Journals / Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica / 2015 / Cilt: 49 - Sayı: 6

Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction via tibial inlay technique in multiligament knee injuries

Pages
579–585
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Further study is warranted to establish its effectiveness on functional outcomes and prevention of complications.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study is to report our institution's experience regarding the use of open tibial inlay technique in patients undergoing single-stage combined posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction.Methods: Records of 17 patients who underwent PCL reconstruction with tibial inlay technique were retrospectively reviewed.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Out of these 17 patients, six cases underwent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) + PCL reconstruction, nine cases underwent ACL+ PCL + posterolateral corner reconstruction, one case underwent ACL + PCL + MCL reconstruction and one case underwent ACL+ PCL + posterolateral corner + MCL reconstruction.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Further study is warranted to establish its effectiveness on functional outcomes and prevention of complications.
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to report our institution's experience regarding the use of open tibial inlay technique in patients undergoing single-stage combined posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction.Methods: Records of 17 patients who underwent PCL reconstruction with tibial inlay technique were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with ipsilateral femoral or tibial osteochondral avulsion fractures or ipsilateral concomitant tibia and femur shaft fractures were excluded. Out of these 17 patients, six cases underwent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) + PCL reconstruction, nine cases underwent ACL+ PCL + posterolateral corner reconstruction, one case underwent ACL + PCL + MCL reconstruction and one case underwent ACL+ PCL + posterolateral corner + MCL reconstruction. Mean follow-up was 14.27±6.77 (range: 6-30) months.Results: In preoperative assessments, all patients had 3+ posterior laxity in posterior drawer test; at final follow-up, 6 patients had 0 laxity, 7 patients had 1+ laxity, and 4 patients had 2+ laxity (p<0.001). International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) objective evaluation showed severe disability in all patients preoperatively, whereas 5 knees were grade A, 8 knees were grade B, 3 knees were grade C, and 1 knee was grade D at final follow-up. Mean IKDC subjective score was 75.22±7.53 at final follow-up. Postoperatively, mean side-to-side difference in KT-1000 arthrometer measurement was 2.45±1.80 mm. At final follow-up, mean range of motion (ROM) was 0º on extension and 123.56±6.31º on flexion.Conclusion: Open tibial inlay approach is beneficial during PCL reconstruction. Further study is warranted to establish its effectiveness on functional outcomes and prevention of complications.

🔖

Cite This Article

ZEHİR, S., ELMALI, N., ŞAHİN, E., ÇALBIYIK, M., KARAKAPLAN, M., TAŞDEMİR, Z. (2015). Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction via tibial inlay technique in multiligament knee injuries. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, Cilt: 49 - Sayı: 6, 579–585. https://ajindex.com/articles/214260

References (12)

  1. Parkkari J, Pasanen K, Mattila VM, Kannus P, Rimpelä A. The risk for a cruciate ligament injury of the knee in ado- lescents and young adults: a population-based cohort study of 46 500 people with a 9 year follow-up. Br J Sports Med 2008;42:422,6. Swenson DM, Collins CL, Best TM, Flanigan DC, Fields SK, Comstock RD. Epidemiology of knee injuries among U.S. high school athletes, 2005/2006-2010/2011. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2013;45:462-9.
  2. Levy BA, Fanelli GC, Whelan DB, Stannard JP, MacDon- ald PA, Boyd JL, et al. Controversies in the treatment of knee dislocations and multiligament reconstruction. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2009;17:197-206.
  3. Shelbourne KD, Clark M, Gray T. Minimum 10-year fol- low-up of patients after an acute, isolated posterior cruciate ligament injury treated nonoperatively. Am J Sports Med 2013;41:1526-33.
  4. Shelbourne KD, Gray T. Minimum 10-year results after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: how the loss of normal knee motion compounds other factors related to the development of osteoarthritis after surgery. Am J Sports Med 2009;37:471-80.
  5. Kim YM, Lee CA, Matava MJ. Clinical results of ar- throscopic single-bundle transtibial posterior cruciate liga- ment reconstruction: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 2011;39:425-34.
  6. Gancel E, Magnussen RA, Lustig S, Demey G, Neyret P, Servien E. Tunnel position following posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: an in vivo computed tomography analysis. Knee 2012;19:450-4.
  7. Voos JE, Mauro CS, Wente T, Warren RF, Wickiewicz TL. Posterior cruciate ligament: anatomy, biomechanics, and outcomes. Am J Sports Med 2012;40:222-31.
  8. McAllister DR, Hussain SM. Tibial inlay posterior cruci- ate ligament reconstruction: surgical technique and results. Sports Med Arthrosc 2010;18:249-53.
  9. Shon OJ, Lee DC, Park CH, Kim WH, Jung KA. A com- parison of arthroscopically assisted single and double bun- dle tibial inlay reconstruction for isolated posterior cruciate ligament injury. Clin Orthop Surg 2010;2:76-84.
  10. Burks RT, Schaffer JJ. A simplified approach to the tibial attachment of the posterior cruciate ligament. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1990;254:216-9.
  11. Jung YB, Jung HJ, Kim SJ, Park SJ, Song KS, Lee YS, et al. Posterolateral corner reconstruction for posterolateral rotatory instability combined with posterior cruciate liga- ment injuries: comparison between fibular tunnel and tibial tunnel techniques. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2008;16:239-48.
  12. LaPrade RF, Johansen S, Wentorf FA, Engebretsen L, Es- terberg J