Cargando…
Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Anteromedial Portal Versus Transtibial Technique in ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review
BACKGROUND: The drilling technique used to make a femoral tunnel is critically important for determining outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The 2 most common methods are the transtibial (TT) and anteromedial (AM) techniques. PURPOSE: To determine whether graft orientatio...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8255613/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34277881 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671211024591 |
_version_ | 1783717943054434304 |
---|---|
author | Loucas, Marios Loucas, Rafael D’Ambrosi, Riccardo Hantes, Michael Elias |
author_facet | Loucas, Marios Loucas, Rafael D’Ambrosi, Riccardo Hantes, Michael Elias |
author_sort | Loucas, Marios |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The drilling technique used to make a femoral tunnel is critically important for determining outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The 2 most common methods are the transtibial (TT) and anteromedial (AM) techniques. PURPOSE: To determine whether graft orientation and placement affect clinical outcomes by comparing clinical and radiological outcomes after single-bundle ACL reconstruction with the AM versus TT technique. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Articles in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, and MEDLINE were searched from inception until April 25, 2020, using the following Boolean operators: transtibial OR trans-tibial AND (anteromedial OR trans-portal OR independent OR three portal OR accessory portal) AND anterior cruciate ligament. RESULTS: Of 1270 studies retrieved, 39 studies involving 11,207 patients were included. Of these studies, 14 were clinical, 13 were radiological, and 12 were mixed. Results suggested that compared with the TT technique, the AM technique led to significantly improved anteroposterior and rotational knee stability, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, and recovery time from surgery. A higher proportion of negative Lachman (P = .0005) and pivot-shift test (P = .0001) results, lower KT-1000 arthrometer maximum manual displacement (P = .00001), higher Lysholm score (P = .001), a higher incidence of IKDC grade A/B (P = .05), and better visual analog scale score for satisfaction (P = .00001) were observed with the AM technique compared with the TT technique. The AM drilling technique demonstrated a significantly shorter tunnel length (P = .00001). Significant differences were seen between the femoral and tibial graft angles in both techniques. Low overall complication and revision rates were observed for ACL reconstruction with the AM drilling technique, similar to the TT drilling technique. CONCLUSION: In single-bundle ACL reconstruction, the AM drilling technique was superior to the TT drilling technique based on physical examination, scoring systems, and radiographic results. The AM portal technique provided a more reproducible anatomic graft placement compared with the TT technique. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8255613 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-82556132021-07-16 Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Anteromedial Portal Versus Transtibial Technique in ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review Loucas, Marios Loucas, Rafael D’Ambrosi, Riccardo Hantes, Michael Elias Orthop J Sports Med Article BACKGROUND: The drilling technique used to make a femoral tunnel is critically important for determining outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The 2 most common methods are the transtibial (TT) and anteromedial (AM) techniques. PURPOSE: To determine whether graft orientation and placement affect clinical outcomes by comparing clinical and radiological outcomes after single-bundle ACL reconstruction with the AM versus TT technique. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Articles in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, and MEDLINE were searched from inception until April 25, 2020, using the following Boolean operators: transtibial OR trans-tibial AND (anteromedial OR trans-portal OR independent OR three portal OR accessory portal) AND anterior cruciate ligament. RESULTS: Of 1270 studies retrieved, 39 studies involving 11,207 patients were included. Of these studies, 14 were clinical, 13 were radiological, and 12 were mixed. Results suggested that compared with the TT technique, the AM technique led to significantly improved anteroposterior and rotational knee stability, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, and recovery time from surgery. A higher proportion of negative Lachman (P = .0005) and pivot-shift test (P = .0001) results, lower KT-1000 arthrometer maximum manual displacement (P = .00001), higher Lysholm score (P = .001), a higher incidence of IKDC grade A/B (P = .05), and better visual analog scale score for satisfaction (P = .00001) were observed with the AM technique compared with the TT technique. The AM drilling technique demonstrated a significantly shorter tunnel length (P = .00001). Significant differences were seen between the femoral and tibial graft angles in both techniques. Low overall complication and revision rates were observed for ACL reconstruction with the AM drilling technique, similar to the TT drilling technique. CONCLUSION: In single-bundle ACL reconstruction, the AM drilling technique was superior to the TT drilling technique based on physical examination, scoring systems, and radiographic results. The AM portal technique provided a more reproducible anatomic graft placement compared with the TT technique. SAGE Publications 2021-07-02 /pmc/articles/PMC8255613/ /pubmed/34277881 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671211024591 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work as published without adaptation or alteration, without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Article Loucas, Marios Loucas, Rafael D’Ambrosi, Riccardo Hantes, Michael Elias Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Anteromedial Portal Versus Transtibial Technique in ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review |
title | Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Anteromedial Portal Versus Transtibial Technique in ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review |
title_full | Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Anteromedial Portal Versus Transtibial Technique in ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review |
title_fullStr | Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Anteromedial Portal Versus Transtibial Technique in ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review |
title_full_unstemmed | Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Anteromedial Portal Versus Transtibial Technique in ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review |
title_short | Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Anteromedial Portal Versus Transtibial Technique in ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review |
title_sort | clinical and radiological outcomes of anteromedial portal versus transtibial technique in acl reconstruction: a systematic review |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8255613/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34277881 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23259671211024591 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT loucasmarios clinicalandradiologicaloutcomesofanteromedialportalversustranstibialtechniqueinaclreconstructionasystematicreview AT loucasrafael clinicalandradiologicaloutcomesofanteromedialportalversustranstibialtechniqueinaclreconstructionasystematicreview AT dambrosiriccardo clinicalandradiologicaloutcomesofanteromedialportalversustranstibialtechniqueinaclreconstructionasystematicreview AT hantesmichaelelias clinicalandradiologicaloutcomesofanteromedialportalversustranstibialtechniqueinaclreconstructionasystematicreview |