W A van der Wal1, P J C Heesterbeek2, T G van Tienen3,4, V J Busch3, J H M van Ochten5, A B Wymenga3. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Sint Maartenskliniek Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. wybrenvanderwal@gmail.com. 2. Department of Research, Sint Maartenskliniek Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Sint Maartenskliniek Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Kliniek ViaSana Mill, Mill, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, LVR Klinik für Orthopädie, Viersen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to present a 2- to 5-year prospective follow-up of an anatomical posterolateral corner reconstruction in a series of 16 patients with symptomatic instability and pain complaints of the knee. METHODS: All 16 patients underwent a posterolateral corner reconstruction as described by LaPrade et al. If cruciate ligament ruptures were present and had not been addressed earlier, these were reconstructed as well. Preoperatively and 2-5 years after surgery, multiple subjective knee outcome scores (VAS satisfaction score, Tegner, Lysholm, Noyes score and IKDC subjective knee form) were obtained, and the laxity of the joint was evaluated objectively by using bilateral varus stress radiographs to compare the injured with the uninjured knee. RESULTS: Eleven patients had concomitant ACL or PCL surgery or already had undergone surgery on this cruciate ligament. Mean varus laxity of the injured knee on varus stress radiographs improved significantly from 9.6° (6.6-17.1) to 6.3° (0.3-13.4), p = 0.0011. Post-operative varus laxity did not return to the level of the uninjured knee: 4.4° (1.5-7.7), p = 0.036. VAS satisfaction score, the Tegner, Lysholm, Noyes scores and the IKDC subjective knee form all improved significantly. CONCLUSION: The anatomical reconstruction of the posterolateral corner does provide restoration of the external rotation stability in the majority of patients. However, the varus laxity could not be restored in all patients. Functional knee scores improved significantly, and most reconstructed knees had a laxity of <3° compared with the uninjured knee, but the reconstructed knee did not become as stable as the uninjured knee. The results of this study can assist surgeons and patients to have realistic expectations of this operation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Case series with no comparative group, Level IV.
PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to present a 2- to 5-year prospective follow-up of an anatomical posterolateral corner reconstruction in a series of 16 patients with symptomatic instability and pain complaints of the knee. METHODS: All 16 patients underwent a posterolateral corner reconstruction as described by LaPrade et al. If cruciate ligament ruptures were present and had not been addressed earlier, these were reconstructed as well. Preoperatively and 2-5 years after surgery, multiple subjective knee outcome scores (VAS satisfaction score, Tegner, Lysholm, Noyes score and IKDC subjective knee form) were obtained, and the laxity of the joint was evaluated objectively by using bilateral varus stress radiographs to compare the injured with the uninjured knee. RESULTS: Eleven patients had concomitant ACL or PCL surgery or already had undergone surgery on this cruciate ligament. Mean varus laxity of the injured knee on varus stress radiographs improved significantly from 9.6° (6.6-17.1) to 6.3° (0.3-13.4), p = 0.0011. Post-operative varus laxity did not return to the level of the uninjured knee: 4.4° (1.5-7.7), p = 0.036. VAS satisfaction score, the Tegner, Lysholm, Noyes scores and the IKDC subjective knee form all improved significantly. CONCLUSION: The anatomical reconstruction of the posterolateral corner does provide restoration of the external rotation stability in the majority of patients. However, the varus laxity could not be restored in all patients. Functional knee scores improved significantly, and most reconstructed knees had a laxity of <3° compared with the uninjured knee, but the reconstructed knee did not become as stable as the uninjured knee. The results of this study can assist surgeons and patients to have realistic expectations of this operation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Case series with no comparative group, Level IV.
Authors: Robert F LaPrade; Steinar Johansen; Fred A Wentorf; Lars Engebretsen; Justin L Esterberg; Andy Tso Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2004-07-20 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Guido Garavaglia; Anne Lubbeke; Victor Dubois-Ferrière; Domizio Suva; Daniel Fritschy; Jacques Menetrey Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2007-09-20 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: James P Stannard; Stephen L Brown; Rory C Farris; Gerald McGwin; David A Volgas Journal: Am J Sports Med Date: 2005-04-12 Impact factor: 6.202
Authors: Robert F LaPrade; Steinar Johansen; Julie Agel; May Arna Risberg; Havard Moksnes; Lars Engebretsen Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Patricia M Lutz; Michael Merkle; Philipp W Winkler; Stephanie Geyer; Elmar Herbst; Sepp Braun; Andreas B Imhoff; Matthias J Feucht Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2021-01-23 Impact factor: 4.342