Cargando…

Comparison of proprioception recovery following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using an artificial graft versus an autograft

BACKGROUND: To compare proprioception recovery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with a hamstring tendon autograft versus the artificial Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System (LARS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty patients (9 females, 31 males) with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xu, Changli, Liu, Tianze, Wang, Miao, Liu, Chang, Li, Bo, Lian, Qiujian, Chen, Tongjiang, Chen, Fengmei, Qiao, Suchi, Wang, Zhiwei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9719127/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36463165
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-06019-9
_version_ 1784843249191485440
author Xu, Changli
Liu, Tianze
Wang, Miao
Liu, Chang
Li, Bo
Lian, Qiujian
Chen, Tongjiang
Chen, Fengmei
Qiao, Suchi
Wang, Zhiwei
author_facet Xu, Changli
Liu, Tianze
Wang, Miao
Liu, Chang
Li, Bo
Lian, Qiujian
Chen, Tongjiang
Chen, Fengmei
Qiao, Suchi
Wang, Zhiwei
author_sort Xu, Changli
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To compare proprioception recovery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with a hamstring tendon autograft versus the artificial Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System (LARS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty patients (9 females, 31 males) with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture were enrolled in this prospective study. Patients were randomized to two groups, 1) ACLR using a hamstring tendon autograft (n = 20) or 2) ACLR using artificial LARS (n = 20). Proprioception was assessed with knee joint position sense (JPS) passive-passive test at 45° and 75° flexions, with the contralateral healthy knee as a control baseline to calculate the JPS error. Knee JPS absolute error was used as the main outcome variable and defined as the absolute difference between the reproduction and target angles. RESULTS: JPS error in both groups at 3 months after ACLR was significantly higher than that at 12 months. However, no significant difference in JPS error was detected between the LARS and autograft groups at either 3 or 12 months after ACLR. Analyzing JPS data by grouping patients according to whether ACLR was performed more or less than 1 year following injury regardless of graft type showed a statistically significant difference between the groups at 3 months, but not at 12 months, after ACLR. Patients receiving the graft within 1 year of injury had a lower JPS error than those receiving the graft more than 1 year after injury at 3 months. No complications were associated with either ACLR method. CONCLUSION: ACLR with a hamstring tendon autograft or LARS artificial graft is similarly safe and effective for recovering knee proprioception.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9719127
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97191272022-12-04 Comparison of proprioception recovery following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using an artificial graft versus an autograft Xu, Changli Liu, Tianze Wang, Miao Liu, Chang Li, Bo Lian, Qiujian Chen, Tongjiang Chen, Fengmei Qiao, Suchi Wang, Zhiwei BMC Musculoskelet Disord Research BACKGROUND: To compare proprioception recovery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with a hamstring tendon autograft versus the artificial Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System (LARS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty patients (9 females, 31 males) with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture were enrolled in this prospective study. Patients were randomized to two groups, 1) ACLR using a hamstring tendon autograft (n = 20) or 2) ACLR using artificial LARS (n = 20). Proprioception was assessed with knee joint position sense (JPS) passive-passive test at 45° and 75° flexions, with the contralateral healthy knee as a control baseline to calculate the JPS error. Knee JPS absolute error was used as the main outcome variable and defined as the absolute difference between the reproduction and target angles. RESULTS: JPS error in both groups at 3 months after ACLR was significantly higher than that at 12 months. However, no significant difference in JPS error was detected between the LARS and autograft groups at either 3 or 12 months after ACLR. Analyzing JPS data by grouping patients according to whether ACLR was performed more or less than 1 year following injury regardless of graft type showed a statistically significant difference between the groups at 3 months, but not at 12 months, after ACLR. Patients receiving the graft within 1 year of injury had a lower JPS error than those receiving the graft more than 1 year after injury at 3 months. No complications were associated with either ACLR method. CONCLUSION: ACLR with a hamstring tendon autograft or LARS artificial graft is similarly safe and effective for recovering knee proprioception. BioMed Central 2022-12-03 /pmc/articles/PMC9719127/ /pubmed/36463165 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-06019-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Xu, Changli
Liu, Tianze
Wang, Miao
Liu, Chang
Li, Bo
Lian, Qiujian
Chen, Tongjiang
Chen, Fengmei
Qiao, Suchi
Wang, Zhiwei
Comparison of proprioception recovery following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using an artificial graft versus an autograft
title Comparison of proprioception recovery following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using an artificial graft versus an autograft
title_full Comparison of proprioception recovery following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using an artificial graft versus an autograft
title_fullStr Comparison of proprioception recovery following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using an artificial graft versus an autograft
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of proprioception recovery following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using an artificial graft versus an autograft
title_short Comparison of proprioception recovery following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using an artificial graft versus an autograft
title_sort comparison of proprioception recovery following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using an artificial graft versus an autograft
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9719127/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36463165
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12891-022-06019-9
work_keys_str_mv AT xuchangli comparisonofproprioceptionrecoveryfollowinganteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionusinganartificialgraftversusanautograft
AT liutianze comparisonofproprioceptionrecoveryfollowinganteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionusinganartificialgraftversusanautograft
AT wangmiao comparisonofproprioceptionrecoveryfollowinganteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionusinganartificialgraftversusanautograft
AT liuchang comparisonofproprioceptionrecoveryfollowinganteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionusinganartificialgraftversusanautograft
AT libo comparisonofproprioceptionrecoveryfollowinganteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionusinganartificialgraftversusanautograft
AT lianqiujian comparisonofproprioceptionrecoveryfollowinganteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionusinganartificialgraftversusanautograft
AT chentongjiang comparisonofproprioceptionrecoveryfollowinganteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionusinganartificialgraftversusanautograft
AT chenfengmei comparisonofproprioceptionrecoveryfollowinganteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionusinganartificialgraftversusanautograft
AT qiaosuchi comparisonofproprioceptionrecoveryfollowinganteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionusinganartificialgraftversusanautograft
AT wangzhiwei comparisonofproprioceptionrecoveryfollowinganteriorcruciateligamentreconstructionusinganartificialgraftversusanautograft