-
Something wrong with this record ?
Is Peroneus Longus Allograft Good Alternative for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: a Comparison Study [Je alograft šlachy m. peroneus longus vhodnou alternativou pro rekonstrukci předního zkříženého vazu: srovnávací studie]
R. Ertogrul, A. Varol, Y. Oc, B. E. Kilinc
Language English Country Czech Republic
Document type Journal Article
- MeSH
- Allografts MeSH
- Transplantation, Autologous MeSH
- Knee Joint surgery MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Anterior Cruciate Ligament surgery MeSH
- Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries * surgery MeSH
- Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction * MeSH
- Hamstring Tendons * MeSH
- Treatment Outcome MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY To compare the early clinical results of patients who had anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with peroneus longus allograft versus hamstring tendon autograft. MATERIAL AND METHODS Forty patients who underwent ACL reconstruction were included in the study. Patients were grouped by their graft preference. Lachman and Pivot-shift tests were performed to the patients. Laxity was measured by KT-1000 arthrometer test with 15, 20 and 30 pound power. The maximum force values of nonoperated knee and the operated knee were recorded with Cybex II isokinetic dynamometer (HUMAC) and compared to each other. International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form, modified Lysholm and Cincinnati evaluation forms were compared between two groups. RESULTS Twenty patients included into peroneus longus allograft (Group 1) and 20 patients were included into hamstring autograft group (Group 2). The mean age of patients Group 1 and 2 were 34.25 ± 6.73, and 29.6 ± 4.55, respectively. No significant difference was noted between two groups at modified Lysholm, Cincinati and IKDC scores (p > 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference between the Lachman and Pivot hift levels (p > 0.01). No significant difference was found in KT-1000 device measurements between groups according to the performed techniques (p > 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference between Cybex extension-flexion 60 /sec measurement and extension 240 /sec measurement of the patients (p > 0.01). DISCUSSION Allografts can be preferred because of the advantages, such as lack of donor site morbidity, short operative time, large graft, small incision, minimal scar, good cosmetic appearance, less postoperative pain, less movement restriction, and less arthrofibrosis. However, there are disadvantages, such as disease transmission, low biocompatibility, immune response, long recovery time, and high cost. Although it is difficult to compare the stability and functionality of allografts and autografts because of the differences in graft processing, fixation methods, and surgical techniques in studies, similar clinical results are reported in long-term follow-ups CONCLUSIONS Graft preference is dependent on surgical experience, patient age, activity status, comorbidities, presurgical status, and patient decision. Allograft ACL reconstruction is a good alternative to arthroscopic ACL reconstruction performed with hamstring tendon graft. Key words: anterior cruciate ligament, peroneus longus allograft, hamstring autograft, ACL reconstruction.
Bagcilar Medilife Private Hospital Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology Department Istanbul Turkey
Silopi State Hospital Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology Department Sirnak Turkey
Surp Pirgic Private Hospital Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatolohy Department Istanbul Turkey
Je alograft šlachy m. peroneus longus vhodnou alternativou pro rekonstrukci předního zkříženého vazu: srovnávací studie
Literatura
- 000
- 00000naa a2200000 a 4500
- 001
- bmc21010099
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20210603131559.0
- 007
- ta
- 008
- 210413s2021 xr d f 000 0|eng||
- 009
- AR
- 024 7_
- $2 doi $a 10.55095/achot2021/010
- 035 __
- $a (PubMed)33764869
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a eng
- 044 __
- $a xr
- 100 1_
- $a Ertogrul, R. $u Surp Pirgic Private Hospital, Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatolohy Department, Istanbul, Turkey
- 245 10
- $a Is Peroneus Longus Allograft Good Alternative for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: a Comparison Study / $c R. Ertogrul, A. Varol, Y. Oc, B. E. Kilinc
- 246 31
