Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Clin Med ; 13(5)2024 Feb 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38592690

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Our purpose was to evaluate whether the time of intervention and the type of meniscus surgery (repair vs. partial meniscectomy) play a role in managing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions with concurrent meniscus pathologies. METHODS: We performed a prospective cohort study which differentiated between early and late ACL reconstructions with a cut-off at 3 months. Patients were re-evaluated after 2 years. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients received an operation between 2-12 weeks after the injury, and thirty patients received the surgery between 13-28 weeks after trauma. The strongest negative predictive factor of the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee form in a hierarchical regression model was older age (ß = -0.49 per year; 95% CI [-0.91; -0.07]; p = 0.022; partial R2 = 0.08)). The strongest positive predictive factor was a higher preoperative Tegner score (ß = 3.6; 95% CI [0.13; 7.1]; p = 0.042; partial R2 = 0.07) and an interaction between meniscus repair surgery and the time of intervention (ß = 27; 95% CI [1.6; 52]; p = 0.037; partial R2 = 0.07), revealing a clinical meaningful difference as to whether meniscus repairs were performed within 12 weeks after trauma or were delayed. There was no difference whether partial meniscectomy was performed early or delayed. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical timing plays a crucial role when surgeons opt for a meniscus repair rather than for a meniscectomy.

3.
Int Orthop ; 35(1): 127-33, 2011 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20442994

ABSTRACT

The study hypothesis was that the outcome of semitendinosus gracilis double bundle (STG-DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is advantageous in terms of clinical results and restoration of anterior-posterior and rotational laxity in comparison to bone-patellar tendon-bone single-bundle (PTB-SB) ACL reconstruction. We analysed 41 PTB-SB and 51 STG-DB patients using the Tegner, IKDC and WOMAC scores preoperatively and at a minimum follow-up of two years. At follow-up, there was no significant difference in the clinical scores. The KT 1000 side-to-side measurement showed no significant difference between groups. The STG-DB group was significantly superior in terms of the pivot-shift sign and anterior knee pain. We conclude that the outcome of STG-DB reconstruction in the mid-term was not advantageous in terms of clinical scores and anterior-posterior laxity evaluated by the KT 1000. Nevertheless, the restored rotational laxity measured by the pivot shift test was significantly superior in the STG-DB technique.


Subject(s)
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries , Anterior Cruciate Ligament/surgery , Femur/surgery , Orthopedic Procedures/methods , Patellar Ligament/surgery , Tibia/surgery , Adolescent , Adult , Cohort Studies , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Knee Joint/physiology , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Range of Motion, Articular/physiology , Rupture/surgery , Time Factors , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
4.
Arthroscopy ; 27(3): 355-64, 2011 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-21144694

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to correlate anatomic and nonanatomic tibial and femoral tunnel positions after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with clinical outcome by use of bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) single-bundle (SB) and semitendinosus-gracilis (STG) double-bundle (DB) techniques. METHODS: The 3-dimensional computed tomography scans of 53 patients' knees (27 BPTB-SB and 26 STG-DB) were prepared and measured by 2 examiners according to their tibial and femoral tunnel positions. We evaluated these radiologic constructions and measurements by use of the Cohen κ interobserver and intraobserver coefficient for 2 observers. Patients undergoing both techniques were divided into anatomic and nonanatomic reconstructions according to the findings of Zantop and Petersen. We correlated anatomically and nonanatomically reconstructed patients with clinical outcome by the Tegner score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index score, International Knee Documentation Committee score, KT-1000 arthrometer (MEDmetric, San Diego, CA), and pivot-shift test in both techniques. RESULTS: The radiologic constructions and measurements of 53 computed tomography scans were achieved with a good agreement of interobserver and intraobserver coefficients for 2 observers. We found significantly superior clinical outcome in anatomic ACL reconstructions in both techniques in terms of higher clinical scores (Tegner and International Knee Documentation Committee), higher anterior posterior stability, and less pivot shift. We observed the best outcome in anatomic STG-DB reconstructions. CONCLUSIONS: This investigation showed that better clinical results are associated with anatomic ACL reconstructions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative study.


Subject(s)
Anterior Cruciate Ligament/surgery , Arthroscopy/methods , Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Grafting , Femur/surgery , Plastic Surgery Procedures , Tibia/surgery , Anterior Cruciate Ligament/diagnostic imaging , Femur/diagnostic imaging , Humans , Imaging, Three-Dimensional , Prospective Studies , Range of Motion, Articular , Rotation , Rupture , Statistics, Nonparametric , Tibia/diagnostic imaging , Tomography, X-Ray Computed , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...