Knee Instability Following Fractures Around the Knee Joint: Diagnostic Dilemma and Management Challenges

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Prahalad Kumar Singhi, Ajay Gowtham Amutham Elangovan, Srinivasan B. S. Kambhampati, Sivakumar Raju, M. Chidambaram
{"title":"Knee Instability Following Fractures Around the Knee Joint: Diagnostic Dilemma and Management Challenges","authors":"Prahalad Kumar Singhi, Ajay Gowtham Amutham Elangovan, Srinivasan B. S. Kambhampati, Sivakumar Raju, M. Chidambaram","doi":"10.1007/s43465-024-01228-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Aim</h3><p>Knee instability following fractures around the knee joint is not uncommon but is often missed. They present challenges in identifying them during index injury or at follow-up. We share our experience of knee instability following fractures around the knee joint.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Purpose</h3><p>(1) To identify the pattern of clinically significant knee instability following fractures around the knee joint. (2) To discern the association of fracture morphology with ligamentous disruption. (3) To identify the risk factors for knee ligament injury following fractures around the knee. (4) To recognise the signs of instability in fracture scenarios and their diagnostic pitfalls/management challenges.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>After appropriate Ethical committee clearance and patient consent, a retrospective analysis of 595 fractures around the knee joint was performed at our institute from 2018 to 2021. After employing the exclusion criteria, a total of 92 cases of ligament injuries were included in the analysis. Seventy-six of them were identified and addressed during the index procedure, and 16 of them presented with delayed instability during fracture healing, treated by appropriate arthroscopic ligament reconstruction. Demographic data, mode of injury, fracture morphology, ligament injury pattern and associated injuries were documented and analysed. Functional outcome was assessed using Lysholm scoring and the International Knee Documentation Committee questionnaire at the final follow-up.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>The overall incidence of clinically significant knee ligament injury was 15.46%. Among the 76 acute cases, 8 were ACL avulsions, 47 were PCL avulsions, 9 were MCL injuries, 2 were LCL injuries, and 10 had MLKI treated by arthroscopic/open techniques. Out of the 16 cases that presented late, 6 had ACL injuries, 2 had LCL injuries, and 8 of them had a multi-ligamentous knee injury. With respect to the fracture pattern, 56 (60.9%) had tibia fractures, 24 (26.1%) had femur fractures, 3 (3.3%) of them had patella fractures, and 9 (9.8%) had floating knee injuries. The mean Lysholm score was 85.7 ± 9.8. 19.6% (<i>n = </i>18) had excellent outcome, 46.7% (<i>n = </i>43) had good outcome, 23.9% (<i>n = </i>22) had fair outcome and 9.8% (<i>n = </i>9) had poor outcome.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusion</h3><p>Knee instability following fractures around the knee is not uncommon, one out of six fractures may have significant instability. Identifying and addressing is key for a satisfactory outcome and to avoid its sequalae.</p>","PeriodicalId":13338,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Orthopaedics","volume":"35 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Orthopaedics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-024-01228-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim

Knee instability following fractures around the knee joint is not uncommon but is often missed. They present challenges in identifying them during index injury or at follow-up. We share our experience of knee instability following fractures around the knee joint.

Purpose

(1) To identify the pattern of clinically significant knee instability following fractures around the knee joint. (2) To discern the association of fracture morphology with ligamentous disruption. (3) To identify the risk factors for knee ligament injury following fractures around the knee. (4) To recognise the signs of instability in fracture scenarios and their diagnostic pitfalls/management challenges.

Methods

After appropriate Ethical committee clearance and patient consent, a retrospective analysis of 595 fractures around the knee joint was performed at our institute from 2018 to 2021. After employing the exclusion criteria, a total of 92 cases of ligament injuries were included in the analysis. Seventy-six of them were identified and addressed during the index procedure, and 16 of them presented with delayed instability during fracture healing, treated by appropriate arthroscopic ligament reconstruction. Demographic data, mode of injury, fracture morphology, ligament injury pattern and associated injuries were documented and analysed. Functional outcome was assessed using Lysholm scoring and the International Knee Documentation Committee questionnaire at the final follow-up.

Results

The overall incidence of clinically significant knee ligament injury was 15.46%. Among the 76 acute cases, 8 were ACL avulsions, 47 were PCL avulsions, 9 were MCL injuries, 2 were LCL injuries, and 10 had MLKI treated by arthroscopic/open techniques. Out of the 16 cases that presented late, 6 had ACL injuries, 2 had LCL injuries, and 8 of them had a multi-ligamentous knee injury. With respect to the fracture pattern, 56 (60.9%) had tibia fractures, 24 (26.1%) had femur fractures, 3 (3.3%) of them had patella fractures, and 9 (9.8%) had floating knee injuries. The mean Lysholm score was 85.7 ± 9.8. 19.6% (n = 18) had excellent outcome, 46.7% (n = 43) had good outcome, 23.9% (n = 22) had fair outcome and 9.8% (n = 9) had poor outcome.

Conclusion

Knee instability following fractures around the knee is not uncommon, one out of six fractures may have significant instability. Identifying and addressing is key for a satisfactory outcome and to avoid its sequalae.

Abstract Image

膝关节周围骨折后的膝关节失稳:诊断难题与管理挑战
目的 膝关节周围骨折后出现膝关节不稳定的情况并不少见,但经常被漏诊。在指数损伤期间或随访过程中识别这些不稳定性是一项挑战。我们分享了膝关节周围骨折后膝关节不稳定的经验。目的(1) 确定膝关节周围骨折后具有临床意义的膝关节不稳定的模式。(2)确定骨折形态与韧带破坏之间的关联。(3)识别膝关节周围骨折后膝关节韧带损伤的风险因素。 4)识别骨折情况下的不稳迹象及其诊断误区/处理难题。方法在获得伦理委员会的适当批准和患者同意后,我院对2018年至2021年的595例膝关节周围骨折进行了回顾性分析。采用排除标准后,共有 92 例韧带损伤病例纳入分析。其中76例在索引手术中被识别并处理,16例在骨折愈合过程中出现延迟不稳,通过适当的关节镜韧带重建术进行治疗。对人口统计学数据、受伤方式、骨折形态、韧带损伤模式和相关损伤进行了记录和分析。在最后的随访中,采用 Lysholm 评分和国际膝关节文献委员会问卷对功能结果进行评估。在76例急性病例中,8例为前交叉韧带撕脱,47例为前交叉韧带撕脱,9例为MCL损伤,2例为LCL损伤,10例为通过关节镜/开放技术治疗的MLKI。在 16 例晚期病例中,6 例为前交叉韧带损伤,2 例为 LCL 损伤,8 例为膝关节多韧带损伤。在骨折类型方面,56例(60.9%)为胫骨骨折,24例(26.1%)为股骨骨折,3例(3.3%)为髌骨骨折,9例(9.8%)为膝关节浮动伤。Lysholm 评分的平均值为 85.7 ± 9.8。19.6%(18 人)疗效极佳,46.7%(43 人)疗效良好,23.9%(22 人)疗效一般,9.8%(9 人)疗效不佳。要想获得满意的疗效并避免其后遗症,关键在于识别和处理。
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
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
185
审稿时长
9 months
期刊介绍: IJO welcomes articles that contribute to Orthopaedic knowledge from India and overseas. We publish articles dealing with clinical orthopaedics and basic research in orthopaedic surgery. Articles are accepted only for exclusive publication in the Indian Journal of Orthopaedics. Previously published articles, articles which are in peer-reviewed electronic publications in other journals, are not accepted by the Journal. Published articles and illustrations become the property of the Journal. The copyright remains with the journal. Studies must be carried out in accordance with World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki.
×
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