关节镜下缝线加强治疗后交叉韧带损伤

目的 介绍关节镜下缝线加强固定治疗后交叉韧带(PCL)损伤的方法 ,研究其临床效果.方法 2005年10月至2006年6月,对13例单纯PCL损伤患者,在关节镜下采用缝线固定维持胫骨中立位,增加PCL的紧张度.采用IKDC和Lysholm膝关节功能评分表对患膝功能进行评估,通过KT-1000检查比较膝关节的后向松弛度. 结果 术后无伸膝受限,屈膝活动度120°～140°,平均128°.术后随访12～18个月(平均14.5个月),最后随访时IKDC评分:A 6例,B 7例;IKDC膝关节主观评分从术前的(67.4±3.3)分提高到随访结束时的(92.5±4.5)分,差异有统计学意义(t=9.837,P<0.01).屈膝90°位KT-1000检查,双侧胫骨结节后坠差异从术前的(8.1±1.7)mm减少到最后随访时的(2.0±1.3)mm,差异有统计学意义(t=12.230,P<0.01).陈旧性损伤患者术前Lysholm膝关节功能评分为(87.5±3.1)分,最后随访时为(95.8±3.5)分,差异有统计学意义(t=5.376,P<0.01).12例患者恢复了原来的运动水平,1例较损伤前稍有降低. 结论 在关节镜下采用缝线加强固定治疗急性PCL中远部损伤,能取得良好效果;治疗陈旧性PCL部分损伤,能够获得满意的结果.     

前交叉韧带单束重建和双束解剖重建短期临床疗效的病例对照研究

目的:比较关节镜下采用单束重建和双束重建前交叉韧带的临床效果。方法:自2009年1月至2010年5月,45例前交叉韧带撕裂患者分别行前交叉韧带解剖双束重建(双束重建组)和自体腘绳肌腱前交叉韧带单束重建(单束重建组)。双束组22例,男15例,女7例;年龄(27.04±3.68)岁;运动损伤3例,交通损伤19例。单束组18例,男13例,女5例;年龄(28.16±4.76)岁;运动损伤2例,交通损伤16例。按照IKDC、Lysholm膝关节评分标准及Lachman试验、轴移试验及KT-1000评估疗效。结果:双束重建组22例、单束重建组18例均获随访,时间12个月。单束重建组IKDC评分从术前(41.40±6.30)分提高至(95.70±3.10)分;Lysholm评分从(47.20±6.30)分提高至(94.20±2.40)分,双束重建组IKDC评分从术前(40.90±6.10)分提高至(96.10±3.40)分,Lysholm膝关节评分从术前(48.10±6.50)分提高至(95.10±2.49)分,两组差异无统计学意义。两组患者中均有1例Lachman试验I度阳性,1例轴移试验阳性。双束重建组KT-1000值(1.5±1.2)mm,单束重建组KT-1000值(1.9±1.5)mm,两组差异无统计学意义。结论:关节镜下采用单束重建和双束重建前交叉韧带临床疗效无明显差异。     

单束与双束解剖重建前交叉韧带临床疗效的荟萃分析

目的 通过荟萃分析评价单束与双束重建前交叉韧带在恢复膝关节前直向、旋转稳定性及膝关节功能评分方面的临床疗效,为前交叉韧带重建方法的选择提供依据.方法 计算机检索Ovid Medline和Pubmed、Embase、Cochrane图书馆、中国生物医学文献数据库、维普中文科技期刊数据库关于单束和双束解剖重建前交叉韧带的临床随机对照研究.阅读评价文献质量并提取有效数据,采用RevMan 5.0.23软件进行统计分析,两种手术方法的KT测量值、Lysholm评分采用加权均数差评价,轴移试验及国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)分级评分采用优势比评价.结果 共纳入前瞻性临床随机对照研究8篇.荟萃分析结果显示两种重建交叉韧带方法KT测量值差异具有统计学意义,加权均数差值-0.35 mm[95%CI(-0.61～0.08),P=0.01],但差异不具有临床意义;轴移试验合并优势比1.64[95%CI(0.85～3.16),P=0.14];IKDC分级评分优势比1.80[95%CI(0.98～3.31),P=0.06);Lysholm评分加权均数差值-1.91[95%CI(-3.45～0.37),P=0.01],差异有统计学意义.结论 双束解剖重建前交叉韧带的近期临床疗效不优于单束重建.     

