前交叉韧带重建术的研究进展
Research Progress of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
摘要: 当前阶段我国国民经济取得了飞速发展,人民生活水平开始得到很大幅度的提升,人们在物质和精神上的追求也发生了极大的变化,各种娱乐性和竞技类运动逐渐增加。而在这些运动性损伤中,前交叉韧带(ACL)损伤占据着其中重要的一部分。关节镜下ACL重建术是目前全球广泛公认的治疗ACL损伤有效的治疗手段。目前大多数学术研究都在重点围绕着韧带损伤的人体生物力学、运动学、手术治疗方案、移植物的选择、术后关节康复、术后并发症、韧带的固定方法、麻醉及疼痛等多个方面进行深入讨论。随着对ACL损伤的深入了解,新的治疗方式不断被提出,本文将从损伤后手术时机的选择、移植物的应用、固定装置、重建技术、术后生物治疗药物的运用以及继发性骨性关节炎的治疗几个方面进行阐述。
Abstract: At present, China’s national economy has made rapid development, people’s living standards have been greatly improved, people’s pursuit of material and spiritual has also undergone great changes, a variety of entertainment and competitive sports are gradually increasing. Among these sports injuries, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury occupies an important part. Arthroscopic ACL reconstruction is widely recognized as an effective method for the treatment of ACL injury. At present, most academic studies focus on human biomechanics, kinematics, surgical treatment of ligament injury, selection of graft, postoperative joint rehabilitation, postoperative complications, ligament fixation, anesthesia and pain, in-depth discussion. With the in-depth understanding of ACL injury, new treatment methods are constantly put forward. This article will explain from several aspects: the choice of operation time after injury, the application of graft, fixation device, re-construction technology, the use of postoperative biotherapy and the treatment of secondary os-teoarthritis.
文章引用:王龙, 李朝旭. 前交叉韧带重建术的研究进展[J]. 临床医学进展, 2022, 12(3): 2026-2032. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2022.123291

1. 前言

众所周知,膝关节是人体最大的承重支撑关节。ACL又是膝关节活动期间的重要稳定性结构,它的主要功能是限制胫骨在股骨上的前滑,从而有效防止膝关节过度伸展 [1]。膝关节的稳定性明显下降是ACL损伤后引起膝关节功能性丧失的主要临床表现之一,其表现为出现不同程度的胫骨前移、膝关节慢性疼痛以及膝关节退行性改变。损伤后早期手术、延期手术或保守治疗对患者膝关节的恢复都会有不同的结果;同时,ACL重建移植物的选择也成为了目前大家所热门探讨的话题之一。现阶段,ACL重建移植物主要包括以下三类:自体移植物、同种异体移植物和人工韧带。自体移植物当前主要以腘绳肌腱(Hamstring tendon)、骨–髌腱–骨肌腱(Bone-patellartendon-bone, B-PT-B)和股四头肌肌腱移植物为代表,随着现代科技和医疗技术的不断创新与发展,第三代人工韧带也成为了很大一部分患者的选择方案;界面螺钉固定、横穿固定以及皮质悬吊固定是当前运用最为广泛的内固定方式;对于ACL重建术技术而言,单束重建和双束重建两者都各有其优点和缺点,根据患者病情及膝关节解剖形态,选择最佳手术治疗方案及术后康复方案一直是大家所关注的关键。术后运用富血小板血浆、间充质干细胞以及骨形态发生蛋白等药物促进肌腱、隧道愈合的疗效及其药物机制也成为了研究的热点;研究发现,随着ACL损伤的年轻化,ACL损伤后继发性骨性关节炎发生率明显升高,重建后是否可以最大限度地降低骨性关节炎进展的风险也需要我们不断去努力探索。

