medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-8036 (Electronic)
ISSN 2306-4102 (Print)
Órgano Oficial del Colegio Mexicano de Ortopedia y Traumatología

2011, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Acta Ortop Mex 2011; 25 (3)

Functional assessment of the different types of anterior cruciate ligament plasty used at the Xoco General Hospital Arthroscopy Service

Zapién-Soto A, Torres-Méndez JL, Calixto-García A, Guillén-Alcalá MA

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 161-166
PDF size: 843.57 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Currently, anterior cruciate ligament lesions have an increased frequency; their management is predominantly surgical; there are several functional assessment systems. Material and methods: We used the IKDC (International Knee Documentation Committee) functional assessment in patients who underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at the Xoco Hospital Arthroscopy Service. Results: A total of 73 patients underwent functional assessment; 43 underwent bone-tendon-bone (BTB) repair with patellar tendon graft and 30 underwent repair with pes anserinus tendon graft (T4). In the former group 39 patients had favorable results and 4 unfavorable results; in the latter group 27 patients had favorable results and 3 unfavorable results. Discussion: The results found do not differ significantly between both groups, something that is in agreement with the reviewed literature. The study should be continued with a larger sample size to eliminate variables and obtain more reliable results.


REFERENCES

  1. Butler DL, Noyes FR, Grood ES: Ligamentous restraints to anterior-posterior drawer in the human knee. J Bone Joint Surg 1980; 62A: 259.

  2. Risberg MA, Ekeland A: Assessment of functional tests after anterior cruciate ligament surgery. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1994; 19(4): 212-7.

  3. Matjaz S, Vilibald V, et al: A prospective, randomized comparison of semitendinosus and gracilis tendon versus patellar tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Five-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2006; 34: 1933-40.

  4. Al-Zarahini S, Franceschi JP, Coste J, Zerroug B, Al-Sebai W: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by mini-arthrotomy. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 1997; 21: 161-3.

  5. Scavenius M, Bak K, Hansen S, Norring K, Jensen KH, Jorgensen U: Isolated total ruptures of the anterior cruciate ligament - a clinical study with long-term follow-up of 7 years. Scand J Med Sci Sports 1999; 9: 114-9.

  6. Corry IS, et al: Arthroscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Am J Sports Med 1999: 27(4): 444-54.

  7. Labs KPB: To compare and contrast the various evaluation scoring systems after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 1997; 116: 92-6.

  8. Arciero RA, Scoville CR, Snyder RJ, Uhorchak JM, Taylor DC, Huggard DJ: Single versus two-incision arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy 1996; 12(4): 462-9.

  9. Barber-Westin SD, Noyes FR, McCloskey JW: Rigorous statistical reliability, validity and responsiveness testing of the Cincinnati knee rating system in 350 subjects with uninjured, injuried, or anterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed knees. Am J Sports Med 1999; 27(4): 402-16.

  10. Risberg MA, Holm I, Steen H, Beynnon BD: Sensivity to changes over time for the IKDC form, the Lysholm score, and the Cincinnati knee score. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1999; 7: 152-9.

  11. Borsa PA, Lephart SM, Irrgang JJ: Comparison of performance-based and patient reported measures of function in anterior-cruciate-ligament-deficient individuals. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1998; 28(6): 392-9.

  12. Hefti F, Müller W, Jakob RT, et al: Evaluation of knee ligament injuries with the IKDC form. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1993; 1: 226-34.

  13. Irrgang JJ, Ho H, Harner CD, Fu FH: Use of international knee documentation committee guidelines to assess outcome following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 1998; 6: 107-14.

  14. Spindler KP, Kuhn JE, et al: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction autograft choice: Bone-tendon-bone versus hamstring: Does it really matter? A Systematic Review. Am J Sports Med 2004; 32: 1986.

  15. Beynnon BD, Johnson RJ, et al: Anterior cruciate ligament replacement: Comparison of bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts with two-strand hamstring grafts. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2002; 84A(9): 1503-13.

  16. Poolman RW, Abouali JAK, et al: Overlapping systematic reviews of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction comparing hamstring autograft with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft: Why Are They Different? J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007; 89: 1542-52.

  17. Justin R, Pinczewski LA, et al: A 7-year follow-up of patellar tendon and hamstring tendon grafts for arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Differences and similarities. Am J Sports Med 2005; 33: 1337-45.

  18. Akio M, Shinichi Y, et al: A comparison of bone–patellar tendon–bone and bone–hamstring tendon–bone autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2006; 34: 213.

  19. Pinczewski LA, Lyman J: A 10-year comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions with hamstring tendon and patellar tendon autograft: A controlled, prospective trial. Am J Sports Med 2007; 35: 564.

  20. Clancy WR Jr: Acute tears of the anterior cruciate ligament- surgical versus conservative treatment. J Bone of Joint Surg [Am] 1988; 70: 1483-8.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com