Outside-in vs. Transportal Technique for ACL reconstruction .
This report has been verified
by one or more authors of the
original publication.
Este estudio ha sido identificado como potencialmente de alto impacto.
La métrica de alto impacto de OE, impulsada por la IA, estima la influencia que probablemente tendrá un artículo integrando señales tanto de la revista en la que se publica como del contenido científico del propio artículo.
Desarrollado mediante el procesamiento del lenguaje natural más avanzado, el modelo de Alto Impacto de OE predice con mayor precisión el futuro rendimiento de las citas de un estudio que el factor de impacto de la revista por sí solo.
Esto permite reconocer antes las investigaciones clínicamente significativas y ayuda a los lectores a centrarse en los artículos con más probabilidades de configurar la práctica futura.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2014;2(3):31 Am J Sports Med. 2013 Nov;41(11):2512-2080 patients who had experienced a primary unilateral anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury were randomly assigned into 1 of 2 groups to compare femoral tunnel aperture shape and femoral tunnel position. Patients received either a transportal (group 1) or outside-in (groups 2) technique for ACL reconstruction. The results of the study indicated that the transportal (TP) technique led to a more ellipsoidal anteromedial (AM) femoral tunnel aperture than the outside-in (OI) technique, and that mean posterolateral femoral tunnel position with the OI technique was significantly shallower, with more variable/perpendicular aperture axis angle to the femoral shaft axis than the TP technique.
Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?
Was allocation adequately concealed?
Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?
Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?
Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?
Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?
Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?
Sí = 1
Incierto = 0,5
No relevante = 0
No = 0
La evaluación de los criterios de información evalúa la transparencia con la que los autores informan de las características metodológicas y del ensayo dentro de la publicación. La evaluación se divide en cinco categorías que se presentan a continuación.
4/4
Randomization
4/4
Outcome Measurements
4/4
Inclusion / Exclusion
4/4
Therapy Description
4/4
Statistics
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
El Índice de Fragilidad es una herramienta que ayuda en la interpretación de hallazgos significativos, proporcionando una medida de fuerza para un resultado. El Índice de Fragilidad representa el número de eventos consecutivos que es necesario añadir a un resultado dicotómico para que el hallazgo deje de ser significativo. Un número pequeño representa un hallazgo más débil y un número grande un hallazgo más fuerte.
¿Por qué se necesitaba ahora este estudio?
Recent interest regarding anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has led to further research on the anatomy and biomechanics of the native ACL. Current anatomic ACL reconstruction techniques place tunnels in the center of the native femoral and tibial insertion sites with the goal of restoring physiological function of the native ACL. Due to certain restraints with the conventional non-anatomic ACL reconstruction (through the transtibial technique), popularity of the transportal (TP) and outside-in (OI) techniques has risen, because of their focus on independent drilling to form the femoral tunnel. Previous studies have compared non-anatomic to anatomic ACL reconstruction techniques and have demonstrated favourable results for ACL reconstruction with the use of anatomic techniques, but no studies have thoroughly compared TP to OI techniques in terms of femoral tunnel aperture.
¿Cuál era la pregunta principal de la investigación?
How does the femoral tunnel aperture shape and femoral tunnel position compare between transportal and outside-in techniques when performing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction?
- Average H/W ratio of the AM femoral tunnel was 1.35 +/- 0.16 in the TP group and 1.22 +/- 0.16 in the OI Group, demonstrating a significantly more elliptical aperature in the TP group than the OI Group (p=0.008).
- No significant differences in PL femoral tunnels was found between the two groups (H/W ratio = 1.32 +/- 0.23 in the TP group vs. 1.35 +/- 0.29 in the OI group) (p=0.99).
- Mean aperture axis angle in the PL femoral tunnel of the OI group (23.3 degrees +/- 27.1 degrees) was more perpendicular to the femoral shaft axis and had a larger variable range than the TP group (8.09 degrees +/- 7.70 ) (p=0.007).
- No significant differences in AM femoral tunnels were found between the groups regarding axis angle (TP group = 17.5 degrees +/- 17.3 vs. 18.4 degrees +/- 23.5) (p=0.87).
- Mean distance of the AM and PL femoral tunnel positions parallel to the Blumensaat line were 23.6% +/- 3.7 and 33.9% +/- 5.8 in the TP group respectively, and 24.6% +/- 4.4% and 37.5% +/- 5.0 in the OI group respectively, along the line measured from the posterior border of the medial wall of the lateral condyle.
- Mean distance of the AM and PL femoral tunnel positions perpendicular to the Blumensaat line were 19.1% +/- 8.8 and 49.5% +/- 7.8 in the TP group respectively, and 21.1% +/- 9.7and 51.1% +/- 9.5% in the OI group respectively, along the line measured from Blumensaat line.
- No significant differences in AM femoral tunnel position between the two groups were found. However, mean PL femoral tunnel position parallel to the Blumensaat line in the OI group was shallower in the arthroscopic view than in the TP group (p=0.06).
¿Qué es lo que más debo recordar?
The mean height/width ratio of the AM femoral tunnels in the TP group was significantly greater than the OI group. No difference between the groups in PL tunnels regarding height/width ratio was found. Mean aperture axis angle of the PL femoral tunnels was significantly more perpendicular to the femoral shaft axis and had more variable range in the OI group when compared to the TP group. Mean PL femoral tunnel position in the OI group was significantly shallower and slightly higher than the TP group.
¿Cómo afectará esto al cuidado de mis pacientes?
The findings of the study would suggest that a TP technique may be more advantageous than OI in terms of graft coverage, due to a more ellipsoidal AM femoral tunnel and horizontal/consistent PL aperture axis angle. However, it may be useful to take into account the shallower PL femoral tunnel positions that occur when using the OI technique. Further research on this topic, with standardised starting positions, must be completed to verify these results. Also, whether these differences result in better clinical outcome with either technique should also be determined.
DESCARGO DE RESPONSABILIDAD
El contenido de esta página tiene únicamente fines informativos y no pretende sustituir el consejo, diagnóstico o tratamiento médico profesional. Si necesita tratamiento médico, busque siempre el consejo de su médico o acuda al servicio de urgencias más cercano. Las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista expresados por las personas sobre el contenido que se encuentra en esta página no reflejan las opiniones, creencias y puntos de vista de OrthoEvidence.
0 de 4 artículos mensuales GRATIS desbloqueados
