ACL Reconstruction (acl + reconstruction)

Distribution by Scientific Domains


Selected Abstracts


Femoral nerve block with ropivacaine or bupivacaine in day case anterior crucial ligament reconstruction

ACTA ANAESTHESIOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, Issue 4 2010
H. WULF
Background/Objective: Our aim was to evaluate analgesia, motor block and pharmacokinetics of ropivacaine 0.2% and 0.75% in a femoral nerve block (FNB) in day case patients for anterior crucial ligament (ACL)-reconstruction compared with bupivacaine 0.25% and placebo. Methods: Following ethics committee approval and informed consent, 280 patients were randomly allocated to four groups for single-shot FNB [30 ml ropivacaine 0.2% (group RO2.0), 0.75% (RO7.5), bupivacaine 0.25% (BU2.5) and NaCl 0.9% (NaCl)]. Analgesia (pain scores, primary outcome) and motor block were assessed at 4 h (dismissal) and up to 24 h. Plasma concentration was determined up to 240 min thereafter. Results: Pain scores at 4 h were significantly higher for NaCl 4 (0,8) (median, range) (vs.) BU2.5 2 (0,8), RO2.0 3 (0,9) and RO7.5 2 (0,8) (NS within the LA groups). Patients of the NaCl group needed analgesics significantly more often (93%) within 4 h after surgery vs. 16% of group RO2.0, 19% of group RO7.5 and 19% of group BU2.5. Motor block was significantly increased with all local anesthetics without a significant difference within the LA groups 3 (0,5) in RO2.0, 3 (0,5) in RO7.5 and 3 (0,4) in BU2.5 vs. 0 (0,3) in group NaCl (median (range); scale from 0=full strength to 5=complete paralysis). Peak plasma concentrations differed significantly: RO7.5: 1.4 ± 0.4 (0.73,2.6) [,g/ml, mean ± SD (range)] after 33 ± 14 (10,40) min, RO2.0: 0.6 ± 0.3 (0.13,1.0) after 22+17 (10,60) and BU2.5: 0.3 ± 0.16 (0.05,0.62) at 31 ± 17 (10,60), respectively. Conclusion: FNB for ACL reconstruction with ropivacaine or bupivacaine provided better post-operative analgesia than placebo without reaching toxic plasma concentrations. Significant motor block was observed after 4 h in all groups including the lowest concentration of ropivacaine but occurred even with placebo. [source]


Use of a bioscaffold to improve healing of a patellar tendon defect after graft harvest for ACL reconstruction: A study in rabbits

JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDIC RESEARCH, Issue 2 2008
Sinan Karaoglu
Abstract Following harvest of a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autograft, the central third of the patellar tendon (PT) does not heal well. The healing tissues also form adhesions to the fat pad and can cause abnormal patellofemoral joint motion. The hypotheses were that a bioscaffold could enhance patellar tendon healing through contact guidance and chemotaxis, and the scaffold could serve as a barrier to decrease adhesion formation between the neo-PT and infrapatellar fat pad. In 20 New Zealand White rabbits, a central-third PT defect was created. One strip of porcine small intestinal submucosa (SIS) was attached to both the anterior and posterior sides of the PT defect of the SIS-treated group (n,=,10). For comparison, a central defect was left nontreated (n,=,10). At 12 weeks, histomorphology was examined using Masson's trichrome staining. The cross-sectional area (CSA) was determined with a laser micrometer, and the central BPTB complexes were tested in uniaxial tension. SIS-treated samples showed a greater amount of healing tissue with denser and well-oriented collagen fibers and more spindle-shaped cells. There was no noticeable adhesion formation in the SIS-treated group. For the nontreated group, there were significantly more and diffuse adhesive formations. The SIS-treated group also had a 68% increase in neo-PT CSA, 98% higher stiffness, and 113% higher ultimate load than that in the nontreated group. SIS treatment increased the quantity of healing tissue, improved the histological appearance and biomechanical properties of the neo-PT, and prevented adhesion formation between the PT and fat pad. © 2007 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 26:255,263, 2008 [source]


Does intraarticular morphine improve pain control with femoral nerve block after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? (Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN) American Journal of Sports Medicine 2001;29:327,332.

PAIN PRACTICE, Issue 4 2001
Eric C. McCarthy
In a prospective, randomized, double-blinded manner, the authors of this study compared the effects of a preoperative intraarticular injection of morphine (5 mg) or a placebo, combined with a postoperative femoral nerve block, on postoperative pain. Sixty-two patients underwent an arthroscopically assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using patellar tendon autograft under general anesthesia. No statistical difference between the 2 groups was evident in terms of age, sex, weight, operative time, volume of bupivacaine received with the femoral nerve block, or tourniquet use or tourniquet time. A comparison of the visual analog pain scale scores revealed no statistical difference between the groups at any point after the operation. Both groups had a significant decrease in visual analog scale scores after the femoral nerve block. No significant difference in postoperative narcotic medication use was evident in the recovery room or at home. A post hoc analysis revealed that the study power reached 87% with a significance level of 5%. Conclude that the postoperative femoral nerve block was effective and intraarticular morphine provided no additional benefit. Comment by Alan David Kaye, M.D., Ph.D., and Erin Bayer, M.D. This prospective, randomized, double blinded study compared the effects of preoperative intraarticular injection of morphine or a placebo along with postoperative femoral "three-in-one" block on postoperative pain. 62 patients underwent arthroscopic ACL reconstruction under general anesthesia. After induction of anesthesia, patients were injected with either morphine 5 mg or placebo along with local anesthetics intraarticularly. Femoral nerve blocks were performed in the recovery room with a total of 3 mg/kg bupivacaine. The VAS of pain was assessed immediately postoperatively and at six time points afterward up to 24 hours. This study concluded that there were no statistical differences between the two groups comparing VAS. Also no significant difference was observed in postoperative narcotic use in the recovery room or at home. The study included antiemetics; however, the results did not include if the morphine group had a larger incidence of nausea or vomiting postoperatively. Finally, the authors suggest that there are no advantages to use of intraarticular morphine with a femoral nerve block post-operatively. A future study employing preoperative femoral nerve block with or without use of intraarticular morphine might be interesting to see on arthroscopic ACL repairs to obtain adequate analgesia as the authors suggested. [source]


Prospective randomized comparison of endobutton versus cross-pin femoral fixation in hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with 2-year follow-up

ANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY, Issue 3 2010
Rohan Price
Abstract Background:, To determine if there is a different clinical outcome after TransFix versus endobutton femoral fixation in hamstring anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Methods:, Twenty-nine patients were randomized into either Endobutton (Smith & Nephew, Andover, MA, USA) (n= 13) or TransFix (Arthrex, Naples, FL, USA) (n= 16) femoral fixation in hamstring ACL reconstruction. The distal fixation was with a bioabsorbable interference screw. The evaluation methods were clinical history and examination, KT1000 arthrometry for laxity as well as the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores over a 2-year time frame. Results:, There were no significant differences between the study groups preoperatively. For the 2-year follow-up, 11 patients in the Endobutton group and 13 patients in the TransFix group were available (greater than 80%). No statistical differences between the two groups were found at the 1- or 2-year follow-up examinations. At the 2-year follow-up, 72.7% of the Endobutton and 84.6% of the TransFix group patients were in the IKDC A or B categories. Additional procedures postoperatively occurred more frequently in the TransFix group. Conclusions:, There were no significant differences in the results for either technique of femoral fixation. Level of Evidence:, Level I. [source]