Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Flexible Versus Rigid Reaming Systems for Independent Femoral Tunnel Reaming During ACL Reconstruction: Minimum 2-Year Clinical Outcomes.
Moran, Thomas E; Ignozzi, Anthony J; Taleghani, Eric R; Bruce, Amelia S; Hart, Joseph M; Werner, Brian C.
Afiliação
  • Moran TE; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
  • Ignozzi AJ; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
  • Taleghani ER; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
  • Bruce AS; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
  • Hart JM; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
  • Werner BC; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Orthop J Sports Med ; 10(3): 23259671221083568, 2022 Mar.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35321208
ABSTRACT

Background:

Radiographic and cadaveric studies have suggested that anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) femoral tunnel drilling with the use of a flexible reaming system through an anteromedial portal (AM-FR) may result in a different graft and femoral tunnel position compared with using a rigid reamer through an accessory anteromedial portal with hyperflexion (AAM-RR). No prior studies have directly compared clinical outcomes between the use of these 2 techniques for femoral tunnel creation during ACLR.

Purpose:

To compare revision rates at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively for patients who underwent ACLR with AM-FR versus AAM-RR. The secondary objectives were to compare functional testing and patient-reported outcomes between the cohorts. Study

Design:

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

Included were consecutive patients at a single academic institution between 2013 and 2018 who underwent primary ACLR without additional ligamentous reconstruction. Patients were separated into 2 groups based on the type of anatomic femoral tunnel drilling AM-FR or AAM-RR. Graft failure, determined by revision ACLR, was assessed with a minimum 2 years of postoperative follow-up. The authors also compared patient-reported outcome scores (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS]) and functional performance testing performed at 6 months postoperatively.

Results:

A total of 284 (AAM-RR, 232; AM-FR, 52) patients were included. The mean follow-up time was 3.7 ± 1.5 years, with a minimum 2-year follow-up rate of 90%. There was no significant difference in the rate of revision ACLR between the AAM-RR and AM-FR groups (10.8% vs 9.6%, respectively; P = .806). At 6 months postoperatively, there were no significant between-group differences in peak knee extension strength, peak knee flexion strength, limb symmetry indices, or hop testing, as well as no significant differences in IKDC (AAM-RR, 81.1; AM-FR, 78.9; P = .269) or KOOS (AAM-RR, 89.0; AM-FR, 86.7; P = .104).

Conclusion:

In this limited study, independent femoral tunnel drilling for ACLR using rigid or flexible reaming systems resulted in comparable rates of revision ACLR at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively, with no significant differences in strength assessments or patient-reported outcomes at 6 months postoperatively.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2022 Tipo de documento: Article