关节镜下线型固定青少年胫骨髁间隆起撕脱骨折的临床疗效评价

目的评价关节镜下线型固定青少年胫骨髁间隆起撕脱骨折的临床疗效。方法笔者选择自2014-09—2015-09初次关节镜下线型固定18例青少年胫骨髁间隆起撕脱骨折,观察其术后疗效。术后应用症状与体征量化评分标准、Lysholm评分评估其术后疗效。结果术后切口均一期愈合。术后18例获得随访平均6(3~9)个月。症状与体征量化评分标准评分结果:优14例,良2例,可1例,差1例,优良率88.9%。术后立即复查X线片示骨折断端复位良好,术后3个月再次复查均达到骨性愈合,未见创伤性关节炎表现。17例前抽屉试验(-)、Lachman试验(-),1例前抽屉试验(+-)、Lachman试验(-)。末次随访Lysholm评分为(93.8±3.7)分,与术前(45.2±6.4)分比较,差异有统计学意义(t=27.892,P0.001);末次随访IKDC2000主观膝关节评分平均为(90.2±4.2)分,与术前(49.8±5.1)分比较,差异有统计学意义(t=25.943,P0.001)。术后肢体功能恢复满意。结论对于青少年胫骨髁间隆起撕脱骨折的治疗,关节镜下线型内固定不仅能够有效复位骨折断端,而且固定效果确切,有利于早期膝关节功能的恢复,能够在短时间内最大程度恢复膝关节的稳定性。     

Outcome of double bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using crosspin and aperture fixation

Background:

Double bundle anterior cruciate ligament (DBACL) reconstruction is said to reproduce the native anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) anatomy better than single bundle anterior cruciate ligament, whether it leads to better functional results is debatable. Different fixation methods have been used for DBACL reconstruction, the most common being aperture fixation on tibial side and cortical suspensory fixation on the femoral side. We present the results of DBACL reconstruction technique, wherein on the femoral side anteromedial (AM) bundle is fixed with a crosspin and aperture fixation was done for the posterolateral (PL) bundle.

Materials and Methods:

Out of 157 isolated ACL injury patients who underwent ACL reconstruction, 100 were included in the prospective study. Arthroscopic DBACL reconstruction was done using ipsilateral hamstring autograft. AM bundle was fixed using Transfix (Arthrex, Naples, FL, USA) on the femoral side and bio interference screw (Arthrex, Naples, FL, USA) on the tibial side. PL bundle was fixed on femoral as well as on tibial side with a biointerference screw. Patients were evaluated using KT-1000 arthrometer, Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Score and isokinetic muscle strength testing.

Methods:

Out of 157 isolated ACL injury patients who underwent ACL reconstruction, 100 were included in the prospective study. Arthroscopic DBACL reconstruction was done using ipsilateral hamstring autograft. AM bundle was fixed using Transfix (Arthrex, Naples, FL, USA) on the femoral side and bio interference screw (Arthrex, Naples, FL, USA) on the tibial side. PL bundle was fixed on femoral as well as on tibial side with a biointerference screw. Patients were evaluated using KT-1000 arthrometer, Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Score and isokinetic muscle strength testing.

Results:

The KT-1000 results were evaluated using paired t test with the P value set at 0.001. At the end of 1 year, the anteroposterior side to side translation difference (KT-1000 manual maximum) showed mean improvement from 5.1 mm ± 1.5 preoperatively to 1.6 mm ± 1.2 (P < 0.001) postoperatively. The Lysholm score too showed statistically significant (P < 0.001) improvement from 52.4 ± 15.2 (range: 32-76) preoperatively to a postoperative score of 89.1 ± 3.2 (range 67-100). According to the IKDC score 90% patients had normal results (Category A and B). The AM femoral tunnel initial posterior blow out was seen in 4 patients and confluence in the intraarticular part of the femoral tunnels was seen in 6 patients intraoperatively. The quadriceps strength on isokinetic testing had an average deficit of 10.3% while the hamstrings had a 5.2% deficit at the end of 1 year as compared with the normal side.

Conclusion:

Our study revealed that the DBACL reconstruction using crosspin fixation for AM bundle and aperture fixation for PL bundle on the femoral side resulted in significant improvement in KT 1000, Lysholm and IKDC scores.     

