Objective To study the diagnosis and treatment of the acute medial collateral ligament ruptures of the knee.Methods From August 1998 to August 2003, 87 cases of acute medial collateral ligament ruptures were examined with physical method and MR imaging. Out of them, 35 cases of Ⅰdegree and Ⅱ degree ruptures were treated with non-surgery and 52 cases of Ⅲ degree ruptures were treated surgically. The torn medial collateral ligaments were mended, 21 of which were strengthened with the anterior partial gracilis muscle tendon after the arthroscopy. Results In 35 cases of Ⅰ and Ⅱ degree ruptures, 32 were followed up 13 months on average. According to Lysholm scoring system, the clinical results were classified as excellent or good in 93.7% of the cases. In 52 cases of Ⅲ degree ruptures, 50 were followed up 16 months on average. The excellent or good result was 90%.Conclusion For Ⅰ and Ⅱ degree ruptures, MR imagimg is an important way to definitely- diagnose medial collateral ligament ruptures. Abduction stress test of knee extension shows that the medial direct instability is a main way to definitely diagnose Ⅲ degree ruptures. The results of conservative treatment of Ⅰ degree and Ⅱ degree ruptures are excellent. Surgical therapy are fitfor the cases of Ⅲ degree ruptures.
ObjectiveTo summarize the prevention and treatment of iatrogenic medial collateral ligament (MCL) injuries in total knee arthroplasty (TKA).MethodsThe relevant literature about iatrogenic MCL injuries in TKA was summarized, and the symptoms, causes, preventions, and treatments were analyzed.ResultsPreventions on the iatrogenic MCL injuries in TKA is significantly promoted. With the occurrence of MCL injuries, the femoral avulsion can be fixed with the screw and washer or the suture anchors; the tibial avulsion can be treated with the suture anchors fixation, bone staples fixation, or conservative treatment; the mid-substance laceration can be repaired directly; the autologous quadriceps tendon, semitendinosus tendon, or artificial ligament can be used for the patients with poor tissue conditions or obvious residual gap between the ligament ends; the use of implant with greater constraint can be the last alternative method.ConclusionNo consensus has been reached to the management of iatrogenic MCL injuries in TKA. Different solutions and strategies can be integrated and adopted flexibly by surgeons according to the specific situation.
ObjectiveTo evaluate and compare knee joint stability of grade Ⅲ medial collateral ligament (MCL) injury treated by single-bundle and anatomical double-bundle reconstruction methods, thus providing biomechanical basis for clinical treatment.MethodsNine fresh cadaver specimens of normal human knee joints were randomly divided into 3 groups on average. In intact MCL group: The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) was detached and reconstructed with single-bundle techniques, and the MCL was intact. In single-bundle and double-bundle reconstruction groups, the superficial MCL (sMCL), posterior oblique ligament (POL), and ACL were all detached to manufacturing grade Ⅲ MCL injury models. After single-bundle reconstruction of ACL, the sMCL single-bundle reconstruction and anatomical double-bundle reconstruction of sMCL and POL were performed, respectively. Biomechanical evaluation indexes included anterior tibial translation (ATT), internal rotation (IR), valgus rotation (VAL), and stresses of MCL and ACL under internal rotation and valgus torques at different ranges of motion of the knee joint.ResultsThere was no significant difference in ATT at full extension and flexion of 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, and 90° between groups (P>0.05). At full extension and flexion of 15°, the IR and VAL were significantly higher in single-bundle reconstruction group than in double-bundle reconstruction group and intact MCL group (P<0.05). At flexion of 30°, the VAL was significantly higher in single-bundle reconstruction group than in double-bundle reconstruction group and intact MCL group (P<0.05). While there was no significant difference between double-bundle reconstruction group and intact MCL group (P>0.05). There was no significant difference in the stresses of MCL and ACL between groups under the internal rotation and valgus torques at all positions (P>0.05).ConclusionMCL anatomical double-bundle reconstruction can acquire better valgus and rotational stability of the knee joint compared with single-bundle reconstruction.
