ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION - ENDOSCOPIC VERSUS 2-INCISION TECHNIQUE
ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION - ENDOSCOPIC VERSUS 2-INCISION TECHNIQUE
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0749-8063(05)80004-0
复制
发表时间：
1994-10-01
期刊：
影响因子：
4.7
通讯作者：
MENGATO, R
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
HARNER, CD;MARKS, PH;MENGATO, R
本研究的目的是比较单切口“内镜”（ENDO）前交叉韧带（ACL）重建技术与双切口“后入”技术（RE）。60名患者被纳入前瞻性研究。30例患者采用RE技术进行ACL重建，随后30例患者采用ENDO手术。术后所有患者均遵循标准化康复方案。随访评估包括详细的体格检查、活动范围、大腿周长、垂直跳跃、跳跃测试、KT-1000测试和患者访谈。他们根据国际膝关节文献委员会（IKDC）的协议进行评分，该协议将客观和主观数据考虑在内。患者还被评估了体育活动的水平，包括频率和类型。最后，使用评分系统对正位和侧位x线片进行隧道定位评估。在最初进入研究的60名患者中，有50名患者（83%）可以进行详细的临床和功能评估。人口统计学比较显示RE患者24例，ENDO患者26例。RE组有16名男性和8名女性。ENDO小组由16名男性和10名女性组成。RE组右膝14例，左膝10例。ENDO组有13个右膝和13个左膝。RE组平均年龄24岁，ENDO组平均年龄25岁。RE组平均随访35个月（31-40个月），ENDO组平均随访29个月（24-35个月）。并发症包括2例RE组患者和3例ENDO组患者的运动能力丧失。两组在总体IKDC评定量表上没有显著差异。正位x线片和侧位x线片显示股骨和胫骨隧道位置无显著差异。总之，在比较两种ACL重建技术时，在至少2年的随访中没有发现明显的功能或影像学差异。
The purpose of this study was to compare the single-incision, ''endoscopic'' (ENDO) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction technique with the two-incision, ''rear-entry'' technique (RE). Sixty patients were entered into a prospective study. Thirty patients underwent ACL reconstruction by the RE technique, followed by 30 consecutive patients using the ENDO procedure. Postoperatively all patients followed a standardized rehabilitation protocol. Follow-up evaluation consisted of a detailed physical examination, range of motion, thigh girth, vertical leap, hop test, KT-1000 testing, and patient interview. They were scored according to the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) protocol, which takes objective and subjective data into account. Patients were also assessed for level of sports activity including frequency and type. Finally, anteroposterior and lateral x-ray films were evaluated with a scoring system for tunnel location. Of the initial 60 patients entered into the study, 50 were available for a detailed clinical and functional review (83%). Demographic comparisons revealed 24 RE patients and 26 ENDO patients. There were 16 men and 8 women in the RE group. The ENDO group comprised 16 men and 10 women. There were 14 right knees and 10 left knees in the RE group. In the ENDO group there were 13 right knees and 13 left knees. The average age in the RE group was 24 years and 25 years in the ENDO group. The average follow-up was 35 months (range 31-40 months) in the RE group and 29 months (range 24-35 months) in the ENDO group. Complications included two patients with loss of motion in the RE group and three in the ENDO group. There were no significant differences between the two groups tested with respect to the overall IKDC rating scale. Anteroposterior and lateral x-ray films revealed no significant differences in femoral and tibial tunnel placement. In conclusion, no significant functional or radiographic differences at a minimum 2-year follow-up could be identified when comparing the two ACL reconstructive techniques.