单隧道免打结锚钉治疗后交叉韧带胫骨止点撕脱骨折

目的总结关节镜下利用单隧道免打结锚钉治疗后交叉韧带(PCL)胫骨止点撕脱骨折的效果。 方法回顾性分析2017年1月至2019年4月淮南朝阳医院骨科收治的PCL胫骨止点撕脱骨折患者,按照纳入排除标准,共纳入36名行关节镜单隧道免打结锚钉内固定治疗的患者。比较每例患者术前及术后6个月的膝关节活动度(ROM)、国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)膝关节韧带评估表、Lysholm膝关节功能评分及并发症情况,进行配对立样本t检验。 结果术后6个月随访ROM范围(t＝－22.231)、IKDC评分(t＝－34.958)、Lysholm评分(t＝－40.802)均比术前明显改善(均为P<0.05);所有患者均未出现腘窝神经、血管损伤。 结论采用关节镜下单隧道免打结锚钉内固定技术治疗后交叉韧带胫骨止点撕脱骨折,膝关节功能恢复情况满意。     

保残与非保残重建后交叉韧带的病例对照研究

目的:探讨关节镜下保留残端纤维与非保留残端重建后交叉韧带的方法与疗效。方法:2006年1月至2011年1月,在关节镜下自体腘绳肌腱重建后交叉韧带45例,可吸收挤压螺钉固定移植物。非保残技术重建后交叉韧带25例,男19例,女6例;清理断端后胫骨骨道采用双螺钉全骨隧道固定技术。保留残端重建后交叉韧带20例,男15例,女5例;保留残端纤维,采用与非保残组同样的固定方法。两组均随访18个月,采用KT-2000胫骨后移距离、Lysholm膝关节评分、IKDC评分及分级进行疗效评定。结果:在术后18个月随访时,KT-2000测胫骨后移距离、Lysholm膝关节评分及IKDC评分,非保残重建组分别为(4.2±2.1)mm,84.3±10.5和64.5±8.8;保残组(3.9±1.8)mm,86.5±8.9和68.6±7.9,两组差异无统计学意义。IKDC运动能力分级恢复正常或基本正常者,保残组优于非保残组。结论:保留残端纤维关节镜下后交叉韧带重建,在恢复膝关节运动功能方面显示了较非保残重建更好的优势。     

The incidence and significance of femoral tunnel widening after quadrupled hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using femoral cross pin fixation

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the amount of femoral tunnel widening that occurred after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using quadrupled hamstring autografts and to determine the clinical significance of any such tunnel enlargement. Type of Study: Retrospective clinical analysis. Methods: Twenty-nine patients who had undergone reconstruction of a torn anterior cruciate ligament with quadrupled hamstring autograft and cross pin femoral fixation were evaluated to determine the incidence and significance of postoperative femoral tunnel widening. A single surgeon performed all procedures, and average follow-up was 18.4 months (range, 12 to 31.5 months). All patients underwent flexion posteroanterior and lateral radiographs, an examination for determination of an International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) rating, had KT-1000 data collected, and completed Lysholm and Knee Outcome Survey functional questionnaires. Femoral tunnels were clearly seen in 27 patients. The tunnel diameters were measured at the opening of the tunnel, at the widest part of the tunnel, and just proximal to the cross pin. The amount of tunnel widening for each patient was then compared with the individual’s KT-1000 data, IKDC rating, and Lysholm and knee outcome survey scores to assess correlation. Results: Four different tunnel morphologies were noted, with the linear type being the most common. The widening at the greatest tunnel diameter was 65.5% on average. Side-to-side KT-1000 differences averaged 1.04 mm at 30 lb, and 1.10 mm at manual maximum. Eleven patients had IKDC overall ratings of normal, 13 had ratings that were nearly normal, and 2 had abnormal. Average Lysholm and knee outcome survey scores were 92.6 and 93.9, respectively. A significant correlation was found only between F2 and F3 widening with Lysholm scores. However, the significance was eliminated with removal of 2 outliers. Conclusions: The exact etiology of postoperative anterior cruciate ligament tunnel widening remains unknown. The present study reveals that significant tunnel widening occurs with quadrupled hamstring autografts and femoral cross pin fixation. However, the widening does not appear to have a significant effect on postoperative ligament laxity or functional knee scores, at least in the short term.Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery, Vol 19, No 5 (May-June), 2003: pp 470–476     

