关节镜下保留残束重建前交叉韧带的疗效

目的:评价保留残束重建前交叉韧带治疗前交叉韧带部分束损伤的临床疗效。方法:自2002年1月至2009年12月,采用保留残束重建前交叉韧带57例,其中男39例,女18例;年龄16～49岁,平均28.5岁;左膝33例,右膝24例;运动伤及训练伤40例,交通事故伤7例,生活扭伤10例。前抽屉试验阳性23例,弱阳性6例;Lachman试验阳性19例,弱阳性4例;前抽屉试验和Lachman试验均阳性5例;侧方应力试验(内侧)阳性24例。Rolimeter检查胫骨前移7.5～11.5mm,平均8.7mm。国际膝关节文献委员会评分(IKDC)70.0±7.5,膝关节Lysholm评分68.0±6.3。受伤至手术时间1周～12个月,平均3.1个月。结果:关节镜下前内侧束重建32例,后外侧束重建25例。术后57例均获随访,平均时间22.5个月(13～37个月)。末次随访膝关节活动度达120°～130°,前抽屉试验及Lachman试验均阴性54例,前抽屉试验弱阳性2例,Lachman试验弱阳性1例;术后Rolimeter检查膝关节稳定性良好。术后IKDC评分92.0±4.9,Lysholm评分91.0±3.7,均较术前提高。结论:保留残束重建前交叉韧带,有利于移植物血供建立、胶原纤维爬行替代、本体感觉恢复和膝关节的稳定性。     

Double-bundle versus single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions: a prospective,randomized study with 2-year follow-up

This prospective, randomized study was conducted to compare the short-term results of arthroscopic double-bundle with single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. One hundred and eight patients with a symptomatic ACL rupture were randomized to either double-bundle (Group DB) or single-bundle (Group SB) ACL reconstruction. Follow-up was conducted at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months postoperatively. At the 24-month follow-up, 94 of the 108 patients (87 %) were available for evaluation. The rotational stability, as evaluated by pivot shift test, was significantly superior in the Group DB to that in the Group SB. No significant difference with regard to ACL revisions, total flexion work, mean peak flexion torque and extension work between the groups was detected. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the Tegner activity score, the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score, the Lysholm functional score, anterior knee pain or mobility, subjective knee function. In addition, no significant difference in laxity on the Lachman test or the KT-1000 maximum manual force test was investigated. All the results were significantly more satisfactory at each follow-up period than preoperatively, in both groups. Both SB- and DB-ACL reconstruction resulted in satisfactory subjective outcome and objective stability. Both these techniques can therefore be considered as suitable alternatives for ACL reconstruction. Moreover, as it seems to be according to the pivot shift test, the risk for the development of degenerative changes of the knee joint in a long run could be smaller in the Group DB.     

关节镜下应用Rigidfix与Intrafix系统固定异体肌腱重建前交叉韧带

目的 探讨关节镜下应用Rigidfix与Intrafix系统固定同种异体胫前肌肌腱重建前交叉韧带(ACL)的临床效果. 方法自2003年3月至2006年9月对56例在关节镜下确诊ACL断裂的患者采用深低温同种异体胫前肌肌腱进行韧带重建,应用Rigidfix与Intrafix系统对移植物进行固定,术后进行系统康复训练.随访观察患者的主观症状,并检查患膝关节活动度、前抽屉试验、Lachman试验和轴移试验,按照Lysholm膝关节评分标准评价疗效.结果 所有患者随访1.5～5.0年,平均2.3年.有2例患者在剧烈活动时伴有错动感,末次随访时膝关节活动度均可达到伸-5°～0°,屈120°～130°,前抽屉试验、Lachman试验及轴移试验均为阴性,Lysholm膝关节评分由术前(48.2±5.3)分提高至术后(91.1±4.2)分,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论 关节镜下应用Rigidfix与Intrafix系统固定同种异体胫前肌肌腱重建ACL可获得满意的临床疗效.     

