Eversion and First Ray Plantarflexion Muscle Strength in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using a Peroneus Longus Tendon Graft.
Eversion
anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
first ray plantarflexion
peroneus longus
Journal
Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine
ISSN: 2325-9671
Titre abrégé: Orthop J Sports Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101620522
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2019
Sep 2019
Historique:
entrez:
22
10
2019
pubmed:
22
10
2019
medline:
22
10
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The peroneus longus tendon has been used as a graft in orthopaedic reconstruction surgery because of its comparable biomechanical strength with the native anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and hamstring tendon. However, one of the considerations in choosing an autograft is donor site morbidity. This study aimed to compare ankle eversion and first ray plantarflexion strength between the donor site and its contralateral site after ACL reconstruction. The study hypothesis was that strength measurements will be different between the harvest site and contralateral healthy site. Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Patients who underwent ACL reconstruction using a peroneus longus tendon autograft between March 2017 and December 2018 were included in this study. Patients followed a rehabilitation protocol from the first day after surgery. Ankle eversion and first ray plantarflexion strength were measured using a modified dynamometer 6 months after surgery. Donor site morbidity was assessed 6 months after surgery using the Foot & Ankle Disability Index (FADI) and American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) scoring system for the ankle and hindfoot. A total of 31 patients (22 male, 9 female; mean age, 27.58 ± 8.69 years [range, 18.00-45.00 years]) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in ankle eversion strength at the donor site compared with the contralateral site ( Ankle eversion and first ray plantarflexion strength at the donor site were similar to those at the contralateral healthy site, with no donor site morbidity. This suggests that the peroneus longus tendon is a promising graft in ACL reconstruction.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The peroneus longus tendon has been used as a graft in orthopaedic reconstruction surgery because of its comparable biomechanical strength with the native anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and hamstring tendon. However, one of the considerations in choosing an autograft is donor site morbidity.
PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to compare ankle eversion and first ray plantarflexion strength between the donor site and its contralateral site after ACL reconstruction. The study hypothesis was that strength measurements will be different between the harvest site and contralateral healthy site.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Case series; Level of evidence, 4.
METHODS
METHODS
Patients who underwent ACL reconstruction using a peroneus longus tendon autograft between March 2017 and December 2018 were included in this study. Patients followed a rehabilitation protocol from the first day after surgery. Ankle eversion and first ray plantarflexion strength were measured using a modified dynamometer 6 months after surgery. Donor site morbidity was assessed 6 months after surgery using the Foot & Ankle Disability Index (FADI) and American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) scoring system for the ankle and hindfoot.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 31 patients (22 male, 9 female; mean age, 27.58 ± 8.69 years [range, 18.00-45.00 years]) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in ankle eversion strength at the donor site compared with the contralateral site (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Ankle eversion and first ray plantarflexion strength at the donor site were similar to those at the contralateral healthy site, with no donor site morbidity. This suggests that the peroneus longus tendon is a promising graft in ACL reconstruction.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31632995
doi: 10.1177/2325967119872462
pii: 10.1177_2325967119872462
pmc: PMC6767728
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
2325967119872462Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2019.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest in the authorship and publication of this contribution. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.
Références
Foot Ankle Int. 1995 Aug;16(8):464-73
pubmed: 8520658
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2009 Jan;17(1):35-9
pubmed: 18818901
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 Nov;27(11):3552-3559
pubmed: 30877316
Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol. 2016 Apr 26;4:21-26
pubmed: 29264259
Foot Ankle Int. 2010 Sep;31(9):781-9
pubmed: 20880481
Am J Sports Med. 2003 Jan-Feb;31(1):2-11
pubmed: 12531750
J Knee Surg. 2019 Aug;32(8):804-811
pubmed: 30206913
Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2009 Mar;45(1):37-45
pubmed: 18987563
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2001 Nov;16(9):783-92
pubmed: 11714556
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Sep 07;(9):CD005960
pubmed: 21901700
Am J Sports Med. 2012 Mar;40(3):662-71
pubmed: 22174343
J Med Assoc Thai. 2015 Jun;98(6):555-60
pubmed: 26219159
Adv Biomed Res. 2014 May 19;3:115
pubmed: 24949286
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2004 Jan;19(1):71-7
pubmed: 14659933
Foot Ankle Int. 2004 Apr;25(4):242-6
pubmed: 15132932
Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2008 Jan-Feb;42(1):38-43
pubmed: 18354276