Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Conditions
Brief summary
The purpose of this study is to compare the tomographic results of patients who underwent single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at the investigator's institution using the transtibial, accessory medial portal technique and the modified transtibial technique to determine which technique best recreates the anterior cruciate ligament anatomic footprint.
Interventions
PROCEDUREAnterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
Sponsors
OrthoCarolina Research Institute, Inc.
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Patients presenting for single bundle ACL reconstruction, with or without associated partial meniscectomy or meniscal repair. * Skeletally mature patients * Patients who are able and willing to receive post-operative CT imaging of the affected knee
Exclusion criteria
* Previous ACL reconstruction in the studied knee * Previous ACL injury or reconstruction in the contralateral kneeConcomitant non-ACL ligament reconstruction or osteotomy
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 3D reconstructed CT imaging | 6 weeks Post-Operatively | Used to measure tunnel position. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation | 6 weeks post-operative | Change in IKDC subjective knee evaluation since before surgery |
| Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) | 6 weeks post-operative | Change in KOOS since before surgery |
| Knee Laxity | 6 month post-operatively | Pivot shift test will be used to a measure of knee laxity |
Countries
United States
Outcome results
None listed