自体腘绳肌腱单束与双束重建前交叉韧带临床结果的Meta分析

目的 基于已发表的随机对照试验（randomized controlled trials, RCTs）,对关节镜下采用自体腘绳肌腱单束或双束重建前交叉韧带的整体疗效比较进行Meta分析。方法 计算机检索PubMed、Cochrane library、Springerlink数据库,收集自体腘绳肌键单束对比双束重建前交叉韧带的RCTs,检索时间及语种不限。两名研究人员按照指定的纳入标准及排除标准独立对文献进行筛选,提取有关数据资料,并采用Cochrane Collaboration工具表对文献质量进行评价。采用Revman 5.3软件进行Meta分析,比较两种重建方式术后国际膝关节评分委员会（International Knee Documentation Committee, IKDC）主观评分和客观评分、Lachman试验、轴移试验、Lysholm膝关节评分、Tegner膝关节评分、KT-1000或KT-2000关节活动度测量仪测量的数值,评价手术疗效。结果 纳入19篇RCTs,共1 190例研究对象,其中单束重建组580例,双束重建组610例。两组间在IKDC主观评分[MD=-0.90,95% CI（-3.07,1.27）,P=0.42]、IKDC客观评分[RR=0.98,95% CI（0.94,1.02）,P=0.38]、Lachman试验结果[RR=0.81,95% CI（0.63,1.05）,P=0.11]、Lysholm膝关节评分[MD=0.40,95% CI（-1.24,2.05）,P=0.63]、Tegner膝关节评分[MD=-0.08,95% CI（-0.47,0.33）,P=0.74]、KT-1000或KT-2000测量值[MD=0.30,95% CI（-0.05,0.64）,P=0.09]方面,差异均无统计学意义。轴移试验结果在两组间的差异具有统计学意义[RR=0.85,95% CI（0.74,0.97）,P=0.02]。结论 对于膝关节功能恢复和前直向稳定性,用自体腘绳肌腱单束或双束重建前交叉韧带的临床结果无明显差异;而对于恢复膝关节旋转稳定性,双束重建技术优于单束重建。     

关节镜下保留残端重建前交叉韧带的临床前瞻性对照研究

目的 前瞻性评估保留残端对于前交叉韧带重建临床疗效的意义.方法 2008年8月至2009年9月共70例有韧带残端存留的前交叉韧带损伤患者入选本研究组,随机分为保留残端组(n=35)和对照组(n=35).分别采取关节镜下保留残端重建前交叉韧带和切除残端的前交叉韧带重建手术技术,移植物均使用同种异体肌腱.术后随访分别进行膝关节功能评分(IKDC分级和Lysholm评分)、客观稳定性评估(Lachman试验、轴移试验和KT-1000测量)、本体感觉功能测量和二次关节镜手术探查.结果 70例患者中共61例(87%)获得随访,平均随访时间13.1个月.两组的功能评分无显著差异:Lysholm评分:保留残端组96.4分,对照组94.9分(P=0.71);IKDC分级中A和B级:保留残端组30例,对照组29例(P=0.586).两组的客观稳定性评估无显著差异:KT-1000测量的侧-侧差值:保留残端组1.69 mm,对照组1.65 mm(P=0.83);Lachman试验阴性例数:保留残端组29例,对照组28例(P=1.00);轴移试验阴性例数:保留残端组31例,对照组27例(P=0.225).本体感觉的角度重复试验结果无显著差异:保留残端组4.56°,对照组4.28°(P=0.522).二次手术探查时发现的移植物滑膜覆盖率无显著差异:保留残端组85%,对照组84.2%.结论 保留残端同时使用异体肌腱移植重建前交叉韧带,对术后膝关节主观功能评分、稳定性和本体感觉和移植物滑膜覆盖程度并无促进作用.