Objective To investigate whether or not posterolateral rotatory instabil ity of the elbow is due to type-I and type-II coronoid process fracture together with anterior bundle of medial collateral l igament (AMCL) injury so as to provide a theoretic basis for its cl inical treatment. Methods Ten fresh-frozen upper extremities were collected from cadavera which was donated voluntarily with no evidence of fracture, dislocation, osteoarthritis, mechanical injury of the surrounding l igament and joint capsule. They included 9 males and 1 female with an average age of 25.1 years (range, 19-40 years), including 3 cases at left sides and 7 cases at right sides. All specimens were transected at the upper midhumeral and carpal levels preserving the distal radioulnar joints to get the bone-l igament specimens. An axial load of 100 N compressing the elbow joint was appl ied along the shaft of the forearm in the sagittal plane through the biomechanical study system. The load-displacement plot was measured and analyzed at elbow flexion of 90, 60, and 45° and under four conditions (intact elbow, type-I coronoid process fracture, type-I coronoid process fracture with AMCL deficient, and type-II coronoid process fractures with AMCL deficient). Results The posterior displacements were maximum at 90° elbow flexion. Hence, the results at 90° elbow flexion were analyzed: under condition of intact elbows, the posterior displacement was the smallest (2.17 ± 0.42) mm and the posterolateral rotatory stabil ity was the greatest; under condition of type-I coronoid process fracture, the posterior displacement was (2.20 ± 0.41) mm, showing no significant difference compared with that of the intact elbow (P gt; 0.05); under condition of type-I coronoid process fracture with AMCL deficient, the posterior displacement was (2.31 ± 0.34) mm, showing no significant difference compared with that of intact elbow (P gt; 0.05); and under condition of type-II coronoid process fracture with AMCL deficient, the posterior displacement was (2.65 ± 0.38) mm, showing a significant difference compared with that of intact elbow (P lt; 0.05). There was no macroscopic ulnohumeral dislocation or radial head dislocation during the experiment. Conclusion An simple type-I coronoid process fracture or with AMCL deficient would not cause posterolateral rotatory instabil ity of elbow and may not need to be repaired. But type-II coronoid process fractures with AMCL deficient can cause posterolateral rotatory instabil ity of elbow, so the coronoid process and the AMCL should be repaired or reconstructed to restore posterolateral rotatory stabil ity as well as valgus stabil ity.
ObjectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy between medial collateral ligament (MCL) repair and MCL reconstruction in multi-ligament injury. MethodsThirty-one patients with MCL rupture and multi-ligament injury of knee joint were treated between August 2008 and August 2012, and the clinical data were retrospectively analyzed. Of 31 patients, 11 cases underwent MCL repair (repair group), and 20 cases underwent MCL reconstruction (reconstruction group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, body mass, injury side, injury cause, and preoperative knee Lyshlom score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, range of motion, and medial joint opening between 2 groups (P > 0.05). The postoperative knee subjective function and stability were compared between 2 groups. ResultsAll incisions healed by first intention, and no postoperative complication occurred. All patients were followed up 2-4 years (mean, 3.2 years). At 2 years after operation, the IKDC subjective score, Lyshlom score, and range of motion were significantly increased in 2 groups when compared with preoperative ones (P < 0.05). The range of motion of reconstruction group was significantly better than that of repair group (P < 0.05). No significant difference was found in IKDC subjective score and Lyshlom score between 2 groups (P > 0.05). The medial joint opening was significantly improved in 2 groups at 2 years after operation when compared with preoperative one (P < 0.05), but no significant difference was found between 2 groups (P > 0.05). ConclusionBoth the MCL reconstruction and MCL repair can restore medial stability in multi-ligament injury, but MCL reconstruction is better than MCL repair in range of motion.
