Clinical efficacy of suture bridge versus hollow screw fixation for PCL tibial avulsion fractures: a comparative study.

IF 1.6 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Jin-Song Pu, Lin Zheng, Chang-Chun Jian
{"title":"Clinical efficacy of suture bridge versus hollow screw fixation for PCL tibial avulsion fractures: a comparative study.","authors":"Jin-Song Pu, Lin Zheng, Chang-Chun Jian","doi":"10.1186/s12893-025-02926-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of the suture bridge technique and hollow screw fixation in treating posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) tibial avulsion fractures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective analysis was conducted on 40 patients treated between January 2013 and December 2023. Patients were divided into two groups: the suture bridge group (20 cases) and the hollow screw group (20 cases). Both groups underwent minimally invasive surgery with a small posteromedial arc incision. The suture bridge technique utilized high-strength sutures and suture anchors, while the hollow screw group employed 3.5 mm hollow screws. Postoperative outcomes were assessed using Lysholm, Tegner and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, with radiographic imaging performed at regular intervals to monitor fracture healing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both groups showed significant improvements in Lysholm, Tegner and IKDC scores postoperatively (P < 0.05). The Tegner score in the suture bridge group was slightly higher than that in the hollow screw group (P = 0.038). The postoperative drainage volume in the suture bridge group was slightly higher than that in the hollow screw group (P = 0.011), with no significant differences in surgical time, intraoperative blood loss or joint mobility (P > 0.05). Most fractures healed within 3 to 6 months. In the suture bridge group, two cases of malunion were observed due to small bone fragment displacement. In the hollow screw group, two cases of screw head retraction and one case of bone fragment displacement were noted.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both the suture bridge technique and hollow screw fixation are effective for treating PCL tibial avulsion fractures, each with unique advantages and potential complications. The suture bridge technique provides secure fixation, particularly for comminuted fractures, and is suitable for pediatric patients to avoid growth plate injury.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial number: </strong>Not applicable.</p>","PeriodicalId":49229,"journal":{"name":"BMC Surgery","volume":"25 1","pages":"180"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12023623/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12893-025-02926-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of the suture bridge technique and hollow screw fixation in treating posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) tibial avulsion fractures.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 40 patients treated between January 2013 and December 2023. Patients were divided into two groups: the suture bridge group (20 cases) and the hollow screw group (20 cases). Both groups underwent minimally invasive surgery with a small posteromedial arc incision. The suture bridge technique utilized high-strength sutures and suture anchors, while the hollow screw group employed 3.5 mm hollow screws. Postoperative outcomes were assessed using Lysholm, Tegner and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, with radiographic imaging performed at regular intervals to monitor fracture healing.

Results: Both groups showed significant improvements in Lysholm, Tegner and IKDC scores postoperatively (P < 0.05). The Tegner score in the suture bridge group was slightly higher than that in the hollow screw group (P = 0.038). The postoperative drainage volume in the suture bridge group was slightly higher than that in the hollow screw group (P = 0.011), with no significant differences in surgical time, intraoperative blood loss or joint mobility (P > 0.05). Most fractures healed within 3 to 6 months. In the suture bridge group, two cases of malunion were observed due to small bone fragment displacement. In the hollow screw group, two cases of screw head retraction and one case of bone fragment displacement were noted.

Conclusion: Both the suture bridge technique and hollow screw fixation are effective for treating PCL tibial avulsion fractures, each with unique advantages and potential complications. The suture bridge technique provides secure fixation, particularly for comminuted fractures, and is suitable for pediatric patients to avoid growth plate injury.

Clinical trial number: Not applicable.

缝合桥与空心螺钉固定治疗PCL胫骨撕脱骨折的临床疗效比较。
目的:评价和比较缝合桥技术与空心螺钉内固定治疗胫骨后交叉韧带撕脱骨折的临床效果。方法:对2013年1月至2023年12月收治的40例患者进行回顾性分析。患者分为两组:缝合桥组(20例)和空心螺钉组(20例)。两组均行微创后内侧弧形小切口手术。缝合桥技术采用高强度缝合线和缝合锚,空心螺钉组采用3.5 mm空心螺钉。术后结果采用Lysholm, Tegner和国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)评分进行评估,并定期进行放射成像以监测骨折愈合情况。结果:两组术后Lysholm、Tegner、IKDC评分均有显著改善(P < 0.05)。大多数骨折在3到6个月内愈合。在缝合桥组中,有2例因小骨块移位导致骨不愈合。空心螺钉组2例螺钉头内缩,1例骨碎片移位。结论:缝线桥技术和空心螺钉固定治疗PCL胫骨撕脱性骨折均有其独特的优势和潜在的并发症。缝合桥技术提供了安全的固定,特别是对于粉碎性骨折,并且适用于儿童患者,以避免生长板损伤。临床试验号:不适用。
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
BMC Surgery
BMC Surgery SURGERY-
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.30%
发文量
391
审稿时长
58 days
期刊介绍: BMC Surgery is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on surgical research, training, and practice.
×
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