Mingguang Bi1, Chen Zhao2, Jihang Chen2, Zheping Hong2, Zhen Wang2, Kaifeng Gan1, Yu Tong2, Qing Bi2. 1. Lihuili Hospital, Ningbo Medical Center, Ningbo University School of Medicine, Ningbo, China. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital and People's Hospital of Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The optimal surgical treatment of delayed avulsion fractures of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) is still controversial. PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical results of arthroscopic suture fixation of tibial avulsion fractures of the PCL with autograft augmentation reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: From January 2013 to February 2017, we treated 15 patients with delayed tibial avulsion fractures of the PCL arthroscopically through posteromedial and posterolateral portals. The PCL and avulsion bone fragment were fixed with No. 2 nonabsorbable FiberWire sutures that were pulled out through a single tibial bone tunnel and fixed on a small Endobutton. Concomitantly, anatomic PCL augmentation reconstruction was performed, and the graft was pulled out through the same tunnel and fixed with an interference screw. Knee stability was assessed using the posterior drawer test, and the side-to-side difference was determined using a KT-1000 arthrometer with 134 N of posterior force at 30° of knee flexion. The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) 2000 subjective form and Lysholm scale were used to evaluate clinical outcomes at follow-up. Overall, 12 patients were enrolled for analysis. The mean follow-up period was 34.4 months (range, 26-49 months). RESULTS: At the final follow-up, 2 patients encountered 10° terminal flexion limitations. All patients had negative posterior drawer test results. The KT-1000 arthrometer side-to-side difference was significantly decreased from 8.25 ± 1.96 mm preoperatively to 1.08 ± 0.86 mm at the last follow-up (P < .001). The mean IKDC and Lysholm scores, respectively, increased from 54.67 ± 7.13 and 53.50 ± 7.90 preoperatively to 91.13 ± 3.78 and 94.25 ± 3.32 at the final follow-up (P < .001 for both). CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic suture fixation with autograft augmentation reconstruction for delayed tibial avulsion fractures of the PCL showed good clinical stability and function in this study.
BACKGROUND: The optimal surgical treatment of delayed avulsion fractures of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) is still controversial. PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical results of arthroscopic suture fixation of tibial avulsion fractures of the PCL with autograft augmentation reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: From January 2013 to February 2017, we treated 15 patients with delayed tibial avulsion fractures of the PCL arthroscopically through posteromedial and posterolateral portals. The PCL and avulsion bone fragment were fixed with No. 2 nonabsorbable FiberWire sutures that were pulled out through a single tibial bone tunnel and fixed on a small Endobutton. Concomitantly, anatomic PCL augmentation reconstruction was performed, and the graft was pulled out through the same tunnel and fixed with an interference screw. Knee stability was assessed using the posterior drawer test, and the side-to-side difference was determined using a KT-1000 arthrometer with 134 N of posterior force at 30° of knee flexion. The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) 2000 subjective form and Lysholm scale were used to evaluate clinical outcomes at follow-up. Overall, 12 patients were enrolled for analysis. The mean follow-up period was 34.4 months (range, 26-49 months). RESULTS: At the final follow-up, 2 patients encountered 10° terminal flexion limitations. All patients had negative posterior drawer test results. The KT-1000 arthrometer side-to-side difference was significantly decreased from 8.25 ± 1.96 mm preoperatively to 1.08 ± 0.86 mm at the last follow-up (P < .001). The mean IKDC and Lysholm scores, respectively, increased from 54.67 ± 7.13 and 53.50 ± 7.90 preoperatively to 91.13 ± 3.78 and 94.25 ± 3.32 at the final follow-up (P < .001 for both). CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic suture fixation with autograft augmentation reconstruction for delayed tibial avulsion fractures of the PCL showed good clinical stability and function in this study.
