Medical and Dental Consultants’ Association of Nigeria
Home - About us - Editorial board - Search - Ahead of print - Current issue - Archives - Submit article - Instructions - Subscribe - Advertise - Contacts - Login 
  Users Online: 621   Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 19  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 475-479

Conventional trans-tibial versus anatomic medial portal technique for femoral tunnel preparation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction; comparison of clinical outcomes


1 Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Hitit University, Çorum, Turkey
2 Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Bülent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey
3 Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey

Correspondence Address:
Dr. E Sahin
Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Faculty of Medicine, Bulent Ecevit University, Zonguldak
Turkey
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1119-3077.183304

Rights and Permissions

Aim: Method of femoral tunnel preparation in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is controversial. In this study, we aimed to determine if there is any difference between the clinical outcomes of two most commonly used drilling techniques; which are conventional trans-tibial (TT) drilling of femoral tunnel and anatomic preparation of femoral tunnel through medial portal (MP), in patients who underwent ACL reconstruction. Material and Methods: One hundred and twenty-nine male patients who underwent ACL reconstruction between 2010 and 2012 were included in the study. Single-bundle reconstruction with a quadrupled autologous hamstring graft was performed in all patients. Femoral tunnel was drilled by the conventional TT technique in 58 patients (Group 1) and through MP in 71 patients (Group 2). Functional evaluation was made about 12 months postoperatively. Functional evaluation included the Lysholm Knee Scale, International Knee Documentation Committee Scoring (IKDC), and Tegner Activity Level Scale were used for assessment. The anteroposterior stability was assessed using KT-1000 arthrometer and the pivot shift test for assessment of rotational stability. Results: Interval between injury and surgery was similar between two groups (median 8.0 vs. 10 weeks, for TT vs. MP, respectively). One hundred twenty-five patients attending the final follow-up examination (96.8%) were evaluated. The results of Lysholm, IKDC, and Tegner scales were found to be similar. According to KT-1000 arthrometer results, MP group revealed slightly better results than TT group. Regarding pivot shift, MP group showed significantly better stability than TT group (P < 0.001). Conclusion: The anatomical single-bundle femoral tunnel preparation in the reconstruction of the ACL seems as effective as the conventional technique in terms of functional stability in the midterm. The technique better preserved the rotational stability in non-professional athletes.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2456    
    Printed60    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded372    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 6    

Recommend this journal