{"title":"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","authors":"Thana Buranapuntaruk , Natthaporn Boonchaliaw , 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":"{\"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 , Natthaporn Boonchaliaw , 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}","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}
Retrospective cohort study comparing postoperative joint stability between all-inside PCL reconstruction technique and conventional PCL reconstruction technique in patients with multiligament knee injury
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.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