关节镜下前交叉韧带重建和微创重建膝关节内侧结构的临床效果

目的 :观察关节镜下前交叉韧带(ACL)重建结合微创重建膝关节内侧结构(PMC)的临床效果。方法 :收集2012年3月至2014年2月于骨科就诊的22例ACL和膝关节PMC损伤患者,男8例,女14例,平均年龄29.4岁。采用关节镜下重建ACL,同时经ACL手术切口微创重建PMC。治疗前及治疗后2、6、12个月采用前抽屉试验、Lachman试验、外翻应力试验和Slocum试验对稳定性进行评价,术后12个月采用Lysholm评分和Tegner运动分级评价膝关节功能。治疗前和治疗后12个月膝关节行MR检查。结果:术后2、6个月Lachman试验、前抽屉试验和外翻应力试验均为阴性;术后12个月1例前抽屉试验呈弱阳性,1例外翻应力试验呈弱阳性。术前Lysholm评分32.0±11.2,Tegner评分0.9±0.5;术后12个月的Lysholm评分96.8±6.8,Tegner评分6.1±0.9,均高于术前。术后12个月复查MRI显示移植物显影良好。结论:采用关节镜下ACL重建同时微创重建PMC,可以很好地恢复膝关节稳定性。     

关节镜下前交叉韧带袖套状保残重建的临床效果

目的:观察袖套状保留残端的关节镜下前交叉韧带重建的临床效果。方法:收集2012年1月至2014年12月于骨科就诊的42例前交叉韧带损伤患者,其中男17例,女25例,平均年龄28.4岁,平均受伤时间5.5周(2~12周)。采用关节镜下重建前交叉韧带,同时保留胫骨侧韧带残端,通过滑膜袖套恢复残端张力。治疗前及治疗后2、6、12个月采用Lachman试验、前抽屉试验对稳定性进行评价,术后12个月采用Lysholm评分和Tegner运动分级评价膝关节功能。治疗前和治疗后12个月行膝关节MRI检查。结果:术后2、6、12个月Lachman试验、前抽屉试验均为阴性。术前Lysholm评分37.8±7.1,Tegner评分2.1±0.4;术后12个月的Lysholm评分96.8±6.1,Tegner评分6.2±0.9,均高于术前。术后12个月复查MRI显示前交叉韧带显影良好。结论:关节镜下前交叉韧带袖套状保残重建可以获得良好的临床效果。     

腘绳肌腱移植单隧道双束保残重建前交叉韧带的疗效

目的:探讨腘绳肌腱单隧道双束保残重建前交叉韧带(ACL)的可行性及近期疗效。方法:自2011年8月至12月采用关节镜下腘绳肌腱单隧道双束保残重建ACL25例,其中男19例,女6例;年龄16～50岁,平均(26.26±9.53)岁;左侧15例,右侧10例;病程1～60d,平均9.6d;新鲜损伤20例,陈旧性损伤5例。新鲜损伤患者均有膝关节肿胀、疼痛,其中前抽屉试验阳性14例,Lachman试验阳性17例。5例陈旧性损伤膝关节疼痛,均有关节不稳,前抽屉试验及Lachman试验均阳性。采用膝关节镜髌腱入路保留ACL残端,前内侧入路(AM)建立股骨隧道,胫骨端用点对点ACL瞄准器建立隧道。隧道股骨端采用Femoral-Intrafix固定,将腘绳肌腱分为前内侧束及后外侧束。通过旋转胫骨端移植物,将移植物调整为生理的双束位置,采用Bio-Intrafix和staple固定胫骨端。所有患者术前及术后分别行前抽屉试验和Lachman试验,并采用Lysholm膝关节功能评分评价膝关节功能。结果:25例均获随访,时间12～18个月。根据Lysholm膝关节功能评分:术前25～49分,平均34.08±7.60;术后12个月89～98分,平均94.52±2.86(t=21.29,P<0.01)。术后评分高于术前。结论:腘绳肌腱单隧道双束保残重建ACL,手术操作简便,固定牢固,效果可靠。     