2. 手术时机选择

目前,ACL的损伤通常可采用保守治疗和手术治疗。保守治疗的适用范围包括单纯ACL损伤、急性期的对症处理、对膝关节稳定性和旋转要求不高的患者以及合并禁忌症而不能手术的患者。保守治疗的患者,随着时间的推移,其半月板及软骨损伤的风险也将逐渐增大,研究表明,保守治疗超过5个月,内侧半月板损伤的风险是最初的2倍;若时间大于1年,其损伤风险将增加至最初的6倍。治疗时间延迟得越久,合并半月板损伤及软骨损伤的机率就越大,远期疗效也将越差,晚期合并骨性关节炎的风险也明显增加 [2]。对于大部分ACL损伤的患者,如无明显手术禁忌症,更建议尽早行手术治疗。手术治疗包括原位修复和关节镜下ACL重建术,原位修复虽然符合人体正常的生理解剖结构,也可保留ACL的生物力学和感觉神经功能,但其缺点是自愈能力弱,所以膝关节镜下ACL重建术仍是目前手术的主流观点。

ACL重建的手术时机应考虑和平衡以下三个主要因素:1) 延迟重建后半月板和软骨损伤的发生率将增加;2) 与早期ACL重建相关的关节纤维化风险;3) 延迟手术时因不活动导致的相关肌肉力量丧失 [3]。ACL受伤到行重建术的时间增加,与出现不可修复的内侧半月板撕裂、股骨内侧髁软骨损伤以及膝关节退行性改变有关,这就强调了对前交叉韧带损伤患者进行及时诊断和实施适当治疗计划的重要性 [4]。ACL重建术后常见的临床并发症有膝关节僵硬、活动能力受限、肌肉萎缩,其发生率在2%~12%之间 [5],多项研究结果表明,由于膝关节内的软组织粘连导致的关节纤维化现象是ACL重建术后膝关节僵硬的最常见原因 [6]。对于有手术禁忌和要求行保守治疗而错失手术时机的病人,因长期的不活动将导致小腿肌群的力量减弱。综上所述,前交叉韧带重建的手术时机选择仍有争议,选择最佳的重建时机是手术医生需要不断思考的问题,根据患者的要求实施个性化的手术方案,要求临床医生不断的前进。

3. 移植物的应用

1) 自体移植物

自体移植物是从患者自身取材,选取自身局部肌腱组织进行编织后通过骨隧道固定在膝关节内以此来代替ACL的功能,其优点在于有足够的肢体生物力学作用强度、有良好的生物相容性、局部及全身并发症较少、愈合迅速、经济实惠等特点。目前HT (包括股薄肌–半腱肌腱)、1/3B-PT-B为自体移植物的常用选择,另外还有髂胫束、股四头肌、腓骨长肌腱、腓肠肌腱等。在多种移植物的选择中,自体HT是目前手术医生的常用选择 [7]。有数据表示,使用B-PT-B移植物或HT的手术病人,95%以上术后都获得了功能性稳定 [8]。在自体移植物类别中,B-PT-B表现出更低的失败率和更客观的稳定性,然而,术后膝前疼痛与它相关性更大 [9]。与B-PT-B移植物相比,HT移植物的优点包括:更少的膝前疼痛、降低膝骨关节炎的发病率、更接近前交叉韧带的生物力学 [10]。几项比较HT和B-PT-B移植物的研究发现,在主观效果上两者没有明显差异,但B-PT-B可以更好地控制韧带松弛和减少再撕裂 [11],成功的ACL重建取决于多种因素:患者的选择,手术技术,包括移植物的选择、半月板和韧带损伤的处理以及术后康复。

2) 同种异体移植物

同种异体移植物是从他人身上获取移植物,经过消毒处理后进行应用。B-PT-B、跟腱、胫前肌腱、胫后肌腱、阔筋膜复合物等是目前常用的同种异体肌腱。同种异体移植物的主要手术优点有避免了自身损伤,手术操作时长短,能保证足够的移植物组织。然而,同种异体移植与疾病传播风险、潜在的合并症和免疫排斥反应息息相关,同时成本增加也可能是一个令人担忧的问题 [3]。另外,同种异体移植物的消毒方式为辐照和化学处理,这种方式降低了韧带的生物力学强度,是移植物失败的关键因素。事实上,当单独分析时,未行辐照的同种异体B-PT-B移植物与自体移植物的失败率基本相仿(分别为8.8%和6.1%) [12]。

