Clinical and Arthroscopic Outcome of single bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Comparison of remnant preservation versus conventional technique

• Published in: The knee 2017-10, Vol.24 (5), p.1025-1032
• Main Authors: Choi, Sungwook, Kim, Myung-Ku, Park, Ji Eun, Kang, Hyunseong
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adult; Anterior cruciate ligament; Anterior Cruciate Ligament - surgery; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries - complications; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries - surgery; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction - adverse effects; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction - methods; Arthroscopy; Clinical outcomes; Female; Humans; Joint and ligament injuries; Joint Instability - etiology; Joint Instability - surgery; Knee; Knee Joint - surgery; Male; Middle Aged; NMR; Nuclear magnetic resonance; Orthopedics; Preservation; Remnant preservation; Retrospective Studies; Second-Look Surgery; Single bundle reconstructions; Skin & tissue grafts; Surgeons; Surgery; Tendons; Tendons - transplantation; Tension tests; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
• ISSN: 0968-0160; 1873-5800
• DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2017.05.012

Abstract Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and second-look arthroscopic findings of remnant preservation technique with those of conventional anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in single bundle ACL reconstructions. Methods 162 consecutive patients underwent ACL reconstruction by one surgeon, with 93 patients receiving remnant preservation technique (Group A) and 69 patients receiving conventional ACL reconstruction (Group B). The mean follow-up was 15 months. Clinical outcomes were assessed using Lysholm scores and the International Knee Documentation Committee form (IKDC form) evaluation. Post-operative knee stability was evaluated through manual knee laxity evaluation, pivot-shift test, and a Telos device. Results Differences in post-operative stability (manual knee laxity, pivot shift test and Telos device) were not significant between the groups (p = 0.681, p = 0.610, p = 0.696). And also no significant differences were noted with respect to the IKDC form and the latest Lysholm scores. But in the second-look arthroscopic findings, synovial coverage was confirmed to be excellent in 36% (22/61) of Group A patients and 23% (7/30) of Group B patients. Conclusions ACL reconstruction with both techniques was found to result in acceptable stability, clinical outcomes and second-look arthroscopic findings. With regards to synovial coverage, the remnant reservation techniques was found to be superior to conventional ACL reconstruction. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective comparative study.