» Articles » PMID: 19171269

A Minimum 2-year Follow-up After Selective Anteromedial or Posterolateral Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Overview
Journal Arthroscopy
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2009 Jan 28
PMID 19171269
Citations 44
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the 2-year follow-up clinical results of 45 patients who had undergone our anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) augmentation procedure using an autogenous semitendinosus tendon and the EndoButton CL (Smith & Nephew, Andover, MA).

Methods: We followed up 45 patients for more than 2 years after their ACL augmentations. Of these, 37 were anteromedial (AM) bundle reconstructions and 8 were posterolateral (PL) bundle reconstructions. They were assessed using a KT-2000 knee arthrometer (MEDmetric, San Diego, CA) at 30 lb by joint position sense, Lysholm knee score, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

Results: The mean side-to-side difference of anterior displacement measured by the KT-2000 knee arthrometer at 30 degrees of knee flexion preoperatively was 3.3 +/- 2.4 mm, significantly improving to a mean of 0.5 +/- 2.7 mm 2 years after surgery. The preoperative joint position sense inaccuracy was 1.6 degrees +/- 1.8 degrees , which improved significantly to 0.3 degrees +/- 2.0 degrees after surgery. The median Lysholm knee score significantly improved from 74 (range, 44 to 95) to 100 points (range, 81 to 100) after surgery. In 20 of 29 patients who had the postoperative MRI examination, the augmented ACL resembled 1 bundle on the sagittal planes of the postoperative MRI.

Conclusions: Selective AM or PL bundle reconstruction showed improved joint stability, joint position sense, and Lysholm scores postoperatively. This procedure can be a treatment option for patients whose ACL remnants are left in certain conditions.

Citing Articles

Effects of Preserving Anatomically Positioned and Adequate Remnant ACL Tissue in Double-Bundle ACL Reconstruction.

Sato D, Inoue M, Kasahara Y, Hamano H, Suzuki R, Kondo E Orthop J Sports Med. 2023; 11(4):23259671231162389.

PMID: 37113140 PMC: 10126626. DOI: 10.1177/23259671231162389.


Selective bundle versus complete anterior-cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yeo M, Seah S, Gatot C, Yew A, Lie D J Orthop. 2022; 33:124-130.

PMID: 35983549 PMC: 9379500. DOI: 10.1016/j.jor.2022.07.015.


Properties of Knee Joint Position Sense Tests for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Strong A, Arumugam A, Tengman E, Roijezon U, Hager C Orthop J Sports Med. 2021; 9(6):23259671211007878.

PMID: 34350298 PMC: 8287371. DOI: 10.1177/23259671211007878.


Anterior cruciate ligament remnant-preserving and re-tensioning reconstruction: a biomechanical comparison study of three different re-tensioning methods in a porcine model.

Ryu D, Kwon K, Hong D, Park S, Park J, Wang J BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2021; 22(1):132.

PMID: 33536007 PMC: 7860227. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-021-03955-w.


Factors associated with dynamic knee valgus angle during single-leg forward landing in patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Asaeda M, Nakamae A, Hirata K, Kono Y, Uenishi H, Adachi N Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol. 2020; 22:56-61.

PMID: 32913714 PMC: 7451847. DOI: 10.1016/j.asmart.2020.07.002.