3) 人工韧带

自体移植物作为ACL重建的黄金标准,可以提供长期可靠的临床效果,但是供体部位发病率仍是一大缺点。而同种异体移植物因受到许多国家多种因素的限制,再加上存在疾病传播和移植排斥反应的潜在风险,也导致其无法广泛使用。因此在上世纪80年代,人工韧带被首次提出,它的好处是避免了供体部位的发病率,提供了强大而稳定的结构,并可以进行积极的康复和相对快速的体育活动,并且不存在传播疾病和免疫排斥的风险 [13]。但是因为其昂贵的价格、过高的失败率和远期效果的不理想,也未能得到广泛的应用。随着新技术不断发展,新型的人工韧带接连上市 [14],新一代设备,特别是LARS的初步结果显示,与旧设备相比,报告的失败率、翻修率和无菌性积液/滑膜炎的发生率较低 [13]。在治疗前交叉韧带损伤上,在短期和中期的随访调查结果都显示,LARS是一种较为满意的移植物 [15] [16],但仍需要进一步的长期随访来确定其疗效。

4. 移植物的固定

移植物的固定在ACL重建中占据着重要一环。皮质悬吊固定、界面螺钉固定、横穿钉固定等均为目前临床上运用较为广泛的固定方法,其固定效果相仿,但也各有其优劣势。据相关文献资料报道,目前已知固定方式中初始固定强度最高的为皮质悬吊固定 [17] [18]。界面螺钉固定主要分为金属螺钉和生物可吸收材料螺钉 [19],但其不足之处主要在于由于金属材料的特性,影响了术后部分影像学检查,其金属材质在术中可能严重损伤移植物,并且有术后易脱落、术后骨髓道扩张等多种并发症,从而严重影响移植物的后续使用寿命,且还会增加术后翻修手术难度 [20]。生物可吸收材料因其组织相容性好,术后可降解吸收,避免植入物长期植入而引起的炎症反应,无须二次手术取出内固定物等诸多优点,现逐渐有取代金属螺钉的趋势 [21]。使用B-PT-B移植物时,股骨处多使用挤压螺栓固定(66%),其次多使用悬吊固定装置 [22]。横穿钉固定的优点主要体现在操作简单安全、手术时长短、腱骨结合紧密、利于移植物与骨的愈合、固定牢靠、易于返修。另外有研究表明,若肌腱移植物的直径小于7 mm,隧道内长度小于2.5 cm,则固定失败的风险可能大大增加 [23]。

5. 重建手术技术

解剖性ACL重建主要是将韧带恢复到其原始的尺寸、胶原蛋白方向和嵌入位置,要求在ACL包含的两条韧带或“束”:前内侧束和后外侧束的覆盖区进行隧道定位 [24] [25],前内侧束主要对胫骨前移进行约束,具有更大的膝关节屈曲度,而后外侧束在膝关节完全伸展时对其进行保护,特别是在旋转力量下 [24]。而传统的ACL重建因为其移植物的止点并不位于原韧带的解剖起始位置,称之为非解剖性重建,即将单束等长移植物固定于过顶位,使膝关节生理功能得以恢复。人体研究表明,解剖性ACL重建对膝关节的矢状面和旋转稳定性的恢复以及膝关节功能的改善有重要意义 [26] [27]。解剖性前交叉韧带重建与非解剖性前交叉韧带重建相比,其IKDC评分明显较高,但其他功能和临床结果无明显差异 [28]。目前临床上普遍认为ACL分为双束,在屈膝时紧张、伸膝时前内侧束松弛,后外侧束则相反,而ACL损伤时应行单束还是双束重建仍充满争议。双束的主要优点是能更好地重建ACL的解剖结构和膝关节运动学,并能更好地控制术后膝关节的稳定性 [29],当重建后束时,理论上有改善旋转稳定性的好处,但最近的研究表明,除了需要更多的手术时间和更大的技术难度,与单束前交叉韧带重建相比 [30],双束重建在临床和功能上并不能产生更好的效果(当移植物放置在解剖中心位置,股骨隧道低于标准技术时) [24] [29] [31]。可见,在解剖性重建、非解剖性重建和单束重建、双束重建之间的选择,现在仍有大量的争议,随着技术的发展以及临床研究的更新,重建的理念也会随之不断更新。

