股骨足印中心定位法单束解剖重建ACL临床效果研究

徐丛; 王永为; 李嘉; 曹向宇; 刘文涛; 杜元良; 戴海峰; 刘清晨; 吕永明

doi:10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2016.06.017

中国临床解剖学杂志 ›› 2016, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (6) : 685-688. DOI: 10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2016.06.017

临床研究

股骨足印中心定位法单束解剖重建ACL临床效果研究

徐丛¹，　王永为²，　李嘉¹，　曹向宇¹，　刘文涛¹，　杜元良¹，　戴海峰¹，　刘清晨¹，　吕永明¹

作者信息 +

Clinical study of the femur footprint center positioning in the ACL single-bundle anatomical reconstruction

XU Cong¹, WANG Yong-wei²，LI Jia¹, CAO Xiang-yu¹，LIU Wen-tao¹, DU Yuan-liang¹, DAI Hai-feng¹, LIU Qing-chen¹, LV Yong-ming¹

Author information +

文章历史 +

摘要

目的　探讨急性前交叉韧带（anterior cruciate ligament, ACL）断裂后镜下单束解剖重建术中股骨骨道实用定位方法及临床效果。方法　对ACL断裂患者行关节镜下自体半腱股薄肌腱单束解剖重建术，术中股骨侧骨道采用足印中心定位法，同时术中寻找股骨外侧髁间嵴、分叉嵴等骨性标志对定位点准确性进行校对。术前、术后进行膝关节功能检查及评分，包括前抽屉试验、Lachman 试验、pivot shift试验、Lysholm 评分、Tegner 评分、IKDC 评分。结果　(1)镜下100%可见股骨外髁间嵴，但分叉嵴的出现率仅有42%（48/115）。(2)术后前抽屉试验阴性率79%（术后3个月）、77%（术后24月）；Lachman 试验阴性率80%（术后3个月）、71%（术后24月）、pivot shift试验阴性率97%（术后3个月）、95%（术后24月）。(3) Lysholm 评分、Tegner 评分及IKDC 评分与术前比较差异有统计学意义（P<0.01）。结论　ACL单束解剖重建股骨足印区中心点法能提供足够膝关节稳定性，取得满意临床效果，但对股骨止点残留韧带依赖性高；股骨外侧髁间嵴镜下易于辨认，但分叉嵴辨别率低。

Abstract

Objective　To explore the effective femur tunnel positioning method and primary clinical results in arthroscopic single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction after the acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture.　Methods　All patients with ACL rupture were evaluated after arthroscopic single-bundle ACL reconstruction by means of the autogenous semitendinosus and gracilis tendons and footprint center positioning method in the femur tunnel. The accuracy of the above-mentioned techniques was intra-operatively evaluated through observing the bone marks of lateral femoral epicondyle， and the drawer test，Lachman test, Pivot-shift test, the Lysholm, Tegner and international knee documentation committee (IKDC) scores were used to estimate knee joint function and stability before and after ACL reconstruction.　Results　(1)the lateral femoral epicondyle was found in all the patients during ACL reconstruction, but the resident ridge was found in only 48 patients. (2)after 3 and 24 months of ACL reconstruction, the negative rate was 79%, 77% for the drawer test, 80%, 71% for the Lachman test and 97%, 95% for the pivot shift test.(3) there were significant differences in Lysholm,Tegner,IKDC scores compared with that prior to ACL reconstruction (P<0.01).　Conclusion　The femur footprint center positioning method in the ACL single-bundle reconstruction provides enough knee joint stability and satisfactory clinical results, but the remnant preservation of ligament in the femur footprint is essential and importantly depended on. While the lateral femoral epicondyle can be easily found, that is not the case for the resident ridge.

导出引用

徐丛,王永为,李嘉,曹向宇,刘文涛,杜元良,戴海峰,刘清晨,吕永明. 股骨足印中心定位法单束解剖重建ACL临床效果研究[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志. 2016, 34(6): 685-688 https://doi.org/10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2016.06.017

XU Cong, WANG Yong-wei，LI Jia, CAO Xiang-yu，LIU Wen-tao, DU Yuan-liang, DAI Hai-feng, LIU Qing-chen, LV Yong-ming. Clinical study of the femur footprint center positioning in the ACL single-bundle anatomical reconstruction[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinical Anatomy. 2016, 34(6): 685-688 https://doi.org/10.13418/j.issn.1001-165x.2016.06.017

参考文献

[1] Schillhammer CK, Reid JB 3rd，Rister J，et al. Arthroscopy Up to Date: Anterior Cruciate Ligament Anatomy[J]. Arthroscopy, 2016, 32(1): 209-212.
[2] 陆伟, 王大平, 肖德明. 前交叉韧带重建股骨足迹精确定位的解剖与临床研究[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2011, 29(5): 513-516.
[3] 陆伟, 王大平, 韩云等, 关节镜下过顶位与解剖位腘绳肌腱单束重建前交叉韧带比较[J]. 中国临床解剖学杂志, 2009,27(3): 283-287.
[4] Fu FH, van Eck CF, Tashman S, et al.Anatomic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a changing paradigm[J]. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc，2015, 23(3):640-648.
[5] Sasaki S, Tsuda E，Hiraga Y，et al, Prospective randomized study of objective and subjective clinical results between double-bundle and single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction[J]. Am J Sports Med, 2016，44(4): 855-864.
[6] Mayr HO, Benecke P, Hoell A, et al, Single-bundle versus double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A comparative 2-year follow-up[J]. Arthroscopy, 2016, 32(1): 34-42.
[7] Tompkins M, Ma R, Hogan MV, et al. What’s new in sports medicine[J]. J Bone Joint Surg Am, 2011,93(8):789-797.
[8] Iriuchishima T, Tajima G, Ingham SJ, et al.Impingement pressure in the anatomical and non anatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cadaver study[J]. Am J Sports Med, 2010,38(8):1611-1617.
[9] Rayan F, Nanjayan SK, Quah C, et al. Review of evolution of tunnel position in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction[J].World J Orthop, 2015, 6(2):252-262.
[10]Ahn JH, Jeong HJ, Ko CS, et al. Three-dimensional reconstruction computed tomography evaluation of tunnel location during single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparison of transtibial and 2-incision tibial tunnelindependent techniques[J]. Clin Orthop Surg, 2013,5(1):26-35.
[11]Nha KW, Han JH, Kwon JH, et al. Anatomical single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a freehand transtibial technique[J]. Knee Surg Relat Res, 2015, 27(2):117-122.
[12]Youm YS, Cho SD, Lee SH, et al. Modifid transtibial versus anteromedial portal technique in anatomic singlebundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: comparison of femoral tunnel position and clinical results[J]. Am J Sports Med, 2014, 42(12):2941-2947.
[13]Stergiou N, Ristanis S, Moraiti C, et al. Tibial rotation in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-deficient and ACL-reconstructed knees: a theoretical proposition for the development of osteoarthritis[J].Sports Med, 2007, 37:601-613.