4.5 Article

Anatomical placement of double femoral tunnels in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: anteromedial tunnel first or posterolateral tunnel first?

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00167-010-1246-6

关键词

Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL); Double-bundle ACL reconstruction; Navigation; Femoral tunnel; Three-dimensional CT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to know which tunnel-the anteromedial (AM) bundle or the posterolateral (PL) bundle-should be prepared first to create the 2 femoral tunnels accurately in anatomic double-bundle (DB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Thirty-four patients were divided into 2 groups of 17 depending on the sequence of preparation of the 2 femoral tunnels. In group A, the AM tunnel was prepared first, whereas the PL tunnel was prepared first in group P. ACL reconstruction was performed using a three-dimensional (3-D) fluoroscopy-based navigation system to place the double femoral tunnels through an accessory medial portal. The double femoral socket positioning was evaluated by 3-D computed tomography (CT) scan image. The non-anatomical placement of the femoral sockets occurred in 5 patients (29%) in group A, whereas the 2 sockets were placed anatomically in all patients in group P (P < 0.05). Evaluation of the AM and the PL socket location on the 3-D CT images using the quadrant method showed more similar values to the laboratory data in a literature in group P than in group A. No complication occurred in group A, whereas complications such as socket communications or back wall blowout occurred in 5 patients (29%) in group P (P < 0.05). The sequence of creating 2 femoral tunnels through accessory medial portal affected the resultant location of the sockets and the rate of the complications. When femoral tunnels are prepared with a transportal technique, PL tunnel first technique seems to be superior to AM first technique regarding anatomic placement. However, PL tunnel first technique accompanies the risk of socket communication.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据