Outside-in vs. Transportal Technique for ACL reconstruction .
This report has been verified
by one or more authors of the
original publication.
Cette étude a été identifiée comme étant potentiellement à fort impact.
L'indicateur High Impact de l'ENP, basé sur l'IA, estime l'influence qu'un article est susceptible d'avoir en intégrant des signaux provenant à la fois de la revue dans laquelle il est publié et du contenu scientifique de l'article lui-même.
Développé à l'aide d'un traitement du langage naturel de pointe, le modèle High Impact de l'ENP prédit avec plus de précision les futures citations d'une étude que le seul facteur d'impact de la revue.
Cela permet d'identifier plus tôt les recherches cliniquement significatives et aide les lecteurs à se concentrer sur les articles les plus susceptibles d'influencer les pratiques futures.
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)?
Oui = 1
Incertain = 0,5
Non pertinent = 0
Non = 0
L'évaluation des critères de rapport permet d'évaluer la transparence avec laquelle les auteurs rapportent les caractéristiques méthodologiques et les caractéristiques de l'essai dans la publication. L'évaluation est divisée en cinq catégories qui sont présentées ci-dessous.
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
L'indice de fragilité est un outil qui aide à l'interprétation des résultats significatifs, en fournissant une mesure de la force d'un résultat. L'indice de fragilité représente le nombre d'événements consécutifs qui doivent être ajoutés à un résultat dichotomique pour que le résultat ne soit plus significatif. Un petit nombre représente un résultat plus faible et un grand nombre un résultat plus fort.
Pourquoi cette étude était-elle nécessaire maintenant ?
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.
Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?
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).
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?
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.
Comment cela affectera-t-il les soins prodigués à mes patients ?
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.
AVIS DE NON-RESPONSABILITÉ
Le contenu de cette page est fourni à titre d'information uniquement et n'est pas destiné à remplacer un avis médical, un diagnostic ou un traitement professionnel. Si vous avez besoin d'un traitement médical, demandez toujours l'avis de votre médecin ou rendez-vous au service des urgences le plus proche. Les opinions, croyances et points de vue exprimés par les individus sur le contenu de cette page ne reflètent pas les opinions, croyances et points de vue d'OrthoEvidence.
0 de 4 articles mensuels GRATUITS débloqués
