Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
No clinical differences between anteromedial portal and transtibial technique for femoral tunnel positioning in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized, controlled trial
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
No clinical differences between anteromedial portal and transtibial technique for femoral tunnel positioning in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized, controlled trial
Do you wish to request the book?
No clinical differences between anteromedial portal and transtibial technique for femoral tunnel positioning in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized, controlled trial
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
No clinical differences between anteromedial portal and transtibial technique for femoral tunnel positioning in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized, controlled trial
2018
Overview
Purpose
The anteromedial (AMP) portal technique was introduced to position the femoral tunnel in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction to more closely replicate the original ACL footprint compared to the transtibial (TT) approach. Few randomized trials have evaluated differences in these techniques with respect to clinical outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine if there are any differences in clinical outcome between the AMP and TT approaches.
Methods
This is a single-blinded, prospective, randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized to undergo ACL reconstruction using the AMP or TT approach. The primary outcome measure was the ACL quality of life (ACL-QOL), and secondary outcomes were the IKDC knee assessment, side-to-side difference in anterior–posterior knee laxity (KT-1000) and tunnel orientation (X-ray findings) at preoperative, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperative. Statistical comparisons were performed using a series of
t
tests for independent groups with equal variance.
Results
Ninety-six participants were consented and randomized between 2007 and 2011 with eight excluded postrandomization. Mean (SD) preoperative ACL-QOL was 33 (13) for TT and 36 (17) for AMP and improved significantly (
p
< 0.001) in both groups to 79 (18) and 78 (18) at 24 months postoperative, respectively. The preoperative median IKDC grade for both groups was C and improved similarly in both groups at 24 months (n.s.). There was no side-to-side difference in knee laxity based on KT-1000 measurements with a mean (SD) 1 (3) mm between affected and unaffected limbs in the TT group compared to 1 (3) mm for the AMP group. A significant difference was found in femoral tunnel orientation with the AMP group at 43° (7) and the TT group 58° (8) in the coronal plane (
p
< 0.001).
Conclusion
No differences in clinical outcome were found when comparing AMP to TT in primary ACL reconstruction using a STG graft. This prospective randomized controlled trial suggests surgeons can use either method without significantly compromising clinical outcome.
Level of evidence
I.
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg,John Wiley & Sons, Inc
