Does Second-Generation Suspensory Implant Negate Tunnel Widening of First-Generation Implant Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction?
Purpose: Tunnel widening following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is commonly observed. Graft micromotion is an important contributing factor. Unlike fixed-loop devices that require a turning space, adjustable-loop devices fit the graft snugly in the tunnel. The purpose of this stud...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Knee surgery & related research 2018-12, Vol.30 (4), p.341 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | kor |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 341 |
container_title | Knee surgery & related research |
container_volume | 30 |
creator | Silvampatti Ramasamy Sundararajan Balaji Sambandam Ajay Singh Ramakanth Rajagopalakrishnan Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran |
description | Purpose: Tunnel widening following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is commonly observed. Graft micromotion is an important contributing factor. Unlike fixed-loop devices that require a turning space, adjustable-loop devices fit the graft snugly in the tunnel. The purpose of this study is to compare tunnel widening between these devices. Our hypothesis is that the adjustable-loop device will create lesser tunnel widening.
Materials and Methods: Ninety-eight patients underwent ACL reconstruction from January 2013 to December 2014. An adjustable-loop device was used in 54 patients (group 1) and a fixed-loop device was used in 44 patients (group 2). Maximum tunnel widening at 1 year was measured by the L’Insalata’s method. Functional outcome was measured at 2-year follow-up.
Results: The mean widening was 4.37 mm (standard deviation [SD], 2.01) in group 1 and 4.09 mm (SD, 1.98) in group 2 (p=0.511). The average International Knee Documentation Committee score was 78.40 (SD, 9.99) in group 1 and 77.11 (SD, 12.31) in group 2 (p=0.563). The average Tegner- Lysholm score was 87.25 (SD, 3.97) in group 1 and 87.29 in group 2 (SD, 4.36) (p=0.987). There was no significant difference in tunnel widening and functional outcome between the groups.
Conclusions: The adjustable-loop device did not decrease the amount of tunnel widening when compared to the fixed-loop device. There was no significant difference in outcome between the two fixation devices.
Level of Evidence: Level 3, Retrospective Cohort |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>kiss</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_kiss_primary_3652812</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><kiss_id>3652812</kiss_id><sourcerecordid>3652812</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-kiss_primary_36528123</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9jcGKwkAQROfgguL6BV76BwJxEo03ETUqyB5WwaOM2obGSU-YniB-hn-sAYU97amgql5VS3W0TtIozvSorXoidIyHcZakmU476jF3KLDFk-NztERGbwI5hm0tFbI4f4d1WVnDAX6wMAFhVzOjhT2dkYkLcBfIyUv4S3-Q3Fnrbk1rygE9OQ8zX5-o2dlQYUp8lX6bcwkvv2En3-rrYqxg761d1c8Xu9kqupLIofJUGn8_JKOhHg908n_6BD5RUk0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Publisher</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Does Second-Generation Suspensory Implant Negate Tunnel Widening of First-Generation Implant Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction?</title><source>KoreaMed Synapse</source><source>KoreaMed Open Access</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><source>PubMed Central Open Access</source><creator>Silvampatti Ramasamy Sundararajan ; Balaji Sambandam ; Ajay Singh ; Ramakanth Rajagopalakrishnan ; Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran</creator><creatorcontrib>Silvampatti Ramasamy Sundararajan ; Balaji Sambandam ; Ajay Singh ; Ramakanth Rajagopalakrishnan ; Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose: Tunnel widening following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is commonly observed. Graft micromotion is an important contributing factor. Unlike fixed-loop devices that require a turning space, adjustable-loop devices fit the graft snugly in the tunnel. The purpose of this study is to compare tunnel widening between these devices. Our hypothesis is that the adjustable-loop device will create lesser tunnel widening.
Materials and Methods: Ninety-eight patients underwent ACL reconstruction from January 2013 to December 2014. An adjustable-loop device was used in 54 patients (group 1) and a fixed-loop device was used in 44 patients (group 2). Maximum tunnel widening at 1 year was measured by the L’Insalata’s method. Functional outcome was measured at 2-year follow-up.
