Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorOzer, Mustafa
dc.contributor.authorOzer, Hamza
dc.contributor.authorSelek, Hakan Y.
dc.contributor.authorBaltaci, Y. Gul
dc.contributor.authorHarput, Gulcan
dc.contributor.authorTaskesen, Anil
dc.contributor.authorCetinkaya, Mehmet
dc.date.accessioned2019-12-19T07:02:39Z
dc.date.available2019-12-19T07:02:39Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.issn1300-0144
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.3906/sag-1702-119
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11655/20838
dc.description.abstractBackground/aim: This study aimed to compare radiological and functional outcomes of patients who had single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with autologous hamstring tendon grafts using transtibial (TT) versus anteromedial (AM) femoral tunnel drilling techniques. Materials and methods: Sixty patients who had been operated on between 2010 and 2013 were enrolled in this study. Tunnel positions and widenings in the femur and tibia were evaluated with radiographs, arthrometric measurements with a Rolimeter arthrometer (Aircast, Summit, NJ, USA), stability assessment with Lachman and reverse pivot shift tests, and functional assessment with the International Knee Documentation Committee and Tegner and Lysholm scoring systems. Results: Tunnel enlargement in the sagittal and coronal planes of the femur was higher with the TT technique (P < 0.0001) and that of the coronal planes of the tibia was also higher with the TT technique (P = 0.01). During the assessment with the Rolimeter, the difference between sides was significant with the TT technique (P = 0.013). Positive results of the Lachman and reverse pivot shift tests were more frequent with the TT technique (P < 0.05), and the Lysholm scores were higher with the AM technique (P = 0.001). Conclusion: ACL reconstruction with hamstring autografts by either TT or AM technique demonstrated similar and excellent results in terms of functional outcomes at the end of the first postoperative year. The TT group had increased tunnel enlargement, which may have uncertain long-term outcomes, compared with the AM group.
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherTubitak Scientific & Technical Research Council Turkey
dc.relation.isversionof10.3906/sag-1702-119
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectGeneral & Internal Medicine
dc.titleRadiological and Functional Comparison of Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Transtibial Versus Anteromedial Technique
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.relation.journalTurkish Journal Of Medical Sciences
dc.contributor.departmentFizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon
dc.identifier.volume48
dc.identifier.issue3
dc.identifier.startpage455
dc.identifier.endpage461
dc.indexingWoS
dc.indexingScopus


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record