Arthroscopic anatomical double bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A prospective longitudinal study

Background:

Single bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been the current standard of treatment for ACL deficiency. However, a significant subset of patients continue to report residual symptoms of instability with a poor pivot control. Cadaveric biomechanical studies have shown double bundle (DB) ACL reconstructions to restore the knee kinematics better. This study evaluates the outcome of DB ACL reconstruction.

Materials and Methods:

30 consecutive patients who underwent anatomic DB ACL reconstruction were included in this prospective longitudinal study. There were all males with a mean age of 25 ± 7.45 years. All patients were prospectively evaluated using GeNouRoB (GNRB) arthrometer, functional knee scores (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] and Lysholm) and postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for comparing the graft orientation and footprint of the reconstructed ACL with that of the normal knee.

Results:

The average followup was 36.2 months. At the time of final followup the mean Lysholm score was 93.13 ± 3.31. As per the objective IKDC score, 26 patients (86.6%) were in Group A while 4 patients (13.3%) were in Group B. The mean differential anterior tibial translation by GNRB, arthrometer was 1.07 ± 0.8 mm (range 0.1-2.3 mm). All cases had a negative pivot shift test. MRI scans of operated and the contralateral normal knee showed the mean sagittal ACL tibial angle coronal ACL tibial angle and tibial ACL footprint to be in accordance with the values of the contralateral, normal knee.

Conclusion:

The study demonstrates that DB ACL reconstruction restores the ACL anatomically in terms of size and angle of orientation. However, long term studies are needed to further substantiate its role in decreasing the incidence of early osteoarthritic changes compared to the conventional single bundle reconstructions.     

Clinical analysis of the pivot shift tests: description of the pivot drawer test

A clinical analysis of the pivot shift was performed by evaluating 100 patients with unilateral anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) insufficiency in an office setting. Each patient was examined in a random order using the Macintosh, Losee, Hughston, Slocum, pivot drawer, and flexion rotation drawer versions of the pivot shift test. Pathologic anterior tibial displacement was estimated with the Lachman test and quantitatively measured using the KT-1000 knee ligament arthrometer. Pivot shift was graded as 0 (absent), grade I (slight), grade II (definite subluxation), and grade III (subluxation and momentary locking). The presence or absence of any degree of pivot shift was correlated with the arthroscopic finding of a torn ACL. Results indicated the "drawer type" tests were significantly more sensitive than other versions of the pivot shift because they can be performed without causing significant pain and muscle spasm, and the limb position maximizes pathologic coupled motion. A correlation between increasing displacement estimated with the Lachman test and measured displacement with the KT-1000 arthrometer revealed that as pathologic displacement increases so does the grade of the Slocum, pivot drawer, and flexion rotation drawer tests. We recommend using the pivot drawer or flexion rotation drawer as a standard method for assessing the pivot shift phenomenon.     

Small Size Autograft versus Large Size Allograft in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BackgroundA small autograft diameter negatively affects functional outcomes, knee stability, and the risk of rerupture after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, whereas the strength of allograft decreases over time. Therefore, it is not clear whether the use of smaller autografts or the use of larger allografts in ACL yields better results. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of smaller autografts and larger allografts for ACL reconstruction.MethodsFifty-one patients who underwent ACL reconstruction with hamstring tendon autografts (size ≤ 8 mm) and 21 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction with allografts (size ≥ 10 mm) were included in our study. All patients underwent the same aggressive early postoperative rehabilitation program. There were no significant differences between the autograft and allograft groups regarding the preoperative patient age, sex, time from injury to surgery, and average follow-up time.ResultsThe mean diameter of the 4-stranded hamstring tendon grafts used as autografts was 7.48 ± 0.33 mm and the mean diameter of the allografts was 10.76 ± 0.67 mm. According to specific tests for the ACL (anterior drawer, Lachman, and pivot shift) and clinical evaluation tests (Lysholm knee scoring scale and International Knee Documentation Committee questionnaire), the final follow-up results were significantly better than the preoperative status in both autograft and allograft ACL reconstruction groups. Therefore, there were no significant differences between the autograft and allograft groups preoperatively and at the final follow-up.ConclusionsThe large size of the graft in ACL reconstruction has been reported to affect results positively. However, in our study, we could not find any significant differences between the smaller size autografts and larger size allografts in terms of inadequacy, rerupture, and final follow-up functional results. Although allografts were significantly larger than autografts, we did not have the positive effect of larger size grafts. Smaller size autografts were as effective as the larger size allografts.     

Manual laxity tests for anterior cruciate ligament injuries

The manual laxity examination is the primary means by which clinicians evaluate ACL injuries. This paper reviews the literature and identifies the following ACL laxity tests: anterior drawer test, Lachman test. MacIntosh test, jerk test, flexion rotation drawer test, Slocum test, and the Losee test. Test technique, grading, limitations, and reliability are discussed for each test. General limitations of manual laxity tests are also presented. A review of ACL anatomy and the biomechanics of the pivot shift sign are provided to facilitate an understanding of the underlying principles of ACL laxity tests. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1990;11(10):474-481.     

同种异体胫前肌腱与自体腘绳肌腱重建前交叉韧带的病例对照研究

目的：对比异体胫前肌腱与自体胭绳肌腱重建前交叉韧带的临床疗效。方法：2005年9月至2007年5月,重建前交叉韧带100例,其中50例采用经深低温冷冻及v射线照射处理后的畀体胫前肌腱重建,50例采用自体胭绳肌腱重建。固定方式均为股骨端横杆悬挂固定（Rigidfix）和胫骨端中心固定（Intrafix）。术后通过对比两组症状体征、Lysholm评分来对比疗效。结果：两组均顺利完成手术,无感染及韧带再断裂发生。所有患者术后获随访,时间12-33个月（平均25．6个月）。异体组50例术膝轴移试验均阴性,前抽屉试验及Lachman试验为阴性或I度阳性;术后1年以上Lrrsholm总评分平均（89．3±6．3）分。自体组50例术膝体征检查结果与异体组类似,术后1年Lysholm总评分平均（90．5±4．5）分,两组对比差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论：同种异体胫前肌腱与自体胭绳肌腱重建前交叉韧带疗效相当,医生及患者可根据实际情况选择移植物。     

前十字韧带股骨直接纤维止点重建的力学特征及近期临床疗效

目的探讨前十字韧带(anterior cruciate ligament,ACL)股骨直接纤维止点重建的有限元特征及近期疗效。方法2016年6月至2017年6月接受ACL股骨直接纤维止点双束重建的患者26例,男15例,女11例;年龄(30.5±4.6)岁(范围18~50岁)。所有患者均由同一医生完成自体腘绳肌腱股骨直接纤维止点双束ACL重建手术。通过术后有限元分析、术中Pivot shift试验及Lachman试验、手术前后国际膝关节文献委员会(International Knee Document Committee,IKDC)评分、Lyshlom评分、KT-2000侧侧差值、术后膝关节CT三维重建、膝关节MRI评估膝关节的稳定性、移植物的状态及临床疗效。结果有限元分析中髌骨应力集中在髌尖区域,健侧最大值为(1.62±0.07)MPa、患侧最大值为(1.64±0.02)MPa,差异无统计学意义(t=-1.22,P=1.22);股骨滑车区域应力集中在上极,健侧最大值为(0.73±0.15)MPa、患侧最大值为(0.72±0.14)MPa,差异无统计学意义(t=0.09,P=0.93)。重建后即刻Pivot shift试验均转为阴性,Lachman试验1例Ⅰ度阳性、其余均为阴性。术后CT三维重建示股骨隧道位于ACL股骨止点直接纤维足印区,术后2年MRI矢状面抑脂像示ACL双束呈均匀低信号、连续性及走行良好。Lysholm评分由术前(56.5±3.6)分增加至术后3个月的(61.9±3.2)分、术后2年的(88.5±2.0)分,差异有统计学意义(F=824.72,P<0.001);IKDC评分由术前(48.3±2.8)分增加至术后3个月的(58.0±2.0)分、术后2年的(92.5±2.6)分,差异有统计学意义(F=2256.66,P<0.001);KT-2000侧侧差值由术前(5.6±0.7)mm降低至术后3个月的(1.6±0.5)mm、术后2年的(1.5±0.6)mm,差异有统计学意义(F=389.14,P<0.001)。结论ACL股骨直接纤维止点双束重建能有效恢复膝关节的稳定性及力学环境,具有较好的近期临床疗效。     

