Çapraz Çivi Fiksasyonu ile Patellar Tendon veya Hamstring Tendon Otogrefti Kullanılan Ön Çapraz Bağ Rekonstrüksiyonlarının Sonuçlarının Karşılaştırılması

Omer Kays Unal
Mirza Zafer Dagtas
Ulku Sur Unal
Burak Demirag
Pages
192–199
Publication Date
2022-10-11
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 postoperative score improvement was statistically significant in all patients (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: In this study, we aimed to compare outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions using bone–patellar tendon–bone graft (BPTG) or hamstring tendon graft (HTG) with cross-pin fixation at the femoral side.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: The retrospective observational study included records of 100 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction with femoral cross-pin fixation between May 2008 and August 2012.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The postoperative score improvement was statistically significant in all patients (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2008 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: In this study, we aimed to compare outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions using bone–patellar tendon–bone graft (BPTG) or hamstring tendon graft (HTG) with cross-pin fixation at the femoral side. Materials and Methods: The retrospective observational study included records of 100 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction with femoral cross-pin fixation between May 2008 and August 2012. The patients were di- vided into two groups according to the graft type used: the BPTG group and the HTG group. The preoperative and postoperative 6th-month Tegner Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale (TLKS) scores, International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form (IKDC-SKF) scores, and Lachman test results were compared. The effects of meniscus lesion presence on the outcomes were also investigated. Results: Of the 100 patients, 93 were male and 7 female. The HTG and BPTG groups consisted of 62 and 38 patients, respectively. The mean age was 24.1±4.9 (18–38) years for the HTG group and 32.1±6.8 (21–54) years for the BPTG group. The mean pre- and postoperative TLKS scores were respectively 50.5 and 94.3 in the BPTG group, and 49.9 and 95.2 in the HTG group. The mean pre- and postoperative IKDC-SKF scores were 51.3 and 95.6 in the BPTG group, and 51.8 and 95.6 in the HTG group. The postoperative score improvement was statistically significant in all patients (p

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmada femoral tarafta çapraz çivi fiksasyonu ile kemik–patellar tendon–kemik grefti (KPTG) veya hamstring tendon grefti (HTG) kullanılan ön çapraz bağ (ÖÇB) rekonstrüksiyonlarının sonuçlarını karşılaştırmak amaçlanmıştır. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Retrospektif gözlemsel çalışmamız Mayıs 2008—Ağustos 2012 döneminde femoral çapraz çivi fiksasyonlu ÖÇB rekonstrüksiyonu uygulanmış olan 100 hastanın kayıtlarını kapsadı. Hastalar, kullanılan greft türüne göre iki gruba ayrıldı: KPTG grubu ve HTG grubu. Preoperatif ve postoperatif 6. ay Tegner Lysholm Diz Skorlama Skalası (TLDS) skorları, Uluslararası Diz Dokümantasyon Komitesi Subjektif Diz Değerlendirme Formu (UDDK-SDF) skorları ve Lachman test sonuçları karşılaştırıldı. Ayrıca menisküs lezyonu varlığının sonuçlar üzerin- deki etkisi incelendi. Bulgular: Yüz hastanın 93’ü erkek, 7’si kadındı. HTG ve KPTG grupları sırasıyla 62 ve 38 hastadan oluştu. Ortalama yaş HTG grubu için 24,1±4,9 (18–38) yıl, KPTG grubu için 32,1±6,8 (21–54) yıl idi. Sırasıyla operasyon öncesi ve sonrası ortalama TLDS skorları KPTG grubu için 50,5 ve 94,3, HTG grubu için 49,9 ve 95,2 idi. Operasyon öncesi ve sonrası ortalama UDDK-SDF skorları KPTG grubu için 51,3 ve 95,6, HTG grubu için 51,8 ve 95,6 idi. Postoperatif skorlardaki yükseliş tüm hastalarda istatistiksel olarak anlamlıydı (p

🔖

Cite This Article

Unal, O. K., Dagtas, M. Z., Unal, U. S., Demirag, B. (2022). Comparison of Outcomes of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions Using Patellar Tendon or Hamstring Tendon Autografts with Femoral Cross-pin Fixation. Anadolu Kliniği Tıp Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 3, 192–199. https://ajindex.com/articles/437638

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Siegel L, Vandenakker-Albanese C, Siegel D. Ante- rior cruciate ligament injuries: anatomy, physiology, biomechanics, and management. Clin J Sport Med. 2012;22(4):349–55
  2. Mahapatra P, Horriat S, Anand BS. Anterior cruciate ligament repair—past, present and future. J Exp Orthop. 2018;5(1):20
  3. Duchman KR, Lynch TS, Spindler KP. Graft selection in anterior cruciate ligament surgery: who gets what and why? Clin Sports Med. 2017;36(1):25–33
  4. Holm I, Øiestad BE, Risberg MA, Gunderson R, Aune AK. No differences in prevalence of osteoarthritis or function after open versus endoscopic technique for an- terior cruciate ligament reconstruction: 12-year follow- up report of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med. 2012;40(11):2492–8
  5. Vyas D, Rabuck SJ, Harner CD. Allograft anterior cruci- ate ligament reconstruction: indications, techniques, and outcomes. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42(3):196– 207
  6. Pinczewski L, Roe J, Salmon L. Why autologous ham- string tendon reconstruction should now be considered the gold standard for anterior cruciate ligament recon- struction in athletes. Br J Sports Med. 2009;43(5):325–7
  7. Phillips BB, Mihalko MJ. Arthroscopy of the lower ex- tremity. In: Campbell’s Operative Orthopaedics, 13. ed. Philedelphia: Elsevier; 2013
  8. Samuelsen BT, Webster KE, Johnson NR, Hewett TE, Krych AJ. Hamstring autograft versus patellar tendon autograft for ACL reconstruction: is there a difference in graft failure rate? A meta-analysis of 47,613 patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(10):2459–68
  9. Gifstad T, Foss OA, Engebretsen L, Lind M, Forssblad M, Albrektsen G, et al. Lower risk of revision with patellar tendon autografts compared with hamstring autografts. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(10):2319–28
  10. Coffey R, Bordoni B. Lachman test. In: Rheumatology and Immunology Therapy. Berlin: Springer-Verlag; 2006
  11. Lin KM, Boyle C, Marom N, Marx RG. Graft selection in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2020;28(2):41–8
  12. Stańczak K, Zielińska M, Synder M, Domżalski M, Polguj M, Sibiński M. Comparison of hamstring and patellar tendon grafts in anterior cruciate ligament re- construction: a prospective randomized study. J Int Med Res. 2018;46(2):785–91
  13. Xie X, Liu X, Chen Z, Yu Y, Peng S, Li Q. A meta-anal-ysis of bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft versus four- strand hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee. 2015;22(2):100–10
  14. Kovindha K, Ganok