PDF
ePub
Citation
Print
Abstract
Purpose
We classified patients who underwent arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction into six groups according to graft material and age, and clinical, radiological, and second look arthroscopic results were compared and analyzed.
Materials and Methods
From January 2006 to December 2009, 57 patients underwent arthroscopic ACL reconstruction and second look arthroscopic examination. We divided patients according to graft materials into the autogenic hamstring tendon group (group 1) and the allogenic tibialis tendon group (group 2), and according to age into three groups (A, B, and C). The mean age at follow-up for second look arthroscopy was 34 years old. Fifty four patients were male and three patients were female, and mean follow-up period was 21.8 months. The result was clinically evaluated using a KT-1000 arthrometer under anesthesia, and the subjective and objective score of International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), and radiologically evaluated using the Telos™ stress test. We observed graft tension, synovialization and gross findings through a second look arthroscopic examination.
Results
The clinical and radiographic results in patients in group 1 and group A showed excellent finding, however, no statistically significant difference was observed. Second look arthroscopic examination in group 1 and group A showed excellent finding. In particular, the formation of synovialization showed excellent finding (50% or more synovialization) in 75% of patients in group 1A who were young and used an autogenic tendon graft, and 45% of patients in group 2C (over 50 years old and allogenic graft), and they were significantly different (p=0.046). There was significant difference in that tension of graft was excellent in group 1A (less than 3 mm). Through the IKDC evaluation method, 93% of cases that showed normal formation of synovialization and 50% of cases that showed inadequate formation of synovialization showed 'like normal' abnormality, so that was correlation was observed between synovialization and IKDC evaluation (p=0.001).
Figures and Tables
Figure 1
Measurement of graft tension at second arthroscopic finding. (A) Less than 3 mm graft tension was observed. (B) Between 3 to 5 mm graft tension was observed. (C) Greater than 5 mm graft tension was observed.
Figure 2
Gross appearance of graft at second look arthroscopic finding. (A) Grossly normal appearance was seen. (B) Grossly, superficial tear appearance was seen. (C) Grossly, substantial tear appearance was seen.
Figure 3
Measurement of graft synovialization at second look arthroscopic finding. (A) Good synovialization was seen. (B) Half degree synovialization was seen. (C) Pale degree synovialization was seen.
References
1. Janssen KW, Orchard JW, Driscoll TR, van Mechelen W. High incidence and costs for anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions performed in Australia from 2003-2004 to 2007-2008: time for an anterior cruciate ligament register by Scandinavian model? Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2012; 22:495–501.
2. Fetto JF, Marshall JL. The natural history and diagnosis of anterior cruciate ligament insufficiency. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1980; 147:29–38.
3. Gerber C, Matter P. Biomechanical analysis of the knee after rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament and its primary repair. An instant-centre analysis of function. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1983; 65:391–399.
4. Dye SF, Wojtys EM, Fu FH, Fithian DC, Gillquist I. Factors contributing to function of the knee joint after injury or reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. Instr Course Lect. 1999; 48:185–198.
5. Poehling GG, Curl WW, Lee CA, et al. Analysis of outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament repair with 5-year follow-up: allograft versus autograft. Arthroscopy. 2005; 21:774–785.
6. Sherman OH, Banffy MB. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: which graft is best? Arthroscopy. 2004; 20:974–980.
7. Corry IS, Webb JM, Clingeleffer AJ, Pinczewski LA. Arthroscopic reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. A comparison of patellar tendon autograft and four-strand hamstring tendon autograft. Am J Sports Med. 1999; 27:444–454.
8. Lind M, Menhert F, Pedersen AB. The first results from the Danish ACL reconstruction registry: epidemiologic and 2 year follow-up results from 5,818 knee ligament reconstructions. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009; 17:117–124.
9. Eriksson K, Anderberg P, Hamberg P, et al. A comparison of quadruple semitendinosus and patellar tendon grafts in reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001; 83:348–354.
10. Englund M, Guermazi A, Lohmander SL. The role of the meniscus in knee osteoarthritis: a cause or consequence? Radiol Clin North Am. 2009; 47:703–712.
11. Mastrangelo AN, Magarian EM, Palmer MP, Vavken P, Murray MM. The effect of skeletal maturity on the regenerative function of intrinsic ACL cells. J Orthop Res. 2010; 28:644–651.
12. Barber FA, Elrod BF, McGuire DA, Paulos LE. Is an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction outcome age dependent? Arthroscopy. 1996; 12:720–725.
13. Song EK. Anatomy and function of the arterior creciate ligament. J Korean Knee Soc. 1989; 1:19–21.
14. Choi HR, Choi SW, Kwon SW, Park JS, Lee BI. Comparison of clinical results in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft and using Achilles tendon allograft. J Korean Orthop Assoc. 2008; 43:618–624.
15. Ahn JH, Ha CW, Kim PS. Comparison of the clinical results of the fixation techniques to femur in ACL reconstruction using hamstring double-loops: Bioscrews vs. Semi-Fix. J Korean Knee Soc. 1999; 11:32–38.
16. Barber FA. Tripled semitendinosus-cancellous bone anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with Bioscrew fixation. Arthroscopy. 1999; 15:360–367.
17. Miller SL, Gladstone JN. Graft selection in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthop Clin North Am. 2002; 33:675–683.
18. Chen L, Cooley V, Rosenberg T. ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon. Orthop Clin North Am. 2003; 34:9–18.
19. Harner CD, Olson E, Irrgang JJ, Silverstein S, Fu FH, Silbey M. Allograft versus autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: 3- to 5-year outcome. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996; 324:134–144.
20. Song EK, Seon JK, Bae BH, Park SJ, Kim JS, Lee DS. Comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions using hamstring tendon autograft and tibialis tendon allograft. J Korean Arthrosc Soc. 2006; 10:141–147.
21. Yoo JD, Kim SI. Results of the reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament with freshfrozen achilles allograft and of the second-look arthroscopy. J Korean Arthrosc Soc. 2007; 11:111–116.
22. Noh JH, Yang BG, Roh YH, Lee JS. Synovialization on second-look arthroscopy after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using Achilles allograft in active young men. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011; 19:1843–1850.
23. Viola R, Vianello R. Intra-articular ACL reconstruction in the over-40-year-old patient. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 1999; 7:25–28.
24. Hogervorst T, Brand RA. Mechanoreceptors in joint function. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998; 80:1365–1378.
25. Englund M. The role of the meniscus in osteoarthritis genesis. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2008; 34:573–579.
26. Daniel DM, Malcolm L, Stone ML, Perth H, Morgan J, Riehl B. Quantification of knee stability and function. Contemp Orthop. 1982; 5:83–91.
27. Kim JY, Kim DW, Kim JG. The effectiveness of the IKDC subjective score in clinical outcome study after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Korean Orthop Soc Sports Med. 2008; 7:95–121.
28. Rice RS, Waterman BR, Lubowitz JH. Allograft versus autograft decision for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an expected-value decision analysis evaluating hypothetical patients. Arthroscopy. 2012; 28:539–547.
XML Download