FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2052392425> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2052392425 endingPage "e30" @default.
• W2052392425 startingPage "e30" @default.
• W2052392425 abstract "SummaryThe purpose of this project is to compare knee motion in a double bundle construct to an optimally placed computer-navigated single bundle construct. We found that the double bundle reconstruction did not produce a better biomechanical outcome when compared to an optimally placed single bundle construct. Based on our data, surgeons should be cautious in their decision to convert to a double bundle ACL reconstruction.PurposeOne criticism of previous biomechanical studies comparing double bundle to single bundle anterior cruciate ligament(ACL) reconstructions is that tunnel placements for the single bundle constructs were suboptimal. The purpose of this project is to compare knee motion in a double bundle construct to an optimally placed computer-navigated single bundle construct.MethodsKnee motion (AP translation and transverse rotation) in 8 pairs of fresh frozen cadaveric knees was evaluated with a 134N anteriorly directed force, a 10Nm internal rotation torque, a 10Nm external rotation torque, and a combined 134N anterior force and 10Nm internal rotation torque at 30 and 60 degrees of knee flexion. The ACLs in all knees were then transected, and knee motion again tested in similar fashion. Next, one knee in each pair was randomly chosen to be reconstructed using a computer-navigated single bundle technique while the opposite knee was reconstructed in double bundle fashion. Knee motion was evaluated one final time. Comparisons were made based on the condition of the knee and on the method of reconstruction. Statistical analysis was completed using a two-tailed, paired Student's t-test.ResultsIn response to anterior tibial load at 30 degrees knee flexion, anterior translation was significantly less for the computer-navigated single bundle construct (6.0 + 2.3mm) when compared to the double bundle construct (7.8 +.2.8mm)(p<0.05). Moreover, coupled internal rotation with anterior tibial loading at 60 degrees knee flexion was significantly improved after computer-navigated reconstruction (7.7 + 4.1 degrees) as compared to both the intact (5.3 + 5.7 degrees) and ACL deficient conditions (3.6 + 3.0 degrees)(p<0.05). Coupled internal rotation was not improved after double bundle reconstruction when compared to both the intact and ACL deficient conditions.ConclusionsThe double bundle reconstruction did not produce a better biomechanical outcome when compared to an optimally placed single bundle construct. SummaryThe purpose of this project is to compare knee motion in a double bundle construct to an optimally placed computer-navigated single bundle construct. We found that the double bundle reconstruction did not produce a better biomechanical outcome when compared to an optimally placed single bundle construct. Based on our data, surgeons should be cautious in their decision to convert to a double bundle ACL reconstruction. The purpose of this project is to compare knee motion in a double bundle construct to an optimally placed computer-navigated single bundle construct. We found that the double bundle reconstruction did not produce a better biomechanical outcome when compared to an optimally placed single bundle construct. Based on our data, surgeons should be cautious in their decision to convert to a double bundle ACL reconstruction. PurposeOne criticism of previous biomechanical studies comparing double bundle to single bundle anterior cruciate ligament(ACL) reconstructions is that tunnel placements for the single bundle constructs were suboptimal. The purpose of this project is to compare knee motion in a double bundle construct to an optimally placed computer-navigated single bundle construct. One criticism of previous biomechanical studies comparing double bundle to single bundle anterior cruciate ligament(ACL) reconstructions is that tunnel placements for the single bundle constructs were suboptimal. The purpose of this project is to compare knee motion in a double bundle construct to an optimally placed computer-navigated single bundle construct. MethodsKnee motion (AP translation and transverse rotation) in 8 pairs of fresh frozen cadaveric knees was evaluated with a 134N anteriorly directed force, a 10Nm internal rotation torque, a 10Nm external rotation torque, and a combined 134N anterior force and 10Nm internal rotation torque at 30 and 60 degrees of knee flexion. The ACLs in all knees were then transected, and knee motion again tested in similar fashion. Next, one knee in each pair was randomly chosen to be reconstructed using a computer-navigated single bundle technique while the opposite knee was reconstructed in double bundle fashion. Knee motion was evaluated one final time. Comparisons were made based on the condition of the knee and on the method of reconstruction. Statistical analysis was completed using a two-tailed, paired Student's t-test. Knee motion (AP translation and transverse rotation) in 8 pairs of fresh frozen cadaveric knees was evaluated with a 134N anteriorly directed force, a 10Nm internal rotation torque, a 10Nm external rotation torque, and a combined 134N anterior force and 10Nm internal rotation torque at 30 and 60 degrees of knee flexion. The ACLs in all knees were