Table 5 Clinical studies that directly compare ACLR with QT vs. HT
Author | Number of patients and Surgical Technique, FU Drilling Technique Femoral/Tibial Fixation | Main Results | Graft Failure |
|---|---|---|---|
Runer et al. [16] 2017 | 40 SB QT-PB vs. 40 SB HT; 2 years Both: AM; button/Bio-IF screw + button | No difference in Lyholm, Tegner and VAS scores or knee pain; no postoperative knee laxity data | 1 HT 0 QT |
Cavaignac et al. [17] 2017 | 45 QT-BT vs. 41 SB HT, 3.6 years Both: outside in, Bio-IF screw/Bio-IF screw | No difference in Tegner and IKDC scores; Sig. better Lysholm and KOOS scores for QT; SSD QT-HT 1.1 mm vs. 3.6 mm | 1 QT 2 HT |
Lee et al. [18]2016 | 48 SB QT-PB vs. 48 dB HT, 2 years QT: TT, metal IF screw/Bio-IF screw HT: AM; button/Bio-IF screw | No difference Lysholm, Tegenr, IKDC, SSD QT 2 .1mm; HT 1 .9mm; no difference in anterior knee pain and extensor muscle strength recovery, better flexor muscle strength recovery for QT | No data |
Sofu et al. [19] 2017 | 23 SB QT-PB vs. 21 SB HT; both: TT, 3 years QT: Metal-IF screw/Bio-IF screw HT: Transfemural fixation/Bio-IF screw | SSD: QT-HT 2.8 vs. 1.1, QT 52% > 3 mm, HT 9% > 3 mm Symptoms of instability: 21% QT, 0% HT | No data |