Long term results after double and single bundle ACL reconstruction: Is there any difference? A meta - analysis of randomized controlled trials

ObjectiveThe double-bundle (DB) techniques are considered to yield better stability of the knee compared with single-bundle (SB) for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, most studies followed up patients in short to middle-term within 5 years, and the longer-term efficacy of SB and DB ACL reconstruction is still beyond consensus. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the longer-term efficacy between double-bundle (DB) and single-bundle (SB) techniques.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant articles published up to November, 2017 with an English language restriction. The searches were limited to human subjects and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In addition, the reference lists of identified articles were checked manually to avoid missing other potentially eligible studies. This process was performed iteratively until no additional articles could be included. The quality of the included studies was assessed using The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. All statistical analyses were performed with Review Manager soft-ware.ResultsA total of five RCTs involving 294 patients were included finally. No studies were excluded due to insufficient data or low quality. The pooled results showed no statistically significant difference between SB and double bundle DB reconstructions for Lysholm, IKDC, pivot shift, KT scores, and the development of osteoarthritis at a minimum of 5 years. No significant heterogeneity was found across all outcomes.ConclusionThe best available evidence demonstrated that SB and DB techniques could yield similar efficacy for ACL reconstruction. And no superiority was founded in DB ACL reconstruction with a minimal 5-year follow-up. Given that, the relatively simple and proven techniques of SB ACL reconstruction may be preferable for orthopedic surgeons.Level of evidence: Level I, Therapeutic Study.     

Functional outcome of double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Background/PurposeThe anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is one of the most frequently injured ligaments in the knee joint and is generally treated by surgical reconstruction. A possible reason for the unsatisfactory nature of this reconstruction is that the complex function of the ACL is not reproduced by the traditional ACL reconstruction procedure, which replicates only a single bundle rather than the two separate bundles that form the original ACL. It has been suggested that re-establishment of the double-bundle anatomy of the ACL is crucial for obtaining a better restoration of the normal biomechanics of the knee and improving the knee's rotatory stability. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the authors' current double-bundle ACL reconstruction technique and assess the various functions of the anteromedial and posterolateral bundles.MethodsPatients were assessed for instability and laxity after a mean follow-up of 16 months (range, 12–26 months). The range of motion was measured and compared with the opposite normal knee. Clinical evaluation was performed using the modified Lysholm scoring scale, the Tegner activity scale, and the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) rating system.ResultsThe study included 20 patients, 15 males and five females, with a mean age of 22.7 years (range, 18–29 years) at the time of surgery. Following the procedure described by Yasuda et al, double-bundle ACL reconstruction, which anatomically reproduces the anteromedial and posterolateral bundles using hamstring tendon grafts, was performed on patients under general anesthesia. The clinical results for the Lysholm rating system were good to excellent, being 71 points preoperatively and 94 postoperatively. The IKDC rating was 65% preoperatively and 92% postoperatively. All patients showed a negative pivot shifting test.ConclusionThe ACL not only is the primary restraint on anterior tibial translation but also contributes considerably to normal knee kinematics. Our study showed that the four-tunnel double-bundle ACL reconstruction provides significant advantages in terms of anterior and rotational stability as well as objective IKDC. The subjective measurement of postoperative functional results using either the Lysholm or the IKDC rating system revealed a promising outcome after a short follow-up period.     

