No difference at two years between all inside transtibial technique and traditional transtibial technique in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Piero Volpi, Corrado Bait, Matteo Cervellin, Matteo Denti, Emanuele Prospero, Emanuela Morenghi, Alessandro Quaglia

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: one of the most recent technique is the "all inside" anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. One of the main characteristic of this procedure is the sparing of the tibial cortex. Furthermore, the all-inside technique requires only one tendon harvested. Purpose: the present study describes two year clinical outcomes of the all-inside method for ACL reconstruction, and compares them with clinical results of a group of patients treated with the traditional transtibial single-bundle ACL reconstruction technique using the semitendinosus and gra-cilis tendons (ST-G). Study design: pilot study, using historical controls. Methods: ACL reconstruction was performed on two groups of 20 patients each. The patients in one group underwent the all-inside transtibial technique with ST tendon alone. The second group underwent ACL reconstruction with the traditional transtibial single-bundle procedure using quadrupled ST-G tendons. Follow up at 24 months was undertaken using the IKDC, VAS pain score, Lysholm and Tegner scales. Results: the VAS pain score for the traditional ACL group was 84.6 ± 12.6; whereas the score for the all-inside group was 81.6 ± 13.1, with no statistically significant differences between the two groups. In the traditional ACL reconstruction group the Lysholm scale gave a "good results" for 7 patient (35%) and "excellent results" for 13 patients (65%) and the all-inside group gave "sufficient results" for 4 patients (20%), "good results" for 7 patients (35%) and "excellent results" for 9 patients (45%) (n.s.). The median of Tegner score was 6.5 (2-10) for the standard method group and 6 (1-9) for the all-inside group (n.s). The IKDC evaluated 50% of patients from the standard technique group as class A, and 45% as class B and 5% as class C. As regards patients of the all inside technique 55% were class A, 40% class B and, here too, just 5% scored as class C. No patients were classed as group D in each group. Conclusions: this study suggests that, in respect to return to sports and adequate articular function, there are no differences between the all-inside transtibial ACL reconstruction technique and the traditional transtibial ACL reconstruction using ST-G. The role of all-inside transtibial ACL reconstruction remains dubious. Level of evidence: III or Level C according with Oxford Center of EBM.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)95-99
Number of pages5
JournalMuscles, Ligaments and Tendons Journal
Volume4
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Tendons
Pain
Anterior Cruciate Ligament
Joints

Keywords

  • All-inside technique
  • Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
  • Clinical outcome

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine

Cite this

No difference at two years between all inside transtibial technique and traditional transtibial technique in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. / Volpi, Piero; Bait, Corrado; Cervellin, Matteo; Denti, Matteo; Prospero, Emanuele; Morenghi, Emanuela; Quaglia, Alessandro.

In: Muscles, Ligaments and Tendons Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2014, p. 95-99.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{b42d24f4c5b245be8f36e343610f8d37,
title = "No difference at two years between all inside transtibial technique and traditional transtibial technique in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction",
abstract = "Background: one of the most recent technique is the {"}all inside{"} anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. One of the main characteristic of this procedure is the sparing of the tibial cortex. Furthermore, the all-inside technique requires only one tendon harvested. Purpose: the present study describes two year clinical outcomes of the all-inside method for ACL reconstruction, and compares them with clinical results of a group of patients treated with the traditional transtibial single-bundle ACL reconstruction technique using the semitendinosus and gra-cilis tendons (ST-G). Study design: pilot study, using historical controls. Methods: ACL reconstruction was performed on two groups of 20 patients each. The patients in one group underwent the all-inside transtibial technique with ST tendon alone. The second group underwent ACL reconstruction with the traditional transtibial single-bundle procedure using quadrupled ST-G tendons. Follow up at 24 months was undertaken using the IKDC, VAS pain score, Lysholm and Tegner scales. Results: the VAS pain score for the traditional ACL group was 84.6 ± 12.6; whereas the score for the all-inside group was 81.6 ± 13.1, with no statistically significant differences between the two groups. In the traditional ACL reconstruction group the Lysholm scale gave a {"}good results{"} for 7 patient (35{\%}) and {"}excellent results{"} for 13 patients (65{\%}) and the all-inside group gave {"}sufficient results{"} for 4 patients (20{\%}), {"}good results{"} for 7 patients (35{\%}) and {"}excellent results{"} for 9 patients (45{\%}) (n.s.). The median of Tegner score was 6.5 (2-10) for the standard method group and 6 (1-9) for the all-inside group (n.s). The IKDC evaluated 50{\%} of patients from the standard technique group as class A, and 45{\%} as class B and 5{\%} as class C. As regards patients of the all inside technique 55{\%} were class A, 40{\%} class B and, here too, just 5{\%} scored as class C. No patients were classed as group D in each group. Conclusions: this study suggests that, in respect to return to sports and adequate articular function, there are no differences between the all-inside transtibial ACL reconstruction technique and the traditional transtibial ACL reconstruction using ST-G. The role of all-inside transtibial ACL reconstruction remains dubious. Level of evidence: III or Level C according with Oxford Center of EBM.",
keywords = "All-inside technique, Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, Clinical outcome",
author = "Piero Volpi and Corrado Bait and Matteo Cervellin and Matteo Denti and Emanuele Prospero and Emanuela Morenghi and Alessandro Quaglia",
year = "2014",
language = "English",
volume = "4",
pages = "95--99",
journal = "Muscles, Ligaments and Tendons Journal",
issn = "2240-4554",
publisher = "CIC Edizioni Internazionali",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - No difference at two years between all inside transtibial technique and traditional transtibial technique in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

