Cargando…

Early Complication Analysis of Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization versus Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Purpose: Both dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) and reconstruction (RECO) are common treatment methods for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture. We report short term outcomes after DIS (Ligamys, Mathys, Bettlach, Switzerland) and RECO using semitendinosus tendon. We compared postopera...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Endreß, Frank, Hörner, Reinhard, Hauth, Wolfgang, Anders, Jens, Biber, Roland
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10381856/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37511636
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm13071022
_version_ 1785080547457892352
author Endreß, Frank
Hörner, Reinhard
Hauth, Wolfgang
Anders, Jens
Biber, Roland
author_facet Endreß, Frank
Hörner, Reinhard
Hauth, Wolfgang
Anders, Jens
Biber, Roland
author_sort Endreß, Frank
collection PubMed
description Purpose: Both dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) and reconstruction (RECO) are common treatment methods for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture. We report short term outcomes after DIS (Ligamys, Mathys, Bettlach, Switzerland) and RECO using semitendinosus tendon. We compared postoperative complications, deficits of range-of-motion (ROM), and revision rates between the two treatment options. Methods: A total of 690 patients (437 male, 253 female), after either DIS or RECO, were included. Of these, 147 patients (21%) received DIS and 543 (79%) underwent RECO. Follow-up examination focused on clinical examination, complications and revision rates. Anteroposterior instability and ROM deficits were analyzed in order to evaluate our policy of early intervention for all cases of ROM restrictions. Results: Relevant ROM restrictions occurred at a significantly higher rate after DIS than after RECO (4.8% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.008). Flexion was more restricted after DIS than RECO (110° vs. 124°, p < 0.001). Extension deficits also occurred more frequently after DIS compared to RECO (49.7% vs. 24.5%; p < 0.001). Total revision surgery rate was 9.1%, with patients after DIS being significantly more frequently affected (20.4% vs. 6.1%; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our findings indicate a significantly higher risk for ROM restriction after DIS compared to RECO, resulting in a significantly higher revision rate.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10381856
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103818562023-07-29 Early Complication Analysis of Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization versus Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Endreß, Frank Hörner, Reinhard Hauth, Wolfgang Anders, Jens Biber, Roland J Pers Med Article Purpose: Both dynamic intraligamentary stabilization (DIS) and reconstruction (RECO) are common treatment methods for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture. We report short term outcomes after DIS (Ligamys, Mathys, Bettlach, Switzerland) and RECO using semitendinosus tendon. We compared postoperative complications, deficits of range-of-motion (ROM), and revision rates between the two treatment options. Methods: A total of 690 patients (437 male, 253 female), after either DIS or RECO, were included. Of these, 147 patients (21%) received DIS and 543 (79%) underwent RECO. Follow-up examination focused on clinical examination, complications and revision rates. Anteroposterior instability and ROM deficits were analyzed in order to evaluate our policy of early intervention for all cases of ROM restrictions. Results: Relevant ROM restrictions occurred at a significantly higher rate after DIS than after RECO (4.8% vs. 1.3%; p = 0.008). Flexion was more restricted after DIS than RECO (110° vs. 124°, p < 0.001). Extension deficits also occurred more frequently after DIS compared to RECO (49.7% vs. 24.5%; p < 0.001). Total revision surgery rate was 9.1%, with patients after DIS being significantly more frequently affected (20.4% vs. 6.1%; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Our findings indicate a significantly higher risk for ROM restriction after DIS compared to RECO, resulting in a significantly higher revision rate. MDPI 2023-06-21 /pmc/articles/PMC10381856/ /pubmed/37511636 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm13071022 Text en © 2023 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Endreß, Frank
Hörner, Reinhard
Hauth, Wolfgang
Anders, Jens
Biber, Roland
Early Complication Analysis of Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization versus Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
title Early Complication Analysis of Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization versus Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
title_full Early Complication Analysis of Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization versus Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
title_fullStr Early Complication Analysis of Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization versus Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
title_full_unstemmed Early Complication Analysis of Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization versus Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
title_short Early Complication Analysis of Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization versus Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
title_sort early complication analysis of dynamic intraligamentary stabilization versus anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10381856/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37511636
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jpm13071022
work_keys_str_mv AT endreßfrank earlycomplicationanalysisofdynamicintraligamentarystabilizationversusanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction
AT hornerreinhard earlycomplicationanalysisofdynamicintraligamentarystabilizationversusanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction
AT hauthwolfgang earlycomplicationanalysisofdynamicintraligamentarystabilizationversusanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction
AT andersjens earlycomplicationanalysisofdynamicintraligamentarystabilizationversusanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction
AT biberroland earlycomplicationanalysisofdynamicintraligamentarystabilizationversusanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction