Retrospective cohort study comparing postoperative joint stability between all-inside PCL reconstruction technique and conventional PCL reconstruction technique in patients with multiligament knee injury

IF 1.5 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Thana Buranapuntaruk , Natthaporn Boonchaliaw , Thun Itthipanichpong
{"title":"Retrospective cohort study comparing postoperative joint stability between all-inside PCL reconstruction technique and conventional PCL reconstruction technique in patients with multiligament knee injury","authors":"Thana Buranapuntaruk ,&nbsp;Natthaporn Boonchaliaw ,&nbsp;Thun Itthipanichpong","doi":"10.1016/j.asmart.2024.07.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>The purpose of our study was to compare (1) posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) laxity, (2) patient-reported outcome, and (3) complications after the all-inside PCL reconstruction (Al-PCLR) technique and conventional PCLR (CON-PCLR) technique at minimum 2-year follow-up. We hypothesized that AI-PCLR and CONV-PCLR would yield similar results in PCL laxity, patient-reported outcomes, and complications.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent PCLR with the Al-PCLR technique and CON-PCLR technique from 2012 to 2023 in a single hospital. Medical records were reviewed for patients’ demographic data, the technique of PCL reconstruction and complications. Patient-reported outcome scores, including International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Tegner activity scale, and Lysholm score, as well as bilateral kneeling radiographs and physical examinations, were collected at least 2 years postoperatively.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Included in the study were 24 patients: 11 who underwent the CON-PCLR technique (mean age 40.7 +years) and 13 who underwent Al-PCLR (mean age 34.3 + 12.9 years). Three patients in AI-PCLR group were lost to follow-up and one patient is the CON-PCLR group, a revision case, was excluded from the study.</p><p>Bilateral stress kneeling radiographs showed a similar side-to-side difference between two groups (CON-PCLR vs AL-PCLR: mean 7.5 ± 5.2 vs 5.8 ± 4.8 mm; P = 0.38) There were no statically significant differences between the two groups in postoperative IKDC (CON-PCLR vs AL-PCLR: 68.9 vs 73.9; P = 0.37), Lysholm (89.1 vs 94.1; P = 0.42), or Tegner activity (6 vs 6.4; P = 0.68) scores.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>All-inside PCLR demonstrates comparable stability to Conventional PCLR, with satisfactory patient-report outcome at minimum 2 years follow up and low rate of complications in patients with multiligament knee injury.</p><p>Level of evidence: III Retrospective comparative study.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":44283,"journal":{"name":"Asia-Pacific Journal of Sport Medicine Arthroscopy Rehabilitation and Technology","volume":"38 ","pages":"Pages 9-13"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214687324000190/pdfft?md5=cf6f642f0cc7fd62dad507a71e0dd49f&pid=1-s2.0-S2214687324000190-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asia-Pacific Journal of Sport Medicine Arthroscopy Rehabilitation and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214687324000190","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of our study was to compare (1) posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) laxity, (2) patient-reported outcome, and (3) complications after the all-inside PCL reconstruction (Al-PCLR) technique and conventional PCLR (CON-PCLR) technique at minimum 2-year follow-up. We hypothesized that AI-PCLR and CONV-PCLR would yield similar results in PCL laxity, patient-reported outcomes, and complications.

Method

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent PCLR with the Al-PCLR technique and CON-PCLR technique from 2012 to 2023 in a single hospital. Medical records were reviewed for patients’ demographic data, the technique of PCL reconstruction and complications. Patient-reported outcome scores, including International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Tegner activity scale, and Lysholm score, as well as bilateral kneeling radiographs and physical examinations, were collected at least 2 years postoperatively.

Results

Included in the study were 24 patients: 11 who underwent the CON-PCLR technique (mean age 40.7 +years) and 13 who underwent Al-PCLR (mean age 34.3 + 12.9 years). Three patients in AI-PCLR group were lost to follow-up and one patient is the CON-PCLR group, a revision case, was excluded from the study.

Bilateral stress kneeling radiographs showed a similar side-to-side difference between two groups (CON-PCLR vs AL-PCLR: mean 7.5 ± 5.2 vs 5.8 ± 4.8 mm; P = 0.38) There were no statically significant differences between the two groups in postoperative IKDC (CON-PCLR vs AL-PCLR: 68.9 vs 73.9; P = 0.37), Lysholm (89.1 vs 94.1; P = 0.42), or Tegner activity (6 vs 6.4; P = 0.68) scores.

Conclusion

All-inside PCLR demonstrates comparable stability to Conventional PCLR, with satisfactory patient-report outcome at minimum 2 years follow up and low rate of complications in patients with multiligament knee injury.

Level of evidence: III Retrospective comparative study.

比较膝关节多韧带损伤患者全内侧 PCL 重建技术与传统 PCL 重建技术术后关节稳定性的回顾性队列研究
研究目的我们的研究旨在比较全内侧 PCL 重建(Al-PCLR)技术和传统 PCLR(CON-PCLR)技术在至少 2 年随访后的 (1) 后交叉韧带(PCL)松弛情况、(2) 患者报告结果和 (3) 并发症情况。我们假设,AI-PCLR 和 CONV-PCLR 在 PCL 松弛、患者报告的结果和并发症方面会产生相似的结果。研究人员查阅了病历,以了解患者的人口统计学数据、PCLR 重建技术和并发症。研究收集了患者报告的结果评分,包括国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)、Tegner活动量表、Lysholm评分以及术后至少2年的双侧跪位X光片和体格检查:其中11人接受了CON-PCLR技术(平均年龄40.7+岁),13人接受了Al-PCLR技术(平均年龄34.3+12.9岁)。AI-PCLR组有3名患者失去随访,CON-PCLR组有1名患者(翻修病例)被排除在研究之外。双侧应力跪位X光片显示,两组患者的侧向差异相似(CON-PCLR vs AL-PCLR:平均7.5 ± 5.2 vs 5.8 ± 4.8 mm;P = 0.38)。结论全内侧 PCLR 的稳定性与传统 PCLR 相当,在至少 2 年的随访中患者报告结果令人满意,膝关节多韧带损伤患者的并发症发生率较低:III 回顾性比较研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
98 days
期刊介绍: The Asia-Pacific Journal of Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, Rehabilitation and Technology (AP-SMART) is the official peer-reviewed, open access journal of the Asia-Pacific Knee, Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine Society (APKASS) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Society of Knee, Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine (JOSKAS). It is published quarterly, in January, April, July and October, by Elsevier. The mission of AP-SMART is to inspire clinicians, practitioners, scientists and engineers to work towards a common goal to improve quality of life in the international community. The Journal publishes original research, reviews, editorials, perspectives, and letters to the Editor. Multidisciplinary research with collaboration amongst clinicians and scientists from different disciplines will be the trend in the coming decades. AP-SMART provides a platform for the exchange of new clinical and scientific information in the most precise and expeditious way to achieve timely dissemination of information and cross-fertilization of ideas.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信