Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture
Conditions
Brief summary
This cohort study compares to groups of patients with reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). Patients in group 1 had ACL-reconstruction in the years 2001-2010 with a transphyseal drilling technique. Patient in group 2 had ACL-reconstruction in the years 2013-2018 with a physeal sparing technique. Data including: x-ray exam, patient reported questionnaires and clinical evaluation will be compared between the 2 groups.
Interventions
PROCEDUREACL-reconstruction
Surgery technique in skeletally immature patients
Sponsors
Aarhus University Hospital
Study design
Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
16 Years to 50 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* ACL reconstruction as skeletally immature
Exclusion criteria
* Other ligament injuries in index knee * Other ligament injuries in opposite knee * Revision ACL reconstruction * Pregnant * Not able to read or understand the danish languages
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Leg-length differences | 2 Years Follow-up | X-ray evaluation |
| Knee Angle differences | 2 Years Follow-up | X-ray evaluation |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Knee Laxity | 2 Years Follow-up | Clinical evaluation with rolimeter (arthrometer) |
| IKDC-Questionnaire | 2 Years Follow-up | The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC Questionnaire) |
| Tegner-Questionnaire | 2 Years Follow-up | Tegner (Activity function score) |
| KOOS- Questionnaire | 2 Years Follow-up | Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) |
Countries
Denmark
Outcome results
None listed