Oval femoral tunnel technique is superior to the conventional round femoral tunnel technique using the hamstring tendon in anatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: This study was conducted to compare the efficacy between the oval femoral tunnel technique and the conventional round femoral tunnel technique in ACL reconstruction using an autologous hamstring tendon on the basis of the postoperative clinical outcomes and ACL graft tendon maturity. The hypothesis was that ACL reconstruction performed using the oval femoral tunnel technique was better than that performed using the round femoral tunnel technique in clinical functions and graft maturity. METHODS: One hundred and eight patients who underwent anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction were included in this study and the follow-up period was at least 2 years. Thirty-nine patients admitted between February and August in 2016 were included in the oval femoral tunnel group and 69 patients admitted between September 2016 and March 2017 were included in the round femoral tunnel group. The Lachman test result, pivot-shift test result, Lysholm score, IKDC score, and VAS score were used for the clinical evaluation. An objective assessment of anteroposterior stability was performed using a KT1000 arthrometer. Postoperative MRI was conducted to compare the ACL graft maturity differences between the oval femoral tunnel group and round femoral tunnel group, where the signal/noise quotient (SNQ) was calculated. In addition, second-look arthroscopy was conducted to compare the graft status and synovial coverage at 24 months postoperatively. RESULTS: All the patients presented with significant improvement in all clinical scores from the preoperative period to the 24-month follow-up. During the postoperative follow-up period, no statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of the VAS score, knee ROM, Lachman test results, and graft status determined in the second-look arthroscopic evaluation. The Lysholm score was 97.1 ± 3.9 and 94.8 ± 5.6 in the oval femoral tunnel group and round femoral tunnel group, respectively, at the 24-month follow-up (p = 0.031). The IKDC subjective score was 92.0 ± 2.6 and 89.0 ± 3.6 in the oval femoral tunnel group and round femoral tunnel group, respectively, at the end of the follow-up period (p < 0.001). Significantly more patients with 1-degree positive pivot-shift test results were observed in the round femoral tunnel group (10/65) than in the oval femoral tunnel group (1/37) at the end of the follow-up period (p = 0.048). The mean SNQ of the oval femoral tunnel group was 2.7 ± 0.9, which was significantly lower than that of the round femoral tunnel group (3.6 ± 1.1) at the 24-month postoperative follow-up (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the clinical evaluations, MRI findings and second-look arthroscopy results of the two groups, the oval femoral tunnel technique yielded significantly better knee function and knee laxity restoration and more mature ACL grafts than the round femoral tunnel technique, whereas no significant differences were found at the second-look arthroscopy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».