Journals / Journal of Clinical and Analytical Medicine / 2015 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2

Anatomik Çift Demet Ön Çapraz Bağ Rekonstrüksiyonunun Erken Dönem Sonuçları

Early Results of Anatomic Double Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Pages
131–135
Publication Date
2022-10-18
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)

There is a need comparative, long-term studies inlarge numbers in order to determine improving clinical outcome, preventingdegeneration and restoring the knee biomechanics better.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: The goal in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is to restore the normal anatomic structure and function of the knee.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In the significant proportion of patients after the traditional single-bundle ACLR, complaints of instability still continue.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:There is a need comparative, long-term studies inlarge numbers in order to determine improving clinical outcome, preventingdegeneration and restoring the knee biomechanics better.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2009 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: The goal in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is to restore the normal anatomic structure and function of the knee. In the significant proportion of patients after the traditional single-bundle ACLR, complaints of instability still continue. Anatomic double bundle ACLR may providenormal kinematics in knees, much closer to the natural anatomy. The aim ofthis study is to clinically assess the early outcomes of our anatomical doublebundle ACLR. Material and Method: In our clinic between June 2009 andMarch 2010, performed the anatomic double bundle ACLR with autogenoushamstring grafts 20 patients were evaluated prospectively with Cincinnati,IKDC and Lysholm scores and in clinically for muscle strength and with CybexII dynamometer. Results: The mean follow-up is 17.8 months (13-21 months).Patients scores of Cincinnati, IKDC and Lysholm were respectively, preoperative 18.1, 39.3 and 39.8, while the post-op increased to 27.2, 76.3 and 86.3.In their last check, 17 percent of the patients according to IKDC scores (85%)A (excellent) and B (good) group and 3 patients took place as C (adequate)group. The power measurements of quadriceps and hamstring muscle groupsof patients who underwent surgery showed no significant difference compared with the intact knees. Discussion: Double-bundle ACL reconstructionis a satisfactory method. There is a need comparative, long-term studies inlarge numbers in order to determine improving clinical outcome, preventingdegeneration and restoring the knee biomechanics better.

Özet

Amaç: Ön çapraz bağ (ÖÇB) rekonstrüksiyonunda amaç, normal anatomik yapıyı ve diz fonksiyonunu yeniden sağlamaktır. Geleneksel tek demet ÖÇB rekonstrüksiyonu (ÖÇBR) sonrası hastaların önemli bir kısmında instabilite şikayetleri devam etmektedir. Anatomik çift demet ÖÇBR, doğal anatomiyedaha yakın olarak dizin normal kinematiklerini yeniden sağlıyabilir. Bu çalışmada çift demet ÖÇBR yaptığımız hastalarımızın erken dönem sonuçlarını değerlendirmeyi amaçladık. Gereç ve Yöntem: Haziran 2009 ile Mart 2010tarihleri arasında kliniğimizde otojen hamstring greftleri ile anatomik çift demet ÖÇBR yapılan 20 hasta, prospektif olarak Cincinnati, IKDC ve Lysholmskorları ile klinik olarak ve kas güçleri için Cybex II dinamometresi ile değerlendirildiler. Bulgular: Ortalama takip süresi 17.8 ay (13-21 ay) dır. Hastaların Cincinnati, IKDC ve Lysholm skorları sırasıyla preop 18.1, 39.3 ve 39.8 ikenpost op 27.2, 76,3 ve 86.3 e yükselmiştir. Son kontrollerinde IKDC skorlarınagöre hastaların 17 si (%85) A (mükemmel) ve B (iyi) grubunda 3ü C (yeterli) grubunda yer aldı. Kuadriseps ve hamstring kas gruplarına ait güç ölçümlerinde hastaların ameliyat edilen dizleri ile sağlam dizleri arasında anlamlıfark bulunmadı. Tartışma: Hamstring tendonları ile femoral askı yöntemi kullanılarak yapılan çift demet ÖÇBR tatmin edici bir yöntemdir. Tekniğin klinikneticeyi iyileştirme, diz biyomekaniğini daha iyi restore etme ve dejenerasyo- nu önleme açısından yararlarını belirlemek için daha geniş sayıda, karşılaştırmalı ve uzun dönem çalışmalar gerekmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

PEPELE, D., ÖZEL, M., ELMALI, N., TOPGÜL, H., KARAKAPLAN, M. (2022). Anatomik Çift Demet Ön Çapraz Bağ Rekonstrüksiyonunun Erken Dönem Sonuçları. Journal of Clinical and Analytical Medicine, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 2, 131–135. https://ajindex.com/articles/561028

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Pinczewski LA, Deehan DJ, Salmon LJ, Russell VJ, Clingeleffer A. A five-year comparison of patellar tendon versus four-strand hamstring tendon autograft for arthroscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Am J Sports Med 2002;30(4):523-36
  2. Beynnon BD, Johnson RJ, Fleming BC. Anterior cruciate ligament replacement: Comparison of bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts with two-strand hamstring grafts. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2002;84A(9):1503-13
  3. Freedman KB, D’Amato MJ, Nedeff DD, Kaz A, Bach BR Jr. Arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstructio: A meta-analysis comparing patelllar tendon and hamstring tendon autografts. Am J Sports Med 2003;31(1):2-11
  4. Fithian DC, Paxton EW, Stone ML, Luetzow WF, Csintalan RP, Phelan D, Daniel DM. Prospective trial of a treatment algorithm for the management of the anterior cruciate ligament-injured knee. Am J Sports Med2005;33(3):333-4
  5. Tashman S, Collon D, Anderson K, Kolowich P, Anderst W. Abnormal rotatitonal knee motion during running after anterior cruciate ligament recosntruction. Am J Sports Med 2004;32(4):975-83
  6. Ferretti M, Levicoff EA, Macpherson TA, Moreland MS, Cohen M, Fu FH. The fetal anterior cruciate ligament: an anatomic and histologic study. Arthroscopy 2007;23(3):278-83
  7. Hara K, Mochizuki T, Sekiya I, Yamaguchi K, Akita K and Muneta T. Anatomy of normal human anterior cruciate ligament attachments evaluated by divided small bundles. Am J Sports Med 2009;37(12):2386-91
  8. Stevenson WW 3rd, Johnson DL. “Vertical grafts”: a common reason for functional failure after ACL reconstruction. Orthopedics 2007;30(3):206-9
  9. Yagi M, Kuroda R, Nagamune K, Yoshiya S, Kurosaka M. Double–bundle ACL re- construction can improve rotational stability. Clin Orthop Rel Res 2007;454:100-7
  10. Yasuda K, Kondo E, Ichiyama H, Tanabe Y, Tohyama H. Clinical evaluation of anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction procedure using hamstring tendon grafts: comparisons among 3 different procedures. Art- hroscopy 2006;22(3):240-51
  11. Irrgang JJ, Tashman S, Moore C, Fu FH. Challenge accepted: description of an ongoing NIH–funded randomized clinical trial to compare anatomic single bundle versus anatomic double bundle ACL reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(6):745- 8
  12. Shelbourne KD, Nitz P. Accelerated rehabilitation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 1990;18(3):292-9
  13. Jacobsen K. Osteoarthritis following insufficiency of the cruciate l