Pandey Vivek, Khanna Vikrant, Madi Sandesh, Tripathi Anshul, Acharya Kiran
Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal University, India.
Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal University, India.
Injury. 2017 Jun;48(6):1236-1242. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2017.03.021. Epub 2017 Mar 22.
Medial collateral ligament (MCL) is a prime valgus stabilizer of the knee, and MCL tears are currently managed conservatively. However, posteromedial corner (PMC) injury along with MCL tear is not same as isolated MCL tear and the former is more serious injury and requires operative attention. However, literature is scarce about the management and outcome of PMC-MCL tear alongside anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear. The purpose of this study is to report the clinical outcome of primary repair of MCL and PMC with or without staged ACL reconstruction.
A retrospective evaluation was performed on patients with MCL-PMC complex injury with ACL tear who underwent primary repair of MCL-PMC tear followed by rehabilitation. Further, several of them chose to undergo ACL reconstruction whereas rest opted conservative treatment for the ACL tear. A total of 35 patients of two groups [Group 1 (n=15): MCL-PMC repaired and ACL conserved; Group 2 (n=20): MCL-PMC repaired and ACL reconstructed] met the inclusion criteria with a minimum follow-up of two years. Clinical outcome measures included grade of valgus medial opening (0° extension and 30° flexion), Lysholm and International knee documentation committee (IKDC) scores, KT-1000 measurement, subjective feeling of instability, range of motion (ROM) assessment and complications.
While comparing group 2 versus group 1, mean Lysholm (94.6 vs. 91.06; p=0.017) and IKDC scores (86.3 vs. 77.6; p=0.011) of group 2 were significantly higher than group 1. 60% patients of group 1 complained of instability against none in the group 2 (p<0.0001). All the knees of both the groups were valgus stable with none requiring late reconstruction. The mean loss of flexion ROM in group 1 and 2 was 12° and 9° respectively which was not statistically different (p=0.41). However while considering the loss of motion, two groups did not show any significant difference in clinical scores.
Primary MCL-PMC repair renders the knee stable in coronal plane in both the groups and further ACL reconstruction adds on to the stability of the knee providing a superior clinical outcome. Minor knee stiffness remains a concern after primary MCL-PMC repair but without any unfavorable clinical effect.
内侧副韧带(MCL)是膝关节主要的外翻稳定结构,目前对于MCL撕裂多采用保守治疗。然而,合并后内侧角(PMC)损伤的MCL撕裂与单纯MCL撕裂不同,前者损伤更严重,需要手术治疗。然而,关于合并前交叉韧带(ACL)撕裂的PMC-MCL撕裂的治疗及预后的文献较少。本研究的目的是报告MCL和PMC一期修复联合或不联合分期ACL重建的临床疗效。
对合并ACL撕裂的MCL-PMC复合体损伤患者进行回顾性评估,这些患者接受了MCL-PMC撕裂的一期修复并随后进行康复治疗。此外,其中一些患者选择接受ACL重建,而其余患者则选择对ACL撕裂进行保守治疗。两组共35例患者[第1组(n = 15):MCL-PMC修复且ACL未处理;第2组(n = 20):MCL-PMC修复且ACL重建]符合纳入标准,随访至少两年。临床疗效指标包括外翻内侧开口分级(0°伸直和30°屈曲时)、Lysholm评分和国际膝关节文献委员会(IKDC)评分、KT-1000测量、主观不稳定感、活动范围(ROM)评估及并发症。
比较第2组和第1组,第2组的平均Lysholm评分(94.6对91.06;p = 0.017)和IKDC评分(86.3对77.6;p = 0.011)显著高于第1组。第1组60%的患者主诉有不稳定感,而第2组无(p < 0.0001)。两组所有膝关节均为外翻稳定,无一例需要二期重建。第1组和第2组的平均屈曲ROM丢失分别为12°和9°,差异无统计学意义(p = 0.41)。然而,在考虑活动度丢失时,两组临床评分无显著差异。
MCL-PMC一期修复使两组患者膝关节在冠状面均保持稳定,进一步的ACL重建增加了膝关节稳定性,提供了更好的临床疗效。MCL-PMC一期修复后仍存在轻度膝关节僵硬,但无任何不良临床影响。