Cargando…

Comparison of Clinical and Radiological Parameters with Two Different Surgical Methods for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the effects anatomic or nonanatomic femoral tunnel positions and tunnel fixation methods obtained using two different surgery methods on tunnel widening and clinical results in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions. METHODS: Patients with isolated anterior cruc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Çiloğlu, Osman, Çiçek, Hakan, Yılmaz, Ahmet, Özalay, Metin, Söker, Gökhan, Leblebici, Berrin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4597738/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967114S00272
_version_ 1782393988552065024
author Çiloğlu, Osman
Çiçek, Hakan
Yılmaz, Ahmet
Özalay, Metin
Söker, Gökhan
Leblebici, Berrin
author_facet Çiloğlu, Osman
Çiçek, Hakan
Yılmaz, Ahmet
Özalay, Metin
Söker, Gökhan
Leblebici, Berrin
author_sort Çiloğlu, Osman
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: We investigated the effects anatomic or nonanatomic femoral tunnel positions and tunnel fixation methods obtained using two different surgery methods on tunnel widening and clinical results in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions. METHODS: Patients with isolated anterior cruciate ligament rupture are included to study who don’t have intra-and extra-articular additional pathology of the knee, without previously a history of operations of both knees. 2 groups were created. Group 1 Aperfix implant were used which can be able to perform non anatomical femoral tunnel and intra tunnel fixation with transtibial technique. In Group 2 Endobutton CL implant were used which can make fixation from outside the cortex with anatomic femoral tunnel in use of anteromedial portal techniques. 27 patients (average age 29,33, range 18 to 55 years) in group 1 and 27 patients (average age 27,51, range 16 to 45 years) in group 2 totally 54 patients were performed surgery. All patients were assessed using the IKDC (International knee documentation committee), Tegner Activity Scala and Lysholm II Functional Scores. Muscle strength measurements in both groups compared to intact knee was measured with an isokinetic dynamometer Biodex System 3 Pro. The location of the femoral tunnel aperture and tunnel widening were imaged with 3D reconstructive computed tomography. All measurements were performed using the same software application by the same radiologist. RESULTS: The two groups were similar with respect to age and sex distribution, operated side, the size of the tunnel created, and follow-up period (p>0.05). After surgery in both groups, the clinical scores showed significant improvement compared to preoperative (p=0,0001). However, postoperative clinical outcomes in the two groups did not show a difference significantly (p>0,005). Isokinetic muscle strength study showed significant differences between the two groups (p=0,0001). Location of femoral tunnel aperture on the medial wall of the lateral femoral condyle showed a significant differences in the two groups (p=0,0001). The expansion of proximal and distal femoral tunnel in two groups showed significant differences (p=0,0001). There was relationship between distal femoral tunnel widening and location of femoral tunnel aperture. CONCLUSION: Although there is no statistically significant difference between the two groups clinically, difference noticed in terms of isokinetic muscle strength may be due to differences in the degree of shift as a result of multiple loading depending on the biomechanical properties of materials. We thought that the difference seen in the widening of tunnel in the proximal or distal may be due to, the technique of graft fixation, the distance between the fixation point and the joint, and to the location of the femoral tunnel aperture on medial wall of lateral condyle from anatomical or non anatomical region. There is no golden standard in neither surgical technique nor material of fixation. Proper theoretical knowledge and extensive clinical experience are important in the light of an accurate surgical technique applied. We thought that information we have reached in our study should be supported by biomechanical studies
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4597738
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45977382015-11-03 Comparison of Clinical and Radiological Parameters with Two Different Surgical Methods for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Çiloğlu, Osman Çiçek, Hakan Yılmaz, Ahmet Özalay, Metin Söker, Gökhan Leblebici, Berrin Orthop J Sports Med Article OBJECTIVES: We investigated the effects anatomic or nonanatomic femoral tunnel positions and tunnel fixation methods obtained using two different surgery methods on tunnel widening and clinical results in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions. METHODS: Patients with isolated anterior cruciate ligament rupture are included to study who don’t have intra-and extra-articular additional pathology of the knee, without previously a history of operations of both knees. 2 groups were created. Group 1 Aperfix implant were used which can be able to perform non anatomical femoral tunnel and intra tunnel fixation with transtibial technique. In Group 2 Endobutton CL implant were used which can make fixation from outside the cortex with anatomic femoral tunnel in use of anteromedial portal techniques. 