A comparison of ACL reconstruction using patellar tendon versus hamstring autograft in female patients: a prospective randomised study

. 2015 Jan ; 39 (1) : 125-30. [epub] 20140817

Jazyk angličtina Země Německo Médium print-electronic

Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, randomizované kontrolované studie, práce podpořená grantem

Perzistentní odkaz   https://www.medvik.cz/link/pmid25128968

PURPOSE: The incidence of an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear is highest in female patients; however, it is not apparent whether graft choice affects clinical results. The aim of this prospective randomised study was to evaluate clinical results of an ACL reconstruction using patellar tendon [bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB)] or hamstring graft (HS) in female patients. METHODS: Inclusion criteria were traumatic instability, no signs of osteoarthritis, no previous instability and no contralateral knee instability. Inclusion criteria were met in 150 patients, mean age 26 (17-47) years. Patients were randomised into two groups of 75 patients according to graft type; all had the same rehabilitation protocol. Tegner Lysholm knee score and stability were evaluated pre-operatively and one and two years postoperatively. The difference between groups was statistically evaluated using unpaired t test. RESULTS: Of the 150 patients, all completed one year follow-up; three were lost to follow-up at two years. There was no significant difference in functional scores and knee stability between groups. The HS group had significantly less anterior knee pain in the first six months postoperatively. CONCLUSION: ACL reconstruction significantly improves clinical results and stability of the knee. Difference in Lysholm score and stability between groups was not significant. Neither group showed higher tendency to graft failure within two years. Graft choice for reconstruction in female patients should be surgeon specific and individualised, as both grafts studied achieved comparable results.

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Am J Sports Med. 2009 Feb;37(2):334-8 PubMed

Arthroscopy. 2006 Jun;22(6):660-8 PubMed

Am J Sports Med. 2012 Feb;40(2):307-14 PubMed

Int Orthop. 2013 Feb;37(2):181-6 PubMed

Am J Sports Med. 2014 Feb;42(2):285-91 PubMed

N Am J Sports Phys Ther. 2010 Dec;5(4):234-51 PubMed

Am J Sports Med. 2007 May;35(5):740-8 PubMed

J Orthop Surg Res. 2007 May 21;2:10 PubMed

Am J Sports Med. 2014 Feb;42(2):278-84 PubMed

J Appl Biomech. 2011 Aug;27(3):215-22 PubMed

Int Orthop. 2013 Feb;37(2):239-46 PubMed

Int Orthop. 2013 May;37(5):809-17 PubMed

Am Fam Physician. 2010 Oct 15;82(8):917-22 PubMed

Am J Sports Med. 2003 Jul-Aug;31(4):564-73 PubMed

Am J Sports Med. 2012 Feb;40(2):404-13 PubMed

Acta Orthop. 2007 Jun;78(3):350-4 PubMed

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009 Feb;17(2):162-9 PubMed

Am J Sports Med. 2010 Jul;38(7):1334-42 PubMed

J Strength Cond Res. 2012 Aug;26(8):2156-65 PubMed

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015 Mar;23(3):799-807 PubMed

Arthroscopy. 2012 Aug;28(8):1114-23 PubMed

Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2001 Jun;11(3):170-7 PubMed

Clin Sports Med. 2008 Jul;27(3):405-24, vii-ix PubMed

Int Heart J. 2009 Sep;50(5):601-7 PubMed

Int Orthop. 2013 Feb;37(2):253-69 PubMed

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2004 Nov;12(6):534-9 PubMed

Arthritis Rheum. 2005 Mar;52(3):794-9 PubMed

Najít záznam

Citační ukazatele

Nahrávání dat ...

Možnosti archivace

Nahrávání dat ...