ARTROSKOPİK ÖN ÇAPRAZ BAĞ REKONSTRÜKSİYONUNDA ENDOBUTTON CL VE ASANSÖR SİSTEMLİ ZİPLOOP TEKNİKLERİNİN KLİNİK KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI
Giriş: Ön çapraz bağ (ÖÇB) yırtığı olup cerrahiolarak Endobutton-Continue Loop ve AsansörSistemli Ziploop tekniği uygulanarak tedavi edilenhastaların sonuçlarının karşılaştırılması.Yöntem: Haziran 2011-Mart 2013 tarihleri arasındaMustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Ortopedi veTravmatoloji servisinde artroskopik olarak ÖÇByırtığı rekonstrüksiyonu yapılan 50 hasta incelendi.ÖÇB lezyonu tanısı konulan 25 hastaya (11’ine sağdiz, 14’üne sol diz) Endobutton-CL tekniğiuygulanarak, 25 hastaya da (13’üne sağ diz, 12’sinesol diz) Asansör Sistemli Ziploop tekniğiuygulanarak toplam 50 hasta çalışmamıza dahiledildi. Hastaların cerrahi süreleri, fonksiyoneldurumları ameliyat sonrası Lysholm değerlendirmeskoru, ameliyat öncesi ve sonrası da InternationalKnee Documentation Committee (IKDC)skorlaması ile değerlendirildi.Bulgular: : Endobutton-CL tekniği uygulanangrupta cerrahi süre ortalama 62,0 ±10,3 , AsansörSistemli Ziploop tekniğinde ise; 45,9 ±4,9(p˂0,001) dakika olarak bulundu. Endobutton-CLtekniği uygulanan grupta ortalama takip süresi 13,6ay, Asansör Sistemli Ziploop tekniği uygulanangrupta ise 9,7 ay olarak bulundu.Sonuç: Otolog çift katlı (dört band) hamstringtendon kullanılarak yapılan tek insizyonluartroskopik Endobutton-CL tekniği ve AsansörSistemli Ziploop tekniği ile ÖÇB rekonstrüksiyonuetkili ve güvenilir yöntemler olup, düşükkomplikasyon oranları ve başarılı fonksiyonelsonuçları açısından tercih edilebilir tekniklerdir.Ancak; cerrahi süre açısından daha kısa süredeyapılıyor olması, femoral tünel boyunun hassas birşekilde ayarlama gereğinin olmaması ve greftgerginliğinin daha iyi sağlanması açısından AsansörSistemli Ziploop tekniği, Endobutton-CL tekniğinegöre daha avantajlıdır.Anahtar Kelimeler: Ön Çapraz BağRekonstrüksiyonu, Endobutton-CL, AsansörSistemli Ziploop
Anahtar Kelimeler:
Ön Çapraz Bağ Rekonstrüksiyonu, Endobutton-CL, Asansör Sistemli Ziploop
The Clinical Comparison of Endobutton-CL and Lift Systemed Ziploop Technıque in Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Aim: The objective of this study is to compare theresults of the surgically treated patients, havinganterior cruciate ligament rupture (ACL), byapplying Endobutton-CL and Lift SystemedZiploop technique.Methods: 50 patients, who receivedarthroscopically ACL rupture reconstructiontreatment in Orthopedics and Traumatology clinicof Mustafa Kemal University, were studiedbetween July 2011 – March 2013. The surgicalperiod of the patients, functional status wereevaluated according to postoperative Lysholmevaluation form; the preoperation and postoperationwere according to IKDC scoring.Results: Fifty patients in total were included in oursurvey by treating 25 patients , who were diagnosedwith ACL lesion, with Endobutton-CL techniqueand the residual 25 patients were diagnosed withLift Systemed Ziploop technique. The average timefor the group applied Endobutton-CL technique wasfound as 62 minutes, and 46 minutes for the othergroup applied Lift Systemed Ziploop technique.The average follow-up time of period in the groupapplied Endobutton-CL technique was recorded as13,6 months, and 9,7 months for the other groupapplied Lift Systemed Ziploop technique.Conclusion: Single incision arthroscopicEndbutton- CL technique applied by usingautologous double deck (four band) hamstringtendon and ACL reconstruction with Lift SystemedZiploop technique are efficient and confidentialtechniques and are among the preferable techniquesin terms of their successful functional results andlow complication rates. However, Lift SystemedZiploop technique is more advantageous thanEndobutton-CL technique in terms of shortersurgical time span of the preceding, of not havingthe necessity to adjust the length of femoral tunnelsensitively and of supplying better graft tension
___
- Arnoczky SP: Anatomy of the anterior cruciate ligament. Clin Orthop 1983;172: 19–25.
