Literature DB >> 18375281

Comparison of a double bundle arthroscopic inlay and open inlay posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using clinically relevant tools: a cadaveric study.

Chad T Zehms1, David R Whiddon, Mark D Miller, J Scott Quinby, Scott L Montgomery, R Brick Campbell, Jon K Sekiya.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The ideal surgical management of isolated and combined posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injuries is controversial. One active debate concerns the advantages of an open tibial inlay technique versus an arthroscopic transtibial tunnel technique. Therefore, the goal of this study is to biomechanically compare arthroscopic and open double-bundle PCL tibial inlay procedure with and without posterolateral corner (PLC) deficiency.
METHODS: Ten matched pairs of cadaveric knees were randomly assigned to undergo PCL sectioning and reconstruction using either the open inlay or arthroscopic inlay approach. Clinical testing consisted of posterior drawer, TELOS stress testing, and dial testing at both 30 degrees and 90 degrees . The knee conditions tested were intact, after PCL sectioning, after PLC release, and following PCL reconstruction, with and without the PLC repair. Both 1-way repeated measures and 2-way mixed design analyses of variance were used to determine differences between the knee conditions, with significance set at P < .05.
RESULTS: After PCL and PLC reconstruction, 10 of 10 open specimens and 9 of 10 arthroscopic specimens were a grade 0 posterior drawer. The remaining arthroscopic specimen was grade I. The average radiographic posterior displacement for arthroscopic and open reconstructions (PCL+/PLC+) was 3.9 and 2.7 mm, respectively, with no significant difference. However, if the PLC was deficient (PCL+/PLC-), the translation for arthroscopic and open specimens increased to 8.5 and 6.5 mm, respectively, and was statistically different from the intact state but not from each other. At 30 degrees of knee flexion, both the open and arthroscopic specimen averaged 8.4 degrees of external rotation. At 90 degrees of knee flexion, the external rotation measurements increased to 9.6 degrees and 9.3 degrees in the arthroscopic and open groups, respectively. Additionally, there was no significant difference in external rotation between intact and reconstructed knees with either group.
CONCLUSIONS: The arthroscopic method of double-bundle inlay PCL reconstruction provides comparable stability to the open inlay using clinically relevant measurement tools both in the PLC intact or deficient state. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This novel arthroscopic double-bundle PCL inlay reconstruction provides comparable stability to the open approach with a potential for lower operative morbidity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18375281     DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2007.09.012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthroscopy        ISSN: 0749-8063            Impact factor:   4.772


  11 in total

1.  Double-bundle "all-inside" posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Daniel Slullitel; Hernan Galan; Vanina Ojeda; Matias Seri
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2012-08-03

2.  Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using an arthroscopic femoral inlay technique.

Authors:  Fabrizio Margheritini; Francesco Frascari Diotallevi; Pier Paolo Mariani
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-03-16       Impact factor: 4.342

Review 3.  Biomechanical techniques to evaluate tibial rotation. A systematic review.

Authors:  Mak-Ham Lam; Daniel Tik-Pui Fong; Patrick Shu-Hang Yung; Kai-Ming Chan
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-09-13       Impact factor: 4.342

4.  Surgical management of PCL injuries: indications, techniques, and outcomes.

Authors:  Scott R Montgomery; Jared S Johnson; David R McAllister; Frank A Petrigliano
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2013-06

5.  Is the all-arthroscopic tibial inlay double-bundle PCL reconstruction a viable option in multiligament knee injuries?

Authors:  Alexander E Weber; Benjamin Bissell; Edward M Wojtys; Jon K Sekiya
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  TransMedial All-Inside Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using a Reinforced Tibial Inlay Graft.

Authors:  Tamara J Nancoo; Breck Lord; Sam K Yasen; James O Smith; Michael J Risebury; Adrian J Wilson
Journal:  Arthrosc Tech       Date:  2013-10-07

7.  Combined PCL and PLC reconstruction in chronic posterolateral instability.

Authors:  Claudio Zorzi; Mahbub Alam; Venanzio Iacono; Vincenzo Madonna; Donato Rosa; Nicola Maffulli
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2011-11-22       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  Tibiofemoral and patellofemoral kinematics after reconstruction of an isolated posterior cruciate ligament injury: in vivo analysis during lunge.

Authors:  Thomas J Gill; Samuel K Van de Velde; David W Wing; Luke S Oh; Ali Hosseini; Guoan Li
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2009-09-02       Impact factor: 6.202

9.  Arthroscopic posterior cruciate ligament tibial inlay reconstruction: a surgical technique that may influence rehabilitation.

Authors:  Michael J Salata; Jon K Sekiya
Journal:  Sports Health       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 3.843

Review 10.  A systematic review of double-bundle versus single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Yan-Song Qi; Hai-Jun Wang; Shao-Jie Wang; Zheng-Zheng Zhang; Ai-Bing Huang; Jia-Kuo Yu
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2016-01-27       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.