HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Raab, D. J. Articles by Steubs, J. A. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Raab, D. J. Articles by Steubs, J. A.

Comparison of arthroscopic and open reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament

Early results

Minneapolis Sports Medicine Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota

David A. Fischer, MD

Minneapolis Sports Medicine Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota

J. Patrick Smith, MD

Minneapolis Sports Medicine Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Alan W. Markman, MD

Minneapolis Sports Medicine Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota

John A. Steubs, MD

Minneapolis Sports Medicine Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota

The purpose of this study was to determine in a prospective, randomized, blinded design whether ar throscopically assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction offered any significant immediate or short-term advantages over traditional open recon struction through a limited arthrotomy. Patients with a diagnosis of deficiency of the anterior cruciate ligament were randomly assigned to one of two treatment groups: the open group (limited open reconstruction) or the arthroscopic group (fully arthroscopic reconstruc tion). Postoperatively, both groups were treated iden tically. Intra- and postoperative observations included length of surgery, duration of hospitalization, and amount of pain medication. Follow-up evaluations were performed at 1, 6, 12, 16, 20, and 24 weeks to record crepitus, swelling, range of motion, ligament laxity, and thigh atrophy. Lysholm scores were obtained at the 16 and 24 week followups.

At 24 weeks, 86% of the open group and 89% of the arthroscopic group had good-to-excellent results. Intra operative, postoperative, and follow-up findings indi cated no statistically significant differences or relation ships between the two groups in any of the variables measured, except that operative time was 13 minutes longer in the arthroscopic group (P < 0.001). The results do not substantiate a clinical advantage for either technique.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. H. Fu, C. H. Bennett, C. B. Ma, J. Menetrey, and C. Lattermann Current Trends in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Part II. Operative Procedures and Clinical Correlations Am. J. Sports Med., January 1, 2000; 28(1): 124 - 130. [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]

				F. R. Noyes and S. D. Barber-Westin A Comparison of Results in Acute and Chronic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Ruptures of Arthroscopically Assisted Autogenous Patellar Tendon Reconstruction Am. J. Sports Med., July 1, 1997; 25(4): 460 - 471. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. B. O'NEILL Arthroscopically Assisted Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament. A Prospective Randomized Analysis of Three Techniques J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., June 1, 1996; 78(6): 803 - 13. [Abstract] [Full Text]