6. 术后的生物治疗

目前重建术后报道中常用的生物治疗药物包括富血小板血浆、间充质干细胞以及骨形态发生蛋白等,认为其对能改善手术疗效并缩短愈合时间,Ting Zhu等表示前交叉韧带重建术后联合应用富血小板血浆可在中短期内减轻术后疼痛,改善膝关节功能,但远期效果不佳。富血小板血浆不能改善膝关节的稳定性和隧道的扩大,也不能加速移植物的愈合,还需要进一步的研究 [32]。Nin等同样在使用富血小板血浆的ACL重建术后的临床研究中并没有发现明显的临床效果和炎症因子差异性 [33]。目前对于这些生物治疗措施,我们并未对其有全面深入的科学了解,它们的作用机制、代谢产物、使用说明、是否需要白细胞参与等都未得到明确的解释与说明,我们需要继续探究。

7. 继发性骨性关节炎的治疗

ACL损伤与继发性半月板撕裂和早期骨关节炎的发展密切相关,特别是在年轻和活跃的患者中 [34] [35] [36]。Sanders等人研究证明,与非手术治疗的患者相比,接受前交叉韧带重建术的患者发生继发性半月板撕裂、膝骨关节炎和全膝关节置换术的风险大幅降低 [37],但前交叉韧带重建术并不能避免损伤后骨性关节炎的发生 [38]。对于保守无效的继发性骨关节炎患者,可选择行胫骨高位截骨术、膝关节单髁置换术、全膝关节置换术,对于原发性ACL损伤患者发生继发性骨关节炎的年龄较轻,因活动水平较高,因此首选膝关节保留治疗,而不推荐将全膝关节置换术作为该人群的主要选择 [39] [40]。对于伴有内翻成角的膝关节前交叉角度韧带损伤患者,胫骨高位截骨术联合应用ACL重建术可能是一种较好的治疗方法 [41],早期膝关节单髁置换术并不建议用于前交叉韧带损伤后继发骨性关节炎的治疗 [42]。

目前,对于前交叉韧带重建过程中的许多问题仍有待解决,随着临床手术的日渐成熟,技术的不断发展以及临床研究的不断完善,前交叉韧带重建术已经得到了充足的发展,成为前交叉韧带损伤的主流手术方式,重建手术的时机对手术的成功非常重要,自体移植物具有足够的生物学强度,但无法避免供区的发病率,异体同种移植物可以解决供区的发病却有免疫排斥和疾病传播风险,对于人工韧带的使用,目前还需要更多的随访,因此,为每个病人仔细选择移植物显得尤为重要,最后,手术技术应遵循前交叉韧带生物力学和解剖学的基本原则,确保理想的移植物定位和成功的临床结果,希望随着临床技术的创新,ACL重建术能日臻完美,为患者带来更快、更好的治疗方案。

