...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Arthroscopy: the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association >Anteromedial portal versus outside-in technique for creating femoral tunnels in anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions
【24h】

Anteromedial portal versus outside-in technique for creating femoral tunnels in anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions

机译：在解剖前韧带重建中创建股骨隧道的股骨隧道的主题网路技术

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Purpose: To determine whether the anteromedial (AM) portal and outside-in techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction differ (1) in the coronal femoral tunnel position, (2) in the femoral tunnel length, and (3) in the incidence of femoral tunnelerelated complications, such as femoral socket blowout. Methods: We examined 63 knees undergone primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions using the AM portal technique (AM portal group) and 54 knees using the outside-in technique (outside-in group). Coronal femoral tunnel positions between the 2 groups were assessed on postoperative tunnel-view radiographs and compared. Comparisons of femoral tunnel lengths, proportions of knees with a femoral tunnel length of less than 30 mm, and incidences of femoral tunnelerelated complications were performed between the 2 groups. Results: There were no significant differences in coronal femoral tunnel positions between the AM portal and outside-in groups (56.6齰 56.4?P > .99). Differences in femoral tunnel lengths between the AM portal and outside-in groups did not reach statistical significance (37.6 mm and 39.0 mm, respectively; P = .097), but the tunnel length of the outside-in group showed smaller variation than that of the AM portal group in terms of standard deviation (2.7 v 6.0). In addition, the AM portal group had a significantly greater proportion of knees with a femoral tunnel length of less than 30 mm than the outside-in group (14% v 0%, P = .004). There were 2 tunnel-related complications (3%) (highly suspicious cortical blowouts) in the AM portal group and none in the outside-in group (P = .499). Conclusions: This study shows that compared with the AM portal technique, the outside-in technique can achieve a similar femoral tunnel position in the coronal plane with a reduced chance of a femoral tunnel length of less than 30 mm. Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic case series.
机译：目的：确定前十字架韧带重建中的前期（AM）门岩和外部技术是否在冠状股隧道位置（2）中的股骨隧道长度（2），（3）在股骨头的发生率Tunnelered并发症，如股骨插座井喷。方法：使用AM门岩技术（AM门户组）和使用外部技术（外部组），检查了63个膝关节内部旋转韧带重建和54个膝关节。在术后隧道视图射线照片上评估2组之间的冠状股隧道位置并进行比较。股骨隧道长度的比较，股骨隧道长度小于30毫米的膝盖的比例，并且在2组之间进行股骨隧道并发症的发生率。结果：AM门户网站和外部组之间的冠状股骨隧道位置没有显着差异（56.6÷56.4？.99）。股骨口和外部组之间的股骨隧道长度的差异没有达到统计学意义（分别37.6 mm和39.0 mm; p = .097），但外放组的隧道长度显示比其更小的变化在标准差（2.7 V 6.0）方面的AM门户组。此外，AM门尔组的膝盖比例明显增加，股骨隧道长度小于30毫米（14％V 0％，P = .004）。在AM门户组中有2个隧道相关的并发症（3％）（3％）（高度可疑的皮质井喷），在外面的组中没有任何内容（P = .499）。结论：本研究表明，与AM门户技术相比，外部技术可以在冠状平面中实现类似的股骨隧道位置，其股隧道长度小于30mm。证据水平：IV级，治疗案例系列。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号