Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association · 2013
Randomized controlled trial comparing all-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction technique with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a full tibial tunnel.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Lubowitz James H, Schwartzberg Randy, Smith Patrick
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation was to compare the clinical effectiveness of full-tunnel anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructive surgery with all-inside ACL reconstruction.
METHODS: After statistical power analysis was performed and institutional review board approval and patient informed consent were obtained, 150 patients having ACL reconstruction were prospectively randomized to an all-inside or full-tibial tunnel technique. Outcome (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] Knee Examination Form, IKDC Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Society Score [KSS], Short Form 12 [SF-12] score, femoral or tibial tunnel or socket widening, narcotic consumption, and visual analog scale [VAS] pain score compared with baseline) was measured and recorded preoperatively and at various postoperative time points with a minimum follow-up of 2 years.
RESULTS: There were no differences between groups with regard to IKDC Knee Examination Form, IKDC Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, KSS score, SF-12 score, or femoral socket or tibial tunnel or socket widening, or narcotic consumption. The VAS pain score compared with baseline was significantly lower for the all-inside technique on day 1, on day 7, at 1.5 weeks, and at 24 months.
CONCLUSIONS: The null hypothesis (no difference between all-inside ACL reconstruction and ACL reconstruction with a full tibial tunnel) is supported for IKDC scores, KSS score, SF-12 score, narcotic consumption, and tibial and femoral widening, whereas all-inside ACL reconstruction results in a lower VAS pain score compared with baseline.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, randomized controlled clinical trial with greater than 80% patient follow-up 2 years postoperatively.
METHODS: After statistical power analysis was performed and institutional review board approval and patient informed consent were obtained, 150 patients having ACL reconstruction were prospectively randomized to an all-inside or full-tibial tunnel technique. Outcome (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] Knee Examination Form, IKDC Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Society Score [KSS], Short Form 12 [SF-12] score, femoral or tibial tunnel or socket widening, narcotic consumption, and visual analog scale [VAS] pain score compared with baseline) was measured and recorded preoperatively and at various postoperative time points with a minimum follow-up of 2 years.
RESULTS: There were no differences between groups with regard to IKDC Knee Examination Form, IKDC Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, KSS score, SF-12 score, or femoral socket or tibial tunnel or socket widening, or narcotic consumption. The VAS pain score compared with baseline was significantly lower for the all-inside technique on day 1, on day 7, at 1.5 weeks, and at 24 months.
CONCLUSIONS: The null hypothesis (no difference between all-inside ACL reconstruction and ACL reconstruction with a full tibial tunnel) is supported for IKDC scores, KSS score, SF-12 score, narcotic consumption, and tibial and femoral widening, whereas all-inside ACL reconstruction results in a lower VAS pain score compared with baseline.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, randomized controlled clinical trial with greater than 80% patient follow-up 2 years postoperatively.