Results: The mean widening was 4.37 mm (standard deviation [SD], 2.01) in group 1 and 4.09 mm (SD, 1.98) in group 2 (p=0.511). The average International Knee Documentation Committee score was 78.40 (SD, 9.99) in group 1 and 77.11 (SD, 12.31) in group 2 (p=0.563). The average Tegner- Lysholm score was 87.25 (SD, 3.97) in group 1 and 87.29 in group 2 (SD, 4.36) (p=0.987). There was no significant difference in tunnel widening and functional outcome between the groups.
Conclusions: The adjustable-loop device did not decrease the amount of tunnel widening when compared to the fixed-loop device. There was no significant difference in outcome between the two fixation devices.
Level of Evidence: Level 3, Retrospective Cohort</description><identifier>ISSN: 2234-0726</identifier><language>kor</language><publisher>대한슬관절학회</publisher><subject>Anterior cruciate ligament ; Arthroscopy ; Knee ; Reconstruction ; Tunnel ; Widening</subject><ispartof>Knee surgery & related research, 2018-12, Vol.30 (4), p.341</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Silvampatti Ramasamy Sundararajan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Balaji Sambandam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ajay Singh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramakanth Rajagopalakrishnan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran</creatorcontrib><title>Does Second-Generation Suspensory Implant Negate Tunnel Widening of First-Generation Implant Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction?</title><title>Knee surgery & related research</title><addtitle>Knee Surgery and Related Research (Knee Surg Relat Res)</addtitle><description>Purpose: Tunnel widening following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is commonly observed. Graft micromotion is an important contributing factor. Unlike fixed-loop devices that require a turning space, adjustable-loop devices fit the graft snugly in the tunnel. The purpose of this study is to compare tunnel widening between these devices. Our hypothesis is that the adjustable-loop device will create lesser tunnel widening.
Materials and Methods: Ninety-eight patients underwent ACL reconstruction from January 2013 to December 2014. An adjustable-loop device was used in 54 patients (group 1) and a fixed-loop device was used in 44 patients (group 2). Maximum tunnel widening at 1 year was measured by the L’Insalata’s method. Functional outcome was measured at 2-year follow-up.
Results: The mean widening was 4.37 mm (standard deviation [SD], 2.01) in group 1 and 4.09 mm (SD, 1.98) in group 2 (p=0.511). The average International Knee Documentation Committee score was 78.40 (SD, 9.99) in group 1 and 77.11 (SD, 12.31) in group 2 (p=0.563). The average Tegner- Lysholm score was 87.25 (SD, 3.97) in group 1 and 87.29 in group 2 (SD, 4.36) (p=0.987). There was no significant difference in tunnel widening and functional outcome between the groups.
Conclusions: The adjustable-loop device did not decrease the amount of tunnel widening when compared to the fixed-loop device. There was no significant difference in outcome between the two fixation devices.
