228 76

Full metadata record

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.author김성환-
dc.date.accessioned2018-03-13T09:47:26Z-
dc.date.available2018-03-13T09:47:26Z-
dc.date.issued2013-12-
dc.identifier.citationClinics in Orthopedic Surgery, 5, 4, 278-286en_US
dc.identifier.issn2005-291X-
dc.identifier.issn2005-4408-
dc.identifier.urihttps://synapse.koreamed.org/DOIx.php?id=10.4055/cios.2013.5.4.278-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11754/46321-
dc.description.abstractBackgroundThe purpose of the present study was to compare the clinical results of 3 posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques according to the time from injury to surgery and remnant PCL status and to evaluate the efficiency of each technique.MethodsThe records of 89 patients who underwent primary PCL reconstructions with a posterolateral corner sling were analyzed retrospectively. Thirty-four patients were treated by anterolateral bundle (ALB) reconstruction with preservation of the remnant PCL using a transtibial tunnel technique in the acute and subacute stages of injury (group 1). Forty patients were treated with remnant PCL tensioning and an ALB reconstruction using the modified inlay technique in the chronic stage (group 2), and fifteen patients were treated with double-bundle reconstruction using the modified inlay technique (group 3). The double-bundle reconstruction was performed if there was a very weak or no PCL remnant.ResultsThe mean side-to-side differences in posterior tibial translation on the stress radiographs were reduced from 10.1 ± 2.5 mm in group 1, 10.6 ± 2.4 mm in group 2, and 12.8 ± 3.2 mm in group 3 preoperatively to 2.3 ± 1.4 mm in group 1, 2.3 ± 1.5 mm in group 2, and 4.0 ± 2.5 mm in group 3 at the last follow-up (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively). Statistical analyses revealed that group 1 and group 2 were similar in terms of side-to-side difference changes in posterior tibial translation on the stress radiographs; however, group 3 was inferior to group 1 and group 2 at the last follow-up (p = 0.022). The clinical results were not significantly different among the three groups.ConclusionsExcellent posterior stability and good clinical results were achieved with ALB reconstruction preserving the injured remnant PCL in the acute and subacute stages and remnant PCL tensioning with ALB reconstruction in the chronic stage. The PCL injuries could be surgically corrected with different techniques depending on both the remnant PCL status and the interval between the knee trauma and operation.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherThe Korean Orthopaedic Associationen_US
dc.subjectPosterior cruciate ligamenten_US
dc.subjectPosterolateral corner reconstructionen_US
dc.subjectModified inlayen_US
dc.subjectTranstibial tunnelen_US
dc.subjectDouble-bundleen_US
dc.titleRemnant preservation is helpful to obtain good clinical results in posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison of clinical results of three techniques.en_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doi10.4055/cios.2013.5.4.278-
dc.relation.journalCiOS Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery-
dc.contributor.googleauthorLee, Sang Hak-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJung, Young Bok-
dc.contributor.googleauthorLee, Han-Jun-
dc.contributor.googleauthorJung, Ho Joong-
dc.contributor.googleauthorKim, Seong Hwan-
dc.relation.code2013028742-
dc.sector.campusS-
dc.sector.daehakCOLLEGE OF MEDICINE[S]-
dc.sector.departmentDEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE-
dc.identifier.pidksh170177-


qrcode

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

BROWSE