Randomized controlled trial of all-inside and standard single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with functional, MRI-based graft maturity and patient-reported outcome measures.
All-inside
Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
Graft maturity
Knee laxity
Single-bundle
Journal
BMC musculoskeletal disorders
ISSN: 1471-2474
Titre abrégé: BMC Musculoskelet Disord
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968565
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 Mar 2022
26 Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
18
10
2021
accepted:
16
03
2022
entrez:
26
3
2022
pubmed:
27
3
2022
medline:
31
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
All-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a novel technique that has gained attention due to its minimally invasive and graft-saving properties. However, studies comparing MRI-based graft maturity between all-inside and standard ACLR are lacking. This study focused on the functional, knee laxity, and MRI-based graft maturity characteristics of all-inside and standard single-bundle ACLR. Randomized controlled trial (RCT). Fifty-four patients were randomly assigned to an all-inside reconstruction group (n = 27) or standard reconstruction group (n = 27). Using the same rehabilitation strategy. The Tegner, International Knee Documentation Committee, and Lysholm scores were recorded at postoperative months 3, 6, and 12 to assess functional recovery. MRI was conducted to measure the signal/noise quotient (SNQ) of the intra-articular graft to assess the maturity. A higher SNQ indicates lower graft maturity. Knee laxity was assessed using GNRB arthrometer at the postoperative month 12. The graft SNQ of the all-inside group was significantly higher than that of the standard group at postoperative month 6 (p < 0.05). There was no statistical difference in graft SNQ between the two groups at postoperative months 3 and 12 (p > 0.05). Both groups exhibited the highest SNQ in the middle region of the graft, followed by the proximal region, and the distal region. Functional scores improved significantly for both groups and had no statistical difference (p > 0.05). The knee laxity was higher in the all-inside group (p < 0.05) at postoperative month 12. There was no correlation between the functional scores and graft maturity in both groups (p > 0.05). All-inside and standard single-bundle ACLR show good functional outcomes; however, knee laxity was relatively higher in the all-inside ACLR group than in the standard ACLR group. Moreover, both techniques exhibited poor maturity in the middle graft region and the best in the distal region. Graft maturity with all-inside ACLR is inferior to that with standard ACLR in the early postoperative stages. There is no correlation between knee function and graft maturity. Clinical trial registration numbers: ChiCTR1800018543 . Date of registration: 09/23/2018.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
All-inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a novel technique that has gained attention due to its minimally invasive and graft-saving properties. However, studies comparing MRI-based graft maturity between all-inside and standard ACLR are lacking.
PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
This study focused on the functional, knee laxity, and MRI-based graft maturity characteristics of all-inside and standard single-bundle ACLR.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
Randomized controlled trial (RCT).
METHODS
METHODS
Fifty-four patients were randomly assigned to an all-inside reconstruction group (n = 27) or standard reconstruction group (n = 27). Using the same rehabilitation strategy. The Tegner, International Knee Documentation Committee, and Lysholm scores were recorded at postoperative months 3, 6, and 12 to assess functional recovery. MRI was conducted to measure the signal/noise quotient (SNQ) of the intra-articular graft to assess the maturity. A higher SNQ indicates lower graft maturity. Knee laxity was assessed using GNRB arthrometer at the postoperative month 12.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The graft SNQ of the all-inside group was significantly higher than that of the standard group at postoperative month 6 (p < 0.05). There was no statistical difference in graft SNQ between the two groups at postoperative months 3 and 12 (p > 0.05). Both groups exhibited the highest SNQ in the middle region of the graft, followed by the proximal region, and the distal region. Functional scores improved significantly for both groups and had no statistical difference (p > 0.05). The knee laxity was higher in the all-inside group (p < 0.05) at postoperative month 12. There was no correlation between the functional scores and graft maturity in both groups (p > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
All-inside and standard single-bundle ACLR show good functional outcomes; however, knee laxity was relatively higher in the all-inside ACLR group than in the standard ACLR group. Moreover, both techniques exhibited poor maturity in the middle graft region and the best in the distal region. Graft maturity with all-inside ACLR is inferior to that with standard ACLR in the early postoperative stages. There is no correlation between knee function and graft maturity.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Clinical trial registration numbers: ChiCTR1800018543 . Date of registration: 09/23/2018.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35337306
doi: 10.1186/s12891-022-05231-x
pii: 10.1186/s12891-022-05231-x
pmc: PMC8957124
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
289Subventions
Organisme : Shenzhen Health and Family Planning Commission
ID : SZLY2017004
Organisme : Shenzhen Health and Family Planning Commission
ID : SZLY2017004
Organisme : Shenzhen Health and Family Planning Commission
ID : SZLY2017004
Organisme : Shenzhen Health and Family Planning Commission
ID : SZLY2017004
Organisme : Shenzhen Health and Family Planning Commission
ID : SZLY2017004
Organisme : Shenzhen Health and Family Planning Commission
ID : SZLY2017004
Organisme : Shenzhen Health and Family Planning Commission
ID : SZLY2017004
Organisme : Shenzhen Health and Family Planning Commission
ID : SZLY2017004
Organisme : Shenzhen Health and Family Planning Commission
ID : SZLY2017004
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2001;9(2):86-91
pubmed: 11354858
Arthroscopy. 2006 Aug;22(8):900.e1-11
pubmed: 16904591
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 Aug;27(8):2577-2584
pubmed: 30406408
Am J Sports Med. 2021 Apr;49(5):1270-1278
pubmed: 33630656
Br J Sports Med. 2019 Dec;53(23):1454-1463
pubmed: 31072840
J Exp Orthop. 2020 Jun 1;7(1):40
pubmed: 32483664
Arthroscopy. 2013 Jul;29(7):1195-200
pubmed: 23809454
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018 Aug;26(8):2345-2352
pubmed: 28822999
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 Jan;27(1):130-136
pubmed: 30008057
Arthroscopy. 2013 Oct;29(10):1712-21
pubmed: 23859954
Am J Sports Med. 2014 Oct;42(10):2363-70
pubmed: 25086064
Orthop J Sports Med. 2019 Jan 08;7(1):2325967118820297
pubmed: 30671490
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020 Apr;28(4):1036-1044
pubmed: 31372680
Am J Sports Med. 2020 Oct;48(12):2970-2977
pubmed: 32909826
Arthroscopy. 2009 Nov;25(11):1275-80
pubmed: 19896050
Am J Sports Med. 2020 Mar;48(3):554-564
pubmed: 31967861
J Knee Surg. 2018 Oct;31(9):895-904
pubmed: 29528481
Arthroscopy. 2011 May;27(5):717-27
pubmed: 21663726
Orthop J Sports Med. 2019 Aug 13;7(8):2325967119863056
pubmed: 31448301
Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2016 Nov;102(7):867-872
pubmed: 27717747
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2020 Jul 7;21(1):445
pubmed: 32635920
Ann Surg. 1903 May;37(5):716-8
pubmed: 17861289
Sports Med Arthrosc Rev. 2010 Mar;18(1):20-6
pubmed: 20160626
J Orthop. 2017 Mar 19;14(2):241-246
pubmed: 28360487
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2018 Oct;26(10):3048-3054
pubmed: 29574546
Orthop J Sports Med. 2019 Jun 03;7(6):2325967119849012
pubmed: 31211151
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014 Sep;22(9):2102-8
pubmed: 23982759
Knee. 2021 Jan;28:1-8
pubmed: 33278738
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2019 May;98(5):387-391
pubmed: 30702461