Comparison of the Functional Outcomes of Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction through the All-inside and Outside-in Techniques: A Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial

• Published in: Revista brasileira de ortopedia 2024-06, Vol.59 (3), p.e385-e392
• Main Authors: Varghese, Paulson, Patra, Saroj Kumar, Das, Gurudip, Patro, Bishnu P, Jain, Gunjar, P, Haridas M
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Artigo Original; ORTHOPEDICS
• ISSN: 0102-3616; 1982-4378; 1982-4378
• DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1786726

To compare the functional outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with hamstring autograft (HA) through the all-inside (AI) technique with adjustable-loop cortical Endobutton (Smith & Nephew, Watford, Hertfordshire, England) on the sides of the femur and tibia and through the outside-in (OI) technique using an interference screw on the tibial side and a cortical Endobutton on the femoral side.  The present is a double-blinded randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 44 patients undergoing arthroscopic ACL reconstruction from February 2019 to February 2022 in a tertiary care hospital. As per computer-based randomization, the patients were distributed into two groups: the AI and OI groups. Both groups were evaluated for 12 months using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), the Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, and part I (pain score) and part II (function score) of the Knee Society Score (KSS).  On postoperative day 2, the VAS score was significantly higher in the OI group (  = 0.0001), but insignificant (  = 0.807) at 6 weeks. At 3, 6, and 12 months of follow-up, the score on the Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale was significantly higher (  = 0.001) in the AI group. At 6 months, both parts of the KSS showed a significant difference, with the AI group presenting a better outcome (  = 0.04). However, at 12 months, the AI group presented a better score on part I of the KSS, but no differences were observed regarding part II.  In a follow-up of 12 months, the patients submitted to the AI technique presented better outcome scores and pain relief than those submitted to the OI technique.