Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros










Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
2.
J Exp Orthop ; 7(1): 11, 2020 Mar 07.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32146549

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The aim of the study is to compare the risk of revision of single-bundle hamstring anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction between the anteromedial, transtibial and outside-in techniques. METHODS: This cohort study was based on data from a single surgeon's registry. Patients who underwent primary single-bundle ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon using the anteromedial portal, transtibial and outside-in technique, operated between 1 November 2003 to 31 December 2016, were eligible for inclusion. A minimum follow-up of 2 years was used, and the end-point of the study was revision surgery. RESULTS: The total number of registered surgeries identified was 665; 109 were excluded, and 556 was the final sample. The overall revision rate was 8.7%. The transtibial technique presented 14/154 [9.9%] of revisions, the transportal 11/96 [11.4%] and the outside-in 22/306 [7.2%]. Separating the outside-in group into central outside-in and anteromedial (AM) outside-in, 18/219 [8.2%] was found for the central outside-in and 4/87 [4.5%] for the AM outside-in technique. Statistical evaluation of the first comparison (transtibial vs. transportal vs. outside-in) obtained p = (n.s.) The second comparison (transtibial vs. central transportal vs. central outside-in vs. AM outside-in, p = (n.s). Placement was also evaluated: high anteromedial placement (transtibial) vs. central (transportal and central outside-in technique) vs. AM placement (AM outside-in). The high AM placement presented 14/154 [9.9%] of revision, the central placement 29/315 [9.2%] and the AM placement 4/87 [4.5%], p = (n.s.) The AM placement was also compared with the other placements (high and central AM), p = (n.s.) CONCLUSION: Based on the registry of a single surgeon during 14 years of ACL reconstruction, the placement of the femoral tunnel in the high anteromedial region was associated with a rupture rate of 9.9%, central placement with 9.2% and anteromedial placement with 4.5%.

3.
BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med ; 4(1): e000420, 2018.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30305927

RESUMEN

The aim of this study was to review and update the literature in regard to the anatomy of the femoral origin of the ACL, the concept of the double band and its respective mechanical functions, and the concept of direct and indirect fibres in the ACL insertion. These topics will be used to help determine which might be the best place to position the femoral tunnel and how this should be achieved, based on the idea of functional positioning, that is, where the most important ACL fibres in terms of knee stability are positioned. Low positioning of the femoral tunnel, reproducing more of the posterolateral band, and positioning the tunnel away from the lateral intercondylar ridge, that is, in the indirect fibres, would theoretically rebuild a ligament that is less effective in relation to knee stability. The techniques described to determine the femoral tunnel's centre point all involve some degree of subjectivity; the point is defined manually and depends on the surgeon's expertise. The centre of the ACL insertion in the femur should be used as a parameter. Once the centre of the ligament in its footprint is marked, the centre of the tunnel must be defined, drawing the marking toward the intercondylar ridge and anteromedial band. This will allow the femoral tunnel to occupy the region containing the most important original ACL fibres in terms of this ligament's function.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...