- $a Je alograft šlachy m. peroneus longus vhodnou alternativou pro rekonstrukci předního zkříženého vazu: srovnávací studie
- 504 __
- $a Literatura
- 520 9_
- $a PURPOSE OF THE STUDY To compare the early clinical results of patients who had anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with peroneus longus allograft versus hamstring tendon autograft. MATERIAL AND METHODS Forty patients who underwent ACL reconstruction were included in the study. Patients were grouped by their graft preference. Lachman and Pivot-shift tests were performed to the patients. Laxity was measured by KT-1000 arthrometer test with 15, 20 and 30 pound power. The maximum force values of nonoperated knee and the operated knee were recorded with Cybex II isokinetic dynamometer (HUMAC) and compared to each other. International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form, modified Lysholm and Cincinnati evaluation forms were compared between two groups. RESULTS Twenty patients included into peroneus longus allograft (Group 1) and 20 patients were included into hamstring autograft group (Group 2). The mean age of patients Group 1 and 2 were 34.25 ± 6.73, and 29.6 ± 4.55, respectively. No significant difference was noted between two groups at modified Lysholm, Cincinati and IKDC scores (p > 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference between the Lachman and Pivot hift levels (p > 0.01). No significant difference was found in KT-1000 device measurements between groups according to the performed techniques (p > 0.01). There was no statistically significant difference between Cybex extension-flexion 60 /sec measurement and extension 240 /sec measurement of the patients (p > 0.01). DISCUSSION Allografts can be preferred because of the advantages, such as lack of donor site morbidity, short operative time, large graft, small incision, minimal scar, good cosmetic appearance, less postoperative pain, less movement restriction, and less arthrofibrosis. However, there are disadvantages, such as disease transmission, low biocompatibility, immune response, long recovery time, and high cost. Although it is difficult to compare the stability and functionality of allografts and autografts because of the differences in graft processing, fixation methods, and surgical techniques in studies, similar clinical results are reported in long-term follow-ups CONCLUSIONS Graft preference is dependent on surgical experience, patient age, activity status, comorbidities, presurgical status, and patient decision. Allograft ACL reconstruction is a good alternative to arthroscopic ACL reconstruction performed with hamstring tendon graft. Key words: anterior cruciate ligament, peroneus longus allograft, hamstring autograft, ACL reconstruction.
- 650 _2
- $a alografty $7 D064591
- 650 _2
- $a ligamentum cruciatum anterius $x chirurgie $7 D016118
- 650 12
- $a poranění předního zkříženého vazu $x chirurgie $7 D000070598
- 650 12
- $a rekonstrukce předního zkříženého vazu $7 D059549
- 650 12
- $a šlachy hamstringů $7 D000070632
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a kolenní kloub $x chirurgie $7 D007719
- 650 _2
- $a autologní transplantace $7 D014182
- 650 _2
- $a výsledek terapie $7 D016896
- 655 _2
- $a časopisecké články $7 D016428
- 700 1_
- $a Varol, A. $u Silopi State Hospital, Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology Department, Sirnak, Turkey
- 700 1_
- $a Oc, Y. $u Bagcilar Medilife Private Hospital, Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology Department, Istanbul, Turkey
- 700 1_
- $a Kilinc, B. E. $u Health Science University, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Training and Research Hospital State Hospital, Orthopaedics Surgery and Traumatology Department, Istanbul, Turkey
- 773 0_
- $w MED00011021 $t Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Cechoslovaca $x 0001-5415 $g Roč. 88, č. 1 (2021), s. 58-62
- 856 41
- $u https://achot.cz/pdfs/ach/2021/01/10.pdf $y plný text volně přístupný
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b A 8 $c 507 $y p $z 0
- 990 __
- $a 20210413 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20210518150730 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 1659411 $s 1130473
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BAS __
- $a PreBMC
- BMC __
- $a 2021 $b 88 $c 1 $d 58-62 $e 20210222 $i 0001-5415 $m Acta chirurgiae orthopaedicae et traumatologiae Čechoslovaca $n Acta chir. orthop. traumatol. Čechoslovaca $x MED00011021
- LZP __
- $b NLK118 $a Pubmed-20210413