then transected, and knee motion again tested in similar fashion. Next, one knee in each pair was randomly chosen to be reconstructed using a computer-navigated single bundle technique while the opposite knee was reconstructed in double bundle fashion. Knee motion was evaluated one final time. Comparisons were made based on the condition of the knee and on the method of reconstruction. Statistical analysis was completed using a two-tailed, paired Student's t-test. ResultsIn response to anterior tibial load at 30 degrees knee flexion, anterior translation was significantly less for the computer-navigated single bundle construct (6.0 + 2.3mm) when compared to the double bundle construct (7.8 +.2.8mm)(p<0.05). Moreover, coupled internal rotation with anterior tibial loading at 60 degrees knee flexion was significantly improved after computer-navigated reconstruction (7.7 + 4.1 degrees) as compared to both the intact (5.3 + 5.7 degrees) and ACL deficient conditions (3.6 + 3.0 degrees)(p<0.05). Coupled internal rotation was not improved after double bundle reconstruction when compared to both the intact and ACL deficient conditions. In response to anterior tibial load at 30 degrees knee flexion, anterior translation was significantly less for the computer-navigated single bundle construct (6.0 + 2.3mm) when compared to the double bundle construct (7.8 +.2.8mm)(p<0.05). Moreover, coupled internal rotation with anterior tibial loading at 60 degrees knee flexion was significantly improved after computer-navigated reconstruction (7.7 + 4.1 degrees) as compared to both the intact (5.3 + 5.7 degrees) and ACL deficient conditions (3.6 + 3.0 degrees)(p<0.05). Coupled internal rotation was not improved after double bundle reconstruction when compared to both the intact and ACL deficient conditions. ConclusionsThe double bundle reconstruction did not produce a better biomechanical outcome when compared to an optimally placed single bundle construct. The double bundle reconstruction did not produce a better biomechanical outcome when compared to an optimally placed single bundle construct." @default.
• W2052392425 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2052392425 creator A5009210994 @default.
• W2052392425 creator A5033491194 @default.
• W2052392425 creator A5042001176 @default.
• W2052392425 creator A5054643129 @default.
• W2052392425 date "2008-06-01" @default.
• W2052392425 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W2052392425 title "Knee Kinematics After Double Bundle Versus Computer-Navigated Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (SS-52)" @default.
• W2052392425 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2008.04.052" @default.
• W2052392425 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W2052392425 type Work @default.
• W2052392425 sameAs 2052392425 @default.
• W2052392425 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W2052392425 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2052392425 hasAuthorship W2052392425A5009210994 @default.
• W2052392425 hasAuthorship W2052392425A5033491194 @default.
• W2052392425 hasAuthorship W2052392425A5042001176 @default.
• W2052392425 hasAuthorship W2052392425A5054643129 @default.
• W2052392425 hasConcept C105702510 @default.
• W2052392425 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2052392425 hasConcept C159985019 @default.
• W2052392425 hasConcept C192562407 @default.
• W2052392425 hasConcept C2778134712 @default.
• W2052392425 hasConcept C2778434673 @default.
• W2052392425 hasConcept C2780887989 @default.
• W2052392425 hasConcept C29694066 @default.
• W2052392425 hasConcept C39920418 @default.
• W2052392425 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2052392425 hasConcept C74650414 @default.
• W2052392425 hasConceptScore W2052392425C105702510 @default.
• W2052392425 hasConceptScore W2052392425C121332964 @default.
• W2052392425 hasConceptScore W2052392425C159985019 @default.
• W2052392425 hasConceptScore W2052392425C192562407 @default.
• W2052392425 hasConceptScore W2052392425C2778134712 @default.
• W2052392425 hasConceptScore W2052392425C2778434673 @default.
• W2052392425 hasConceptScore W2052392425C2780887989 @default.
• W2052392425 hasConceptScore W2052392425C29694066 @default.
• W2052392425 hasConceptScore W2052392425C39920418 @default.
• W2052392425 hasConceptScore W2052392425C71924100 @default.
• W2052392425 hasConceptScore W2052392425C74650414 @default.
• W2052392425 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W2052392425 hasLocation W20523924251 @default.
• W2052392425 hasOpenAccess W2052392425 @default.
• W2052392425 hasPrimaryLocation W20523924251 @default.
• W2052392425 hasRelatedWork W2010077834 @default.
• W2052392425 hasRelatedWork W2181522274 @default.
• W2052392425 hasRelatedWork W2529234875 @default.
• W2052392425 hasRelatedWork W2601293621 @default.
• W2052392425 hasRelatedWork W3036787152 @default.
• W2052392425 hasRelatedWork W4205403389 @default.
• W2052392425 hasRelatedWork W4241505523 @default.
• W2052392425 hasRelatedWork W4322722828 @default.
• W2052392425 hasRelatedWork W4322723002 @default.
• W2052392425 hasRelatedWork W4365483202 @default.
• W2052392425 hasVolume "24" @default.
• W2052392425 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2052392425 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2052392425 magId "2052392425" @default.
• W2052392425 workType "article" @default.