Buranapuntaruk Thana, Boonchaliaw Natthaporn, Itthipanichpong Thun
Department of Orthopedics, Chaoprayayomraj Hospital, Suphanburi, Thailand.
Department of Radiology, Chaoprayayomraj Hospital, Suphanburi, Thailand.
Asia Pac J Sports Med Arthrosc Rehabil Technol. 2024 Aug 8;38:9-13. doi: 10.1016/j.asmart.2024.07.001. eCollection 2024 Oct.
The purpose of our study was to compare (1) posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) laxity, (2) patient-reported outcome, and (3) complications after the all-inside PCL reconstruction (Al-PCLR) technique and conventional PCLR (CON-PCLR) technique at minimum 2-year follow-up. We hypothesized that AI-PCLR and CONV-PCLR would yield similar results in PCL laxity, patient-reported outcomes, and complications.
A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent PCLR with the Al-PCLR technique and CON-PCLR technique from 2012 to 2023 in a single hospital. Medical records were reviewed for patients' demographic data, the technique of PCL reconstruction and complications. Patient-reported outcome scores, including International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Tegner activity scale, and Lysholm score, as well as bilateral kneeling radiographs and physical examinations, were collected at least 2 years postoperatively.
Included in the study were 24 patients: 11 who underwent the CON-PCLR technique (mean age 40.7 +years) and 13 who underwent Al-PCLR (mean age 34.3 + 12.9 years). Three patients in AI-PCLR group were lost to follow-up and one patient is the CON-PCLR group, a revision case, was excluded from the study.Bilateral stress kneeling radiographs showed a similar side-to-side difference between two groups (CON-PCLR vs AL-PCLR: mean 7.5 ± 5.2 vs 5.8 ± 4.8 mm; P = 0.38) There were no statically significant differences between the two groups in postoperative IKDC (CON-PCLR vs AL-PCLR: 68.9 vs 73.9; P = 0.37), Lysholm (89.1 vs 94.1; P = 0.42), or Tegner activity (6 vs 6.4; P = 0.68) scores.
All-inside PCLR demonstrates comparable stability to Conventional PCLR, with satisfactory patient-report outcome at minimum 2 years follow up and low rate of complications in patients with multiligament knee injury.Level of evidence: III Retrospective comparative study.
本研究的目的是比较（1）后交叉韧带（PCL）松弛度、（2）患者报告的结果以及（3）在至少2年随访期内全内置PCL重建（Al-PCLR）技术和传统PCL重建（CON-PCLR）技术后的并发症情况。我们假设Al-PCLR和CONV-PCLR在PCL松弛度、患者报告的结果和并发症方面会产生相似的结果。
对2012年至2023年在一家医院接受Al-PCLR技术和CON-PCLR技术进行PCL重建的患者进行了一项回顾性队列研究。查阅病历以获取患者的人口统计学数据、PCL重建技术和并发症情况。术后至少2年收集患者报告的结果评分，包括国际膝关节文献委员会（IKDC）评分、Tegner活动量表评分和Lysholm评分，以及双侧跪位X线片和体格检查结果。
本研究纳入24例患者：11例接受CON-PCLR技术（平均年龄40.7岁），13例接受Al-PCLR（平均年龄34.3±12.9岁）。Al-PCLR组有3例患者失访，CON-PCLR组有1例患者为翻修病例，被排除在研究之外。双侧应力跪位X线片显示两组之间的左右差异相似（CON-PCLR组与Al-PCLR组：平均7.5±5.2mm与5.8±4.8mm；P = 0.38）。两组在术后IKDC评分（CON-PCLR组与Al-PCLR组：68.9与73.9；P = 0.37）、Lysholm评分（89.1与94.1；P = 0.42）或Tegner活动评分（6与6.4；P = 0.68）方面均无统计学显著差异。
全内置PCLR与传统PCLR具有相当的稳定性，在至少2年的随访期内患者报告的结果令人满意，且多韧带膝关节损伤患者的并发症发生率较低。证据级别：III级回顾性比较研究。
