This Article
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Rights and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by O'NEILL, D. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by O'NEILL, D. B.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Facebook   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?
The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery 79:1759-69 (1997)
© 1997 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.

Open Lateral Retinacular Lengthening Compared with Arthroscopic Release. A Prospective, Randomized Outcome Study*

DANIEL B. O'NEILL, M.D.{dagger}, NASSAU BAY, TEXAS

Investigation performed at St. John Sports Medicine Center, Nassau Bay

A prospective, randomized study was performed to compare the results of arthroscopic lateral retinacular release (Group I) with those of open lateral retinacular lengthening (Group II). The study included eighty-six patients (eighty-six knees) who had had pain in the anterior peripatellar aspect of the knee and lateral patellar tilting (rotational malalignment), as seen on Merchant tangential patellofemoral radiographs, that had not improved after participation in a structured rehabilitation program for the quadriceps and the hamstrings for a minimum of six months. The mean duration of follow-up after the operative procedures was forty-six months (range, two to six years). At the time of the latest follow-up evaluation, forty (93 per cent) of the forty-three patients in Group I and all forty-three (100 per cent) of the patients in Group II had resumed the level of athletic activity that they had engaged in before the onset of symptoms (p = 0.08, analysis of variance). With the numbers available for study, no significant difference could be detected between the groups with regard to deficits in the range of motion, atrophy (the circumference) of the thigh, operative or postoperative complications, or the need for subsequent operative procedures. Additionally, no significant difference could be detected between the groups with regard to the results of open or closed-chain testing with an isokinetic dynamometer. According to the knee-rating system of Lysholm and Gillquist as modified by Tegner and Lysholm, thirty-three knees (77 per cent) in Group I had a score of 80 points or more compared with thirty-eight knees (88 per cent) in Group II. Six knees (14 per cent) in Group I had a score of less than 70 points compared with no knees in Group II. The difference in the knee ratings between the two groups was significant (p = 0.028, analysis of variance). Although there seemed to be a definite trend toward improved function of the knee in association with a longer duration of follow-up, no significant association could be detected between the duration of follow-up and improvement in the outcome measures in either group.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Am Acad Orthop SurgHome page
W. R. Post
Anterior Knee Pain: Diagnosis and Treatment
J. Am. Acad. Ortho. Surg., December 1, 2005; 13(8): 534 - 543.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]