The Clinical Comparison of Endobutton-CL and Lift Systemed Ziploop Technıque in Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Abstract

Aim: The objective of this study is to compare the
results of the surgically treated patients, having
anterior cruciate ligament rupture (ACL), by
applying Endobutton-CL and Lift Systemed
Ziploop technique.
Methods: 50 patients, who received
arthroscopically ACL rupture reconstruction
treatment in Orthopedics and Traumatology clinic
of Mustafa Kemal University, were studied
between July 2011 – March 2013. The surgical
period of the patients, functional status were
evaluated according to postoperative Lysholm
evaluation form; the preoperation and postoperation
were according to IKDC scoring.
Results: Fifty patients in total were included in our
survey by treating 25 patients , who were diagnosed
with ACL lesion, with Endobutton-CL technique
and the residual 25 patients were diagnosed with
Lift Systemed Ziploop technique. The average time
for the group applied Endobutton-CL technique was
found as 62 minutes, and 46 minutes for the other
group applied Lift Systemed Ziploop technique.
The average follow-up time of period in the group
applied Endobutton-CL technique was recorded as
13,6 months, and 9,7 months for the other group
applied Lift Systemed Ziploop technique.
Conclusion: Single incision arthroscopic
Endbutton- CL technique applied by using
autologous double deck (four band) hamstring
tendon and ACL reconstruction with Lift Systemed
Ziploop technique are efficient and confidential
techniques and are among the preferable techniques
in terms of their successful functional results and
low complication rates. However, Lift Systemed
Ziploop technique is more advantageous than
Endobutton-CL technique in terms of shorter
surgical time span of the preceding, of not having
the necessity to adjust the length of femoral tunnel
sensitively and of supplying better graft tension 

Keywords

• Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
• Endobutton-CL
• Lift Systemed Ziploop

ARTROSKOPİK ÖN ÇAPRAZ BAĞ REKONSTRÜKSİYONUNDA ENDOBUTTON CL VE ASANSÖR SİSTEMLİ ZİPLOOP TEKNİKLERİNİN KLİNİK KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Abstract

Giriş: Ön çapraz bağ (ÖÇB) yırtığı olup cerrahi
olarak Endobutton-Continue Loop ve Asansör
Sistemli Ziploop tekniği uygulanarak tedavi edilen
hastaların sonuçlarının karşılaştırılması.
Yöntem: Haziran 2011-Mart 2013 tarihleri arasında
Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Ortopedi ve
Travmatoloji servisinde artroskopik olarak ÖÇB
yırtığı rekonstrüksiyonu yapılan 50 hasta incelendi.
ÖÇB lezyonu tanısı konulan 25 hastaya (11’ine sağ
diz, 14’üne sol diz) Endobutton-CL tekniği
uygulanarak, 25 hastaya da (13’üne sağ diz, 12’sine
sol diz) Asansör Sistemli Ziploop tekniği
uygulanarak toplam 50 hasta çalışmamıza dahil
edildi. Hastaların cerrahi süreleri, fonksiyonel
durumları ameliyat sonrası Lysholm değerlendirme
skoru, ameliyat öncesi ve sonrası da International
Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC)
skorlaması ile değerlendirildi.

Bulgular: : Endobutton-CL tekniği uygulanan
grupta cerrahi süre ortalama 62,0 ±10,3 , Asansör
Sistemli Ziploop tekniğinde ise; 45,9 ±4,9
(p˂0,001) dakika olarak bulundu. Endobutton-CL
tekniği uygulanan grupta ortalama takip süresi 13,6
ay, Asansör Sistemli Ziploop tekniği uygulanan
grupta ise 9,7 ay olarak bulundu.
Sonuç: Otolog çift katlı (dört band) hamstring
tendon kullanılarak yapılan tek insizyonlu
artroskopik Endobutton-CL tekniği ve Asansör
Sistemli Ziploop tekniği ile ÖÇB rekonstrüksiyonu
etkili ve güvenilir yöntemler olup, düşük
komplikasyon oranları ve başarılı fonksiyonel
sonuçları açısından tercih edilebilir tekniklerdir.
Ancak; cerrahi süre açısından daha kısa sürede
yapılıyor olması, femoral tünel boyunun hassas bir
şekilde ayarlama gereğinin olmaması ve greft
gerginliğinin daha iyi sağlanması açısından Asansör
Sistemli Ziploop tekniği, Endobutton-CL tekniğine
göre daha avantajlıdır.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Ön Çapraz Bağ
Rekonstrüksiyonu, Endobutton-CL, Asansör
Sistemli Ziploop

