RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재후보 SCOPUS SCIE

      A Comparison of Arthroscopically Assisted Single and Double Bundle Tibial Inlay Reconstruction for Isolated Posterior Cruciate Ligament Injury

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A104598722

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

      Background: This study evaluated the clinical results of arthroscopically assisted single and double bundle tibial inlay reconstructions of an isolated posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injury.
      Methods: This study reviewed the data for 14 patients who underwent a single bundle tibial inlay PCL reconstruction (Group A) and 16 patients who underwent a double bundle tibial inlay PCL reconstruction (Group B) between August 1999 and August 2002. The mean follow-up period in groups A and B was 90.5 months and 64 months, respectively.
      Results: The Lysholm knee scores in groups A and B increased from an average of 43.3 ± 7.04 and 44.7 ± 5.02 preoperatively to 88.1 ± 7.32 and 88.7 ± 9.11 points at the final follow-up, respectively. In group A, stress radiography using a Telos device showed that the preoperative mean side-to-side differences (SSDs) of 9.5 ± 1.60 mm at 30° of flexion and 9.8 ± 1.70 mm at 90° of flexion were improved to 2.8 ± 1.19 mm and 3.0 ± 1.1 mm, respectively. In group B, the preoperative SSDs of 10.4 ± 1.50 mm at 30° of flexion and 10.7 ± 1.60 mm at 90° of flexion improved to 2.7 ± 1.15 mm and 2.6 ± 0.49 mm, respectively. There was no significant difference in the clinical scores and radiologic findings between the two groups.
      Conclusions: Single bundle and double bundle PCL reconstructions using the tibial inlay technique give satisfactory clinical results in patients with an isolated PCL injury, and there are no significant differences in the clinical and radiological results between the two techniques. These results suggest that it is unnecessary to perform the more technically challenging double bundle reconstruction using the tibial inlay technique in an isolated PCL injury.
      번역하기

      Background: This study evaluated the clinical results of arthroscopically assisted single and double bundle tibial inlay reconstructions of an isolated posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injury. Methods: This study reviewed the data for 14 patients who...

      Background: This study evaluated the clinical results of arthroscopically assisted single and double bundle tibial inlay reconstructions of an isolated posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injury.
      Methods: This study reviewed the data for 14 patients who underwent a single bundle tibial inlay PCL reconstruction (Group A) and 16 patients who underwent a double bundle tibial inlay PCL reconstruction (Group B) between August 1999 and August 2002. The mean follow-up period in groups A and B was 90.5 months and 64 months, respectively.
      Results: The Lysholm knee scores in groups A and B increased from an average of 43.3 ± 7.04 and 44.7 ± 5.02 preoperatively to 88.1 ± 7.32 and 88.7 ± 9.11 points at the final follow-up, respectively. In group A, stress radiography using a Telos device showed that the preoperative mean side-to-side differences (SSDs) of 9.5 ± 1.60 mm at 30° of flexion and 9.8 ± 1.70 mm at 90° of flexion were improved to 2.8 ± 1.19 mm and 3.0 ± 1.1 mm, respectively. In group B, the preoperative SSDs of 10.4 ± 1.50 mm at 30° of flexion and 10.7 ± 1.60 mm at 90° of flexion improved to 2.7 ± 1.15 mm and 2.6 ± 0.49 mm, respectively. There was no significant difference in the clinical scores and radiologic findings between the two groups.
      Conclusions: Single bundle and double bundle PCL reconstructions using the tibial inlay technique give satisfactory clinical results in patients with an isolated PCL injury, and there are no significant differences in the clinical and radiological results between the two techniques. These results suggest that it is unnecessary to perform the more technically challenging double bundle reconstruction using the tibial inlay technique in an isolated PCL injury.

      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 Shearn JT, "Two-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: how bundle tension depends on femoral placement" 86 (86): 1262-1270, 2004

      2 Clancy WG Jr, "Treatment of knee joint instability secondary to rupture of the posterior cruciate ligament:report of a new procedure" 65 (65): 310-322, 1983

      3 L'Insalata JC, "Treatment of acute and chronic posterior cruciate ligament deficiency: new approaches" 9 (9): 185-193, 1996

      4 Fanelli GC, "The posterior cruciate ligament arthroscopic evaluation and treatment" 10 (10): 673-688, 1994

      5 Shelbourne KD, "The natural history of acute, isolated, nonoperatively treated posterior cruciate ligament injuries: a prospective study" 27 (27): 276-283, 1999

      6 Race A, "The mechanical properties of the two bundles of the human posterior cruciate ligament" 27 (27): 13-24, 1994

      7 Seon JK, "Reconstruction of isolated posterior cruciate ligament injuries: a clinical comparison of the transtibial and tibial inlay techniques" 22 (22): 27-32, 2006

