Dataset Information

Minimally invasive posterior hamstring harvest.

ABSTRACT: Autogenous hamstring harvesting for knee ligament reconstruction is a well-established standard. Minimally invasive posterior hamstring harvest is a simple, efficient, reproducible technique for harvest of the semitendinosus or gracilis tendon or both medial hamstring tendons. A 2- to 3-cm longitudinal incision from the popliteal crease proximally, in line with the semitendinosus tendon, is sufficient. The deep fascia is bluntly penetrated, and the tendon or tendons are identified. Adhesions are dissected. Then, an open tendon stripper is used to release the tendon or tendons proximally; a closed, sharp tendon stripper is used to release the tendon or tendons from the pes. Layered, absorbable skin closure is performed, and the skin is covered with a skin sealant, bolster dressing, and plastic adhesive bandage for 2 weeks.

SUBMITTER: Wilson TJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3834640 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Minimally invasive posterior hamstring harvest.

Wilson Trent J TJ Lubowitz James H JH

Arthroscopy techniques 20130816 3

Autogenous hamstring harvesting for knee ligament reconstruction is a well-established standard. Minimally invasive posterior hamstring harvest is a simple, efficient, reproducible technique for harvest of the semitendinosus or gracilis tendon or both medial hamstring tendons. A 2- to 3-cm longitudinal incision from the popliteal crease proximally, in line with the semitendinosus tendon, is sufficient. The deep fascia is bluntly penetrated, and the tendon or tendons are identified. Adhesions are ...[more]

PMID: 24266003

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough minimally invasive surgical (MIS) approaches to the lumbar spine for posterior fusion are increasingly being utilized, the comparative outcomes of MIS and open posterior lumbar fusion remain unclear.Questions/purposesIn this systematic review, we compared MIS and open transforaminal or posterior lumbar interbody fusion (TLIF/PLIF), specifically with respect to (1) surgical end points (including blood loss, surgical time, and fluoroscopy time), (2) clinical outcomes (Oswestry Disability Index [ODI] and VAS pain scores), and (3) adverse events.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of MEDLINE(®), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. Reference lists were manually searched. We included studies with 10 or more patients undergoing MIS compared to open TLIF/PLIF for degenerative lumbar disorders and reporting on surgical end points, clinical outcomes, or adverse events. Twenty-six studies of low- or very low-quality (GRADE protocol) met our inclusion criteria. No significant differences in patient demographics were identified between the cohorts (MIS: n = 856; open: n = 806).ResultsEquivalent operative times were observed between the cohorts, although patients undergoing MIS fusion tended to lose less blood, be exposed to more fluoroscopy, and leave the hospital sooner than their open counterparts. Patient-reported outcomes, including VAS pain scores and ODI values, were clinically equivalent between the MIS and open cohorts at 12 to 36 months postoperatively. Trends toward lower rates of surgical and medical adverse events were also identified in patients undergoing MIS procedures. However, in the absence of randomization, selection bias may have influenced these results in favor of MIS fusion.ConclusionsCurrent evidence examining MIS versus open TLIF/PLIF is of low to very low quality and therefore highly biased. Results of this systematic review suggest equipoise in surgical and clinical outcomes with equivalent rates of intraoperative surgical complications and perhaps a slight decrease in perioperative medical complications. However, the quality of the current literature precludes firm conclusions regarding the comparative effectiveness of MIS versus open posterior lumbar fusion from being drawn and further higher-quality studies are critically required.

Project description:ObjectiveThe study aims to explore the feasibility and clinical effect of posterior minimally invasive treatment of cruciate ligament tibial avulsion fracture.MethodsPosterior knee minimally invasive approach was used to treat avulsion fracture of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) tibia in 15 males and 11 females. The length of the incision, intraoperative blood loss, operation time, postoperative hospital stay, residual relaxation, and fracture healing time were analyzed to evaluate the curative effect, learning curve, and advantages of the new technology. Neurovascular complications were recorded. During the postoperative follow-up, the International Knee Joint Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm knee joint score, and knee joint range of motion were recorded to evaluate the function.ResultsAll 26 patients were followed up for 18-24 months, with an average of 24.42 ± 5.00 months. The incision length was 3-6 cm, with an average of 4.04 ± 0.82 cm. The intraoperative blood loss was about 45-60 ml, with an average of 48.85 ± 5.88 ml. The operation time was 39-64 min, with an average of 52.46 ± 7.64 min. The postoperative hospital stay was 2-5 days, with an average of 2.73 ± 0.87 days. All incisions healed grade I without neurovascular injury. All fractures healed well with an average healing time of 9.46 ± 1.33 weeks (range, 8-12 weeks). The Lysholm score of the affected knee was 89-98 (mean, 94.12 ± 2.49) at 12-month follow-up. The IKDC score was 87-95 with an average of 91.85 ± 2.19, and the knee range of motion was 129-148° with an average of 137.08 ± 5.59°. The residual relaxation was 1-3 mm, with an average of 1.46 ± 0.65 mm.ConclusionThis minimally invasive method provides sufficient exposure for internal fixation of PCL tibial avulsion fractures without the surgical complications associated with traditional open surgical methods. The process is safe, less invasive, and does not require a long learning curve.

Dataset Information

Minimally invasive posterior hamstring harvest.

Publications

Minimally invasive posterior hamstring harvest.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets