Clinical outcomes of transtibial versus anteromedial drilling techniques to prepare the femoral tunnel during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction
Abstract
Purpose
The clinical outcomes of transtibial (TT) and anteromedial (AM) drilling techniques for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in preparing the femoral tunnel were directly compared by using a systematic literature review.
Methods
PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the ISI Web of Science were searched until 10 May 2014, using the following Boolean operators: transtibial AND (anteromedial OR transportal OR independent OR three portal OR accessory portal) AND anterior cruciate ligament. All prospective and retrospective controlled trials directly comparing physical examination and scoring system results between TT and AM techniques were retrieved. No language or publication year limitations were used in our analysis.
Results
Of 504 studies retrieved, nine studies involving 769 patients were included. Results suggested that the AM was superior to the TT technique for preparing the femoral tunnel independent of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Score (n.s.). A higher proportion of negative Lachman (p = 0.002) and pivot-shift test (p = 0.01) results, lower manual maximum displacement by KT-1000 (p = 0.004), higher Lysholm scores (p = 0.034), a higher incidence of IKDC grade A/B (p = 0.04), and higher visual analogue scale scores (p = 0.00) were observed with the AM compared with the TT technique.
Conclusion
Although the increases in these scores were below the minimal clinically important difference, this systematic review indicated that the AM was superior to the TT drilling technique based on physical examination and scoring system results.
Level of evidence
Therapeutic study (systematic review), Level III.
Publisher URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00167-015-3672-y
DOI: 10.1007/s00167-015-3672-y
Keeping up-to-date with research can feel impossible, with papers being published faster than you'll ever be able to read them. That's where Researcher comes in: we're simplifying discovery and making important discussions happen. With over 19,000 sources, including peer-reviewed journals, preprints, blogs, universities, podcasts and Live events across 10 research areas, you'll never miss what's important to you. It's like social media, but better. Oh, and we should mention - it's free.
Researcher displays publicly available abstracts and doesn’t host any full article content. If the content is open access, we will direct clicks from the abstracts to the publisher website and display the PDF copy on our platform. Clicks to view the full text will be directed to the publisher website, where only users with subscriptions or access through their institution are able to view the full article.