Objective To investigate whether the outlet of the femoral tunnel will cause iatrogenic injury to the medial collateral ligament (MCL) during posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCLR) and estimate the safe angle of femoral tunnel placement. MethodsThirteen formaldehyde-soaked human knee joint specimens were used, 8 from men and 5 from women; the donors’ age ranged from 49 to 71 years, with an average of 61 years. First, the medial part of the femur was carefully dissected to clearly expose the region of the MCL course and attachment on the femoral medial aspect and to outline the anterior margin of the region with a marked line. The marked line divided the medial femoral condyle into an area with an MCL course and a bare bone area which is regarded relatively safe for no MCL course. Then, the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) was cut to identify the femoral attachment of the PCL. After the knee joint was fixed at a 120° flexion angle, the process of femoral tunnel preparation for the PCL single-bundle reconstruction was simulated. The inside-out technique was used to drill the femoral tunnel from the PCL femoral footprint inside the knee joint with an orientation to exit the medial condyle of the femur, and the combination angle of the two planes, the axial plane and the coronal plane, was adapted to the process of drilling femoral tunnels at different orientations. The following 15 angle combinations were used in the study: 0°/30°, 0°/45°, 0°/60°, 15°/30°, 15°/45°, 15°/60°, 30°/30°, 30°/45°, 30°/60°, 45°/30°, 45°/45°, 45°/60°, 60°/30°, 60°/45°, 60°/60° (axial/coronal). The positional relationship between the femoral tunnel outlet on the femoral medial condyle and the marked line was used to verify whether the tunnel drilling angle was a risk factor for MCL injury or not, and whether the shortest distance between the femoral exit center and the marked line was affected by the various angle combinations. Furthermore, the safe orientation of the femoral tunnel placement would estimated. ResultsWhen creating the femoral tunnel for PCLR, there was a risk of damage to the MCL caused by the tunnel outlet, and the incidence was from 0 to 100%; when the drilling angle of the axial plane was 0° and 15°, the incidence of MCL damage was from 69.23% to 100%. There was a significant difference in the incidence of MCL damage among femoral tunnels of 15 angle combinations (χ2=148.195, P<0.001). By comparison between groups, it was found that when drilling femoral tunnels at 5 combinations of 45°/45°, 45°/60°, 60°/30°, 60°/45°, and 60°/60° (axial/coronal), the shortest distances between the tunnel exit and the marked line were significantly different than 0°/45°, 0°/60°, 15°/45°, 15°/60°, and 30°/30° (axial/coronal) (P<0.05). Additionally, after comparing the median of the shortest distance with other groups, the outlets generated by these 5 angles were farther from the marked line and the posterior MCL. ConclusionThe creation of the femoral tunnel in PCLR can cause iatrogenic MCL injury, and the risk is affected by the tunnel angle. To reduce the risk of iatrogenic injury, angle combinations of 45°/45°, 45°/60°, 60°/30°, 60°/45°, and 60°/60° (axial/coronal) are recommended for preparing the femoral tunnel in PCLR.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical results of the tibial Inlay technique for the medial collateral ligament (MCL) reconstruction using Achilles tendon allograft in recovery of medial instability of the knee. MethodsBetween January 2011 and December 2012, 21 patients underwent tibial Inlay reconstruction of the MCL using Achilles tendon allograft, and the clinical data were retrospectively analyzed. There were 13 males and 8 females with a mean age of 32 years (range, 19-62 years). Injury was caused by sports in 15 cases and by traffic accident in 6 cases. The disease duration ranged from 15 days to 3 months (mean, 1.5 months). According to International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) criteria, 5 cases were classified as degree II and 16 cases as degree III. The results of the valgus stress test were positive in all patients. The complications were observed after operation; IKDC subjective knee score and Lysholm score were used to assess the knee function. ResultsBone block fracture occurred in 1 case during operation. Primary healing of incision was obtained in the other cases except 1 case having unhealing incision who was healed after skin grafting. No complications of knee joint stiffness, vascular nerve injury, and infection occurred. All patients were followed up 7-29 months (mean, 18.5 months). At last follow-up, the results of the valgus stress test were negative in 20 cases, and positive (degree I) in 1 case; the other patients had no knee extension or flexion limitation except 1 patient having 15° flexion limitation. The Lysholm score was significantly improved from 45.4±13.6 to 87.5±9.4, the IKDC 2000 subjective score was significantly improved from 46.5±14.0 to 88.4±9.3 at last follow-up (P<0.05). MRI showed that the reconstructed MCL was continuous. ConclusionThe short-term clinical results of the tibial Inlay technique for MCL reconstruction using Achilles tendon allograft are satisfactory. The Inlay technique for MCL reconstruction can provide good medial stability of the knee, but the lorg-term effectiveness needs further follow-up.