NOTES

*通讯作者。

参考文献

[1] Marieswaran, M., Jain, I., Garg, B., et al. (2018) A Review on Biomechanics of Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Mate-rials for Reconstruction. Applied Bionics and Biomechanics, 2018, Article ID: 4657824.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4657824
[2] Sri-Ram, K., Salmon, L.J., Pinczewski, L.A., et al. (2013) The Inci-dence of Secondary Pathology after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture in 5086 Patients Requiring Ligament Recon-struction. The Bone & Joint Journal, 95B, 59-64.
https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.95B1.29636
[3] Paschos, N.K. and Howell, S.M. (2016) Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Principles of Treatment. EFORT Open Reviews, 1, 398-408.
https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.1.160032
[4] Sommerfeldt, M., Goodine, T., Raheem, A., et al. (2018) Rela-tionship between Time to ACL Reconstruction and Presence of Adverse Changes in the Knee at the Time of Recon-struction. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, 6.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967118813917
[5] Sanders, T.L., Kremers, H.M., Bryan, A.J., et al. (2017) Proce-dural Intervention for Arthrofibrosis after ACL Reconstruction: Trends over Two Decades. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 25, 532-537.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3799-x
[6] Huleatt, J., Gottschalk, M., Fraser, K., et al. (2018) Risk Factors for Manipulation Under Anesthesia and/or Lysis of Adhesions After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Or-thopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, 6.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967118794490
[7] Yucens, M. and Aydemir, A.N. (2019) Trends in Anterior Cru-ciate Ligament Reconstruction in the Last Decade: A Web-Based Analysis. Journal of Knee Surgery, 32, 519-524.
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1655764
[8] Freedman, K.B., D’Amato, M.J., Nedeff, D.D., et al. (2003) Ar-throscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Metaanalysis Comparing Patellar Tendon and Hamstring Tendon Autografts. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 31, 2-11.
https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465030310011501
[9] Cengiz, O., Demir, N. and Dirvar, F. (2019) Effects of Graft Selection in Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Midterm Functional Results. The Medical Bulletin of Sisli Etfal Hospital, 53, 419-425.
https://doi.org/10.14744/SEMB.2018.23281
[10] Xie, X., Xiao, Z., Li, Q., et al. (2015) Increased Incidence of Osteoarthritis of Knee Joint after ACL Reconstruction with Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Autografts than Hamstring Autografts: A Meta-Analysis of 1443 Patients at a Minimum of 5 Years. European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology, 25, 149-159.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-014-1459-3
[11] Thaunat, M., Fayard, J.M. and Sonnery-Cottet, B. (2019) Ham-string Tendons or Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Graft for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction? Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research, 105, S89-S94.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2018.05.014
[12] Mohammadi, F., Salavati, M., Akhbari, B., et al. (2013) Compar-ison of Functional Outcome Measures after ACL Reconstruction in Competitive Soccer Players: A Randomized Trial. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 95, 1271-1277.
https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.00724
[13] Batty, L.M., Norsworthy, C.J., Lash, N.J., et al. (2015) Synthetic De-vices for Reconstructive Surgery of the Cruciate Ligaments: A Systematic Review. Arthroscopy, 31, 957-968.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2014.11.032
[14] Mascarenhas, R. and Macdonald, P.B. (2008) Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Look at Prosthetics—Past, Present and Possible Future. McGill Journal of Medicine, 11, 29-37.
https://doi.org/10.26443/mjm.v11i1.409
[15] Chen, J., Gu, A., Jiang, H., et al. (2015) A Comparison of Acute and Chronic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using LARS Artificial Ligaments: A Randomized Prospective Study with a 5-Year Follow-Up. Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, 135, 95-102.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-014-2108-3
[16] Nau, T., Lavoie, P. and Duval, N. (2002) A New Generation of Artificial Ligaments in Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament. Two-Year Follow-Up of a Randomised Trial. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 84-B, 356-360.
https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.84B3.0840356
[17] Eguchi, A., Ochi, M., Adachi, N., et al. (2014) Mechanical Properties of Suspensory Fixation Devices for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Comparison of the Fixed-Length Loop Device versus the Adjustable-Length Loop Device. Knee, 21, 743-748.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2014.02.009
[18] Ping, L.W., Bin, S., Rui, Y., et al. (2012) Arthroscopic ACL Re-construction with Reverse “Y”-Plasty Grafts and Fixation in the Femur with Either a Bioabsorbable Interference Screw or an Endobutton. Knee, 19, 78-83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2010.10.010
[19] Pereira, H., Correlo, V.M., Silva-Correia, J., et al. (2013) Migra-tion of “Bioabsorbable” Screws in ACL Repair. How Much Do We Know? A Systematic Review. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 21, 986-994.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2414-2
[20] Stolarz, M., Ficek, K., Binkowski, M., et al. (2017) Bone Tunnel Enlargement Following Hamstring Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Comprehensive Review. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 45, 31-40.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00913847.2017.1253429
