Gelişmiş Arama

Basit öğe kaydını göster

dc.contributor.authorZehir, Sinan
dc.contributor.authorElmalı, Nurzat
dc.contributor.authorŞahin, Ercan
dc.contributor.authorÇalbıyık, Murat
dc.contributor.authorKarakaplan, Mustafa
dc.contributor.authorTaşdemir, Zeki
dc.date.accessioned2019-02-18T20:10:04Z
dc.date.available2019-02-18T20:10:04Z
dc.date.issued2015
dc.identifier.citationZehir, S., Elmalı, N., Şahin, E., Çalbıyık, M., Karakaplan, M.U., Taşdemir, Z. (2015). Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction via tibial inlay technique in multiligament knee injuries. Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica, 49 6, 579-85 .en_US
dc.identifier.issn1017-995X
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11491/59
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.3944/AOTT.2015.14.0443
dc.description.abstractObjective: The aim of this study is to report our institution's experience regarding the use of open tibial inlay technique in patients undergoing single-stage combined posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction.Methods: Records of 17 patients who underwent PCL reconstruction with tibial inlay technique were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with ipsilateral femoral or tibial osteochondral avulsion fractures or ipsilateral concomitant tibia and femur shaft fractures were excluded. Out of these 17 patients, six cases underwent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) + PCL reconstruction, nine cases underwent ACL+ PCL + posterolateral corner reconstruction, one case underwent ACL + PCL + MCL reconstruction and one case underwent ACL+ PCL + posterolateral corner + MCL reconstruction. Mean follow-up was 14.27±6.77 (range: 6-30) months.Results: In preoperative assessments, all patients had 3+ posterior laxity in posterior drawer test; at final follow-up, 6 patients had 0 laxity, 7 patients had 1+ laxity, and 4 patients had 2+ laxity (p<0.001). International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) objective evaluation showed severe disability in all patients preoperatively, whereas 5 knees were grade A, 8 knees were grade B, 3 knees were grade C, and 1 knee was grade D at final follow-up. Mean IKDC subjective score was 75.22±7.53 at final follow-up. Postoperatively, mean side-to-side difference in KT-1000 arthrometer measurement was 2.45±1.80 mm. At final follow-up, mean range of motion (ROM) was 0º on extension and 123.56±6.31º on flexion.Conclusion: Open tibial inlay approach is beneficial during PCL reconstruction. Further study is warranted to establish its effectiveness on functional outcomes and prevention of complications.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherScimago Journal Ranken_US
dc.relation.isversionof10.3944/AOTT.2015.14.0443en_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectKnee Ligament Injuryen_US
dc.subjectPosterior Cruciate Ligamenten_US
dc.subjectTibial Inlayen_US
dc.titlePosterior cruciate ligament reconstruction via tibial inlay technique in multiligament knee injuriesen_US
dc.typearticleen_US
dc.departmentHitit Üniversitesi, Tıp Fakültesi, Cerrahi Tıp Bilimleri Bölümüen_US
dc.identifier.volume49en_US
dc.identifier.issue6en_US
dc.identifier.startpage579en_US
dc.identifier.endpage585en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Ulusal Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US


Bu öğenin dosyaları:

Thumbnail

Bu öğe aşağıdaki koleksiyon(lar)da görünmektedir.

Basit öğe kaydını göster