4.6 Article

The familial predisposition toward tearing the anterior cruciate ligament - A case control study

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE
卷 33, 期 1, 页码 23-28

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0363546504265678

关键词

anterior cruciate ligament (ACL); familial predisposition; risk factor; case control; questionnaire

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: A study of 171 surgical cases and 171 matched controls was conducted to investigate whether a familial predisposition toward tearing the anterior cruciate ligament of the knee exists. Study Design: Case control, study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients who were diagnosed with an anterior cruciate ligament tear were matched by age (within 5 years), gender, and primary sport to subjects without an anterior cruciate ligament tear. All 342 subjects completed a questionnaire detailing their family history of anterior cruciate ligament tears. Results: When controlling for subject age and number of relatives, participants with an anterior cruciate ligament tear were twice as likely to have a relative (first, second, or third degree) with an anterior cruciate ligament tear compared to participants without an anterior cruciate ligament tear (adjusted odds ratio = 2.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.19-3.33). When the analysis was limited to include only first-degree relatives, participants with an anterior cruciate ligament tear were slightly greater than twice as likely to have a first-degree relative with an anterior cruciate ligament tear compared to participants without an anterior cruciate ligament tear (adjusted odds ratio = 2.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.24-4.00). Conclusions: Findings are consistent with a familial predisposition toward tearing the anterior cruciate ligament. Clinical Relevance: Future research should concentrate on identifying the potentially modifiable risk factors that may be passed through families and developing strategies for the prevention of anterior cruciate ligament injuries.

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

4.6
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