4.5 Article

Femoral intercondylar notch shape and dimensions in ACL-injured patients

期刊

KNEE SURGERY SPORTS TRAUMATOLOGY ARTHROSCOPY
卷 18, 期 9, 页码 1239-1244

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00167-010-1135-z

关键词

Anterior cruciate ligament; Notch width index; Intercondylar notch; Radiograph; Computed Tomography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The femoral intercondylar notch has been an anatomic site of interest as it houses the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). The objective of this study was to arthroscopically evaluate the femoral notch in patients with known ACL injury. This evaluation included establishing a classification for notch shapes, identifying the shape frequency, measuring notch dimensions, and determining correlation between notch shape, notch dimensions, and demographic patient data. In this clinical cohort study, 102 consecutive patients underwent diagnostic arthroscopic evaluation of the notch. Several intra-operative photos, videos, and measurements were taken of the notch. Demographic data for each patient were recorded including age, gender, height, weight, and BMI. Three categories of notch shape were established: 1. A-shaped; 2. U-shaped; and 3. W-shaped. Two blinded independent orthopedic surgeons were asked to categorize the recorded notches. Notch shape, dimensions, and demographic factors were correlated. Of the 102 notches evaluated, 55 notches were found to be A-shaped, 42 U-shaped, and 5 W-shaped. A-shaped notches were narrower in all width dimensions than U-shaped notches. Only patient height was found to influence notch shape with a positive association between taller patients and U-shaped and W-shaped notches (P = 0.011). Women had a smaller notch width at the base and middle of the notch. With this data, surgeons who enter the knee and appreciate an A-shaped notch should consider placing the arthroscope in the anteromedial portal and drill the femoral tunnel through an accessory medial portal to improve visualization and accuracy in anatomic femoral tunnel creation.

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