Retrospective Cohort Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Orthop. Dec 18, 2017; 8(12): 913-921
Published online Dec 18, 2017. doi: 10.5312/wjo.v8.i12.913
Table 1 Baseline data of the two groups
TT groupTP groupSignificance
n2030
Period of surgeryApr 2009- Dec 2010Aug 2010-Mar 2013
Age29 ± 927 ± 9NS
Height (cm)171.3 ± 7.1171.7 ± 6.0NS
Weight (kg)73.8 ± 6.975.5 ± 12.2NS
Lysholm score65 ± 1163 ± 14NS
Table 2 Tunnel positions of the femur and the tibia by postoperative computed tomography
TT technique (%)TP technique (%)Significance
FemurDepth34.0 ± 4.929.7 ± 4.9P < 0.01
Height30.3 ± 5.639.3 ± 7.3P < 0.001
TibiaAnterior-posterior47.1 ± 7.542.0 ± 4.9P < 0.05
Table 3 Clinical outcomes and knee stability parameters
TT techniqueTP techniqueSignificance
Lysholm score94 ± 795 ± 7NS
KOOS subscale
Symptoms89 ± 990 ± 12NS
Pain87 ± 789 ± 8NS
ADL92 ± 1296 ± 10NS
Sport/Rec82 ± 1484 ± 9NS
QoL78 ± 1380 ± 11NS
Re-injury (ipsilateral)00NS
Kneelax3NS
Side-to-side diff. (mm)1.5 ± 1.31.7 ± 1.6
MRI analysis
Anterolateral rotatory translation
Affected side (mm)3.2 ± 1.62.0 ± 1.8P < 0.05
Contra-lateral side (mm)2.4 ± 1.62.5 ± 2.7NS
Side-to-side diff. (mm) of
Anteromedial tibial translation0.6 ± 0.81.4 ± 2.3NS
Anterolateral tibial translation1.4 ± 1.60.9 ± 1.9NS
Table 4 Correlations between tunnel positions and knee stability
Femur
Tibia
Shallow (+)-Deep (-)Low (+)-High (-)Posterior (+)-Anterior (-)
Kneelax3Corr (R)0.27-0.020.15
side-to-side differencesSignificanceNS (P = 0.14)NSNS
MRI analysis
AnterolateralCorr (R)0.42-0.130.12
rotatory translationSignificanceP < 0.01NSNS