Residual knee laxity of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) avulsion fractures is often
attributed to fracture nonunion.[13] When a bone fragment is avulsed and displaced, nonoperative treatment is invalid,
as reported by a nonunion rate of 80%.[13] Many authors advocate operative treatment of a PCL tibial avulsion fracture if
the bone fragment emerges above the joint line on lateral knee radiographs and the
fracture has been displaced more than 5 mm on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).[4,16] However, the optimal surgical treatment of isolated PCL tibial avulsion fractures
remains controversial. In some cases, a large fragment can be anatomically reduced and
held with a screw though an open posterior approach.[8,13] When the fragment is comminuted or too small to accommodate a screw, suturing the
ligament in position arthroscopically is also a good treatment option.[4,8,16]Another reason for residual knee laxity may be that the PCL had been stretched at the
time of injury and that the mechanical properties of the ligament were reduced.[6,7] Some authors have reported that a certain percentage of their patients still had
significant knee instability even though the bone fragment had been anatomically reduced
and rigidly fixed in the treatment of PCL avulsion fractures.[6,7]In spite of acute tibial avulsion fractures of the PCL being widely reported,[4,16] delayed avulsion fractures also occur because of a neglected diagnosis or the
failure of nonoperative treatment.[4,8] Arthroscopic suture fixation for delayed PCL avulsion injuries is considered a
complex orthopaedic intervention because scar conglutination and bony callus formation
complicate the anatomic structure and result in avulsed fragment malreduction.[1,9] The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy and clinical
results of arthroscopic suture fixation with autograft-enhanced reconstruction for
delayed tibial avulsion fractures of the PCL.
Methods
This was a retrospective case series study. Institutional review board approval was
obtained to perform this study. From January 2013 to February 2017, a total of 15
consecutive patients with delayed tibial avulsion fractures of the PCL were treated
by arthroscopic suture fixation with anatomic PCL reconstruction. Of those included,
3 patients were lost to follow-up: 2 changed their contact information, and 1
patient was unwilling to be reviewed because she lived too far away. The other 12
patients (8 male and 4 female) were followed up for more than 24 months (mean, 34.4
months [range, 26-49 months]).Standard anteroposterior and lateral radiographs and computed tomography scans were
routinely obtained to verify the diagnosis (Figure 1). MRI was performed preoperatively
to better evaluate concomitant intra-articular injuries.
Figure 1.
Preoperatively, (A) an anteroposterior radiograph showed that a large bone
fragment was avulsed from the tibial eminence (red arrow), and (B) bony
callus formation was seen on a computed tomography scan in the
posteroanterior view (yellow arrow).
Preoperatively, (A) an anteroposterior radiograph showed that a large bone
fragment was avulsed from the tibial eminence (red arrow), and (B) bony
callus formation was seen on a computed tomography scan in the
posteroanterior view (yellow arrow).The indication for surgery was that the elevated bone fragment was above the joint
line on lateral radiographs, with a more than 5-mm displacement on MRI. Patients
with tibial plateau fractures, osteochondral lesions, and anterior cruciate ligament
or multiligament injuries were excluded. Patients treated with meniscal partial
resection or suture repair at the same time were not excluded.The mean time from injury to surgery was 37.8 ± 10.2 days (range, 27-61 days). The
posterior drawer test was performed under anesthesia before surgery. The KT-1000
arthrometer (MEDmetric) side-to-side difference was measured with 134 N of posterior
force at 30° of knee flexion to evaluate posterior displacement of the knee. Lysholm
and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) 2000 scores were also recorded
before surgery, at 3 and 6 months postoperatively, and yearly thereafter.
Surgical Procedures
All surgical procedures were completed by the same team of 3 experienced
orthopaedic surgeons (Q.B., C.Z., M.B.). The patient was placed in the supine
position under general anesthesia, and a support pad was placed next to the
proximal femur to keep the bended knee stable. Standard anteromedial and
anterolateral portals were established, and diagnostic arthroscopic surgery was
performed. Then, an arthroscope was inserted from the interval between the PCL
and the medial condyle of the femur. An additional posteromedial portal was
established, and a switch stick was passed through this portal, viewing from the
anterolateral portal, and inserted toward the posterolateral space through the
posterior septum. After that, an additional posterolateral portal was
established via an outside-in technique, viewing from the additional
posteromedial portal.Partial debridement of the posterior septum was performed until the PCL was
exposed. The avulsed fragment was reduced by a probe to regain tension of the
PCL after debridement of scar tissue and bony callus in the posterior articular
cavity (Figure 2A). A
45° SutureLasso (Arthrex) was passed through the front region of the base of the
PCL from the posteromedial portal, while the posterolateral portal was used to
observe. Then, a No. 2 nonabsorbable FiberWire suture (Arthrex) was pulled into
the knee, and the same sequence was performed to encircle the PCL at least 2
times (Figure 2B). After
that, a 7-mm tibial tunnel was established using a 55° PCL tibial guide
underneath the bone fragment (Figure 2C), and the ends of the FiberWire suture were pulled forward
from the tunnel. Approximate anatomic reduction was achieved by pulling down the
2 ends of the FiberWire suture. The suture was tied on a small Endobutton (Smith
& Nephew) at 60° of knee flexion and with tibial anterior translation to
decrease tension of the PCL and reduce the fragment.
