Analysis of cyclops lesions after different anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions: a comparison of the single-bundle and remnant bundle preservation techniques
- 729 Downloads
The aim of this work was to compare the prevalence of cyclops lesions after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using the single-bundle and remnant bundle preservation techniques.
Materials and methods
One hundred consecutive patients, who had undergone postoperative MRI of the knee followed by arthroscopic ACLR with the remnant bundle preservation technique (R) between February 2007 and August 2010, were enrolled in this study. Thirty-six consecutive patients who underwent ACLR using the single-bundle technique (S) were also included in this study as a control group. The MR findings were scored based on the presence of pre-ACL graft lesion as 0, 1, 2, or 3 on the sagittal images. The sixty-one specimens by second-look surgery (20 in S, 41 in R) were pathologically examined.
The numbers of patients with scores of 0, 1, 2, and 3 were 1, 18, 14, and 3 in group S and 4, 60, 29, and 7, in group R, respectively. Of the 61 patients who underwent second-look surgery (20 in S, 41 in R), eight had a cyclops lesion (three in group S and five in group R). The prevalence of cyclops lesion was not significantly different in group R and group S (p = 0.761).
The prevalence of a cyclops lesion was similar in both groups.
KeywordsKnee MRI ACL reconstruction Remnant bundle preservation technique Arthrofibrosis
- 6.Ochi M, Adachi N, Deie M, Kanaya A. Anterior cruciate ligament augmentation procedure with a 1-incision technique: anteromedial bundle or posterolateral bundle reconstruction. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(4):e461–5. 463.Google Scholar
- 9.Gohil S, Annear PO, Breidahl W. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous double hamstrings: a comparison of standard versus minimal debridement techniques using MRI to assess revascularisation. A randomised prospective study with a one-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(9):1165–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar