Cargando…
Does Second-Generation Suspensory Implant Negate Tunnel Widening of First-Generation Implant Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction?
PURPOSE: Tunnel widening following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is commonly observed. Graft micromotion is an important contributing factor. Unlike fixed-loop devices that require a turning space, adjustable-loop devices fit the graft snugly in the tunnel. The purpose of this stud...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Korean Knee Society
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6254873/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30466254 http://dx.doi.org/10.5792/ksrr.18.005 |
_version_ | 1783373826368733184 |
---|---|
author | Sundararajan, Silvampatti Ramasamy Sambandam, Balaji Singh, Ajay Rajagopalakrishnan, Ramakanth Rajasekaran, Shanmuganathan |
author_facet | Sundararajan, Silvampatti Ramasamy Sambandam, Balaji Singh, Ajay Rajagopalakrishnan, Ramakanth Rajasekaran, Shanmuganathan |
author_sort | Sundararajan, Silvampatti Ramasamy |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Tunnel widening following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is commonly observed. Graft micromotion is an important contributing factor. Unlike fixed-loop devices that require a turning space, adjustable-loop devices fit the graft snugly in the tunnel. The purpose of this study is to compare tunnel widening between these devices. Our hypothesis is that the adjustable-loop device will create lesser tunnel widening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight patients underwent ACL reconstruction from January 2013 to December 2014. An adjustable-loop device was used in 54 patients (group 1) and a fixed-loop device was used in 44 patients (group 2). Maximum tunnel widening at 1 year was measured by the L’Insalata’s method. Functional outcome was measured at 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: The mean widening was 4.37 mm (standard deviation [SD], 2.01) in group 1 and 4.09 mm (SD, 1.98) in group 2 (p=0.511). The average International Knee Documentation Committee score was 78.40 (SD, 9.99) in group 1 and 77.11 (SD, 12.31) in group 2 (p=0.563). The average Tegner-Lysholm score was 87.25 (SD, 3.97) in group 1 and 87.29 in group 2 (SD, 4.36) (p=0.987). There was no significant difference in tunnel widening and functional outcome between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The adjustable-loop device did not decrease the amount of tunnel widening when compared to the fixed-loop device. There was no significant difference in outcome between the two fixation devices. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3, Retrospective Cohort |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6254873 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Korean Knee Society |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-62548732018-12-01 Does Second-Generation Suspensory Implant Negate Tunnel Widening of First-Generation Implant Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction? Sundararajan, Silvampatti Ramasamy Sambandam, Balaji Singh, Ajay Rajagopalakrishnan, Ramakanth Rajasekaran, Shanmuganathan Knee Surg Relat Res Original Article PURPOSE: Tunnel widening following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is commonly observed. Graft micromotion is an important contributing factor. Unlike fixed-loop devices that require a turning space, adjustable-loop devices fit the graft snugly in the tunnel. The purpose of this study is to compare tunnel widening between these devices. Our hypothesis is that the adjustable-loop device will create lesser tunnel widening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight patients underwent ACL reconstruction from January 2013 to December 2014. An adjustable-loop device was used in 54 patients (group 1) and a fixed-loop device was used in 44 patients (group 2). Maximum tunnel widening at 1 year was measured by the L’Insalata’s method. Functional outcome was measured at 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: The mean widening was 4.37 mm (standard deviation [SD], 2.01) in group 1 and 4.09 mm (SD, 1.98) in group 2 (p=0.511). The average International Knee Documentation Committee score was 78.40 (SD, 9.99) in group 1 and 77.11 (SD, 12.31) in group 2 (p=0.563). The average Tegner-Lysholm score was 87.25 (SD, 3.97) in group 1 and 87.29 in group 2 (SD, 4.36) (p=0.987). There was no significant difference in tunnel widening and functional outcome between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The adjustable-loop device did not decrease the amount of tunnel widening when compared to the fixed-loop device. There was no significant difference in outcome between the two fixation devices. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3, Retrospective Cohort Korean Knee Society 2018-12 2018-12-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6254873/ /pubmed/30466254 http://dx.doi.org/10.5792/ksrr.18.005 Text en Copyright © 2018 Korean Knee Society This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Sundararajan, Silvampatti Ramasamy Sambandam, Balaji Singh, Ajay Rajagopalakrishnan, Ramakanth Rajasekaran, Shanmuganathan Does Second-Generation Suspensory Implant Negate Tunnel Widening of First-Generation Implant Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction? |
title | Does Second-Generation Suspensory Implant Negate Tunnel Widening of First-Generation Implant Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction? |
title_full | Does Second-Generation Suspensory Implant Negate Tunnel Widening of First-Generation Implant Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction? |
title_fullStr | Does Second-Generation Suspensory Implant Negate Tunnel Widening of First-Generation Implant Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction? |
title_full_unstemmed | Does Second-Generation Suspensory Implant Negate Tunnel Widening of First-Generation Implant Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction? |
title_short | Does Second-Generation Suspensory Implant Negate Tunnel Widening of First-Generation Implant Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction? |
title_sort | does second-generation suspensory implant negate tunnel widening of first-generation implant following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6254873/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30466254 http://dx.doi.org/10.5792/ksrr.18.005 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT sundararajansilvampattiramasamy doessecondgenerationsuspensoryimplantnegatetunnelwideningoffirstgenerationimplantfollowinganteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT sambandambalaji doessecondgenerationsuspensoryimplantnegatetunnelwideningoffirstgenerationimplantfollowinganteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT singhajay doessecondgenerationsuspensoryimplantnegatetunnelwideningoffirstgenerationimplantfollowinganteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT rajagopalakrishnanramakanth doessecondgenerationsuspensoryimplantnegatetunnelwideningoffirstgenerationimplantfollowinganteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction AT rajasekaranshanmuganathan doessecondgenerationsuspensoryimplantnegatetunnelwideningoffirstgenerationimplantfollowinganteriorcruciateligamentreconstruction |