[21] Watson, J.N., Mcqueen, P., Kim, W., et al. (2015) Bioabsorbable Interference Screw Failure in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Case Series and Review of the Literature. Knee, 22, 256-261.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2015.02.015
[22] Franceschi, F., Papalia, R., Rizzello, G., et al. (2013) Anteromedial Portal Versus Transtibial Drilling Techniques in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Any Clinical Relevance? A Retrospective Comparative Study. Arthroscopy, 29, 1330-1337.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2013.05.020
[23] Choi, N.H., Yoo, S.Y. and Victoroff, B.N. (2013) Tibial Tunnel Widening after Hamstring Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions: Comparison between Rigidfix and Bio-TransFix. Knee, 20, 31-35.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2012.05.009
[24] Tiamklang, T., Sumanont, S., Foocharoen, T., et al. (2012) Dou-ble-Bundle versus Single-Bundle Reconstruction for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture in Adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, No. 11, Article ID: CD008413.
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD008413.pub2
[25] Van Eck, C.F., Lesniak, B.P., Schreiber, V.M., et al. (2010) Anatomic Single- and Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Flowchart. Arthroscopy, 26, 258-268.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2009.07.027
[26] Lim, H.C., Yoon, Y.C., Wang, J.H., et al. (2012) An-atomical versus Non-Anatomical Single Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Cadaveric Study of Comparison of Knee Stability. Clinics in Orthopedic Surgery, 4, 249-255.
https://doi.org/10.4055/cios.2012.4.4.249
[27] Musahl, V., Plakseychuk, A., Vanscyoc, A., et al. (2005) Varying Femoral Tunnels between the Anatomical Footprint and Isometric Positions: Effect on Kinematics of the Anterior Cru-ciate Ligament-Reconstructed Knee. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 33, 712-718.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546504271747
[28] Fernandes, T.L., Moreira, H.H., Andrade, R., et al. (2021) Clin-ical Outcome Evaluation of Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Tunnel Positioning Using Gold Standard Techniques: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, 9.
https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671211013327
[29] Mascarenhas, R., Cvetanovich, G.L., Sayegh, E.T., et al. (2015) Does Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Improve Postoperative Knee Stability Compared With Single-Bundle Techniques? A Systematic Review of Overlapping Meta-Analyses. Arthroscopy, 31, 1185-1196.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2014.11.014
[30] Desai, N., Alentorn-Geli, E., Van Eck, C.F., et al. (2016) A Systematic Review of Single- versus Double-Bundle ACL Reconstruction Using the Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Scoring Checklist. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 24, 862-872.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3393-7
[31] Duquin, T.R., Wind, W.M., Fineberg, M.S., et al. (2009) Current Trends in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Journal of Knee Surgery, 22, 7-12.
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1247719
[32] Zhu, T., Zhou, J., Hwang, J., et al. (2022) Effects of Platelet-Rich Plasma on Clinical Outcomes after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine, 10.
https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671211061535
[33] Nin, J.R., Gasque, G.M., Azcarate, A.V., et al. (2009) Has Platelet-Rich Plasma Any Role in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Allograft Healing? Arthroscopy, 25, 1206-1213.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2009.06.002
[34] Chalmers, P.N., Mall, N.A., Moric, M., et al. (2014) Does ACL Reconstruction Alter Natural History? A Systematic Literature Review of Long-Term Outcomes. The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, 96, 292-300.
https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.01713
[35] Kennedy, J., Jackson, M.P., O’Kelly, P., et al. (2010) Timing of Re-construction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament in Athletes and the Incidence of Secondary Pathology within the Knee. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 92-B, 362-366.
https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.92B3.22424
[36] Sanders, T.L., Pareek, A., Kremers, H.M., et al. (2017) Long-Term Follow-Up of Isolated ACL Tears Treated without Ligament Reconstruction. Knee Surgery, Sports Trau-matology, Arthroscopy, 25, 493-500.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4172-4
[37] Anderson, R.J. (1982) Fluoridation and Caries. British Dental Journal, 153, 130.
https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4804872
[38] Friel, N.A. and Chu, C.R. (2013) The Role of ACL Injury in the De-velopment of Posttraumatic Knee Osteoarthritis. Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, 32, 1-12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csm.2012.08.017
[39] Shelbourne, K.D. and Benner, R.W. (2007) Isolated Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in the Chronic ACL-Deficient Knee with Degenerative Medial Arthrosis. Journal of Knee Surgery, 20, 216-222.
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1248046
[40] Weston-Simons, J.S., Pandit, H., Jenkins, C., et al. (2012) Outcome of Combined Unicompartmental Knee Replacement and Combined or Sequential Anterior Cruciate Ligament Recon-struction: A Study of 52 Cases with Mean Follow-up of Five Years. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 94-B, 1216-1220.
https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.94B9.28881
[41] Stride, D., Wang, J., Horner, N.S., et al. (2019) Indications and Outcomes of Simultaneous High Tibial Osteotomy and ACL Reconstruction. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 27, 1320-1331.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05379-5
[42] Healy, W.L., Iorio, R. and Lemos, M.J. (2000) Athletic Activity after Total Knee Arthroplasty. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 380, 65-71.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00003086-200011000-00009