2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.06.040
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Outcome of Hamstring Autograft With Preserved Insertions Compared With Free Hamstring Autograft in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery at 2-Year Follow-up

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…These findings are also in contrast to those of other studies, which showed as many as 35%−60% of patients were able to return to the preinjury level. 19,20) The marginal improvement in Lachman test and Pivot shift test was not found to be significant. Although manual examination to check the stability of the joint cannot be considered as foolproof, it has a definite role as an examination performed by a single person.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…These findings are also in contrast to those of other studies, which showed as many as 35%−60% of patients were able to return to the preinjury level. 19,20) The marginal improvement in Lachman test and Pivot shift test was not found to be significant. Although manual examination to check the stability of the joint cannot be considered as foolproof, it has a definite role as an examination performed by a single person.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 82%
“…Tibial side xation has been observed to be a weak link post ACL reconstruction as the vector of forces acts in the line of tibial tunnel [37,38]. Further, tendon to bone healing at insertion site is superior to tendon xation inside tunnel with screw as observed by various studies inpast [15,16,[18][19][20]. As, the biological insertion at tibial side maintains the inherent strength, that is resistant to cyclical forces [15], we propose, hamstring graft with preserved insertion provides less chances of graft pull-out from tunnel.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With the problems related to the vascularisation of graft, less effective proprioception postoperatively, and weak tibial side xation, there remains risk of graft pull-out from the tunnel [15][16][17]. Recent literature reports, preservation of insertion on tibial side led to better mechanical stability and proprioception, though not established conclusively [15,[17][18][19][20]. Also, Sacramento et al in a study on double bundle ACL reconstruction with preserved tibial side insertion reported better clinical outcome and stability [20].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since then, several studies have evaluated the functional and biomechanical outcomes of hamstring insertion-preserving procedures. Gupta et al compared the ACL reconstruction with pedunculated hamstring autograft and the free hamstring autograft after 2 years of follow-up [24]. The results of their single-blinded randomized trial reported significantly higher Cincinnati knee scores, greater improvement in the Tegner activity scale and lower side-to-side difference in KT-1000 testing in favor of the pedunculated hamstring group.…”
Section: Preservation Of Hamstrings Tibial Insertionmentioning
confidence: 99%