Center for Joint Diseases and Rheumatism, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, Seoul, Korea.
Clin Orthop Surg. 2013 Dec;5(4):278-86. doi: 10.4055/cios.2013.5.4.278. Epub 2013 Nov 18.
The purpose of the present study was to compare the clinical results of 3 posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques according to the time from injury to surgery and remnant PCL status and to evaluate the efficiency of each technique.
The records of 89 patients who underwent primary PCL reconstructions with a posterolateral corner sling were analyzed retrospectively. Thirty-four patients were treated by anterolateral bundle (ALB) reconstruction with preservation of the remnant PCL using a transtibial tunnel technique in the acute and subacute stages of injury (group 1). Forty patients were treated with remnant PCL tensioning and an ALB reconstruction using the modified inlay technique in the chronic stage (group 2), and fifteen patients were treated with double-bundle reconstruction using the modified inlay technique (group 3). The double-bundle reconstruction was performed if there was a very weak or no PCL remnant.
The mean side-to-side differences in posterior tibial translation on the stress radiographs were reduced from 10.1 ± 2.5 mm in group 1, 10.6 ± 2.4 mm in group 2, and 12.8 ± 3.2 mm in group 3 preoperatively to 2.3 ± 1.4 mm in group 1, 2.3 ± 1.5 mm in group 2, and 4.0 ± 2.5 mm in group 3 at the last follow-up (p < 0.001, p < 0.001, and p < 0.001, respectively). Statistical analyses revealed that group 1 and group 2 were similar in terms of side-to-side difference changes in posterior tibial translation on the stress radiographs; however, group 3 was inferior to group 1 and group 2 at the last follow-up (p = 0.022). The clinical results were not significantly different among the three groups.
Excellent posterior stability and good clinical results were achieved with ALB reconstruction preserving the injured remnant PCL in the acute and subacute stages and remnant PCL tensioning with ALB reconstruction in the chronic stage. The PCL injuries could be surgically corrected with different techniques depending on both the remnant PCL status and the interval between the knee trauma and operation.
本研究的目的是比较三种后交叉韧带重建技术的临床结果,根据受伤至手术的时间以及后交叉韧带残端的状态,并评估每种技术的效率。
回顾性分析了 89 例采用后外侧角悬吊进行初次后交叉韧带重建的患者的病历。34 例在损伤的急性期和亚急性期采用经胫骨隧道技术保留损伤残端的前外侧束(ALB)重建(组 1);40 例在慢性期采用改良嵌入式技术对残端进行拉紧并进行 ALB 重建(组 2);15 例采用改良嵌入式技术进行双束重建(组 3)。如果残端非常薄弱或不存在,则进行双束重建。
术前,在应力位 X 线片上,胫骨后向平移的侧别差值分别从组 1 的 10.1 ± 2.5mm、组 2 的 10.6 ± 2.4mm 和组 3 的 12.8 ± 3.2mm 减少到组 1 的 2.3 ± 1.4mm、组 2 的 2.3 ± 1.5mm 和组 3 的 4.0 ± 2.5mm(p < 0.001,p < 0.001 和 p < 0.001)。统计学分析显示,在应力位 X 线片上胫骨后向平移的侧别差值变化方面,组 1 和组 2 相似;然而,组 3 在末次随访时不如组 1 和组 2(p = 0.022)。三组之间的临床结果无显著差异。
在急性和亚急性期保留损伤残端的 ALB 重建和慢性期对残端进行拉紧并进行 ALB 重建可获得良好的后向稳定性和良好的临床结果。根据残端 PCL 状态和膝关节创伤与手术之间的时间间隔,可以采用不同的技术来矫正 PCL 损伤。