LAUSR

The all-inside technique for ACL reconstruction uses the semitendinous muscle tendon as a graft, and postoperative pain is slightly reduced. Through the full tibial tunnel technique, better anatomical graft placement is obtained with promising results, yet there are only few scientific articles comparing the two techniques. The main objective is evaluation of results after ACL reconstruction by comparing the clinical results of the two surgical techniques. A prospective study was conducted that included 63 eligible patients according to pre-established criteria. The technique used was randomly indicated to each patient. Demographics and clinical examination results were collected and subsequently stored. The assessment tools used were the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) with a 6-month follow-up period. The statistical analysis was performed for preoperative follow-up scores, at 3 and 6 months. All patients were operated by the same surgical team under spinal anesthesia with nerve block and tourniquet applied.In regards to IKDC and KOOS scores, the difference between the two interventions was not statistically significant (p = .579 and p = .710). Postoperative pain was slightly reduced in patients in the all-inside\ group but without any statistical significance compared to full-tibial tunnel technique(p = .259). There were no graft ruptures or late postoperative complications. Regarding IKDC, KOOS and VAS evaluating tools, there is no statistically significant difference between the two evaluated methods for ACL reconstruction, all-inside and full tibial tunnel at 3 months and 6 months after surgery.