AU - Volpi, Piero

AU - Bait, Corrado

AU - Cervellin, Matteo

AU - Denti, Matteo

AU - Prospero, Emanuele

AU - Morenghi, Emanuela

AU - Quaglia, Alessandro

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - Background: one of the most recent technique is the "all inside" anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. One of the main characteristic of this procedure is the sparing of the tibial cortex. Furthermore, the all-inside technique requires only one tendon harvested. Purpose: the present study describes two year clinical outcomes of the all-inside method for ACL reconstruction, and compares them with clinical results of a group of patients treated with the traditional transtibial single-bundle ACL reconstruction technique using the semitendinosus and gra-cilis tendons (ST-G). Study design: pilot study, using historical controls. Methods: ACL reconstruction was performed on two groups of 20 patients each. The patients in one group underwent the all-inside transtibial technique with ST tendon alone. The second group underwent ACL reconstruction with the traditional transtibial single-bundle procedure using quadrupled ST-G tendons. Follow up at 24 months was undertaken using the IKDC, VAS pain score, Lysholm and Tegner scales. Results: the VAS pain score for the traditional ACL group was 84.6 ± 12.6; whereas the score for the all-inside group was 81.6 ± 13.1, with no statistically significant differences between the two groups. In the traditional ACL reconstruction group the Lysholm scale gave a "good results" for 7 patient (35%) and "excellent results" for 13 patients (65%) and the all-inside group gave "sufficient results" for 4 patients (20%), "good results" for 7 patients (35%) and "excellent results" for 9 patients (45%) (n.s.). The median of Tegner score was 6.5 (2-10) for the standard method group and 6 (1-9) for the all-inside group (n.s). The IKDC evaluated 50% of patients from the standard technique group as class A, and 45% as class B and 5% as class C. As regards patients of the all inside technique 55% were class A, 40% class B and, here too, just 5% scored as class C. No patients were classed as group D in each group. Conclusions: this study suggests that, in respect to return to sports and adequate articular function, there are no differences between the all-inside transtibial ACL reconstruction technique and the traditional transtibial ACL reconstruction using ST-G. The role of all-inside transtibial ACL reconstruction remains dubious. Level of evidence: III or Level C according with Oxford Center of EBM.

AB - Background: one of the most recent technique is the "all inside" anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. One of the main characteristic of this procedure is the sparing of the tibial cortex. Furthermore, the all-inside technique requires only one tendon harvested. Purpose: the present study describes two year clinical outcomes of the all-inside method for ACL reconstruction, and compares them with clinical results of a group of patients treated with the traditional transtibial single-bundle ACL reconstruction technique using the semitendinosus and gra-cilis tendons (ST-G). Study design: pilot study, using historical controls. Methods: ACL reconstruction was performed on two groups of 20 patients each. The patients in one group underwent the all-inside transtibial technique with ST tendon alone. The second group underwent ACL reconstruction with the traditional transtibial single-bundle procedure using quadrupled ST-G tendons. Follow up at 24 months was undertaken using the IKDC, VAS pain score, Lysholm and Tegner scales. Results: the VAS pain score for the traditional ACL group was 84.6 ± 12.6; whereas the score for the all-inside group was 81.6 ± 13.1, with no statistically significant differences between the two groups. In the traditional ACL reconstruction group the Lysholm scale gave a "good results" for 7 patient (35%) and "excellent results" for 13 patients (65%) and the all-inside group gave "sufficient results" for 4 patients (20%), "good results" for 7 patients (35%) and "excellent results" for 9 patients (45%) (n.s.). The median of Tegner score was 6.5 (2-10) for the standard method group and 6 (1-9) for the all-inside group (n.s). The IKDC evaluated 50% of patients from the standard technique group as class A, and 45% as class B and 5% as class C. As regards patients of the all inside technique 55% were class A, 40% class B and, here too, just 5% scored as class C. No patients were classed as group D in each group. Conclusions: this study suggests that, in respect to return to sports and adequate articular function, there are no differences between the all-inside transtibial ACL reconstruction technique and the traditional transtibial ACL reconstruction using ST-G. The role of all-inside transtibial ACL reconstruction remains dubious. Level of evidence: III or Level C according with Oxford Center of EBM.

KW - All-inside technique

KW - Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

KW - Clinical outcome

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84900035117&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84900035117&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 4

SP - 95

EP - 99

JO - Muscles, Ligaments and Tendons Journal

JF - Muscles, Ligaments and Tendons Journal

SN - 2240-4554

IS - 1

ER -