Comparision of Functional Outcome of Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Quadrupled Semitendinosus and Gracilis Graft Fixed with Bioabsorbable Interference Screw against Titanium Interference Screw
Authors/Creators
- 1. Consultant, Ortho Paedician, United Hospital, Kalaburgi, Karnataka, India
- 2. Consultant, Ortho Paedician, Sri Mallikarjun Hospital, Kalaburgi, Karnataka, India
- 3. Consultant, Ortho Paedician, Madhuri Remedy Hospital Tirupathi, Andhra Pradesh
- 4. Consultant, Ortho Paedician Kamineni Hospitals, King Koti Hyderabad, Telangana
- 5. Consultant, Radiologist, Aster RV Hospital, Bangalore, Karnataka
Description
Background: Knee injuries are more common due to exponential increase in road traffic accidents and more involvement in sports related activities by common people. Anterior cruciate ligament injury is one of the most common injuries around knee and poses quiet a lot management controversy. Aims and Objectives: To do comparative analysis of the functional outcome of Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction using quadrupled semitendinosus and gracilis graft with endobutton as femoral fixation device and bioabsorbable interference screw against titanium interference screw as tibial fixation devices respectively. Materials and Methods: 60 Patients with ACL tear attending outpatient department of a tertiary care hospital were recruited in this prospective, comparative study. Detailed proforma consisting of patient information, Lysholm and Gillquist scoring scale were administered pre and postoperatively for patient. The difference in clinical outcome of both groups was compared. Out of 60 patients 30 patients underwent ACL reconstruction using Titanium screw and 30 patients underwent ACL reconstruction using Bioabsorbable screw. All patients were followed up for a period of 6 months post operatively. Improvement in patient condition was measured in terms of improved Knee range of motion, walking with or without support, any instability, any locking of knee, any pain while activity. Results: Mean preoperative Lysholm score for Titanium group was 52.60 and postoperative score is 85.56. Mean preoperative Lysholm score for Bioabsorbable Group is 54.70 mean postoperative score for group is 87.63. The increase in both scores was statistically significant when compared within the groups. And when both groups are compared, there was no significant difference between 2 groups. Few of our patients presented with anterior knee pain in immediate post-operative period which subsided with physiotherapy and medication, none of them had chronic knee pain. Conclusion: Our study shows that there is no difference in functional outcome whether bioabsorbable or titanium interference screw was used.
Abstract (English)
Background: Knee injuries are more common due to exponential increase in road traffic accidents and more involvement in sports related activities by common people. Anterior cruciate ligament injury is one of the most common injuries around knee and poses quiet a lot management controversy. Aims and Objectives: To do comparative analysis of the functional outcome of Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction using quadrupled semitendinosus and gracilis graft with endobutton as femoral fixation device and bioabsorbable interference screw against titanium interference screw as tibial fixation devices respectively. Materials and Methods: 60 Patients with ACL tear attending outpatient department of a tertiary care hospital were recruited in this prospective, comparative study. Detailed proforma consisting of patient information, Lysholm and Gillquist scoring scale were administered pre and postoperatively for patient. The difference in clinical outcome of both groups was compared. Out of 60 patients 30 patients underwent ACL reconstruction using Titanium screw and 30 patients underwent ACL reconstruction using Bioabsorbable screw. All patients were followed up for a period of 6 months post operatively. Improvement in patient condition was measured in terms of improved Knee range of motion, walking with or without support, any instability, any locking of knee, any pain while activity. Results: Mean preoperative Lysholm score for Titanium group was 52.60 and postoperative score is 85.56. Mean preoperative Lysholm score for Bioabsorbable Group is 54.70 mean postoperative score for group is 87.63. The increase in both scores was statistically significant when compared within the groups. And when both groups are compared, there was no significant difference between 2 groups. Few of our patients presented with anterior knee pain in immediate post-operative period which subsided with physiotherapy and medication, none of them had chronic knee pain. Conclusion: Our study shows that there is no difference in functional outcome whether bioabsorbable or titanium interference screw was used.
