Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Fortius Clinic, London, United Kingdom.
Am J Sports Med. 2024 May;52(6):1505-1513. doi: 10.1177/03635465241235858. Epub 2024 Mar 29.
There is little evidence of the biomechanical performance of medial collateral ligament (MCL) reconstructions for restoring stability to the MCL-deficient knee regarding valgus, external rotation (ER), and anteromedial rotatory instability (AMRI).
A short isometric reconstruction will better restore stability than a longer superficial MCL (sMCL) reconstruction, and an additional deep MCL (dMCL) graft will better control ER and AMRI than single-strand reconstructions.
Controlled laboratory study.
Nine cadaveric human knees were tested in a kinematics rig that allowed tibial loading while the knee was flexed-extended 0° to 100°. Optical markers were placed on the femur and tibia and displacements were measured using a stereo camera system. The knee was tested intact, and then after MCL (sMCL + dMCL) transection, and loaded in anterior tibial translation (ATT), ER, varus-valgus, and combined ATT + ER (AMRI loading). Five different isometric MCL reconstructions were tested: isolated long sMCL, a short construct, each with and without dMCL addition, and isolated dMCL reconstruction, using an 8 mm-wide synthetic graft.
MCL deficiency caused an increase in ER of 4° at 0° of flexion ( = .271) up to 14° at 100° of flexion ( = .002), and valgus laxity increased by 5° to 8° between 0° and 100° of flexion ( < .024 at 0°-90°). ATT did not increase significantly in isolated MCL deficiency ( > .999). All 5 reconstructions restored native stability across the arc of flexion apart from the isolated long sMCL, which demonstrated residual ER instability (≤ .047 vs other reconstructions).
All tested techniques apart from the isolated long sMCL graft are satisfactory in the context of restoring the valgus, ER, and AMRI stability to the MCL-deficient knee in a cadaveric model.
Contemporary MCL reconstruction techniques fail to control ER and therefore AMRI as they use a long sMCL graft and do not address the dMCL. This study compares 5 MCL reconstruction techniques. Both long and short isometric constructs other than the long sMCL achieved native stability in valgus and ER/AMRI. Double-strand reconstructions (sMCL + dMCL) tended to provide more stability. This study shows which reconstructions demonstrate the best biomechanical performance, informs surgical reconstruction techniques for AMRI, and questions the efficacy of current popular techniques.
对于内侧副韧带(MCL)缺陷的膝关节,在进行外侧、外旋(ER)和前内侧旋转不稳定(AMRI)的稳定性重建时,很少有关于 MCL 重建生物力学性能的证据。
短等长重建比长浅层 MCL(sMCL)重建更好地恢复稳定性,并且附加的深层 MCL(dMCL)移植物比单股重建更好地控制 ER 和 AMRI。
对照实验室研究。
在允许膝关节在 0°至 100°之间屈伸时加载胫骨的运动学装置中测试了 9 个尸体人膝关节。在股骨和胫骨上放置光学标记物,并使用立体相机系统测量位移。膝关节在完整状态下进行测试,然后在 MCL(sMCL+dMCL)横断后进行测试,并在前胫骨平移(ATT)、ER、内翻-外翻和 ATT+ER 联合(AMRI 加载)下进行测试。测试了 5 种不同的等长 MCL 重建:单独的长 sMCL、短结构,以及带有和不带有 dMCL 附加物的结构,以及单独的 dMCL 重建,使用 8 毫米宽的合成移植物。
MCL 缺陷导致 ER 在 0°屈曲时增加 4°(=.271),在 100°屈曲时增加 14°(=.002),内翻-外翻松弛度在 0°至 100°之间增加 5°至 8°(<.024 在 0°-90°)。单独的 MCL 缺陷时,ATT 没有明显增加(>.999)。除单独的长 sMCL 移植物外,所有 5 种重建技术都在整个屈伸范围内恢复了固有稳定性,而单独的长 sMCL 移植物显示出残留的 ER 不稳定(≤.047 与其他重建相比)。
除单独的长 sMCL 移植物外,在尸体模型中,所有测试技术在恢复 MCL 缺陷膝关节的外翻、ER 和 AMRI 稳定性方面都是令人满意的。
当代 MCL 重建技术无法控制 ER,因此也无法控制 AMRI,因为它们使用长 sMCL 移植物,并且不解决 dMCL 问题。本研究比较了 5 种 MCL 重建技术。除长 sMCL 外,等长的长和短结构在矢状面和 ER/AMRI 中都能达到固有稳定性。双股重建(sMCL+dMCL)往往提供更好的稳定性。本研究展示了哪些重建技术表现出最佳的生物力学性能,为 AMRI 的手术重建技术提供了信息,并对当前流行技术的疗效提出了质疑。