A comparison of clinical results of transtibial and transportal anatomical techniques in the arthroscopic reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament
Abstract
Background: The present study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with Transtibial (TT) and Transportal Anatomical (TA) techniques with the diagnosis of ACL rupture.
Methods: A total of 56 patients who underwent arthroscopic ACL repair in the Orthopedics and Traumatology Clinic of Menemen State Hospital between 2015 and 2020 were included in the study. The mean age of the patients was 25 years, and follow-up period was 31 months. Of the patients, 53 were male, 3 were female, and 43 had ACL ruptures in the right knee and 13 in the left knee. ACL reconstruction was performed using the TT technique in 29 patients and the TA technique in 27 patients. Patients were evaluated using the Lysholm Assessment score, the Modified Cincinnati Rating System Questionnaire, the Tegner Activity Level Scale, and the International Knee Documentation Committee scoring.
Results: There was a significant difference in pre and postoperative controls (p<0.05) and while normal and near-normal results were obtained with the TT (89%) and TA (87%) techniques, there was no statistically significant difference between the two techniques when the postoperative data were compared (p>0.05).
Conclusions: In this study, there was no significant difference between the two techniques in terms of clinical outcome and patient satisfaction. Although there are studies in the literature showing that the TA technique is superior in terms of knee stability, good results are obtained with both techniques.
Keywords
Anterior Cruciate Ligament , Transtibial , Transportal Anatomical , Femoral Tunnel.
Kaynakça
- 1. Woo SLY, Fox RJ, Sakane M, Livesay GA, Rudy TW, Fu FH. Biomechanics of the ACL: Measurements of in situ force in the ACL and knee kinematics. The Knee. 1998;5:267-288.
- 2. Zantop T, Petersen W, Sekiya JK, Musahl V, Fu FH; Anterior cruciate ligament anatomy and function relating to anatomical reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2006:982–92.
- 3. Gillquist J, Messner K. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and the long-term incidence of gonarthrosis. Sports Med 1999;27:143-56.
- 4. Lohmander LS, Englund PM, Dahl LL, Roos EM. The long-term consequence ofanterior cruciate ligament and meniscus injuries: osteoarthritis. Am J Sports Med 2007;35:1756-69.
- 5. Ahn JH, Jeong HJ, Ko CS, Ko TS, Kim JH. Three-dimensional reconstruction computed tomography evaluation of tunnel location during single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of transtibial and 2-incision tibial tunnel-independent techniques. Clin Orthop Surg. 2013;5:26–35
- 6. Shin YS, Ro KH, Lee JH, Lee DH. Location of the femoral tunnel aperture in single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison of the transtibial, anteromedial portal, and outside-in techniques. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41:2533–9.
- 7. Riboh JC, Hasselblad V, Godin JA, Mather RC III. Transtibial versus independent drilling techniques for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review, meta-analysis, and metaregression. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41:2693–702.
- 8. Smith F, Rosenlund E, Aune A, MacLean J, and Hillis S. Subjective functional assessments and the return to competitive sport after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Br J Sports Med. 2004;38: 279–284.
- 9. Lee DYH , Karim SA, Chang HC. Return to sports after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction - a review of patients with minimum 5-year follow-up. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2008;37:273-8.
- 10. Jinzhong Zhao. Anatomical single-bundle transtibial anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthrosc Tech. 2020;29:1275-1282.