Reply to: Comments on Alentorn-Geli et al.: Anteromedial portal (AMP) versus transtibial (TT) drilling techniques in ACL reconstruction: a blinded cross-sectional study at two- to five-year follow-up

Alentorn-Geli, Eduard; Samitier, Gonzalo; Álvarez, Pedro; Steinbacher, Gilbert; Cugat, Ramón

doi:10.1007/s00264-010-1135-0

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mTT technique was optimized based on the cTT technique to achieve anatomical reconstruction. Anatomically placing tibial and femoral tunnels has obtained a consensus in the literature for providing the preferred results (Alentorn-Geli et al, 2010;Kopf et al, 2010;Arnold et al, 2001). Comparison between the AM and mTT techniques is of greater clinical significance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between Anteromedial and Transtibial Techniques of Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Zhang

et al. 2021

jsportscimed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared clinical outcomes obtained after single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using the anteromedial (AM) and transtibial (TT) techniques, which comprise the conventional transtibial (cTT) and modified transtibial (mTT) techniques. This study included clinical randomized controlled trials and prospective and retrospective controlled trials with AM and TT techniques from the PubMed and Embase databases and the Cochrane Library. All databases were searched from January 2010 to July 2020. Two independent evaluators verified the quality of the included studies using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Outcome measures analysed included the Lachman test, pivot-shift test, side-to-side difference (SSD), Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) grade and score. Ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 16 prospective and retrospective controlled trials were included with a total of 2202 patients. There were 1180 patients and 1022 patients in the AM and TT groups, respectively. Compared to the cTT group, superior postoperative results were observed in the AM group based on the negative rate of the Lachman test and the pivot-shift test, IKDC grade and score, Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale and SSD (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between the AM and mTT groups (p > 0.05). Compared to the conventional TT technique, the AM technique exhibited superior clinical outcomes. Nevertheless, the modified TT and AM techniques had comparable results. With neither of the techniques (mTT or AM) producing significantly superior outcomes, surgeons can choose either of them depending on their preferences.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between Anteromedial and Transtibial Techniques of Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Zhang

et al. 2021

jsportscimed

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Reply to: Comments on Alentorn-Geli et al.: Anteromedial portal (AMP) versus transtibial (TT) drilling techniques in ACL reconstruction: a blinded cross-sectional study at two- to five-year follow-up

Cited by 1 publication

References 10 publications

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between Anteromedial and Transtibial Techniques of Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Comparison of Clinical Outcomes between Anteromedial and Transtibial Techniques of Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About