Keywords

• Ön Çapraz Bağ Rekonstrüksiyonu
• Endobutton-CL
• Asansör Sistemli Ziploop

References

1. Arnoczky SP: Anatomy of the anterior cruciate ligament. Clin Orthop 1983;172: 19–25.
2. T. Zantop, W. Petersen, J. Sekiya et al. ; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Anatomy and Function
3. Relating to Anatomical Reconstruction. Knee Surgery Sports Traumatol Arthroscopy 2006:982–92.
4. Sisk TD. Knee Injuries. In: Campbell’ s Operative Orthopaedics, 1996;8:1487–732.
5. Mc Daniel WJ, Dameron T,: Untreated Ruptures ofthe Anterior Cruciate Ligament. JBJS 1980;62-
6. A/5:696-704.
7. Noyes FR, Mooar PA, Matthews DS et al. The symptomatic anterior cruciate deficient knee: part
8. I:the long term functional disability in athletically active individuals. J Bone Joint Surg 1983;65-

9. A:154–62.
10. Hawkins R, Misamore G, Meritt T: Follow up of Acute Nonoperated Isolated Anterior Cruciate
11. Ligament Tear Am J Sports of Med 1986;14:205-10.
12. Kannus P, Jarvinen M: Conservatively treated tears of the anterior cruciate ligament: Long-term
13. results. J Bone Joint Surg 1987;69-A:1007–12.
14. Mc Daniel WJ, Dameron T: The Untreated Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture Clin Orthop
15. ;172:158-63.9. Brand J, Weiler A, Caborn D et al. Current Concept Graft Fixation in Cruciate Ligament
16. Reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2000:28-5;761-74.
17. Andersson C, Odensten M, Good L et al. Surgical or nonsurgical treatment of acute rupture of the
18. anterior cruciate ligament: a randomized study with long-term follw-up. J. Bone Joint Surg 1989;71-
19. A:965–74.
20. Chadwick CP, Yung SH, Brett L Stability Results of Hamstring Anterior Cruciate Ligament
21. Reconstructions at 2 to 8 year Follow up; Arthroscopy, The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related
22. Surgery. 2005;21-2:138-46.
23. Eriksson K, Kindblom GL, Hamberg P et al. The Semitendinosus Tendon Regenerates After
24. Resection: Acta Orthop Scand 2001;72-4:379-84.
25. Peter F, Squren K: Tunnel Widening After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Is
26. Influenced by the Type of Graft Fixation Used : A Prospective Randomized Study ; Arthroscopy
27. ;21-11:1337-41.
28. Gobbi A, Mahajan S , Zanazzo M et al. Patellar Tendon Versus Quadrupled Semitendinosus
29. Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction, A Prospective Clinical Investigation in Athletes. The
30. Journal of Arthroscopic Surgery 2003;19-6:592-601.
31. Aglietti P, Giron F: Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Bone-patellar Tendon-Bone
32. Compared with Double Semitendinosus and Gracilis Tendon Grafts. A Prospective, Randomize
33. Clinical Trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 6-A(10):2143-55.
34. Sachs RA, Reznik A, Daniel DM, et al. Complications of The Knee Ligament Surgery In Knee
35. Ligaments Structure, Function, Injury, and Repair. New York 1990:505-20.