保留残端半腱肌和股薄肌双股双隧道解剖重建前交叉韧带的临床研究

目的探讨关节镜下半腱肌股薄肌保留残端双股双隧道解剖重建前交叉韧带(ACL)的疗效。方法回顾自2006年1月～2008年1月,本组在关节镜下联合应用半腱肌腱和股薄肌腱双股双隧道重建ACL患者20例其中男18例,女2例,年龄17～46岁(平均31.5岁)。取腱器分别切取半腱肌、股薄肌编织成股,保留前叉韧带在股骨、胫骨的附着点残端,于ACL前内侧束和后外侧束附着部分别钻隧道,用半腱肌腱重建前内侧束,股薄肌腱重建后外侧束,以enderbutton悬吊固定股骨端,挤压螺钉固定胫骨端肌腱。所有患者术前及术后12个月行前抽屉试验、Lachman试验、Lysholm评分方法评定膝关节功能。结果术后随访14～48个月,平均31个月。术前患者前抽屉试验均为阳性,Lachman试验阳性13例,术后前抽屉试验3例屈膝60°位阳性,1例屈膝30°位阳性,其余均转阴性。5例Lachman试验仍阳性,但患者术后无膝关节不稳。2例患者术后胫骨前伤口瘢痕红肿凸起,给予切开引流后良好愈合。用Lysholm膝关节功能评分法评定术后疗效,术前评分为38～49分,平均43.5分,术后14个月为69～92分,平均80.5分,优13例,良5例,可2例,优良率为90.0%。结论应用自体肌腱双股双隧道重建ACL,术后膝关节动态稳定性好,疗效满意。     

关节镜下单束重建治疗前交叉韧带部分断裂的临床研究

目的探讨关节镜下单束重建治疗前叉韧带部分断裂的临床疗效及手术方法。方法回顾性分析2007年6月至2009年10月关节镜下应用单束重建治疗前叉韧带部分断裂12例患者的资料。12例患者中,男9例,女3例,平均年龄37岁。根据IKDC、Lysholm膝关节功能评分进行功能恢复评估。结果 12例患者平均随访13个月,所有患者术后均无感染。术后最后一次随访时Lachman试验（﹢）、前抽屉实验（-）2例,其他患者前抽屉试验、Lachman试验均为阴性。11例膝关节屈伸活动度正常,1例膝关节伸直缺失10°,IKDC评级：11例正常,1例接近正常。术前IKDC主观评分（48.33±12.77）,Lysholm膝关节功能评分（55.42±15.01）;术后末次随访IKDC主观评分（91.42±4.94）,Lysholm膝关节功能评分（95.33±6.02）,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）。结论关节镜下单束单隧道重建治疗前叉韧带部分断裂的短期临床疗效满意,保留残存纤维束重建虽然有一定难度,但手术在熟练的关节镜技术下可以顺利施行。     

关节镜下单隧道双束异体胫前肌腱重建前交叉韧带

目的探讨关节镜下单隧道双束异体胫前肌腱解剖重建前交叉韧带（anterior cruciate ligament,ACL）的方法和早期疗效。方法采用关节镜下单隧道前内侧束与后外侧束双束异体胫前肌腱解剖重建ACL31例,屈膝60°拉紧固定。结果31例随访12-20个月,平均16．2个月。术后前抽屉试验、Lachman试验及轴移试验全部阴性。IKDC评分术前（D级22例,C级9例）与术后早期（A级28例,B级3例）相比较,差异有统计学意义（χ2=9,027,P〈0．05）;术前及术后Lysholm膝关节功能评分分别为61．3±7．2和91．6±4．3,差异有统计学意义（t=-11．462,P〈0．05）。结论关节镜下单隧道双束异体胫前肌腱重建ACL能恢复原有的解剖学特点及生物力学特性,操作简单,近期疗效满意。     