27 patients (average age 29,33, range 18 to 55 years) in group 1 and 27 patients (average age 27,51, range 16 to 45 years) in group 2 totally 54 patients were performed surgery. All patients were assessed using the IKDC (International knee documentation committee), Tegner Activity Scala and Lysholm II Functional Scores. Muscle strength measurements in both groups compared to intact knee was measured with an isokinetic dynamometer Biodex System 3 Pro. The location of the femoral tunnel aperture and tunnel widening were imaged with 3D reconstructive computed tomography. All measurements were performed using the same software application by the same radiologist. RESULTS: The two groups were similar with respect to age and sex distribution, operated side, the size of the tunnel created, and follow-up period (p>0.05). After surgery in both groups, the clinical scores showed significant improvement compared to preoperative (p=0,0001). However, postoperative clinical outcomes in the two groups did not show a difference significantly (p>0,005). Isokinetic muscle strength study showed significant differences between the two groups (p=0,0001). Location of femoral tunnel aperture on the medial wall of the lateral femoral condyle showed a significant differences in the two groups (p=0,0001). The expansion of proximal and distal femoral tunnel in two groups showed significant differences (p=0,0001). There was relationship between distal femoral tunnel widening and location of femoral tunnel aperture. CONCLUSION: Although there is no statistically significant difference between the two groups clinically, difference noticed in terms of isokinetic muscle strength may be due to differences in the degree of shift as a result of multiple loading depending on the biomechanical properties of materials. We thought that the difference seen in the widening of tunnel in the proximal or distal may be due to, the technique of graft fixation, the distance between the fixation point and the joint, and to the location of the femoral tunnel aperture on medial wall of lateral condyle from anatomical or non anatomical region. There is no golden standard in neither surgical technique nor material of fixation. Proper theoretical knowledge and extensive clinical experience are important in the light of an accurate surgical technique applied. We thought that information we have reached in our study should be supported by biomechanical studies SAGE Publications 2014-12-01 /pmc/articles/PMC4597738/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967114S00272 Text en © The Author(s) 2014 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This open-access article is published and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - No Derivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/), which permits the noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction of the article in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this article without the permission of the Author(s). For reprints and permission queries, please visit SAGE’s Web site at http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav.
spellingShingle Article
Çiloğlu, Osman
Çiçek, Hakan
Yılmaz, Ahmet
Özalay, Metin
Söker, Gökhan
Leblebici, Berrin
Comparison of Clinical and Radiological Parameters with Two Different Surgical Methods for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
title Comparison of Clinical and Radiological Parameters with Two Different Surgical Methods for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
title_full Comparison of Clinical and Radiological Parameters with Two Different Surgical Methods for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
title_fullStr Comparison of Clinical and Radiological Parameters with Two Different Surgical Methods for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Clinical and Radiological Parameters with Two Different Surgical Methods for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
title_short Comparison of Clinical and Radiological Parameters with Two Different Surgical Methods for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
title_sort comparison of clinical and radiological parameters with two different surgical methods for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4597738/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967114S00272
work_keys_str_mv AT cilogluosman comparisonofclinicalandradiologicalparameterswithtwodifferentsurgicalmethodsforanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction
AT cicekhakan comparisonofclinicalandradiologicalparameterswithtwodifferentsurgicalmethodsforanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction
AT yılmazahmet comparisonofclinicalandradiologicalparameterswithtwodifferentsurgicalmethodsforanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction
AT ozalaymetin comparisonofclinicalandradiologicalparameterswithtwodifferentsurgicalmethodsforanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction
AT sokergokhan comparisonofclinicalandradiologicalparameterswithtwodifferentsurgicalmethodsforanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction
AT leblebiciberrin comparisonofclinicalandradiologicalparameterswithtwodifferentsurgicalmethodsforanteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction