English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Acl reconstruction has revolutionarised the sports medicine world lately. Various methods of reconstruction have been advocated in the literature recently. ACL injury results in severe morbidity to an athletes career. The aim for anatomical reconstruction is to harvest the ACL graft at a more anatomical location on both the tibia and the femur. The purpose of this study is to compare the functional outcomes of the two methods of the graft harvestis to compare the functional outcomes of the two methods of the graft harvestHypotheses:   60 patients were included in the study with complete ACL tear and were assessed at 3 6 and 9 months on the basis of various scores and relevant elements.Methods:   All patients who were planned for arthroscopic ACL reconstruction surgery from the OPD, who were willing and fit the inclusion criteria were included in the study. They were then examined clinically with special tests i.e. Lachman’s test, anterior drawer test, pivot shift test and McMurray’s test and the findings were recorded including any associated meniscal injuries. They were then evaluated using 3 different evaluation systems i.e. IKDC, Lysholm and pain VAS.Results:   Average mean age of the patients undergoing ACL reconstruction was (26%) in Transtibial and 23.3%. 90% of them were males. Majority of them were males (58%). The average IKDC score of transportal patients was significantly higher than transtibial patients at 6 months followup [P=0.001]. The average Lysholm knee score of transportal patients was significantly higher than the transtibial patients [P=0.047]. The average pain on VAS score of transportal group was significantly lower than transtibial at 6 months followup [P&lt;0.001]. Complication of instability was more common in transtibial patients, 11(36.7%), when compared to transportal patients, 9(30%), however this difference was not significant [P=0.58].Conclusion:   Our study clearly stated that the transportal technique for acl reconstruction fetched superior results as compared to the transtibial technique in terms of knee instability, pain and other domains.

A comparative study of functional outcome of transtibial and transportal femoral tunneling techniques for arthroscopic ACL reconstruction