...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders >Comparison of 2 femoral tunnel drilling techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A prospective randomized comparative study.
【24h】

Comparison of 2 femoral tunnel drilling techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. A prospective randomized comparative study.

机译:2股股钻技术比较前十字条韧带重建中的股骨隧道钻孔技术。预期随机比较研究。

获取原文
           

摘要

To evaluate the length and position of femoral tunnel,and exam whether knee stability and clinical functional outcomes are superior in AMP method. From August 2014 to February 2015, we prospectively recruited 104 patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. They were randomized to anteromedial portal or transtibial method. All patients underwent Lysholm score, International Knee Documentation Committee score,Tegner score at pre-operative and last follow-up point as subjective assessment of clinical function. The Lachman test, the Pivot-shift test and KT-1000 were performed at the last follow-up as a evaluation of knee joint stability. We measured the length of femoral tunnel intraoperatively and at 1?week post-operatively, CT-based three-dimensional reconstruction was used to assess femoral tunnel location. The average follow-up time of anteromedial portal group was 25.7?±?6.8?months (range:12-36.5?months), and the average follow-up time of the transtibial group was 24.9?±?6.0?months (range:12-37?months). There was no significant difference between the groups pre-operative Lysholm score, IKDC score and Tegner scores. Both groups showed significantly improvement in these clinical function scores at follow up for their ACL reconstruction. However, there was no significant difference in the function scores between the two groups at last follow up. However, the mean femoral tunnel length in the anteromedial portal group was significantly shorter than that in the transtibial group. And tunnel location was significantly lower and deeper with the anteromedial portal technique than with the transtibial technique. The use of anteromedial portal method resulted in a significantly lower and deeper placement of the femoral tunnel, and a shorter tunnel length compared to the transtibial method. However, there was no statistical difference in terms of clinical function and knee joint stability between the anteromedial portal method and the transtibial method. Name of the registry: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. The registration number: ChiCTR1800014874 . The date of registration: 12 February, 2018. The study is retrospectively registered.
机译:评估股骨隧道的长度和位置,并考试膝关节稳定性和临床功能结果是否优于AMP方法。从2014年8月至2015年2月,我们潜在招募了104例接受前十字韧带重建的患者。它们被随机分为前置门户或进行宁静的方法。所有患者都接受了Lysholm评分,国际膝关节文件委员会评分,TEGNER在术前和最后一次随访点作为临床功能的主观评估。 Lachman测试,枢轴转换试验和KT-1000在最后一次随访时进行,作为膝关节稳定性的评估。我们测量了初始和在可操作性后1周的股际隧道的长度,基于CT的三维重建用于评估股骨隧道位置。主题门户网站组的平均随访时间为25.7?±6.8?6.8?月(范围:12-36.5?个月),并且Transtibial组的平均随访时间为24.9?±6.0?6.0?月(范围: 12-37?月份)。术前术前Lysholm评分,IKDC得分和TEGNER分数没有显着差异。两组在随访时,这两组都显着提高了他们的ACL重建。但是,两组在最后一次跟进时没有显着差异。然而,前置门位基团的平均股骨隧道长度明显短于抗静组群。隧道位置与前台技术的主体门户技术显着较低,更深入。与扭曲方法相比,使用前置门户方法的使用显着降低和更深入地放置股隧道和较短的隧道长度。然而,在前置门户方法与宁静方法之间的临床功能和膝关节稳定性方面没有统计学差异。注册表名称:中国临床试验登记处。注册号:CHICTR1800014874。注册日期:2018年2月12日。该研究回顾性注册。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号