| Autor: |
Changli, Xu, Tianze, Liu, Miao, Wang, Chang, Liu, Bo, Li, Qiujian, Lian, Tongjiang, Chen, Fengmei, Chen, Suchi, Qiao, Zhiwei, Wang |
| Rok vydání: |
2022 |
| Předmět: |
|
| DOI: |
10.21203/rs.3.rs-1628184/v1 |
| Popis: |
Background To compare proprioception recovery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with a hamstring tendon autograft versus the artificial Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System (LARS). Material and methods Forty patients (9 females, 31 males) with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture were enrolled in this prospective study. Patients were randomized to two groups, 1) ACLR using a hamstring tendon autograft (n = 20) or 2) ACLR using artificial LARS (n = 20). Proprioception was assessed with knee joint position sense (JPS) passive-passive test at 45° and 75° flexions, with the contralateral healthy knee as a control baseline to calculate the JPS error. Knee JPS absolute error was used as the main outcome variable and defined as the absolute difference between the reproduction and target angles. Results JPS error in both groups at 3 months after ACLR was significantly higher than that at 12 months. However, no significant difference in JPS error was detected between the LARS and autograft groups at either 3 or 12 months after ACLR. Analyzing JPS data by grouping patients according to whether ACLR was performed more or less than 1 year following injury regardless of graft type showed a statistically significant difference between the groups at 3 months, but not at 12 months, after ACLR. Patients receiving the graft within 1 year of injury had a lower JPS error than those receiving the graft more than 1 year after injury at 3 months. No complications were associated with either ACLR method. Conclusion ACLR with a hamstring tendon autograft or LARS artificial graft is similarly safe and effective for recovering knee proprioception. |
| Databáze: |
OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
