Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Remnant Preserving versus Remnant Sacrificing Technique after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction; Clinical Results and Second-Look Arthroscopic Findings: Pilot Study.
10.4055/jkoa.2015.50.6.501
- Author:
Byung Ill LEE
1
;
Byoung Min KIM
;
Duk Hwan KHO
;
Sai Won KWON
;
Hwan Bae KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Soonchunhyang University Seoul Hospital, Seoul, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
anterior cruciate ligament;
anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction;
remnant preserving technique;
ligamentization;
magnetic resonance imaging
- MeSH:
Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction*;
Anterior Cruciate Ligament*;
Arthroscopy;
Autografts;
Exercise Test;
Humans;
Knee;
Leg;
Magnetic Resonance Imaging*;
Noise;
Pilot Projects*;
Tendons;
Transplants
- From:The Journal of the Korean Orthopaedic Association
2015;50(6):501-512
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to clarify the difference between the remnant-preserving and remnant-sacrificing techniques in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using stress test, functional score, 2nd look arthroscopy and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Among 66 patients having anatomical ACL reconstruction with the fourstrand hamstring autograft using outside-in technique (FlipCutter(R)) for the femoral tunnel from April 2012 to April 2014, 23 patients who underwent 2nd look arthroscopy and MRI were included. The remnant-preserving group included 12 patients and the remnant-sacrificing group included 11 patients. The two groups were compared and analyzed with regard to stability (Stress test using GNRB(R), pivot shift test), functional assessment (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] scale, Lysholm score, one leg hoop test), and the result of second-look arthroscopy and signal to noise quotient (SNQ) ratio of the graft in MRI. RESULTS: The two groups did not differ significantly in the stability test, IKDC scale, and Lysholm test. The remnant-preserving group showed significant improvement in one leg hoop test compared with the remnant-sacrificing group (p<0.05). The SNQ ratio of the grafted tendon in the remnant-preserving group was significantly lower than those in the remnant-sacrificing group in all regions (p<0.05). In second-look arthroscopy, no significant difference in tension, synovialization, and status of the bundle was observed between the two groups. The grade of synovialization and the status of the bundle in second-look arthroscopy did not influence the signal intensity of the graft in MRI (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: More than 12 months after surgery, the graft of the remnant-preserving group showed lower signal intensity compared to that of the remnant-sacrificing group by MRI evaluation. The remnant preserving technique has biological difference compared with the remnant sacrificing technique in human study.
