LARS韧带与异体胫前肌腱保残重建损伤后交叉韧带的术后疗效对比研究

Efficacy of LARS artificial ligament versus tibialis anterior allograft for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a comparative study

[目的]研究LARS人工韧带与异体胫前肌腱保残重建后交叉韧带(PCL)损伤术后的疗效差异,指导临床治疗。[方法]38例PCL损伤并进行重建的患者,根据术中采用移植物种类分成两组:LARS人工韧带组(19例)和异体胫前肌腱组(19例)。所有患者随访2年。评价指标包括:IKDC评分、Lysholm评分、Tegner评分和膝关节稳定度测量。[结果]与术前相比,两组患者术后的关节稳定性和功能指标均有显著改善(P<0.05)。同时,LARS人工韧带组患者术后的关节稳定性显著强于异体胫前肌腱组(P<0.05),而两组患者术后Lysholm评分、Tegner评分和IKDC评分结果差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。[结论]采用LARS人工韧带比采用异体胫前肌腱重建损伤的PCL更有利于患膝稳定性的恢复。

[ Objective] To compare the efficacy of Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System （LARS） artificial ligament and tibialis anterior allograft in posterior cruciate ligament （PCL） reconstruction, and to guide the clinical treatment. [ Method ] Thirty - eight patients undergoing PCL reconstruction were enrolled as subjects. According to the type of graft used in the surgery, patients were equally divided into LARS artificial ligament group and 2 -strand tibialis anterior allograft （2STA） group. A 2 - year follow - up was performed in all patients. Patients were evaluated by the International Knee Documentation Committee （ IK- DC） score, Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity scale, and knee stability measurement. [ Result ] Both groups had significantly improved knee stability and function after surgery （ P 〈 0.05 ）. Meanwhile, the knee stability was significantly better in the LARS artificial ligament group than in the 2STA group （P 〈 0.05 ）. However, there were no significant differences in Lysholm knee score, Tegner score, and IKDC score between the two groups after surgery （P 〉 0.05）. [ Conclusion ] For PCL reconstruction, LARS artificial ligament is superior to fibialis anterior allograft in promoting the recovery of knee stability.