Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2014 Jul;134(7):963-9. doi: 10.1007/s00402-014-1996-6. Epub 2014 Apr 27.

A comparison of the anteromedial and transtibial drilling technique in ACL reconstruction after a short-term follow-up.

Author information

1
Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Dicle University Medical Faculty, 21218, Diyarbakır, Turkey, ibrahimazboy@gmail.com.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

The purpose of this study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of patients who underwent single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with anteromedial portal (AMP) and transtibial (TT) techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Arthroscopic single-bundle ACL reconstruction was performed using AMP technique in 34 patients and TT technique in 30 patients. The patients were evaluated retrospectively. Aperture fixation was used for femoral fixation, and absorbable screws and U staples were used for tibial fixation of the graft. Pivot shift test, Lachman test, Lysholm, Tegner, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC-2000) scoring systems were used in the clinical and functional evaluation of patients before and after the surgery. Time to return sports and activity level were assessed. In the radiological evaluation of non-anatomic bone tunnel placement, the criteria developed by lllingworth et al. were used. The mean duration of follow-up was 20.4 and 24.6 months in the AMP and TT groups, respectively.

RESULTS:

There was a significant difference between the AMP group (86.7 %) and the TT (14.7 %) group in terms of anatomical placement of the femoral tunnels and grafts (p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of the Pivot shift test, Lachman test, Lysholm, Tegner, and IKDC scores, and activity level (p > 0.05). The patients in the AMP group returned to sports 1.5 months earlier on average (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS:

It was shown that AMP technique was superior to the TT technique in providing anatomical placement of the graft and in recovery time to return sports; however, there was no difference between groups in early periods in terms of the clinical and functional outcomes.

PMID:
24770982
DOI:
10.1007/s00402-014-1996-6
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Springer
Loading ...
Support Center