- T. Zantop, W. Petersen, J. Sekiya et al. ; Anterior Cruciate Ligament Anatomy and Function
- Relating to Anatomical Reconstruction. Knee Surgery Sports Traumatol Arthroscopy 2006:982–92.
- Sisk TD. Knee Injuries. In: Campbell’ s Operative Orthopaedics, 1996;8:1487–732.
- Mc Daniel WJ, Dameron T,: Untreated Ruptures ofthe Anterior Cruciate Ligament. JBJS 1980;62-
- A/5:696-704.
- Noyes FR, Mooar PA, Matthews DS et al. The symptomatic anterior cruciate deficient knee: part
- I:the long term functional disability in athletically active individuals. J Bone Joint Surg 1983;65-
- A:154–62.
- Hawkins R, Misamore G, Meritt T: Follow up of Acute Nonoperated Isolated Anterior Cruciate
- Ligament Tear Am J Sports of Med 1986;14:205-10.
- Kannus P, Jarvinen M: Conservatively treated tears of the anterior cruciate ligament: Long-term
- results. J Bone Joint Surg 1987;69-A:1007–12.
- Mc Daniel WJ, Dameron T: The Untreated Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture Clin Orthop
- ;172:158-63.9. Brand J, Weiler A, Caborn D et al. Current Concept Graft Fixation in Cruciate Ligament
- Reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 2000:28-5;761-74.
- Andersson C, Odensten M, Good L et al. Surgical or nonsurgical treatment of acute rupture of the
- anterior cruciate ligament: a randomized study with long-term follw-up. J. Bone Joint Surg 1989;71-
- A:965–74.
- Chadwick CP, Yung SH, Brett L Stability Results of Hamstring Anterior Cruciate Ligament
- Reconstructions at 2 to 8 year Follow up; Arthroscopy, The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related
- Surgery. 2005;21-2:138-46.
- Eriksson K, Kindblom GL, Hamberg P et al. The Semitendinosus Tendon Regenerates After
- Resection: Acta Orthop Scand 2001;72-4:379-84.
- Peter F, Squren K: Tunnel Widening After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Is
- Influenced by the Type of Graft Fixation Used : A Prospective Randomized Study ; Arthroscopy
- ;21-11:1337-41.
- Gobbi A, Mahajan S , Zanazzo M et al. Patellar Tendon Versus Quadrupled Semitendinosus
- Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction, A Prospective Clinical Investigation in Athletes. The
- Journal of Arthroscopic Surgery 2003;19-6:592-601.
- Aglietti P, Giron F: Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Bone-patellar Tendon-Bone
- Compared with Double Semitendinosus and Gracilis Tendon Grafts. A Prospective, Randomize
- Clinical Trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 6-A(10):2143-55.
- Sachs RA, Reznik A, Daniel DM, et al. Complications of The Knee Ligament Surgery In Knee
- Ligaments Structure, Function, Injury, and Repair. New York 1990:505-20.
- ISSN: 2149-3103
- Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 3 Sayı
- Başlangıç: 2010
- Yayıncı: Hatay Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dekanlığı
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler
Kağan Şimşek, Seyit Başarslan, Cüneyt Göçmez, Adnan Ceviz
Alper Cansever, İbrahim Duman, Raif Özden, Ömer Yıldız, Vedat Uruç, Yunus Doğramacı, Aydıner Kalacı