首页> 外文期刊>American Journal of Sports Medicine >A prospective randomized study comparing arthroscopic single-bundle and double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions preserving remnant fibers.
【24h】

A prospective randomized study comparing arthroscopic single-bundle and double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions preserving remnant fibers.

机译:一项前瞻性随机研究比较了关节镜下单束和双束后十字韧带重建术保留残余纤维的情况。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

BACKGROUND: Several controversies exist regarding the superiority of double-bundle (DB) posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction versus single-bundle (SB) reconstruction, although DB reconstruction has been shown to restore the intact knee kinematics more closely than SB reconstruction. HYPOTHESIS: Double-bundle PCL reconstruction will present better results than SB reconstruction in postoperative outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: The authors prospectively analyzed 25 cases of SB reconstruction and 28 cases of DB reconstruction using Achilles tendon allograft with a minimum 2-year follow-up. They compared preoperative and postoperative range of motion, posterior stability by posterior stress radiography, Tegner activity score, Lysholm score, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee evaluation form and knee examination form between the 2 groups. RESULTS: There was no difference in range of motion, Tegner activity score, Lysholm score, and IKDC subjective knee evaluation form between the 2 groups at last follow-up. The side-to-side difference in posterior translation significantly improved in both groups. There was no preoperative difference in posterior instability between the groups but a significant difference at last follow-up. On the IKDC knee examination form, the DB reconstruction group presented better results in grade distribution. CONCLUSION: The DB reconstruction for PCL ruptures using the Achilles allograft showed better results in posterior stability and IKDC knee examination form than the SB reconstruction did. Although the difference of 1.4 mm in posterior stability was statistically significant, it is unclear that DB reconstruction is definitely superior to SB reconstruction clinically and functionally because there was no difference in the subjective scores.
机译:背景:关于双束(DB)后交叉韧带(PCL)重建与单束(SB)重建的优越性,存在一些争议,尽管已证明DB重建比SB重建更能恢复完整的膝关节运动学。假设:在术后预后方面,双束PCL重建将比SB重建呈现更好的结果。研究设计:随机对照试验;证据级别:2。方法:作者采用前跟腱移植至少25年的随访研究,对25例SB重建和28例DB重建进行前瞻性分析。他们比较了两组患者的术前和术后运动范围,后应力放射照相后稳定性,Tegner活动评分,Lysholm评分以及国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)主观膝关节评估表和膝关节检查表。结果:在最后一次随访时,两组之间的运动范围,Tegner活动评分,Lysholm评分和IKDC主观膝关节评估形式没有差异。两组后翻译的左右差异均明显改善。两组之间的术后不稳定度无术前差异,但在最后一次随访时差异显着。在IKDC膝关节检查表上,DB重建小组在成绩分配上表现出更好的结果。结论:使用跟腱同种异体移植重建PCL破裂的DB较SB重建在后稳定性和IKDC膝关节检查形式方面显示出更好的结果。尽管后稳定性的1.4 mm差异有统计学意义,但尚不清楚DB重建在临床和功能上肯定优于SB重建,因为主观评分没有差异。

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