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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sundararajan, Silvampatti Ramasamy, Sambandam, Balaji, Singh, Ajay, Rajagopalakrishnan, Ramakanth, Rajasekaran, Shanmuganathan
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