      8 Tegner Y, "Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries" 198 : 43-49, 1985

      9 Berg EE, "Posterior cruciate ligament tibial inlay reconstruction" 11 (11): 69-76, 1995

      10 Miller MD, "Posterior cruciate ligament injuries:new treatment options" 8 (8): 145-154, 1995

      1 Shearn JT, "Two-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: how bundle tension depends on femoral placement" 86 (86): 1262-1270, 2004

      2 Clancy WG Jr, "Treatment of knee joint instability secondary to rupture of the posterior cruciate ligament:report of a new procedure" 65 (65): 310-322, 1983

      3 L'Insalata JC, "Treatment of acute and chronic posterior cruciate ligament deficiency: new approaches" 9 (9): 185-193, 1996

      4 Fanelli GC, "The posterior cruciate ligament arthroscopic evaluation and treatment" 10 (10): 673-688, 1994

      5 Shelbourne KD, "The natural history of acute, isolated, nonoperatively treated posterior cruciate ligament injuries: a prospective study" 27 (27): 276-283, 1999

      6 Race A, "The mechanical properties of the two bundles of the human posterior cruciate ligament" 27 (27): 13-24, 1994

      7 Seon JK, "Reconstruction of isolated posterior cruciate ligament injuries: a clinical comparison of the transtibial and tibial inlay techniques" 22 (22): 27-32, 2006

      8 Tegner Y, "Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries" 198 : 43-49, 1985

      9 Berg EE, "Posterior cruciate ligament tibial inlay reconstruction" 11 (11): 69-76, 1995

      10 Miller MD, "Posterior cruciate ligament injuries:new treatment options" 8 (8): 145-154, 1995

      11 Fanelli GC, "Posterior cruciate ligament injuries in trauma patients: part II" 11 (11): 526-529, 1995

      12 Johnson DH, "PCL 2002: indications, double-bundle versus inlay technique and revision surgery" 18 (18): 40-52, 2002

      13 Keller PM, "Nonoperatively treated isolated posterior cruciate ligament injuries" 21 (21): 132-136, 1993

      14 Boynton MD, "Long-term followup of the untreated isolated posterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee" 24 (24): 306-310, 1996

      15 Cross MJ, "Long-term followup of posterior cruciate ligament rupture: a study of 116 cases" 12 (12): 292-297, 1984

      16 Lipscomb AB Jr, "Isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction:long-term results" 21 (21): 490-496, 1993

      17 Garofalo R, "Double-bundle transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a tendon-patellar bone-semitendinosus tendon autograft:clinical results with a minimum of 2 years' follow-up" 22 (22): 1331-1338, 2006

      18 Whiddon DR, "Double compared with single-bundle open inlay posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in a cadaver model" 90 (90): 1820-1829, 2008

      19 Markolf KL, "Cyclic loading of posterior cruciate ligament replacements fixed with tibial tunnel and tibial inlay methods" 84 (84): 518-524, 2002

      20 MacGillivray JD, "Comparison of tibial inlay versus transtibial techniques for isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction:minimum 2-year follow-up" 22 (22): 320-328, 2006

      21 Sekiya JK, "Clinical outcomes after isolated arthroscopic single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction" 21 (21): 1042-1050, 2005

      22 Margheritini F, "Biomechanical comparison of tibial inlay versus transtibial techniques for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: analysis of knee kinematics and graft in situ forces" 32 (32): 587-593, 2004

      23 Oakes DA, "Biomechanical comparison of tibial inlay and tibial tunnel techniques for reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament: analysis of graft forces" 84 (84): 938-944, 2002

      24 Harner CD, "Biomechanical analysis of a double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction" 28 (28): 144-151, 2000

      25 Wang CJ, "Arthroscopic singleversus double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions using hamstring autograft" 35 (35): 1293-1299, 2004

      26 Schulte KR, "Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction" 16 (16): 145-156, 1997

      27 Hughston JC, "Acute tears of the posterior cruciate ligament: results of operative treatment" 62 (62): 438-450, 1980

      28 Hatayama K, "A comparison of arthroscopic single- and double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction:review of 20 cases" 35 (35): 568-571, 2006

      29 McAllister DR, "A biomechanical comparison of tibial inlay and tibial tunnel posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques:graft pretension and knee laxity" 30 (30): 312-317, 2002

      30 Bergfeld JA, "A biomechanical comparison of posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions using single- and double-bundle tibial inlay techniques" 33 (33): 976-981, 2005

      31 Bergfeld JA, "A biomechanical comparison of posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques" 29 (29): 129-136, 2001

      더보기

      동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

      동일학술지 더보기

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2024 평가예정 해외DB학술지평가 신청대상 (해외등재 학술지 평가)
      2021-01-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (해외등재 학술지 평가) KCI등재
      2020-12-01 평가 등재 탈락 (해외등재 학술지 평가)
      2020-04-14 학회명변경 영문명 : 미등록 -> The Korean Orthopaedic Association KCI등재
      2013-10-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (기타) KCI등재
      2010-01-01 평가 SCOPUS 등재 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 0.06 0.06 0.07
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      0.07 0.1 0.346 0.04
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