4.4 Article

Isolated AL bundle reconstruction of the PCL

期刊

ARCHIVES OF ORTHOPAEDIC AND TRAUMA SURGERY
卷 132, 期 3, 页码 363-370

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00402-011-1403-5

关键词

Posterior cruciate ligament; Single-bundle technique; Dorsal translation; Telos device

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical and radiologic results after isolated reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) using the semitendinosus (ST) and gracilis (GR) tendons with the arthroscopic single-bundle technique. All patients upon whom we had performed a single-bundle PCL reconstruction between 2002 and 2005 prospectively underwent a standardized follow-up examination after 2 years. Isolated PCL reconstruction was carried out on 41 patients during the observation period. Pre- and postoperative stress radiographs were taken using the Telos stress device in order to evaluate the dorsal translation. Knee joint function and degree of activity were recorded using the Tegner activity score, the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, and the overall IKDC score. 33 of 41 patients (80.4%, 17 men, 16 women) completed the study. The posterior tibial translation of -10.1 +/- A 1.8 mm had an overall average improvement to a postoperative value of -5.0 +/- A 2.5 mm (p < 0.001). The patients showed a significant improvement in the Tegner activity score from an average 2.8 +/- A 0.8 points to 5.9 +/- A 1.2 points (p < 0.001). Evaluation of the subjective IKDC showed a significant improvement from a preoperative score of 41.86 +/- A 11.49 points to a postoperative score of 69.54 +/- A 11.39 points (p < 0.001). In total, 24 patients (72.8%) exhibited a normal or nearly normal outcome. The abovementioned reconstruction technique can achieve a stable knee function in patients with isolated PCL insufficiency. The isolated single-bundle PCL reconstruction offers an improvement regarding the activity level and stability of the knee joint. Level IV.

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

4.4
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