In vivo knee rotational stability 2 years after double-bundle and anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction
Language English Country Germany Media print-electronic
Document type Journal Article
PubMed
28255611
DOI
10.1007/s00068-017-0769-7
PII: 10.1007/s00068-017-0769-7
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- ACL, Anatomic double-bundle reconstruction, Anatomic single-bundle reconstruction, Two years rotational stability,
- MeSH
- Biomechanical Phenomena MeSH
- Adult MeSH
- Knee Joint physiopathology surgery MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Adolescent MeSH
- Young Adult MeSH
- Follow-Up Studies MeSH
- Joint Instability physiopathology surgery MeSH
- Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries physiopathology surgery MeSH
- Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction * MeSH
- Rotation MeSH
- Range of Motion, Articular physiology MeSH
- Treatment Outcome MeSH
- Check Tag
- Adult MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Adolescent MeSH
- Young Adult MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate knee rotational stability at least 2 years after anatomic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (SB) and double-bundle ACL reconstruction (DB) in comparison with the contralateral healthy knee joint. The Cincinnati, Lysholm and IKDC scores were analysed too. METHODS: There were 40 patients in both groups, the mean follow-up was 27 months. For all measurements, the navigation system OrthoPilot was used. Measurement started with the patient in the standing position in neutral rotation. Then, the patient achieved in 30° knee flexion under weight-bearing maximal external trunk rotation and returned to the neutral position. The same measurement was done for the internal trunk rotation. For the anterior-posterior stability, KT-1000 arthrometer was used. All measurements were repeated three times for each knee joint. RESULTS: After the DB reconstruction, the mean external rotation of the tibia (ER) was 8.2° and the internal rotation (IR) was 10.2°. In the contralateral healthy knee joint, ER was 8.5° (p = 0.597) and IR was 12.1° (p = 0.064). After the SB reconstruction, ER was 9.4° and IR was 13.1°. In the contralateral healthy knee joint, ER was 7.7° (p = 0.066) and IR was 9.8° (p = 0.005). Anterior-posterior translation was to the same extent for both groups. CONCLUSIONS: The DB reconstruction of the ACL restores the rotational stability of the knee joint without any significant difference in comparison to the contralateral healthy knee (p > 0.05). The main finding of this study is that the internal rotational stability of the knee joint after the anatomic SB technique is not sufficient.
See more in PubMed
Am J Sports Med. 2014 May;42(5):1247-55 PubMed
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2012 Apr;20(4):762-6 PubMed
Acta Chir Orthop Traumatol Cech. 2010 Aug;77(4):296-303 PubMed
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009 Jul;17(7):782-5 PubMed
Arthroscopy. 2007 Nov;23(11):1218-25 PubMed
J Anat. 1995 Oct;187 ( Pt 2):461-71 PubMed
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007 Jan;454:35-47 PubMed
Arthroscopy. 2013 Feb;29(2):213-9 PubMed
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009 Mar;17(3):213-9 PubMed
Knee. 2013 Dec;20(6):551-5 PubMed
Am J Sports Med. 2009 Sep;37(9):1705-11 PubMed
Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2010;44(1):54-62 PubMed
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2010 Sep;18(9):1201-7 PubMed
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010 Jun;92 (6):1418-26 PubMed
Am J Sports Med. 2009 Dec;37(12 ):2368-76 PubMed
Arthroscopy. 2006 Sep;22(9):984-92 PubMed
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012 Oct;94(10):1372-6 PubMed
Am J Sports Med. 2011 Feb;39(2):279-88 PubMed
Am J Sports Med. 2012 Jul;40(7):1511-8 PubMed
Am J Sports Med. 2008 Jan;36(1):65-72 PubMed
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1975 Jan-Feb;(106):216-31 PubMed
Am J Sports Med. 2008 Nov;36(11):2083-90 PubMed
Am J Sports Med. 2010 Sep;38(9):1788-94 PubMed
Arthroscopy. 2009 May;25(5):464-72 PubMed
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 Mar;470(3):824-34 PubMed
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013 Sep;471(9):2924-31 PubMed