Abstract：

Objective To evaluate the clinical significance of arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)reconstruction using the remnant-preserved technique.Methods From August 2008 to September 2009,70 cases with the remnant of injured ACL were included in the trials,which were randomized into the remnant preservation(RP)group and the control group,35 cases in each group.All patients in the two groups underwent arthroscopic ACL reconstruction surgeries,with ACL-remnant preserving technique in RP group and ACL-remnant resection in control group,respectively.The injured ACL was reconstructed with allograft in all cases.Postoperative follow-up assessment included the International Knee Documentation Committee(IKDC)grading and Lysholm score,Lachman test,pivot shift test and KT-1000 measurement,proprioception measurements and the arthroscopic second look evaluation.Results Sixty-one(61/70,87%)cases were available for an average of 13.1 months follow-up assessment postoperatively.There were no significant differences between the RP and control group in functional outcome as evaluated with Lysholm score(96.4 vs.94.9,P = 0.71)and IKDC grading(cases with A and B gradings:30 vs.29,P = 0.586).Regarding objective stability,there were no differences between the 2 group in mean side-to-side difference of KT-1000(1.69 mm vs.1.65 mm,P =0.83),Lachman test(negative cases:29 vs.28,P = 1.00)and pivot shift test(negative cases:31 vs.27,P =0.225).There was also no difference between the groups in proprioception evaluation measured with angle repetitive test(4.56°vs.4.28°,P=0.522).During second look arthroscopic examination,the grafts synoveal coverage rates were found to be 85% in the RP group and 84.2% in the control group,without significant difference(P＞0.05).Conclusions Arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with the remnant preserving technique using tendon allograft do not improve the postoperative knee-joint function scores,stability,proprioception and synovial coverage of grafts.     

基于后十字韧带的膝关节多发韧带损伤两种重建技术的对比研究

目的 比较采用关节镜下经胫骨隧道技术和切开胫骨镶嵌骨块技术重建基于后十字韧带的多发韧带损伤患者术后的后向稳定性和临床疗效.方法 自2005年4月至2009年12月,共连续完成基于后十字韧带的多发韧带损伤重建修复手术135例,2年以上随访者88例.后十字韧带采用关节镜下经胫骨隧道技术重建57例(64.8％),切开镶嵌骨块技术重建31例(35.2％),合并损伤予同期重建或修复.随访时间平均(45.9±17.0)个月(24～77个月).采用KT-1000和Telos应力装置测量手术前后膝关节后向稳定性.采用Tegner、Lysholm、AAOS评分评价临床疗效.结果 两组患者的性别、年龄、受伤至手术时间、合并损伤和主观评分比较,差异均无统计学意义.经胫骨隧道组术前KT-1000两侧差值为(13.5±4.8) mm,术后为(2.4±3.4)mm;术前Telos两侧差值为(14.9±7.1) mm,术后为(4.6±4.0) mm.切开胫骨镶嵌骨块组术前KT-1000两侧差值为(13.7±5.2) mm,术后为(2.2±3.6)mm;术前Telos两侧差值为(14.9±5.9) mm,术后为(4.3±3.9) mm.两组患者KT-1000和Telos两侧差值手术前后组内比较差异均有统计学意义,而组间比较差异均无统计学意义.两组患者术后Tegner、Lysholm、AAOS评分的差异均无统计学意义.结论 采用两种技术重建基于后十字韧带的多发韧带损伤,两组患者术后的后向稳定性及功能评分差异均无统计学意义,且均可明显恢复膝关节后向稳定性.     

Arthroscopic fixation of avulsion fractures of the tibial eminence: technique and outcome

PurposeThe purpose of this study was to review an arthroscopic technique using screw or suture fixation for repair of types II and III fractures of the tibial eminence and review patient outcomes.Type of studyRetrospective review.MethodsWe conducted a review of 17 patients with Meyers and McKeever type II or III fractures of the tibial eminence treated with arthroscopic suture or screw fixation. We reviewed records and administered a questionnaire that included the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form, Tegner Activity scale, and Lysholm Knee Score.ResultsFive men and 12 women comprised the study group. Average age was 26.6 years (range, 7.5 to 60.1 years). Mean follow-up time was 32.6 months (range, 14 to 51 months). The study included 8 type II and 9 type III fractures. At follow-up evaluation, the mean Tegner score was 6.35 and mean Lysholm score was 94.2. In general, the best outcomes were seen in younger patients. For continuous age, significant differences were found for the IKDC functional scores, symptom scores, and IKDC final scores. For categorical age, younger patients had significantly better scores for the IKDC function and final scores. No significant differences were seen in outcomes with regard to fixation type. In 10 cases the intermeniscal ligament was interposed between the avulsed fracture and the tibia and was retracted or resected to allow fracture reduction. No significant differences were seen in the outcomes of these patients.ConclusionsWe found that displaced tibial eminence fractures could be successfully treated in both younger and older patients using arthroscopic suture or screw fixation, with most patients returning to their previous activity levels. The interposed intermeniscal ligament must be retracted or resected to allow for anatomic fracture reduction.Level of evidenceLevel III, Case Series.     

