A comparison of the anteromedial and transtibial drilling technique in ACL reconstruction after a short-term follow-up

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorAzboy, Ibrahim
dc.contributor.authorDemirtas, Abdullah
dc.contributor.authorGem, Mehmet
dc.contributor.authorKiran, Seymuz
dc.contributor.authorAlemdar, Celil
dc.contributor.authorBulut, Mehmet
dc.date.accessioned2024-04-24T16:00:17Z
dc.date.available2024-04-24T16:00:17Z
dc.date.issued2014
dc.departmentDicle Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractThe purpose of this study was to compare clinical and radiological outcomes of patients who underwent single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with anteromedial portal (AMP) and transtibial (TT) techniques. Arthroscopic single-bundle ACL reconstruction was performed using AMP technique in 34 patients and TT technique in 30 patients. The patients were evaluated retrospectively. Aperture fixation was used for femoral fixation, and absorbable screws and U staples were used for tibial fixation of the graft. Pivot shift test, Lachman test, Lysholm, Tegner, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC-2000) scoring systems were used in the clinical and functional evaluation of patients before and after the surgery. Time to return sports and activity level were assessed. In the radiological evaluation of non-anatomic bone tunnel placement, the criteria developed by lllingworth et al. were used. The mean duration of follow-up was 20.4 and 24.6 months in the AMP and TT groups, respectively. There was a significant difference between the AMP group (86.7 %) and the TT (14.7 %) group in terms of anatomical placement of the femoral tunnels and grafts (p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed between the two groups in terms of the Pivot shift test, Lachman test, Lysholm, Tegner, and IKDC scores, and activity level (p > 0.05). The patients in the AMP group returned to sports 1.5 months earlier on average (p < 0.001). It was shown that AMP technique was superior to the TT technique in providing anatomical placement of the graft and in recovery time to return sports; however, there was no difference between groups in early periods in terms of the clinical and functional outcomes.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00402-014-1996-6
dc.identifier.endpage969en_US
dc.identifier.issn0936-8051
dc.identifier.issn1434-3916
dc.identifier.issue7en_US
dc.identifier.pmid24770982
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84903964190
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1
dc.identifier.startpage963en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-014-1996-6
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11468/14426
dc.identifier.volume134en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000338228400011
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ2
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherSpringeren_US
dc.relation.ispartofArchives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectAnatomical Reconstructionen_US
dc.subjectAnterior Cruciate Ligamenten_US
dc.subjectAnteromedial Portalen_US
dc.subjectTranstibial Techniqueen_US
dc.subjectSingle Bundleen_US
dc.titleA comparison of the anteromedial and transtibial drilling technique in ACL reconstruction after a short-term follow-upen_US
dc.titleA comparison of the anteromedial and transtibial drilling technique in ACL reconstruction after a short-term follow-up
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu