Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Arthroscopy and Joint Research Institute, Yonsei University Health System, CPO Box 8044, 134, Shinchon-dong, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 120-752, South Korea.
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011 May 4;93(9):809-18. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.01266.
The purpose of this study was to describe a one-stage operation for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with use of an Achilles tendon-bone allograft and a posterolateral corner reconstruction with use of two different methods, with a comparison of clinical outcomes in the two groups.
Our study included forty-six patients who had undergone posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with use of an Achilles tendon-bone allograft and posterolateral corner reconstruction with either anatomical reconstruction of the lateral collateral ligament and popliteus tendon with use of a tibialis posterior tendon allograft (twenty-one patients; Group A) or the modified biceps rerouting tenodesis (twenty-five patients; Group B) in an alternating fashion. Patients were assessed for knee instability with use of the dial test at 30° and 90°, together with varus and posterior stress radiography.
At the two-year follow-up evaluation, although no significant difference was found on posterior stress radiography (mean and standard error, 5.7 ± 0.4 mm for Group A compared with 4.8 ± 0.4 mm for Group B), Group A showed more improvement than Group B on the dial test (16° ± 1° vs. 13° ± 1° at 30° and 17° ± 1° vs. 14° ± 1° at 90°; p = 0.001 for both) and varus stress radiography (3.6 ± 0.3 mm vs. 2.6 ± 0.3 mm; p = 0.024), in the Lysholm (29.5 ± 2.4 vs. 22.3 ± 2.3; p = 0.037) and the International Knee Documentation Committee knee scores (p = 0.041), and less terminal flexion loss (4.0° ± 1.2° vs. 8.8° ± 1.3°; p = 0.013).
Combined with posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, anatomical posterolateral corner reconstruction of the popliteus tendon and lateral collateral ligament showed better outcomes compared with the modified biceps rerouting tenodesis, although the mean differences of varus and external rotatory stability between the groups were relatively small. However, the overall difference might have been reduced by the negative value caused by overcorrection in Group B. This study demonstrated that anatomical posterolateral corner reconstruction is a reliable alternative method in addressing posterolateral corner and posterior cruciate ligament insufficiency of the knee, a finding that ideally should be tested in a randomized controlled trial.
本研究的目的是描述一种使用同种异体跟腱骨移植物进行后交叉韧带重建的一期手术,并使用两种不同方法进行后外侧角重建,比较两组的临床结果。
我们的研究纳入了 46 例使用同种异体跟腱骨移植物进行后交叉韧带重建和后外侧角重建的患者,其中 21 例患者(A 组)采用后外侧角解剖重建,即使用腓骨肌腱后肌腱移植物重建外侧副韧带和腘肌腱;25 例患者(B 组)采用改良的二头肌转位肌腱固定术。采用Dial 试验在 30°和 90°评估膝关节不稳定情况,并进行内翻和后向应力位 X 线检查。
在两年的随访评估中,虽然在后向应力位 X 线片上(A 组的平均和标准误差为 5.7 ± 0.4mm,B 组为 4.8 ± 0.4mm)差异无统计学意义,但在 Dial 试验(30°时为 16°±1°,B 组为 13°±1°;90°时为 17°±1°,B 组为 14°±1°;p=0.001)和内翻应力位 X 线片(3.6 ± 0.3mm,B 组为 2.6 ± 0.3mm;p=0.024)上,A 组的改善程度优于 B 组,在 Lysholm(29.5 ± 2.4,B 组为 22.3 ± 2.3;p=0.037)和国际膝关节文献委员会膝关节评分(p=0.041)上也如此,且终末屈曲丢失程度更小(4.0°±1.2°,B 组为 8.8°±1.3°;p=0.013)。
与改良的二头肌转位肌腱固定术相比,结合后交叉韧带重建,对腘肌腱和外侧副韧带进行解剖后外侧角重建显示出更好的结果,尽管两组之间的内翻和外旋稳定性的平均差异相对较小。然而,B 组因过度矫正导致的负值可能会降低整体差异。本研究表明,解剖后外侧角重建是一种可靠的替代方法,可用于治疗膝关节后外侧角和后交叉韧带不足,这一发现最好在随机对照试验中进行验证。