Arthroscopic ACL reconstruction using fixed suspensory device versus adjustable suspensory device for femoral side graft fixation: What are the outcomes?

IntroductionThe aim of the study was to evaluate the outcomes of Arthroscopic ACL Reconstruction using Fixed suspensory device and Adjustable suspensory device for femoral side graft fixation.Material and methodsWe conducted a prospective study of sixty two patients with ACL deficient knees treated with arthroscopic ACL reconstruction. Consecutively patients were operated with fixed loop and adjustable loop suspensory devices for femoral side graft fixation and no randomization was done.ResultsFunctional assessment was performed with VAS score, IKDC score and Lyshom score before and after surgery with ACL reconstruction. The postoperative Lyshom score in fixed loop group and adjustable loop group was 94.23 and 94.32 respectively. The IKDC score in fixed group and adjustable group was 92.03 and 92.16 respectively. VAS in fixed loop group improved from score of 5–3, while in adjustable loop group from score of 4–3. There was significant improvement in stability of knee assessed by Lachman’s test, anterior drawer test, and Pivot shiff’s test and both methods of fixation provide stability to knee. The complications included; restriction of terminal flexion in 12 patients: 6 in each group. There was no implant breakage in both groups.ConclusionArthroscopic ACL reconstruction using fixed loop and adjustable loop suspensory devices are equally effective fixation methods.     

Displaced bucket handle tears of the medial meniscus masking anterior cruciate deficiency

Traditionally, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries have been difficult to diagnose in the Casualty Department. Studies have shown that the anterior drawer test has a poor sensitivity both in acute and chronic ACL deficient knees [4, 6, 9]; thus, more emphasis has been placed on the pivot shift and Lachman tests [3]. We report four cases of proven ACL rupture where clinical examination revealed an absent pivot shift and a near normal Lachman test following a displaced bucket handle tear of the medial meniscus. This finding has been reproduced in cadaver studies, and we conclude that if the history strongly suggests an ACL injury and examination reveals a stable knee, then the dual pathology of medial meniscus tear and ACL rupture should be suspected.     

关节镜下解剖位与过顶位前交叉韧带单束重建的近期疗效对比

目的 比较关节镜下前交叉韧带(anterior cruciate ligament,ACL)解剖位单束(anatomic single-bundle,ASB)与传统过顶位单束(conventional over-the-top single-bundle,CSB)重建的近期临床疗效.方法 回顾分析2010年10月至2012年10月在我院关节外科接受ACL重建手术的病例及随访资料,按手术方式不同分为ASB组(n=31)和CSB组(n=32),移植韧带来源均为自体腘绳肌腱.比较两组患者在术后3～6个月的膝关节功能,评估方法采用膝关节主动活动度、Lachman试验、轴移试验、Lysholm评分及国际膝关节评分委员会(International Knee Documentation Committee,IKDC)评分.结果 术后膝关节主动活动度:CSB组3例术后膝关节伸直受限,平均5°～10°,ASB组无伸直受限,两组屈曲均正常;Lachman试验:ASB组全部阴性,CSB组6例阳性,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05);轴移试验:ASB组阴性率为67.74％,CSB组阴性率为40.63％,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05);Lysholm评分及IKDC评分差异均无统计学意义(均P＞0.05).结论 ACL的ASB重建术后早期能更好地恢复膝关节的前后及旋转稳定性,其临床意义及远期临床效果有待进一步研究.