Level of Evidence: Level 3, Retrospective Cohort</description><subject>Anterior cruciate ligament</subject><subject>Arthroscopy</subject><subject>Knee</subject><subject>Reconstruction</subject><subject>Tunnel</subject><subject>Widening</subject><issn>2234-0726</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9jcGKwkAQROfgguL6BV76BwJxEo03ETUqyB5WwaOM2obGSU-YniB-hn-sAYU97amgql5VS3W0TtIozvSorXoidIyHcZakmU476jF3KLDFk-NztERGbwI5hm0tFbI4f4d1WVnDAX6wMAFhVzOjhT2dkYkLcBfIyUv4S3-Q3Fnrbk1rygE9OQ8zX5-o2dlQYUp8lX6bcwkvv2En3-rrYqxg761d1c8Xu9kqupLIofJUGn8_JKOhHg908n_6BD5RUk0</recordid><startdate>20181231</startdate><enddate>20181231</enddate><creator>Silvampatti Ramasamy Sundararajan</creator><creator>Balaji Sambandam</creator><creator>Ajay Singh</creator><creator>Ramakanth Rajagopalakrishnan</creator><creator>Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran</creator><general>대한슬관절학회</general><scope>HZB</scope><scope>Q5X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20181231</creationdate><title>Does Second-Generation Suspensory Implant Negate Tunnel Widening of First-Generation Implant Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction?</title><author>Silvampatti Ramasamy Sundararajan ; Balaji Sambandam ; Ajay Singh ; Ramakanth Rajagopalakrishnan ; Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-kiss_primary_36528123</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>kor</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Anterior cruciate ligament</topic><topic>Arthroscopy</topic><topic>Knee</topic><topic>Reconstruction</topic><topic>Tunnel</topic><topic>Widening</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Silvampatti Ramasamy Sundararajan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Balaji Sambandam</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ajay Singh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramakanth Rajagopalakrishnan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran</creatorcontrib><collection>Korean Studies Information Service System (KISS)</collection><collection>Korean Studies Information Service System (KISS) B-Type</collection><jtitle>Knee surgery & related research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Silvampatti Ramasamy Sundararajan</au><au>Balaji Sambandam</au><au>Ajay Singh</au><au>Ramakanth Rajagopalakrishnan</au><au>Shanmuganathan Rajasekaran</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Does Second-Generation Suspensory Implant Negate Tunnel Widening of First-Generation Implant Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction?</atitle><jtitle>Knee surgery & related research</jtitle><addtitle>Knee Surgery and Related Research (Knee Surg Relat Res)</addtitle><date>2018-12-31</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>30</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>341</spage><pages>341-</pages><issn>2234-0726</issn><abstract>Purpose: Tunnel widening following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is commonly observed. Graft micromotion is an important contributing factor. Unlike fixed-loop devices that require a turning space, adjustable-loop devices fit the graft snugly in the tunnel. The purpose of this study is to compare tunnel widening between these devices. Our hypothesis is that the adjustable-loop device will create lesser tunnel widening.
Materials and Methods: Ninety-eight patients underwent ACL reconstruction from January 2013 to December 2014. An adjustable-loop device was used in 54 patients (group 1) and a fixed-loop device was used in 44 patients (group 2). Maximum tunnel widening at 1 year was measured by the L’Insalata’s method. Functional outcome was measured at 2-year follow-up.
Results: The mean widening was 4.37 mm (standard deviation [SD], 2.01) in group 1 and 4.09 mm (SD, 1.98) in group 2 (p=0.511). The average International Knee Documentation Committee score was 78.40 (SD, 9.99) in group 1 and 77.11 (SD, 12.31) in group 2 (p=0.563). The average Tegner- Lysholm score was 87.25 (SD, 3.97) in group 1 and 87.29 in group 2 (SD, 4.36) (p=0.987). There was no significant difference in tunnel widening and functional outcome between the groups.
Conclusions: The adjustable-loop device did not decrease the amount of tunnel widening when compared to the fixed-loop device. There was no significant difference in outcome between the two fixation devices.
Level of Evidence: Level 3, Retrospective Cohort</abstract><pub>대한슬관절학회</pub><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2234-0726 |
ispartof | Knee surgery & related research, 2018-12, Vol.30 (4), p.341 |
issn | 2234-0726 |
language | kor |
recordid | cdi_kiss_primary_3652812 |
source | KoreaMed Synapse; KoreaMed Open Access; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection; PubMed Central Open Access |
subjects | Anterior cruciate ligament Arthroscopy Knee Reconstruction Tunnel Widening |
title | Does Second-Generation Suspensory Implant Negate Tunnel Widening of First-Generation Implant Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction? |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-05T11%3A11%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-kiss&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Does%20Second-Generation%20Suspensory%20Implant%20Negate%20Tunnel%20Widening%20of%20First-Generation%20Implant%20Following%20Anterior%20Cruciate%20Ligament%20Reconstruction?&rft.jtitle=Knee%20surgery%20&%20related%20research&rft.au=Silvampatti%20Ramasamy%20Sundararajan&rft.date=2018-12-31&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=341&rft.pages=341-&rft.issn=2234-0726&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Ckiss%3E3652812%3C/kiss%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_kiss_id=3652812&rfr_iscdi=true |