Literature DB >> 25048278

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

Alexander E Weber1, Benjamin Bissell, Edward M Wojtys, Jon K Sekiya.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: All-arthroscopic tibial inlay double-bundle (DB) posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction avoids an open dissection and the "killer turn" while maintaining the advantage of an anatomic graft. However, clinical data on the viability of this surgical technique in multiligamentous knee injuries are lacking. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: At greater than 2 years of followup, we evaluated (1) validated outcomes scores; (2) range of motion; and (3) side-to-side stability on PCL stress radiographs of a small group of patients who underwent all-arthroscopic tibial inlay DB PCL reconstruction in multiligamentous knee injuries, either shortly after injury or late.
METHODS: All patients sustaining an operative multiligamentous knee injury between August 2007 and March 2009 underwent PCL reconstruction with the all-arthroscopic tibial inlay DB PCL reconstruction. Twelve patients sustained such injuries and were reconstructed during the study period and all 12 returned for followup with a minimum of 2 years (mean 3 ± 0.8 years). There were nine males and three females, with a mean age of 30 years; four patients had a subacute reconstruction (≥ 3 weeks, but < 3 months), and eight patients had chronic reconstructions (> 3 months). Mean time from injury to PCL reconstruction was 7 ± 12 months. Demographics, ROM, outcome scores (Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] scores), and PCL stress views were obtained.
RESULTS: At final followup, mean Lysholm and IKDC subjective scores were 79 ± 16 and 72 ± 19, respectively. IKDC objective scores included eight nearly normal knees, three abnormal knees, and one severely abnormal knee. Mean flexion and extension losses compared with the contralateral were 10 ± 9 and 1 ± 2, respectively. Mean ± SD final side-to-side difference on PCL stress radiographs was 5 ± 3 mm.
CONCLUSIONS: The clinical and radiographic results of the all-arthroscopic tibial inlay DB PCL reconstruction appear comparable to the same technique in isolated PCL injuries and, based on similar published case series, comparable to results of multiligamentous knee reconstructions using other PCL reconstruction techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25048278      PMCID: PMC4117873          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-3796-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  57 in total

1.  Biomechanical analysis of a double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  C D Harner; M A Janaushek; A Kanamori; M Yagi; T M Vogrin; S L Woo
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2000 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 6.202

2.  Arthroscopic tibial inlay for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Robert Brick Campbell; Susan S Jordan; Jon K Sekiya
Journal:  Arthroscopy       Date:  2007-04-24       Impact factor: 4.772

3.  Posterior cruciate ligament biomechanics and options for surgical treatment.

Authors:  David R McAllister; Mark D Miller; Jon K Sekiya; Edward M Wojtys
Journal:  Instr Course Lect       Date:  2009

Review 4.  The dislocated knee.

Authors:  R C Schenck
Journal:  Instr Course Lect       Date:  1994

5.  The effects of sectioning of the posterior cruciate ligament and the posterolateral complex on the articular contact pressures within the knee.

Authors:  M J Skyhar; R F Warren; G J Ortiz; E Schwartz; J C Otis
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Long-term results.

Authors:  A B Lipscomb; A F Anderson; E D Norwig; W D Hovis; D L Brown
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  1993 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 6.202

7.  Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries.

Authors:  Y Tegner; J Lysholm
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1985-09       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Arthroscopic examination of the posterior cruciate ligament.

Authors:  J Lysholm; J Gillquist
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1981-03       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  A biomechanical study of replacement of the posterior cruciate ligament with a graft. Part II: Forces in the graft compared with forces in the intact ligament.

Authors:  K L Markolf; J R Slauterbeck; K L Armstrong; M S Shapiro; G A Finerman
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Long-term followup of the untreated isolated posterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee.

Authors:  M D Boynton; B R Tietjens
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  1996 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.202

View more
  2 in total

Review 1.  Revision PCL Reconstruction Review/Update.

Authors:  G Keith Gill; F Winston Gwathmey
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2018-06

2.  The mechanism of "killer turn" causing residual laxity after transtibial posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Authors:  Yue Li; Jin Zhang; Guanyang Song; Xu Li; Hua Feng
Journal:  Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol       Date:  2016-01-21
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.