Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

O1173 SPORTS AND ALL-DAY-LIFE ABILITY FOLLOWING ACL-RECONSTRUCTION BY USING THE HAMSTRINGS VS. THE BPT GRAFT IN AN IMPLANT FREE PRESSFIT TECHNIQUE



Abstract

Aim: Goal of this prospective, randomized study is the functional evaluation of two different techniques of ACL reconstruction by using bone-patellatendon (BPT) vs. hamstrings (ST/G). Methods: 62 ACL-insufficient patients (33 women/29 men) took part in this study. 31 (mean:29,8 y.) underwent ACL-reconstruction using BPT (GI). 31 (mean: 34,2 y.) patients underwent ACL-reconstruction using ST/G (GII). Both techniques were press-fit and implant-free. We used accelerated rehabilitation for both groups. Patients were evaluated by IKDC, Lysholm and Tegner score, KT 1000, one-leg-hop, isokinetics, internal torque, kneeling- and knee-walking-test, 1 day preop., and 3, 6 and 12 months postop. Results: One year results of GII were according to IKDC-score (GII: 30 patients= A and B vs. GI: 24 patients= A and B), Lysholm-score (GII: 95,61 vs. GI: 90,87 (p=0.017) and Tegner-score (GII: 7,07 vs. GI: 6,61 (p=0.00)) better than those of GI. The Evaluation of the strength of hamstrings using isokinetics showed significant differences: GII: 90,34 Nm vs. 99,19 Nm in GI, (p=0.008). However results concerning the internal torque evaluation were not significant. The one-leg-hop comparing injured and non-injured leg resulted in significant differences: GII: 96% vs. GI: 91%, (p=0.012). Results in GI were significantly worse than in GII at kneelling and kneewalking-testings ((p=0.00)(p=0.00)). Conclusion: All scoring, clinical and functional evaluations, except isokinetic hamstring evaluation, showed a hamstring’s supperiority in ACL reconstruction.

Theses abstracts were prepared by Professor Dr. Frantz Langlais. Correspondence should be addressed to him at EFORT Central Office, Freihofstrasse 22, CH-8700 Küsnacht, Switzerland.