关节镜下半月板修补缝合系统联合血凝块治疗半月板损伤

目的评价关节镜下半月板修补缝合系统(Fast-Fix)联合血凝块缝合半月板损伤的临床疗效。 方法选取青岛市市立医院骨关节与运动医学科2016年4月至2017年4月收治的31例采取Fast-Fix联合血凝块缝合半月板的患者进行临床研究,评价其术后疗效。其中包括男18例,女13例,年龄18～45岁,平均年龄(32±8)岁,经患者亲自了解目的及相关风险后,自愿参加试验,纳入标准为初次单侧半月板损伤,不合并其他关节内损伤,不合并下肢血管神经损伤;主观体征存在患膝疼痛、交锁症状,但无明显关节受限,可进行一般日常活动;排除标准为MRI示合并有膝关节内其他损伤、陈旧性半月板损伤、合并神经血管损伤、先天性膝关节发育畸形。在关节镜下应用半月板修补缝合系统联合血凝块修整缝合损伤的半月板。观察患者术后3月、术后6月的康复情况并进行视觉模拟评分法(VAS评分)、膝关节主观功能评分(IKDC 2000评分)、膝关节功能评分(Lysholm评分),采用重复测量方差分析比较不同时间VAS评分、IKDC 2000评分、Lysholm评分的差异,评估其手术疗效。 结果所有患者均获得随访,术后均未出现膝关节疼痛、交锁、二次手术及其并发症。经数据分析,不同时间VAS评分差异存在统计学意义(F＝963.131,P<0.01),术前VAS评分显著高于术后3月(t＝－33.897,P<0.01)、术后6月VAS评分(t＝－30.460,P<0.01),而术后3月和术后6月相比较差异无统计学意义(t＝－1.000,P>0.05);不同时间IKDC 2000评分(F＝4 688.837,P<0.01)和Lysholm评分(F＝11 544.044,P<0.01)差异均有统计学意义,术前IKDC 2000评分和Lysholm评分显著低于术后3月(t＝76.205,P<0.01;t＝128.766,P<0.01)和术后6月评分(t ＝78.183,P<0.01;t＝131.180,P<0.01),而术后3月和术后6月IKDC 2000评分(t＝1.496,P>0.05)、Lysholm评分(t＝1.896,P>0.05)相比较差异并无统计学意义。 结论关节镜下半月板修补缝合系统(Fast-Fix)联合血凝块缝合半月板损伤可获得良好的术后疗效,但对于血凝块如何促进半月板愈合的机制尚不明确,仍需要进一步的试验研究。     

Bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft versus LARS artificial ligament for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

The optimized graft for use in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is still in controversy. The bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) autograft has been accepted as the gold standard for ACL reconstruction. However, donor site morbidities cannot be avoided after this treatment. The artificial ligament of ligament advanced reinforcement system (LARS) has been recommended for ACL reconstruction. The purpose of this study is to compare the midterm outcome of ACL reconstruction using BPTB autografts or LARS ligaments. Between July 2004 and March 2006, the ACL reconstruction using BPTB autografts in 30 patients and LARS ligaments in 32 patients was performed. All patients were followed up for at least 4 years and evaluated using the Lysholm knee score, Tegner score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, and KT-1000 arthrometer test. There were no significant differences between the two groups with respect to the data of Lysholm scores, Tegner scores, IKDC scores, and KT-1000 arthrometer test at the latest follow-up. Our study demonstrates that the similarly good clinical results are obtained after ACL reconstruction using BPTB autografts or LARS ligaments at midterm follow-up. In addition to BPTB autografts, the LARS ligament may be a satisfactory treatment option for ACL rupture.     

Suspensory fixation versus novel transverse crosspin for femoral fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Background and aim

There is still no gold standard technique for graft fixation during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. We compared the functional outcomes of patients receiving either ToggleLoc with ZipLoop technology or Translig transverse crosspin device for femoral graft fixation.

Materials and methods

A total of 118 patients were randomly allocated into two groups to receive either Translig^® transverse crosspin (Translig group 1: n = 51, mean age 28.34 ± 7.83 years, age 18–40 years) or ToggleLoc with ZipLoop technology (ToggleLoc group: n = 67, mean age 26.85 ± 8.76, age 16-41 years) for femoral graft fixation. Early and 1-year assessment was made with Lysholm knee scale, International Knee Documentation Committee Scoring, Tegner Activity Level Scale, KT-1000 arthrometer and pivot shift test.