Files
IJPCR,Vol15,Issue10,Article140.pdf
Files
(883.5 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:26793be74ac83f5084fd83cc4ca41072
|
883.5 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Dates
- Accepted
-
2023-09-30
Software
- Repository URL
- https://impactfactor.org/PDF/IJPCR/15/IJPCR,Vol15,Issue10,Article140.pdf
- Development Status
- Active
References
- 1. Agni Raj R, Tholgapiyan T, Kathir Azhagan S. Comparative analysis of the functional outcome of arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using quadrupled hamstring graft fixed with bio absorbable interference screw against titanium interference screw. Int J Orthop Sci. 2017; 3(4):165-171. 2. Haimes JL, Wroble RR, Grood ES, Noyes FR. Role of the medial structures in the intact and anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee: limits of motion in the human knee. The American journal of sports medicine. 1994; 22(3):402-9. 3. Satku K, Kumar VP, Ngoi SS. Anterior cruciate ligament injuries. To counsel or to operate? The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British. 1986;68(3):458-61. 4. Sanders TL, Maradit Kremers H, Bryan AJ, Larson DR, Dahm DL, Levy BA et al. Incidence of anterior cruciate ligament tears and reconstruction: a 21-year populationbased study. The American journal of sports medicine. 2016;44(6):1502-7. 5. Hagino T, Ochiai S, Senga S, Yamashita T, Wako M, Ando T et al. Meniscal tears associated with anterior cruciate ligament injury. Archives of orthopaedic and trauma surgery. 2015;135(12):1701-6. 6. Thaunat M, Fayard JM, Sonnery-Cottet B. Hamstring tendons or bone-patellar tendonbone graft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? Orthopaedics &Traumatology: Surgery & Research. 2019;105(1):S89-94. 7. Edgar CM, Zimmer S, Kakar S, Jones H, Schepsis AA. Prospective comparison of auto and allograft hamstring tendon constructs for ACL reconstruction. Clinical orthopaedics and related research. 2008;466(9):2238-46. 8. Wagner M, Kääb MJ, Schallock J, Haas NP, Weiler A. Hamstring tendon versus patellar tendon anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using biodegradable interference fit fixation: a prospective matched-group analysis. The American journal of sports medicine. 2005;33(9):1327- 36. 9. Rajasekar PMR. Certificate analysis of the functional outcome of arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using quadrupled hamstring graft fixed with bioabsorbable interference screw [Internet]. [cited 2020 Nov 14]. 10. Samitier G, Marcano AI, Alentorn-Geli E, Cugat R, Farmer KW, Moser MW. Failure of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2015;3(4):220-40. 11. Gulick DT, Yoder HN. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: clinical outcomes of patella tendon and hamstring tendon grafts. Journal of sports science & medicine 2002;1(3):63. 12. Kong CG, In Y, Kim GH, Ahn CY. Cross pins versus end button femoral fixation in hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: minimum 4-year follow- up. Knee Surgery & Related Research. 2012; 24(1): 34. 13. Milano G, Mulas PD, Ziranu F, Piras S, Manunta A, Fabbriciani C. Comparison between different femoral fixation devices for ACL reconstruction with doubled hamstring tendon graft: a biomechanical analysis. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery. 2006;22(6):660-8. 14. Sonnery-Cottet B, Zayni R, Conteduca J, Archbold P, Prost T, Carrillon Y et al. Posterolateral bundle reconstruction with anteromedial bundle remnant preservation in ACL tears: Clinical and MRI evaluation of 39 patients with 24-month follow-up. Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine. 2013; 1(3): 2325967113501624. 15. Woo SL, Kanamori A, Zeminski J, Yagi M, Papageorgiou C, Fu FH. The effectiveness of reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with hamstrings and patellar tendon: a cadaveric study comparing anterior tibial and rotational loads. JBJS. 2002;84(6):907-14. 16. Bottoni CR. Anterior cruciate ligament femoral tunnel creation by use of anteromedial portal. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(11):1319. 17. Ma Y, Deie M, Iwaki D, Asaeda M, Fujita N, Adachi N, Ochi M. Balance ability and proprioception after single- bundle, singlebundle augmentation, and double-bundle ACL reconstruction. The Scientific World Journal. 2014. 18. Debieux P, Franciozi CE, Lenza M, Tamaoki MJ, Magnussen RA, Faloppa F et al. Bioabsorbable versus metallic interferencescrews for graft fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016(7). 19. Leibbrandt DC, Louw Q. The development of an evidence-based clinical checklist for the diagnosis of anterior knee pain. The South African Journal of physiotherapy 2017;73(1).