Pu Jin-Song, Zheng Lin, Jian Chang-Chun
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College, South Maoyuan Road, Nanchong, Sichuan, 637000, China.
BMC Surg. 2025 Apr 25;25(1):180. doi: 10.1186/s12893-025-02926-5.
To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes of the suture bridge technique and hollow screw fixation in treating posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) tibial avulsion fractures.
A retrospective analysis was conducted on 40 patients treated between January 2013 and December 2023. Patients were divided into two groups: the suture bridge group (20 cases) and the hollow screw group (20 cases). Both groups underwent minimally invasive surgery with a small posteromedial arc incision. The suture bridge technique utilized high-strength sutures and suture anchors, while the hollow screw group employed 3.5 mm hollow screws. Postoperative outcomes were assessed using Lysholm, Tegner and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, with radiographic imaging performed at regular intervals to monitor fracture healing.
Both groups showed significant improvements in Lysholm, Tegner and IKDC scores postoperatively (P < 0.05). The Tegner score in the suture bridge group was slightly higher than that in the hollow screw group (P = 0.038). The postoperative drainage volume in the suture bridge group was slightly higher than that in the hollow screw group (P = 0.011), with no significant differences in surgical time, intraoperative blood loss or joint mobility (P > 0.05). Most fractures healed within 3 to 6 months. In the suture bridge group, two cases of malunion were observed due to small bone fragment displacement. In the hollow screw group, two cases of screw head retraction and one case of bone fragment displacement were noted.
Both the suture bridge technique and hollow screw fixation are effective for treating PCL tibial avulsion fractures, each with unique advantages and potential complications. The suture bridge technique provides secure fixation, particularly for comminuted fractures, and is suitable for pediatric patients to avoid growth plate injury.
Not applicable.
评估并比较缝线桥技术与空心螺钉固定治疗后交叉韧带（PCL）胫骨撕脱骨折的临床疗效。
对2013年1月至2023年12月期间接受治疗的40例患者进行回顾性分析。患者分为两组：缝线桥组（20例）和空心螺钉组（20例）。两组均采用后内侧小弧形切口行微创手术。缝线桥技术使用高强度缝线和缝线锚钉，而空心螺钉组使用3.5毫米空心螺钉。采用Lysholm、Tegner和国际膝关节文献委员会（IKDC）评分评估术后疗效，并定期进行影像学检查以监测骨折愈合情况。
两组术后Lysholm、Tegner和IKDC评分均有显著改善（P < 0.05）。缝线桥组的Tegner评分略高于空心螺钉组（P = 0.038）。缝线桥组术后引流量略高于空心螺钉组（P = 0.011），手术时间、术中出血量或关节活动度无显著差异（P > 0.05）。大多数骨折在3至6个月内愈合。在缝线桥组中，观察到2例因小骨块移位导致的畸形愈合。在空心螺钉组中，注意到2例螺钉头回缩和1例骨块移位。
缝线桥技术和空心螺钉固定治疗PCL胫骨撕脱骨折均有效，各有其独特优势和潜在并发症。缝线桥技术提供可靠固定，尤其适用于粉碎性骨折，且适合小儿患者以避免生长板损伤。
不适用。
