Comparative Study of Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate ligament reconstruction by Bone Tendon Bone Method and Semitendinosus Method

Journal Title: Journal of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery - Year 2018, Vol 0, Issue 0

Abstract

Introduction: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear is one of the leading knee injuries throughout the world. The incidence of Anterior Cruciate Ligament tear has increased in the general population with the rise of participation in Sports. The expectations of young male and female professional and recreational athletes has also risen as they expect to return to the preinjury activity levels. Number of patients undergoing ACL reconstruction has risen and results have also improved because of advancement in arthroscopy and arthroscopic equipments. The ACL prevents anterior translation of tibia and is important in counteracting rotation and valgus stress. ACL deficiency leads to knee instability. This result in recurrent injuries and increased risk of intra-articular damage, especially the meniscus(4,5). The goals of the ACL reconstruction are to restore stability to the knee; allow the patient to return normal activities earliest, including sports activities; and to delay the onset of osteoarthritis with associated repeated injuries to the articular cartilage and loss of meniscal function. Materials & Method: 40 patients with ACL tear will be considered in this study; 20 of bone tendon bone method ;and 20 of semitendinous method . Results: Mean age for Group I was 33.65 + 9.41 years .Mean age for Group II was 25.75 + 6.29 years. Functional outcome was assessed by IKDC .The mean p values of IKDC at 6weeks, 3 months and 6months were 0.6, 0.57 and 0.78 respectively. As all the values are more than 0.05 which shows no statistical significant difference.Conclusion: Bone tendon bone graft goes for bone to bone healing which is proved beyond doubt and given excellent physiological fixation. Semitendinosus graft is a more cosmetic alternative reflecting almost similar post operative success.There is no difference in functional outcome of bone tendon bone and semitendinosus method.

Authors and Affiliations

Prakash Kulkarni, Sahil Bhagat, Rishi Doshi, Keyur Patel

Keywords

Related Articles

An Unusual swelling in Tibia: Osteochondroma in an Adult

Introduction: Osteochondroma is the most common benign tumor of skeletal system arising in a young child and growing during childhood to adolescence. Its growth ends when epiphyseal plate closes. Growth of an osteochondr...

Sub-acromial spacer for Massive Rotator Cuff Tears- Biomechanical rationale and Review of Literature

Massive rotator cuff tears are a common cause of shoulder pain and functional disability in the elderly population. No consensus exists regarding management of massive irreparable tears of the shoulder. Conventional surg...

Brush aside your hesitancy for Research

Dear MOA Members, ere has always been a lot of resistance to research and publications specially in minds of orthopaedic surgeons in periphery or orthopaedic surgeons in Private practice. During MOACON 2018, many have ap...

Cost effectiveness of commercial vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) versus custom made vacuum-assisted closure (VAC)

Background: The initial management of open wounds is copious irrigation and thorough debridement, which can cause significant tissue defects. Definitive wound cover can only be planned once the wound is healthy and patie...

Functional Outcome of Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair-A Clinical Study

Background: Rotator cuff tear is among the most common condition affecting shoulder. The spectrum ranges from inflammation to massive tear. The goal of repair is to eliminate pain and improve function. Arthroscopic rotat...

Download PDF file
  • EP ID EP632003
  • DOI 10.13107/jto.2018.v05i01.099
  • Views 30
  • Downloads 0

How To Cite

Prakash Kulkarni, Sahil Bhagat, Rishi Doshi, Keyur Patel (2018). Comparative Study of Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate ligament reconstruction by Bone Tendon Bone Method and Semitendinosus Method. Journal of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, 0(0), 31-36. https://europub.co.uk/articles/-A-632003