» Articles » PMID: 34949188

Transportal Versus All-inside Techniques of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: a Systematic Review

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2021 Dec 24
PMID 34949188
Citations 16
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Transportal (TP) and all-inside techniques (AIT) are the most commonly used anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction procedures in current clinical practice. However, there is an ongoing debate over which procedure is superior. Therefore, the purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes and complications of these two techniques to propose recommendations for future application. Our primary hypothesis was that AIT is a superior ACLR technique compared to TP.

Methods: A systematic literature review, using PRISMA guidelines, was conducted using PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, and EMBASE, up to February 2021 to identify studies focusing on AIT and TP techniques of ACL reconstruction. We excluded animal experiments, cadaveric studies, retrospective studies, case reports, technical notes, and studies without quantitative data. Patients' characteristics, surgical technical features, along with postoperative follow-up and complications were extracted and reported accordingly. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS).

Results: A total of 44 studies were selected for this review, of which four were comparative studies. A total of 923 patients underwent AIT and 1678 patients underwent the TP technique for ACLR. A single semitendinosus graft was commonly used in the AIT compard to combined semitendinosus and gracilis graft in the TP group. The postoperative increase in International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, KT-1000, and Short Form-12 (physical and mental) scores were similar in the AIT group and the TP group. Contrastingly, the VAS pain score was significantly lower in the AIT group compared to the TP group. Furthermore, the pooled complication rates from all studies were similar between the two groups (AIT: 54 patients, 8.26% vs. PT: 55 patients, 6.62%). However, the four studies that prospectively compared AIT and TP techniques showed lesser complications in the AIT group than the TP group.

Conclusion: Since the future trend in orthopedic surgery is toward less invasive and patients' satisfaction with good outcomes, AIT is a good alternative method considering preserving bony tissue and gracilis tendon with less post-operative pain, along with more knee flexor strength and equal outcomes compared to conventional ACL reconstruction surgery. Level of Evidence II.

Citing Articles

A Simplified Technique for All-Inside Tibial Socket Retrograde Drill Guiding Using a 2- to 3.5-mm Concentric Cannula Without the All-Inside Tibial Guide Ring.

Peng Y, Yang W, Yu W, Meng C, Wang H, Huang W Arthrosc Tech. 2025; 14(1):103177.

PMID: 39989697 PMC: 11843302. DOI: 10.1016/j.eats.2024.103177.


Outcomes of All-Inside Arthroscopic ACL Reconstruction with Lateral Extra-Articular Tenodesis (ACLR + LET).

Mishra D, Sondur S, Mohanty A, Mohanty S, Gulia A, Das S Indian J Orthop. 2024; 59(1):54-61.

PMID: 39735878 PMC: 11680544. DOI: 10.1007/s43465-024-01283-4.


Functional Outcomes in ACL Reconstruction: A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing All-Inside and Transportal Techniques.

Sakale H, Moti R, Agrawal A, Kar B, Chauhan D, Garg A J Orthop Case Rep. 2024; 14(11):232-239.

PMID: 39524273 PMC: 11546036. DOI: 10.13107/jocr.2024.v14.i11.4978.


Is Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction "Silva Technique" Equal to All-Inside Techniques? A Prospective Single-Center Study: An Alternative ACL All-Inside Reconstruction Technique Using a Tibial Tunnel and Bone Graft.

Karampinas P, Vlamis J, Galanis A, Vavourakis M, Sakellariou E, Varsamos I Adv Orthop. 2024; 2024:2371242.

PMID: 39493370 PMC: 11531358. DOI: 10.1155/2024/2371242.


Comparison of the Functional Outcomes of Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction through the All-inside and Outside-in Techniques: A Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.

Varghese P, Patra S, Das G, Patro B, Jain G, P H Rev Bras Ortop (Sao Paulo). 2024; 59(3):e385-e392.

PMID: 38911895 PMC: 11193577. DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1786726.


References
1.
Wilson A, Yasen S, Nancoo T, Stannard R, Smith J, Logan J . Anatomic all-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the translateral technique. Arthrosc Tech. 2013; 2(2):e99-e104. PMC: 3716211. DOI: 10.1016/j.eats.2012.12.002. View

2.
Fujita N, Kuroda R, Matsumoto T, Yamaguchi M, Yagi M, Matsumoto A . Comparison of the clinical outcome of double-bundle, anteromedial single-bundle, and posterolateral single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring tendon graft with minimum 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2011; 27(7):906-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2011.02.015. View

3.
Lubowitz J, Schwartzberg R, Smith P . Cortical Suspensory Button Versus Aperture Interference Screw Fixation for Knee Anterior Cruciate Ligament Soft-Tissue Allograft: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial. Arthroscopy. 2015; 31(9):1733-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.03.006. View

4.
Sutton K, Bullock J . Anterior cruciate ligament rupture: differences between males and females. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2013; 21(1):41-50. DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-21-01-41. View

5.
Rezazadeh S, Ettehadi H, Vosoughi A . Outcome of arthroscopic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: anteromedial portal technique versus transtibial drilling technique. Musculoskelet Surg. 2015; 100(1):37-41. DOI: 10.1007/s12306-015-0392-x. View