Zhongguo gu shang = China journal of orthopaedics and traumatology · 2021
[Bone tunnel positions in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction evaluated by three-dimensional CT reconstruction based on Mimics software:modified transtibial versus anteromedial portal technique].
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yu Han, Huang Cheng-Long, Chen Jia-Yi, Kong Xiang-Jia, Ren Peng, Xu Hong-Wei, Song Dan-Dan, Chen Gang
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the femoral and tibial tunnel positions of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the modified transtibial (MTT) technique and anteromedial (AM) portal technique.
METHODS: Between January 2017 and September 2020, 78 patients with anterior cruciate ligament rupture underwent single-bundle reconstruction with the modified transtibial technique in 39 cases (group MTT) and through anteromedial approach in 39 cases (group AM). There were 25 males and 14 females in group MTT, with an average age of (37.0±2.3) years old; 27 males and 12 females in group AM, with an average age of (37.5±2.2) years old. CT scan of the affected knee was conducted one week after the surgery to measure and compare the femoral tunnels positioning (Fx, Fy), tibial tunnels positioning in the frontal plane(Tx1), tibial tunnels positioning in the sagittal plane (Ty1), and tibial tunnels positioning in the axial plane (Tx2, Ty2) in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction through Mimics software.
RESULTS: Three-dimensional CT reconstruction after the surgery showed that the average Fx and Fy were(25.2±2.1)% and (34.9±3.0)% respectively and the Tx1 and Ty1 were (45.5±3.3)% and (44.7± 3.0)% respectively, while the Tx2 and Ty2 were (47.0±3.0)% and (39.9±4.2)% respectively in group MTT. In group AM, the average Fx and Fy were (26.0±2.0)% and (36.1±3.9)% respectively and the Tx1 and Ty1 were (46.5±3.1)% and (45.6± 3.1)% respectively, while the Tx2 and Ty2 were (47.4±2.5)% and (39.6±3.9)% respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in the femoral and tibial tunnels between the two groups (P>0.05). Patients in both two groups obtained anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
CONCLUSION: Both the MTT and AM technique can achieve good anatomical positioning of the femoral and tibial tunnels, without significant differences in the positioning of the bone tunnels.
METHODS: Between January 2017 and September 2020, 78 patients with anterior cruciate ligament rupture underwent single-bundle reconstruction with the modified transtibial technique in 39 cases (group MTT) and through anteromedial approach in 39 cases (group AM). There were 25 males and 14 females in group MTT, with an average age of (37.0±2.3) years old; 27 males and 12 females in group AM, with an average age of (37.5±2.2) years old. CT scan of the affected knee was conducted one week after the surgery to measure and compare the femoral tunnels positioning (Fx, Fy), tibial tunnels positioning in the frontal plane(Tx1), tibial tunnels positioning in the sagittal plane (Ty1), and tibial tunnels positioning in the axial plane (Tx2, Ty2) in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction through Mimics software.
RESULTS: Three-dimensional CT reconstruction after the surgery showed that the average Fx and Fy were(25.2±2.1)% and (34.9±3.0)% respectively and the Tx1 and Ty1 were (45.5±3.3)% and (44.7± 3.0)% respectively, while the Tx2 and Ty2 were (47.0±3.0)% and (39.9±4.2)% respectively in group MTT. In group AM, the average Fx and Fy were (26.0±2.0)% and (36.1±3.9)% respectively and the Tx1 and Ty1 were (46.5±3.1)% and (45.6± 3.1)% respectively, while the Tx2 and Ty2 were (47.4±2.5)% and (39.6±3.9)% respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in the femoral and tibial tunnels between the two groups (P>0.05). Patients in both two groups obtained anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.
CONCLUSION: Both the MTT and AM technique can achieve good anatomical positioning of the femoral and tibial tunnels, without significant differences in the positioning of the bone tunnels.