Results

Preoperative vs. postoperative functional parameters showed significant improvement in both groups. Two groups were similar in terms of Lysholm knee scale, IKDC and Tegner activity scores (p > 0.05). The KT-1000 arthrometer revealed slightly less anterior sliding in Translig group than that in ToggleLoc group (p > 0.05). ToggleLoc technique allowed a radiographically more horizontal placement of the graft than Translig technique.

Conclusion

Two distinct techniques used in this study are likely to be suitable for femoral graft fixation during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the femoral tunnel being created via anteromedial approach.     

由外向内与经胫骨建立股骨隧道保留残迹重建前交叉韧带的病例对照研究

目的:探讨关节镜下由外向内与经胫骨隧道建立股骨隧道保留残迹重建前交叉韧带(ACL)的临床效果。方法:自2005年6月至2012年1月,采用关节镜下保留残迹重建ACL145例,由外向内建立胫骨和股骨隧道88例(由外向内组),男55例,女33例,年龄18～52岁,平均(29.22±7.31)岁;经胫骨隧道建立股骨隧道57例(经胫骨组),男35例,女22例,年龄18～51岁,平均(29.28±8.07)岁。对两组术前、术后早期及随访时的Lysholm、VAS评分及IKDC分级等进行比较。结果:由外向内组手术时间(76.94±10.83)min,经胫骨组(70.35±10.11)min,经胫骨组手术时间短于由外向内组。两组术后早期关节积液反应差异无统计学意义(P=0.065)。随访18～60个月,两组患者的关节稳定性均较术前提高;由外向内组Lysholm评分由术前54.75±10.58,增加至随访时95.80±5.16;经胫骨组Lysholm评分由术前52.51±11.38,增加至随访时94.86±5.50;此外,两组IKDC评级均较术前有显著改善。随访时两组间比较,轴移试验、Lachman试验和前抽屉试验的稳定性差异无统计学意义,Lysholm评分和IKDC评级差异亦无统计学意义。结论:由外向内技术建立股骨隧道具有容易达到解剖位重建、对关节内干扰小的优点,但技术操作较复杂。而经胫骨技术操作方便,手术时间较短。依据实际情况选择相应的任何一种技术方法,均能取得满意的临床效果。     

Similar functional outcomes of arthroscopic reconstruction in patients with isolated Posterior Cruciate Ligament (PCL) and combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) and PCL tears

BackgroundPosterior Cruciate Ligament (PCL) injuries seldom occur in isolation and majority occurs in conjugation with other ligament injuries. Posterior Cruciate Ligament (PCL) reconstruction continues to be taken into consideration as a complicated surgical procedure, with heterogeneity in literature regarding clinical and functional outcomes in isolated PCL and combined ACL and PCL injuries.MethodsThe retrospective evaluation of patients with isolated PCL reconstruction (group 1) and combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) and PCL reconstruction (group 2) was performed. A total of 66 patients with either isolated PCL or combined ACL and PCL reconstruction surgeries that met the inclusion criteria, were included in the study. These patients were assessed for functional outcome scores including Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score, Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Tegner activity score at a minimum follow-up of 5 years.ResultsThe mean follow-up of patients was 82.09 ± 12.43 months in group 1 and 79.36 ± 11.24 months in group 2, with a total of 29 patients in group 1 and 21 patients in group 2. Both the groups were found to be comparable in terms of age, gender, duration of injury and pre-injury Tegner activity level. Post-surgical functional outcome scores (WOMAC score, Lysholm score and Tegner score) were found to be comparable between 2 groups at a mean follow-up of 5 years. Further, 22 patients in group 1 and 16 patients in group 2 had normal or near normal objective IKDC outcome scores at a mean follow-up of 5 years.ConclusionsNo differences were observed in functional outcome scores (WOMAC score, Lysholm score, Tegner score and IKDC score) between isolated reconstructed PCL and combined ACL and PCL reconstructed patients.     

