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 Santi, M. D. Articles by Richardson, A. B. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Santi, M. D. Articles by Richardson, A. B.

The Ligament Augmentation Device in Hamstring Grafts for Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament

Division of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii

Allen B. Richardson, MD

Division of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii

Twenty-eight patients who had reconstructions of the anterior cruciate ligament with a ligament augmentation device in the semitendinosus and gracilis tendons were compared with 32 patients who had reconstructions with semitendinosus and gracilis tendons alone. Pre operatively, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups with respect to age, sex, Tegner activity level, and time from injury to operation. Mean postop erative followup was 31.4 months for the augmentation group and 32.3 months for the nonaugmentation group. At postoperative evaluation, there was no difference in the 2 groups with respect to Lysholm knee scores, re turn to activity as measured by Tegner levels, KT-1000 arthrometer laxity testing, presence of pivot shift or Lachman sign, range of motion, and the patient's sub jective overall rating of the surgery. Twenty-six of the 28 patients (93%) with augmentation rated their results as either "good" or "excellent" compared with 30 of the 32 patients (94%) with no ligament augmentation who rated their results as good or excellent. Four patients with the ligament augmentation devices needed re- operation for recurrent effusions and pain. No patients in the nonaugmentation group had recurrent effusions.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Honl, V. Carrero, E. Hille, E. Schneider, and M. M. Morlock Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Grafts for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: An in Vitro Comparison of Mechanical Behavior under Failure Tensile Loading and Cyclic Submaximal Tensile Loading Am. J. Sports Med., July 1, 2002; 30(4): 549 - 557. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. F. Draganich, Y.-F. Hsieh, S. Ho, and B. Reider Intraarticular Anterior Cruciate Ligament Graft Placement on the Average Most Isometric Line on the Femur: Does It Reproducibly Restore Knee Kinematics? Am. J. Sports Med., May 1, 1999; 27(3): 329 - 334. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Samuelson, L. F. Draganich, Xiadong Zhou, P. Krumins, and B. Reider The Effects of Knee Reconstruction on Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Anterolateral Capsular Deficiencies Am. J. Sports Med., July 1, 1996; 24(4): 492 - 497. [Abstract] [PDF]