Figure 2.
Left knee and view from the posterolateral portal. (A) Scar tissue and
bony callus were totally removed to expose the bony bed of the avulsion
fragment. (B) The FiberWire suture was used to bundle the neck of the
posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) by a lasso. (C) A small distal tibial
bone tunnel was created to allow sufficient fracture reduction. B,
fracture bed; F, avulsion bone fragment; T, bone tunnel.
Left knee and view from the posterolateral portal. (A) Scar tissue and
bony callus were totally removed to expose the bony bed of the avulsion
fragment. (B) The FiberWire suture was used to bundle the neck of the
posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) by a lasso. (C) A small distal tibial
bone tunnel was created to allow sufficient fracture reduction. B,
fracture bed; F, avulsion bone fragment; T, bone tunnel.We used a folded autograft from the semitendinosus and gracilis for enhanced
reconstruction. The mean diameter of the graft was 7 mm, and the mean length was
11 cm (range, 10-12 cm). The femoral tunnel was drilled on the medial femoral
condyle based on the identified PCL footprint through the anterolateral portal
with 90° of knee flexion. The center of the tunnel was placed at the
anterolateral bundle and posteromedial bundle junction site (Figure 3A). During the
process of the graft being pulled into the tibial bone tunnel, the 2 ends of the
FiberWire suture were pulled tightly to tension the PCL (Figure 3B). Usually, we tried to make the
substance of the graft lie above the avulsion fragment to obtain a downward
force when we pulled and fixed the tibial-side autograft after we pulled the
graft into the femoral tunnel at least 20 mm. A TightRope (Arthrex) and 7 ×
25–mm interference screw were, respectively, used to fix the grafts on the
femoral and tibial sides (Figures 4 and 5).
Figure 3.
Left knee and view from the anteromedial portal. (A) The center of the
tunnel was placed at the anterolateral (AL) bundle and posteromedial
(PM) bundle junction site. (B) The FiberWire suture was tightly
tensioned when the autograft was introduced into the bone tunnels. FB,
FiberWire suture.
Figure 4.
Left knee and view from the posterolateral portal. (A) Arthroscopic
suture fixation with anatomic autograft augmentation reconstruction was
achieved. (B) The bone fragment (yellow arrow) was sufficiently reduced
and pressured by the graft. An interference screw was used to fix the
graft. (C) An Endobutton at the tibial side was used to tension the
FiberWire suture (anteroposterior view immediately after surgery). F,
avulsion bone fragment; G, autograft; PCL, posterior cruciate
ligament.
Figure 5.
Schematic drawings of suture fixation and autograft augmentation
reconstruction of a bone fragment. (A, B) The FiberWire suture (black
arrow) was used to encircle the posterior cruciate ligament, and then
the ends of the FiberWire suture were pulled forward from the tibial
tunnel. Approximate anatomic reduction was achieved by pulling down the
2 ends of the FiberWire suture, and the suture ends were tied on a small
steel plate to fix the bone fragment. (C) Then, autograft augmentation
reconstruction was performed. The substance of the graft lay above the
avulsion fragment to obtain a downward force. An interference screw was
used to fix the graft in the same tibial tunnel. BF, bone fragment; G,
graft; P, steel plate; PCL, posterior cruciate ligament; S, interference
screw; T, bone tunnel.
Left knee and view from the anteromedial portal. (A) The center of the
tunnel was placed at the anterolateral (AL) bundle and posteromedial
(PM) bundle junction site. (B) The FiberWire suture was tightly
tensioned when the autograft was introduced into the bone tunnels. FB,
FiberWire suture.Left knee and view from the posterolateral portal. (A) Arthroscopic
suture fixation with anatomic autograft augmentation reconstruction was
achieved. (B) The bone fragment (yellow arrow) was sufficiently reduced
and pressured by the graft. An interference screw was used to fix the
graft. (C) An Endobutton at the tibial side was used to tension the
FiberWire suture (anteroposterior view immediately after surgery). F,
avulsion bone fragment; G, autograft; PCL, posterior cruciate
ligament.Schematic drawings of suture fixation and autograft augmentation
reconstruction of a bone fragment. (A, B) The FiberWire suture (black
arrow) was used to encircle the posterior cruciate ligament, and then
the ends of the FiberWire suture were pulled forward from the tibial
tunnel. Approximate anatomic reduction was achieved by pulling down the
2 ends of the FiberWire suture, and the suture ends were tied on a small
steel plate to fix the bone fragment. (C) Then, autograft augmentation
reconstruction was performed. The substance of the graft lay above the
avulsion fragment to obtain a downward force. An interference screw was
used to fix the graft in the same tibial tunnel. BF, bone fragment; G,
graft; P, steel plate; PCL, posterior cruciate ligament; S, interference
screw; T, bone tunnel.
