Key result
Endoscopic ACL-reconstruction resulted in no differences in proprioception, clinical results, or stability compared to the open two-tunnel technique at 3.9 years follow-up.
Why the study?
Does endoscopic ACL reconstruction improve proprioception and clinical outcomes compared to the open two-tunnel technique in patients with chronic ACL-deficiency?
Population
29 patients with chronic ACL-deficiency
Comparison
Arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with patellar… vs Open two-tunnel technique with medial…
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
3.9 +/- 0.4 years
Authors
Loading...
Single-incision arthroscopic ACL reconstruction showed no proprioceptive advantage over two-tunnel technique; leaves open whether technique affects outcomes in larger trials.
Cohort (n=29)
Does endoscopic ACL reconstruction improve proprioception and clinical outcomes compared to the open two-tunnel technique in patients with chronic ACL-deficiency?
Endoscopic and open two-tunnel techniques for ACL reconstruction yield similar long-term outcomes regarding proprioception, clinical scores, and knee stability.
R. Fremerey (2001) conducted a cohort in Chronic ACL-deficiency (n=29). Endoscopic ACL-reconstruction vs. Open two-tunnel technique was evaluated on Proprioception, clinical scores (Lysholm, Tegner), and stability. Endoscopic ACL-reconstruction resulted in no differences in proprioception, clinical results, or stability compared to the open two-tunnel technique at 3.9 years follow-up.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: