| HOME | HELP | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
|
|
|||||||
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
|||||||||
Orthopaedic Surgery & Athletic Medicine, San Antonio, Texas
Orthopedic and Fracture Clinic of Eugene, Eugene, Oregon
Orthopedic and Fracture Clinic of Eugene, Eugene, Oregon
Orthopedic and Fracture Clinic of Eugene, Eugene, Oregon
Orthopedic and Fracture Clinic of Eugene, Eugene, Oregon
A long-term retrospective study (minimum 5 years) was done looking at three groups of anterior cruciate defi cient knee patients using both subjective and objective anterior cruciate tests. Twenty-seven chronic anterior cruciate ligament deficient knees reconstructed with the middle third of the patellar tendon and 28 chronic anterior cruciate ligament deficient knees reconstructed with the semitendinosus tendon were included in this consecutive group of patients and were felt to be directly comparable. It was found that the chronic an terior cruciate ligament deficient group reconstructed with the semitendinosus tendon had 4 excellent, 10 good, 7 poor, and 7 failures with an objective score averaging 4.5 of a possible 12, while the comparable group reconstructed with the middle third of the patellar tendon had 16 excellent, 7 good, 3 poor, and only 1 failure with a score of 10 of a possible 12 (P < 0.0032). For completeness sake, 20 anterior cruciate deficient knees from this group of consecutive patients that were reconstructed acutely with the semitendinosus tendon were also examined. This group had 8 excellent results, 9 good, 3 poor, and no failures with a score of 9.8 (P < 0.03 compared to the other group using the semiten dinosus tendon). This comparison between the two groups where the semitendinosus tendon was used in the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was made only to show the difference between studies dealing with knee reconstructions. There may be a significant difference between a study dealing with acutely recon structed knees versus one focusing on chronically re constructed knees, most likely because of both patient selection and time between injury and reconstruction. Subjectively, the activity forms gave postreconstruc tion activities of 112 of 200 for the chronically recon structed group using semitendinosus tendon, 115 for the chronically reconstructed group using the middle third of the patellar tendon, and 150 in the acutely reconstructed group using the semitendinosus tendon. The subjects rated their knee 6.2 (chronically recon structed with semitendinosus), 6.4 (chronically recon structed with middle third patellar tendon), and 7.9 (acutely reconstructed with semitendinosus) on a scale of 0 to 10.
This paper will point out the superiority of using the middle third of the patellar tendon over the use of the semitendinosus tendon in chronically unstable knees. The semitendinosus tendon should not be used even with extraarticular augmentations. The data for the semitendinosus tendon in acute anterior cruciate liga ment reconstruction is included to show how different two groups of patients can be based on the time of reconstruction from the date of injury.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Denti, D. L. Vetere, C. Bait, H. Schonhuber, G. Melegati, and P. Volpi Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Causes of Failure, Surgical Technique, and Clinical Results Am. J. Sports Med., October 1, 2008; 36(10): 1896 - 1902. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Barrett, D. Stokes, and M. White Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Patients Older Than 40 Years: Allograft Versus Autograft Patellar Tendon Am. J. Sports Med., October 1, 2005; 33(10): 1505 - 1512. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Wagner, M. J. Kaab, J. Schallock, N. P. Haas, and A. Weiler Hamstring Tendon Versus Patellar Tendon Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Biodegradable Interference Fit Fixation: A Prospective Matched-Group Analysis Am. J. Sports Med., September 1, 2005; 33(9): 1327 - 1336. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. H. Wu, T. Hackett, and J. C. Richmond Effects of Meniscal and Articular Surface Status on Knee Stability, Function, and Symptoms after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Long-term Prospective Study Am. J. Sports Med., November 1, 2002; 30(6): 845 - 850. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Yagi, E. K. Wong, A. Kanamori, R. E. Debski, F. H. Fu, and S. L-Y. Woo Biomechanical Analysis of an Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Am. J. Sports Med., September 1, 2002; 30(5): 660 - 666. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. F. Anderson, R. B. Snyder, and A. B. Lipscomb Jr Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Prospective Randomized Study of Three Surgical Methods Am. J. Sports Med., May 1, 2001; 29(3): 272 - 279. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Nicklin, C. Waller, P. Walker, W. K. Chung, and W. R. Walsh In Vitro Structural Properties of Braided Tendon Grafts Am. J. Sports Med., November 1, 2000; 28(6): 790 - 793. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Donald Shelbourne and T. Gray Results of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Based on Meniscus and Articular Cartilage Status at the Time of Surgery: Five- to Fifteen-Year Evaluations Am. J. Sports Med., July 1, 2000; 28(4): 446 - 452. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. S. Corry, J. M. Webb, A. J. Clingeleffer, and L. A. Pinczewski Arthroscopic Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament: A Comparison of Patellar Tendon Autograft and Four-Strand Hamstring Tendon Autograft Am. J. Sports Med., July 1, 1999; 27(4): 444 - 454. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. F. LaPrade, C. D. Hamilton, R. D. Montgomery, F. Wentorf, and H. D. Hawkins The Reharvested Central Third of the Patellar Tendon: A Histologic and Biomechanical Analysis Am. J. Sports Med., December 1, 1997; 25(6): 779 - 785. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. J. Rowden, D. Sher, G. J. Rogers, and K. Schindhelm Anterior Cruciate Ligament Graft Fixation: Initial Comparison of Patellar Tendon and Semitendinosus Autografts in Young Fresh Cadavers Am. J. Sports Med., July 1, 1997; 25(4): 472 - 478. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Marcacci, S. Zaffagnini, F. Iacono, M. Pia Neri, and A. Petitto Early Versus Late Reconstruction for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture: Results After Five Years of Followup Am. J. Sports Med., December 1, 1995; 23(6): 690 - 693. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. R. Bach JR, G. T. Jones, C. A. Hager, F. A. Sweet, and S. Luergans Arthrometric Results of Arthroscopically Assisted Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction using Autograft Patellar Tendon Substitution Am. J. Sports Med., March 1, 1995; 23(2): 179 - 185. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. R. Bach JR, G. T. Jones, F. A. Sweet, and C. A. Hager Arthroscopy-assisted Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Patellar Tendon Substitution: Two- to Four-year Follow-up Results Am. J. Sports Med., December 1, 1994; 22(6): 758 - 767. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. Karlson, M. E. Steiner, C. H. Brown, and J. Johnston Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Gracilis and Semitendinosus Tendons: Comparison of Through-the-condyle and Over-the-top Graft Placements Am. J. Sports Med., September 1, 1994; 22(5): 659 - 666. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Aglietti, R. Buzzi, G. Zaccherotti, and P. De Biase Patellar Tendon Versus Doubled Semitendinosus and Gracilis Tendons for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Am. J. Sports Med., March 1, 1994; 22(2): 211 - 218. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
N. A. Sgaglione, W. Del Pizzo, J. M. Fox, and M. J. Friedman Arthroscopically assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the pes anserine tendons: Comparison of results in acute and chronic ligament deficiency Am. J. Sports Med., March 1, 1993; 21(2): 249 - 256. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