Postoperative Protocol
Ice was used immediately after surgery to decrease surgical swelling and pain.
The key point of the early rehabilitation protocol was to protect against PCL
tension. During the first 4 weeks, the involved knee was kept in full extension
in a hinged knee brace. A small cushion was put in the brace under the lower leg
to prevent tibial posterior translation, which increased tension of the
autograft. Straight-leg raising exercises were strictly limited during the
immobilization process and were replaced by ankle pump exercises and isometric
quadriceps contractions as a precaution against disuse atrophy. Continuous
passive motion was allowed at 3 weeks to prevent postoperative stiffness. For
the next 4 weeks, the brace was adjusted to permit motion from 0° to 90°, and
partial weightbearing with crutches was initially allowed at 6 to 8 weeks. The
brace was routinely continued for 3 months. Weightbearing walking with the brace
unblocked was allowed from 12 weeks after surgery. Yet, return to sports was not
recommended until at least 12 months after surgery.
Follow-up
Patients were followed up at 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and annually
thereafter, during which they were evaluated using the IKDC form and Lysholm
scale. All clinical evaluations were performed by 2 independent observers who
were blinded to the surgical procedure (Z.H., J.C.). PCL laxity was classified
into 4 levels: grade 0, 1-2 mm; grade I, 3-5 mm; grade II, 6-10 mm; and grade
III, >10 mm. The KT-1000 arthrometer side-to-side difference was determined
with 134 N of posterior force at 30° of knee flexion to evaluate posterior
displacement of the knee. The medical record for each patient was reviewed for
any postoperative complications or reoperations.
Statistical Analysis
Continuous variables were described as mean ± standard error and assessed using a
paired t test (normally distributed). For analyses, a 2-sided
P value <.05 was considered significant.
Results
Demographics of Enrolled Patients
The demographic information of the 12 study patients is summarized in Table 1. There were 9
patients who initially underwent nonoperative treatment. However, the fracture
still had more than 5 mm of displacement on MRI after nonoperative treatment. In
the remaining 3 patients, the injury was initially misdiagnosed from radiographs
by local hospital doctors (Table 1). Dysfunction and instability of the involved knee were the
main complaints of all patients at the time of the subsequent visit.
Table 1
Patient Demographics
Patient
Sex
Age, y
Time to Surgery, d
Reason for Delayed Surgery
Injury Mechanism
Associated Injury and Treatment
1
M
26
34
Nonoperative treatment
Fall
None
2
M
45
46
Neglected
SRA
LM tear, meniscal plasty
3
M
35
51
Nonoperative treatment
SRA
None
4
F
36
28
Nonoperative treatment
MVA
MM tear, partial resection
5
M
51
31
Nonoperative treatment
MVA
MM tear, meniscal plasty
6
M
36
26
Nonoperative treatment
SRA
None
7
M
37
61
Nonoperative treatment
Fall
None
8
F
42
34
Nonoperative treatment
Trauma
LM tear, meniscal plasty
9
F
29
27
Neglected
SRA
None
10
M
53
37
Neglected
Trauma
LM tear, partial resection
11
F
41
35
Nonoperative treatment
Fall
None
12
M
36
44
Nonoperative treatment
Trauma
None
F, female; LM, lateral meniscus; M, male; MM, medial
meniscus; MVA, motor vehicle accident; SRA, sports-related
activity.
Patient DemographicsF, female; LM, lateral meniscus; M, male; MM, medial
meniscus; MVA, motor vehicle accident; SRA, sports-related
activity.
Clinical Findings
Imaging
The fracture fragments were usually shown to have healed according to
radiographs at 10 to 15 weeks (mean, 3.2 months) postoperatively. No failure
of fixation, refracture, or PCL rupture was found at follow-up.
Knee Range of Motion
Postoperative arthrofibrosis occurred in 9 patients at 3 months after
surgery. At 1-year follow-up, 7 patients recovered to a normal range of
motion of the knee when compared with the healthy side. Yet, the other 5
patients had various degrees of arthrofibrosis, with 10°, 15°, 15°, 20°, and
30° terminal flexion limitations. Rehabilitation was encouraged, and no
arthroscopic release was performed. At the last follow-up, among those with
initial flexion limitations, 3 patients returned to a normal range of motion
of the knee. The remaining 2 patients still had 10° terminal flexion
limitations but no complaints of any discomfort from daily activity.
Stability
Before surgery, 8 patients had 1° positive posterior drawer test results, and
4 patients had 2° positive results. We measured only knee posterior
displacement from the resting position by using the KT-1000 arthrometer. The
KT-1000 arthrometer showed that the side-to-side difference was 6 to 14 mm
(mean, 8.25 ± 1.96 mm). At the last follow-up, all patients had negative
posterior drawer test results. The KT-1000 arthrometer showed that the
side-to-side difference was 0 to 3 mm for all 12 patients (mean, 1.08 ± 0.86
mm). This change was statistically significant (P <
.001) (Table
2).
Table 2
Clinical Results Preoperatively and at Last Follow-up
Preoperative
Last Follow-up
P Value
Range of motion of involved knee, deg
110.7 ± 9.3 (120-150)
134.6 ± 8.8 (120-150)
<.001
IKDC score
54.67 ± 7.13 (41-67)
91.13 ± 3.78 (86-96)
<.001
Lysholm score
53.50 ± 7.90 (37-67)
94.25 ± 3.32 (88-100)
<.001
KT-1000 arthrometer side-to-side difference, mm
8.25 ± 1.96 (6-14)
1.08 ± 0.86 (0-3)
<.001
Posterior drawer test
1° positive: n = 8; 2° positive: n = 4
Negative for all
Data are presented as mean ± SD (range) unless
otherwise specified. IKDC, International Knee Documentation
Committee.
Clinical Results Preoperatively and at Last Follow-upData are presented as mean ± SD (range) unless
otherwise specified. IKDC, International Knee Documentation
Committee.
Knee Function
At the last follow-up, the mean IKDC score was 91.13 ± 3.78, and the mean
Lysholm score was 94.25 ± 3.32, significantly improved from the baseline of
54.67 ± 7.13 for the IKDC score and 53.50 ± 7.90 for the Lysholm score
(P < .001). The preoperative data and results at the
last follow-up are summarized in Table 2.
Complications
No complications such as donor site morbidity, infection, thrombosis, bony
nonunion, neurovascular injury, or implant failure were encountered during
follow-up.
Discussion
The major finding of our study was that arthroscopic suture fixation with autograft
augmentation reconstruction for patients with delayed tibial avulsion fractures of
the PCL showed good clinical stability and function. In spite of acute tibial
avulsion fractures of the PCL being widely reported,[16] delayed avulsion fractures of the PCL are not rare.[4,8,9] The reason for delayed surgery is often a neglected diagnosis or noneffective
nonoperative treatment. To the best of our knowledge, operative procedures for
delayed bone fragments are more difficult under arthroscopic surgery in terms of
ligament retraction and fibrosis.[8] Potential factors are as follows: first, callus formation around the fracture
makes the bone bed uneven. Microstep of the fracture line indicates malreduction of
the fragment, making anatomic reduction troublesome. Second, the bone fragment of
PCL avulsions is located deep within the posterior tibial plateau, so it is
technically challenging to operate through arthroscopic surgery because the surgeon
cannot manipulate across the board under direct vision as with an open approach.
Third, as Inoue et al[6] reported, plastic deformation of the PCL still contributes to residual knee
instability, even though the avulsion bone fragment has been anatomically fixated.