残端悬吊包绕肌腱移植物重建前交叉韧带

目的:探讨残端悬吊包绕肌腱移植物重建前交叉韧带的价值。方法:2009年6月至2011年6月对76例前交叉韧带损伤的患者采用残端悬吊包绕肌腱移植物重建前交叉韧带治疗。男59例,女17例;年龄15～46岁,平均29岁。其中运动伤32例,训练伤20例,交通事故伤16例,其他损伤8例。受伤至手术时间平均3周(2～5周)。术前前抽屉试验阳性72例,Lachman试验阳性76例,IKDC主观评分45.9±3.6,Lysholm评分54.3±4.5。结果:术后患者切口均Ⅰ期愈合,无相关并发症发生。69例获得随访,时间17～31个月,平均23个月。末次随访Lachman试验均呈阴性;IKDC评级A级36例,B级30例,C级3例,D级0例;IKDC主观评分91.5±3.4,较术前提高;Lysholm评分92.4±3.8,较术前提高。结论:采用残端悬吊包绕肌腱移植物重建前交叉韧带有助于移植肌腱的修复,临床疗效满意。     

前十字韧带重建术后开链与闭链康复运动的选择

  目的 比较前十字韧带重建术后康复中开链运动与闭链运动的效果,为前十字韧带重建术后康复方案的选择提供依据。方法 2009年2月至2010年 6月符合纳入标准的接受异体肌腱单束解剖重建前十字韧带手术的患者60例,随机分为两组,分别采用开链运动康复方案（30例）和闭链运动康复方案（30例） 。两组术前Lysholm膝关节评分、国际膝关节评分委员会（International Knee Documentation Committee,IKDC）评分、KT-1000值的差异均无统计学意义。比 较术后3个月及6个月时两组患者的主动、被动关节活动度差值、Lysholm膝关节评分、IKDC评分、单足跳测试及KT-1000值。结果 术后3个月两组被动关节活动度 差值、Lysholm膝关节评分、IKDC评分的差异均无统计学意义;主动关节活动度差值、单足跳测试、KT-1000值的差异有统计学意义,闭链运动组优于开链运动组 。术后6个月两组主动关节活动度差值、被动关节活动度差值、Lysholm膝关节评分、IKDC评分、单足跳测试的差异均无统计学意义;KT-1000值的差异有统计学 意义,闭链运动组优于开链运动组。结论 闭链运动较开链运动能更好地保护重建韧带,更有利于本体感觉及肌肉力量的恢复。     

Outcomes of isokinetic tests and functional assessment of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Transtibial versus single anatomic femoral tunnel technique

ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to compare the outcomes of the transtibial and anatomical femoral single tunnel surgical techniques in ACL reconstruction.MethodsA total of 30 patients, with 16 patients (15 males and 1 female; mean age: 27.2 ± 7.04) with anatomical femoral single-tunnel technique (AFT) and 14 (12 males and 2 females; mean age: 29.4 ± 8.82) with transtibial technique (TT) were included into the study. All patients were evaluated with isokinetic tests at an angular velocity of 60°/s and 180°/s and the IKDC and Lysholm tests were performed preoperatively and in third, sixth, and 12th months postoperatively. The results were compared between the groups. The mean follow-up time was 17.1 ± 6.48 months.ResultsPostoperative third month changes in extension parameters of peak torque (AFT: ?93.286, TT: ?61.500), peak work (AFT: ?77.071, TT: ?47.500), peak torque ext/kg (AFT: ?1.182, TT: ?0.773), peak work ext/kg (AFT: ?0.982, TT: ?0.604), peak work (AFT: ?55.143 TT: ?33.063) at an angular velocity of 60°/s and postoperative third month change in extension parameter of peak power (AFT: ?86.786 TT: ?54.875) at an angular velocity of 180°/s were found to be better in the transtibial group (p < 0.05) and postoperative sixth month peak torque (AFT: 1.429, TT: ?5.688) value at an angular velocity of 60°/s was found to be less in the anatomical femoral single-tunnel group (p < 0.05). The IKDC (AFT: 94.671, TT: 90.025) (p < 0.05) and Lysholm (AFT: 96.714, TT: 92.375) (p < 0.05) scores of the anatomical femoral single-tunnel group were better than the transtibial group regarding to the postoperative final follow-up. There are positive intermediate correlations between preoperative IKDC and Lysholm scores with preoperative and postoperative some isokinetic test ratio (r = 0.539; p = 0.031), and preoperative peak power extension (r = 0.541; p = 0.030) at the both angular velocity of 60°/s and 180°/s in the transtibial group. There was no significant difference between the two groups with regards to the Lachman, anterior drawer and pivot shift tests (p < 0.05).ConclusionThere were differences in terms of isokinetic parameters in early outcomes but there was no statistical difference between isokinetic parameters at the end of 1st year between two groups. There were some correlations between IKDC and Lysholm scores with some isokinetic parameters.Level of EvidenceLevel III, Therapeutic Study.