| Literature DB >> 35547163 |
Shengyu Cui1,2, Hong Yi1,2, Xinhui Zhu1,2, Jianbo Fan1,2, Yi Ding3, Wei Liu1,2.
Abstract
Background: Irreducible knee dislocation (IKD) is a very rare but serious type of knee dislocation; it can lead to soft tissue necrosis due to incarceration of the medial structures and faces great difficulty in the postoperative rehabilitation, too. IKD needs careful pre-operative planning. There is no universal agreement about the appropriate surgical strategy for IKD. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical efficacy, safety, and outcome of the two-staged operation in treatment of IKD.Entities:
Keywords: cruciate ligament; irreducible knee dislocation; knee stability; medial collateral ligament; rehabilitation; staged-surgery
Year: 2022 PMID: 35547163 PMCID: PMC9081522 DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.861788
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Bioeng Biotechnol ISSN: 2296-4185
FIGURE 1Evolution process of IKD patient appearance and imaging examinations from injury to postoperative follow-up. (A) “Dimple sign” and severe ecchymosis with invagination of skin and soft tissue can be observed on the medical side; (B) before the stage-1 operation, CT showed the knee posterolateral dislocation; (C): before stage-2 operation, MRI showed that the MCL structure had been repaired; d: before stage-2 operation, MRI showed the ACL and PCL rupture; (E,F): X-ray showed normal knee alignments at 0.5 years and 1 year follow-up.
FIGURE 2Two-staged operation procedures. (A,B): in stage-1, the damaged MCL and other medial structures were exposed, which were found interposed into the condylar notch; (C,D): the torn MCL and medial retinaculum were replaced and repaired, and the dislocated knee was back to normal alignment following the suture of the medial joint capsule; (E–G): before stage-2 began, the drawer tests found notable anterior-posterior instability, that is, the anterior drawer test, (F), neutral position, (G), the posterior drawer test; (H): the ACL and PCL reconstruction in stage-2.
Basic characteristics and clinical conditions at baseline of the follow-up.
| Baseline Indicators | Details |
|---|---|
| Enrolled subjects | 17 |
| Age | 42.47 ± 8.90 (range: 29–60) |
| Sex (male/female) | 11/6 |
| BMI | 25.89 ± 2.14 (range: 22.00–29.10) |
| Trauma | Self-injured: nine cases |
| Low-velocity motor vehicle accident: five cases | |
| High-velocity traffic accident: two cases | |
| Fall: one case | |
| Occupation | Farmer: eight |
| Manual worker: five | |
| Office worker: two | |
| Retired: two | |
| Time to stage-1* surgery (day) | 0.76 ± 0.90 (range: 0–3) |
| Duration from stage-1 to 2 (week) | 6.94 ± 1.20 (range: 6–10) |
| Type of MCL injury | Femoral attachment: 6 |
| Tibial attachment: 4 | |
| Mid-substance: 6 | |
| Peel-off: 1 | |
| Follow-up time (month) | 11.18 ± 2.53 (range: 6–14) |
| Subject number in 0.5 years | 17 |
| Subject number in 1 year | 14 (missed 3) |
| Total missing | 3/17 |
| Complications | Stage-1: stiffness (2/17) |
| Stage-2: hemarthrosis (3/17), fever (3/17) | |
| 0.5 years: KFC (5/17) | |
| 1 year: KFC (3/14) |
Note: * stage-1, surgery was performed together with the urgent reduction.
BMI (body mass index).
Clinical assessments of knee stability before stage-2 operation and during the follow-ups.
| Physical Examination/Measurement | A: pre-Stage-2* ( | B: 0.5 years ( | C: 1 year ( |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||
| Lachman test | − | 0 | 17 | 14 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| ± | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| |
| + | 16 | 0 | 0 |
|
| |
| Posterior draw | − | 0 | 17 | 14 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| ± | 2 | 0 | 0 |
|
| |
| + | 15 | 0 | 0 |
|
| |
| Pivot shift | − | 0 | 17 | 14 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| ± | 4 | 0 | 0 |
|
| |
| + | 13 | 0 | 0 |
|
| |
| Valgus stress | − | 13 | 16 | 14 | 0.146 | 0.052 |
| ± | 4 | 1 | 0 |
|
| |
| + | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| |
| Varus stress | − | 15 | 16 | 13 | 0.545 | 0.665 |
| ± | 2 | 1 | 1 |
|
| |
| + | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| |
| 30° forward shift | <3 mm | 0 | 14 | 12 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| 3–5 mm | 0 | 3 | 0 |
|
| |
| 5–10 mm | 2 | 0 | 0 |
|
| |
| >10 mm | 15 | 0 | 2 | |||
| 70° backward shift | <3 mm | 0 | 15 | 11 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
| 3–5 mm | 0 | 2 | 3 |
|
| |
| 5–10 mm | 1 | 0 | 0 |
|
| |
| >10 mm | 16 | 0 | 0 | |||
Note: *pre-stage-2: just before the stage-2, operation began, when the stage-1 operation and rehabilitation of 6–8 weeks had been accomplished; the 30° forward shift and 70° backward shift were performed by KT-1000; there was no difference between 0.5 years and 1 year follow-up.
Knee range of motion and joint function at the pre-stage-2 period and follow-ups.
| Parameters | A: pre- B: 0.5 years Stage-2* ( | C: 1 year ( |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Knee extension −1.29 ± 1.26 | −2.53 ± 2.27 | −3.07 ± 2.46 | 0.058 | 0.025 | 0.529 |
|
|
|
| |||
| Knee flexion 123.41 ± 4.08 | 128.88 ± 6.90 | 138.07 ± 8.89 | 0.008 | <0.001 | 0.003 |
|
|
|
| |||
| Lysholm 46.06 ± 6.43 | 77.12 ± 4.68 | 84.50 ± 4.50 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
|
|
|
| |||
| IKDC 11.22 ± 2.23 | 74.52 ± 3.06 | 79.00 ± 5.71 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.003 |
|
|
|
|
Note: *pre-stage-2: just before the stage-2, operation began, when the stage-1 operation and rehabilitation of 6–8 weeks had been accomplished; IKDC: International Knee Documentation Committee.
FIGURE 3Knee ROM at the intermediate rehabilitation and 1-year follow-up. (A,B): subject achieved a normal knee extension and flexion angle after the intermediate rehabilitation; (C,D): at 1 year follow-up, the same patient’s knee extension and flexion angle showed a further increase.