Ön çapraz bağ rekonstrüksiyonunda transtibial ve anteromedial portal tekniklerin fonksiyonel olarak karşılaştırılması

Year 2020, Volume: 11 Issue: 5, 412 - 418, 30.12.2020

Sema Cihan Evrim Duman

https://doi.org/10.18663/tjcl.822342

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, otojen hamstring tendon grefti kullanılarak ön çapraz bağ (ÖÇB) rekonstrüksiyonu yapılan hastalarda, transtibial (TT) ve anteromedial portal (AMP) tekniklerin fonksiyonel sonuçlarının karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: 2010-2018 yılları arasında, TT ve AMP teknik ile ÖÇB rekonstrüksiyonu yapılan toplam 80 hasta çalışmaya dahil edilmiştir. Hastaların 40 tanesi TT teknik ile 40 tanesi AMP teknik ile ameliyat edildi. Hastaların ameliyat sonrası takiplerinde, diz hareket açıklığı (fleksiyon- ekstansiyon), eklem kararlılık testleri (Lachman, ön çekmece, pivot-shift testleri) ve fonksiyonel skorları (IKDC, Lysholm, Cincinnati and Tegner diz skorları) kaydedildi.
Bulgular: Her iki grup için ameliyat öncesi ve ameliyat sonrası yapılan ölçümler arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunmuşsa da, TT ve AMP grupların birbirleri ile karşılaştırılmasında, diz hareket açıklığı, kararlılık ve fonksiyonel skorların sonuçları açısından fark bulunmadı.
Sonuç: Her iki grup için, otojen hamstring tendon grefti ile yapılan artroskopik ÖÇB rekonstrüksiyonunun erken fonksiyonel sonuçları tatmin edici ve benzerdir.

Keywords

ön çapraz bağ, transtibial teknik, anteromedial teknik

Functional comparison of transtibial and anteromedial portal techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to compare the functional results of transtibial (TT) and anteromedial portal (AMP) techniques in patients who underwent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using the autogenous hamstring graft.
Material and Methods: Fourty patients with TT technique and 40 patients with AMP technique who underwent arthroscopic ACL reconstruction between 2010-2018 were included in this study. During follow-up, range of motion (flexion-extension), stability (Lachman, anterior drawer, pivot-shift tests), functional scores (IKDC, Lysholm, Cincinnati and Tegner knee scores) were recorded.
Results: Although there were statistically significant results between preoperative and postoperative values in each group, there was no statistically significant difference between groups for knee range of motion, stability, functional results.
Conclusion: For both groups, early postoperative functional results of arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with autogenous hamstring tendon graft were found to be satisfactory.

Keywords

anterior cruciate ligament, transtibial technique, anteromedial portal technique

References

• 1. Daniel DM, Stone ML, Dobson BE, Fithian DC, Rossman DJ, Kaufman KR. Fate of the ACL-injured patient. A prospective outcome study. Am J Sports Med 1994; 22: 632-44.
• 2. Yu B, Garrett WE. Mechanisms of non-contact ACL injuries. Br J Sports Med 2007; 41: 47-51.
• 3. Lyman S, Koulouvaris P, Sherman S, Do H, Mandl LA, Marx RG. Epidemiology of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: trends, readmissions, and subsequent knee surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91: 2321-8.
• 4. Takahashi S, Nagano Y, Ito W, Kido Y, Okuwaki T. A retrospective study of mechanisms of anterior cruciate ligament injuries in high school basketball, handball, judo, soccer, and volleyball. Medicine (Baltimore) 2019; 98: 16030.
• 5. Finsterbush A, Frankl U, Matan Y, Mann G. Secondary damage to the knee after isolated injury of the anterior cruciate ligament. Am J Sports Med 1990; 18: 475-9.
• 6. Claes S, Hermie L, Verdonk R, Bellemans J, Verdonk P. Is osteoarthritis an inevitable consequence of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? A meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013; 21: 1967-76.
• 7. Duquin TR, Wind WM, Fineberg MS, Smolinski RJ, Buyea CM. Current trends in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Knee Surg 2009; 22: 7-12.
• 8. Irarrazaval S, Kurosaka M, Cohen M, Fu FH. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. JISAKOS 2016: 38-52.
• 9. Alentorn-Geli E, Lajara F, Samitier G, Cugat R. The transtibial versus the anteromedial portal technique in the arthroscopic bone-patellar tendon-bone anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010; 18: 1013-37.
• 10. Hospodar SJ, Miller MD. Controversies in ACL reconstruction: bone-patellar tendon-bone anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction remains the gold standard. Sports Med Arthrosc Rev 2009; 17: 242-6.
• 11. Mardani-Kivi M, Madadi F, Keyhani S, Karimi-Mobarake M, Hashemi-Motlagh K, Saheb-Ekhtiari K. Antero-medial portal vs. transtibial techniques for drilling femoral tunnel in ACL reconstruction using 4-strand hamstring tendon: a cross-sectional study with 1-year follow-up. Med Sci Monit 2012; 18: 674-9.
• 12. Liu C, Wang Y, Li Z et al. Tibiofemoral joint contact area and stress after single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with transtibial versus anteromedial portal drilling techniques. J Orthop Surg Res 2018; 13: 247.
• 13. Morimoto Y, Ferretti M, Ekdahl M, Smolinski P, Fu FH. Tibiofemoral joint contact area and pressure after single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 2009; 25: 62-9.
• 14. Rezazadeh S, Ettehadi H, Vosoughi AR. Outcome of arthroscopic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: anteromedial portal technique versus transtibial drilling technique. Musculoskelet Surg 2016; 100: 37-41.
• 15. Liu A, Sun M, Ma C et al. Clinical outcomes of transtibial versus anteromedial drilling techniques to prepare the femoral tunnel during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25: 2751-9.
• 16. Franceschi F, Papalia R, Rizzello G, Del Buono A, Maffulli N, Denaro V. Anteromedial portal versus transtibial drilling techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: any clinical relevance? A retrospective comparative study. Arthroscopy 2013; 29: 1330-7.
• 17. Koutras G, Papadopoulos P, Terzidis IP, Gigis I, Pappas E. Short-term functional and clinical outcomes after ACL reconstruction with hamstrings autograft: transtibial versus anteromedial portal technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2013; 21: 1904-9.
• 18. Noh JH, Roh YH, Yang BG, Yi SR, Lee SY. Femoral tunnel position on conventional magnetic resonance imaging after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in young men: transtibial technique versus anteromedial portal technique. Arthroscopy 2013; 29: 882-90.
• 19. Azboy I, Demirtas A, Gem M, Kiran S, Alemdar C, Bulut M. A comparison of the anteromedial and transtibial drilling technique in ACL reconstruction after a short-term follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2014; 134: 963-9.
• 20. Geng Y, Gai P. Comparison of 2 femoral tunnel drilling techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A prospective randomized comparative study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2018; 19: 454.
• 21. Ozer M, Ozer H, Selek H, et al. Radiological and functional comparison of single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: transtibial versus anteromedial technique. Turk J Med Sci 2018; 48: 455-61.
• 22. Eysturoy NH, Nielsen TG, Lind MC. Anteromedial Portal Drilling Yielded Better Survivorship of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions When Comparing Recent Versus Early Surgeries With This Technique. Arthroscopy 2019; 35: 182-9.