Zehir Sinan, Elmalı Nurzat, Şahin Ercan, Çalbıyık Murat, Karakaplan Mustafa, Taşdemir Zeki
Hitit University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Çorum, Turkey.
Bezmi Alem Vakıf University, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, İstanbul, Turkey.
Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc. 2015;49(6):579-85. doi: 10.3944/AOTT.2015.14.0443.
The aim of this study is to report our institution's experience regarding the use of open tibial inlay technique in patients undergoing single-stage combined posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction.
Records of 17 patients who underwent PCL reconstruction with tibial inlay technique were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with ipsilateral femoral or tibial osteochondral avulsion fractures or ipsilateral concomitant tibia and femur shaft fractures were excluded. Out of these 17 patients, six cases underwent anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) + PCL reconstruction, nine cases underwent ACL+ PCL + posterolateral corner reconstruction, one case underwent ACL + PCL + MCL reconstruction and one case underwent ACL+ PCL + posterolateral corner + MCL reconstruction. Mean follow-up was 14.27±6.77 (range: 6-30) months.
In preoperative assessments, all patients had 3+ posterior laxity in posterior drawer test; at final follow-up, 6 patients had 0 laxity, 7 patients had 1+ laxity, and 4 patients had 2+ laxity (p<0.001). International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) objective evaluation showed severe disability in all patients preoperatively, whereas 5 knees were grade A, 8 knees were grade B, 3 knees were grade C, and 1 knee was grade D at final follow-up. Mean IKDC subjective score was 75.22±7.53 at final follow-up. Postoperatively, mean side-to-side difference in KT-1000 arthrometer measurement was 2.45±1.80 mm. At final follow-up, mean range of motion (ROM) was 0º on extension and 123.56±6.31º on flexion.
Open tibial inlay approach is beneficial during PCL reconstruction. Further study is warranted to establish its effectiveness on functional outcomes and prevention of complications.
本研究旨在报告我院在单阶段联合后交叉韧带(PCL)重建患者中使用开放胫骨嵌体技术的经验。
回顾性分析17例行胫骨嵌体技术PCL重建患者的病历。排除同侧股骨或胫骨骨软骨撕脱骨折或同侧合并胫骨干和股骨干骨折的患者。在这17例患者中,6例行前交叉韧带(ACL)+PCL重建,9例行ACL+PCL+后外侧角重建,1例行ACL+PCL+内侧副韧带重建,1例行ACL+PCL+后外侧角+内侧副韧带重建。平均随访时间为14.27±6.77(范围:6 - 30)个月。
术前评估中,所有患者后抽屉试验均为3+后向松弛;末次随访时,6例患者松弛度为0,7例患者为1+松弛,4例患者为2+松弛(p<0.001)。国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)客观评估显示,所有患者术前均为严重功能障碍,而末次随访时5个膝关节为A级,8个膝关节为B级,3个膝关节为C级,1个膝关节为D级。末次随访时IKDC主观评分平均为75.22±7.53。术后,KT - 1000关节测径仪测量的平均双侧差值为2.45±1.80 mm。末次随访时,平均活动范围(ROM)伸直为0°,屈曲为123.56±6.31°。
开放胫骨嵌体入路在PCL重建中有益。有必要进一步研究以确定其对功能结局和并发症预防的有效性。