Based on biomechanical tests, stress deprivation created by plastic deformation may
reduce the mechanical properties of the ligament.[10]For avulsion fractures of the PCL, a surgical intervention is advocated if the bone
fragment emerges above the joint line on lateral knee radiographs and exceeds more
than 5-mm displacement on MRI.[4,16] Fixation of the bone fragment can be performed by using screws, toothed
plates, Kirschner wires, and sutures.[8,11,15] Recently, suture fixation was used in arthroscopic surgery of PCL avulsion
fractures, and good postoperative outcomes were reported.[5,17] Nonabsorbable suture fixation can have many advantages. First, suture
fixation for an avulsion fracture of the tibial spine or plateau is elastic and also
netlike, which is superior to rigid fixation, especially in some comminuted fracture cases[13] and in adolescents whose epiphysis is not closed.[14] Moreover, hardware needs to be removed with a second operative procedure.We believe that arthroscopic suture fixation is a useful method to fix avulsion bone
fragments. However, because suture fixation is an elastic fixation procedure as
opposed to rigid fixation, we worried that suture fixation alone would not be enough
for delayed tibial avulsion fractures of the PCL. First, compared with acute
avulsion fractures, arthroscopic surgical treatment of delayed avulsion fractures of
the PCL is considered to be a relatively difficult procedure to obtain anatomic
reduction. In addition, on the basis of previous clinical observations, we found
that delayed avulsion fractures of the PCL had a longer healing time than acute
injuries. Second, the PCL itself has higher intrinsic tension than the anterior
cruciate ligament.[3] Thus, the fragment may encounter much shear force when functional exercise is
started. Thus, we performed an augmented reconstruction procedure for delayed
avulsion fractures of the PCL based on 2 considerations. On one hand, the graft
provides additional downward pressure to help fix the bone fragment. On the other
hand, establishing a new bone tunnel provides a blood supply to promote healing.Arthroscopic suture fixation with tibial tunnel techniques has been successfully
performed by many surgeons, although the design of the established bone tunnel has
varied. Zhao et al[16] used Y-shaped tibial bone tunnels, Kim et al[12] used a double bone tunnel, while Gui et al[4] used a single bone tunnel. Although good clinical outcomes and postoperative
knee stability were attained in these studies, we believe that it may be needlessly
complicated to establish double or Y-shaped tunnels to shuttle the sutures via
arthroscopic surgery when compared with a single tibial tunnel.[4] In addition, complications of arthrofibrosis may increase when expanding the
operative procedure.[4] In the study by Gui et al, the authors used only 2 posteromedial portals to
create a single bone tunnel to fix the avulsion bone fragment, and at the last
follow-up, the KT-1000 arthrometer side-to-side difference was 0 to 2 mm in 96%
(23/24) of patients, and there was no statistical difference between the preinjury
and postoperative Tegner activity score.Compared with the single bone tunnel technique by Gui et al,[4] we have introduced some improvements. First, in contrast to their 2
posteromedial portals, we used a posteromedial portal and a posterolateral portal to
fix the bone fragment. Because the posterior knee compartment is relatively narrow,
creating 2 portals on the same side may cause crowding and interfere with
manipulation of the instruments. Second, Gui et al stated that the high
posteromedial portal that they used was helpful in viewing the PCL insertion site,
but the posteromedial portal may be suboptimal because it is realistically difficult
to view the overall perspective of the posteromedial compartment from the same side.
The posterolateral trans-septal portal that we used seems to provide a broader
arthroscopic view. Third, instead of suture shuttling from the posteromedial and
anterolateral sides, we reduced the steps for suture passage, using only 1 step to
pass the suture from the posteromedial side to the tibial bone tunnel. Although we
used a more simplified technique to fix the PCL, the clinical outcomes of the IKDC
score, the Lysholm score, and knee stability of patients in our study were
comparable with those of Gui et al and Zhao et al.[16] We thus provide a simple, convenient, reliable, and microinvasive method to
treat tibial avulsion fractures of the PCL.This study has some limitations. First, the sample size in the present study was
relatively small, which may increase the possibility of type II errors. Second, we
used the posterior drawer test as a method to evaluate laxity of the PCL. This is a
subjective test that is prone to interexaminer variation. In addition, we used the
KT-1000 arthrometer to measure simple posterior displacement of the knee from the
resting position. Measurement bias is a possibility, as posterior sag of the tibia
at the resting position was not accounted for.[2] Thus, total anteroposterior displacement would be more meaningful than simple
posterior displacement.[2] Third, an important limitation is that there was no radiological follow-up
such as MRI, an imaging parameter. Moreover, this was a case series study with no
comparison group. Thus, subgroup analysis was not possible.
Conclusion
In the current study, arthroscopic suture fixation with autograft augmentation
reconstruction for delayed tibial avulsion fractures of the PCL showed good clinical
stability and function.
Authors: Christina Marie Joseph; Chandrasekaran Gunasekaran; Abel Livingston; Hepsy Chelliah; Thilak Samuel Jepegnanam; P R J V C Boopalan Journal: Injury Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 2.586