Objective To investigate the method and curative effect of malposed-suture hanging and fastening method of double-lariat lock catch knot in repairing origin of medial collateral l igament (MCL) rupture. Methods From February 2008 to February 2009, 36 patients with acute MCL rupture were treated with malposed-suture hanging and fastening method of double-lariat lock catch knot. There were 21 males and 15 females with an average age of 40 years (range, 17-58 years),including 19 left knees and 17 right knees. Repture was caused by traffic accident in 5 cases, by fall ing in 11 cases, by kicking in 3 cases, by crush in 4 cases, and by sprain in 13 cases. The X-ray films of double knees at stress state showed the medial joint space of affected knee joint increased 6.5-13.5 mm (11.2 mm on average) when compared with that of normal knee joint. The time from injury to operation was 36 hours to 8 days (3.5 days on average). Results All wounds healed by first intention. Thirty-one cases were followed up 12-20 months (15 months on average). No compl ication of wound infection, deep venous thrombosis, and l igament rerupture occurred. The medial joint space of affected knee joint increased 1.5-5.6 mm (3.5 mm on average) when compared with that of normal knee joint. According to Lysholm assessment standard, the results were excellent in 20 cases and good in 11 cases, the excellent and good rate was 100%. Conclusion Repair of origin of MCL with malposedsuture hanging and fastening method of double-lariat lock catch knot has advantages of less injury, rel iable fixation, and rapid recovery of knee stabil ity.
ObjectiveTo investigate effect of posterior oblique ligament (POL) repair on the rotational stability of the knee joint for the medial collateral ligament (MCL) combined with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures.MethodsThe clinical data of 50 patients (50 knees) with grade-3 MCL-ACL combined injuries who met the selection criteria between January 2013 and December 2015 were retrospectively analyzed. All ACLs were reconstructed with autogenous tendon and the superficial and deep layers of MCLs were sutured; then, POLs were also sutured in 25 patients of repair group and only received conservation treatment postoperatively in 25 patients of conservation group. There was no significant difference in gender, age, disease duration, and preoperative KT-1000 measuring, medial joint space opening, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, and knee range of motion between the two groups (P>0.05).ResultsAll incisions of the two groups healed by first intention, no surgical related complications occurred. All patients were followed up, with follow-up time of 28-56 months (mean, 38.1 months) in repair group and 26-55 months (mean, 29.1 months) in conservation group. At last follow-up, the IKDC score, VAS score, KT-1000 measuring, medial joint space opening, and knee range of motion significantly improved in the two groups when compared with preoperative ones (P<0.05); but there was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). The Slocum test showed that there was no instability of the anterior medial rotation in the two groups.ConclusionThe POL repair can’t obtain more medial stability after ACL reconstruction and MCL repair (superficial and deep layers) for patients who have MCL-ACL combined injuries.
ObjectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy between deep medial collateral ligament (dMCL) repair and conservative treatment for complete MCL rupture. MethodsBetween August 2009 and December 2013, 36 patients with grade 3 MCL rupture underwent superior MCL (sMCL) reconstruction with tibial Inlay technique. Of 36 cases, 19 received dMCL repair (repair group), and 17 received conservative treatment (conservation group) after sMCL reconstruction. There was no significant difference in gender, age, knee sides, type of injury, disease duration and preoperative medial joint opening, knee Lysholm scores, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score between 2 groups (P > 0.05). The Lysholm and IKDC scores, medial joint opening, range of motion (ROM), visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, and complications were used to assess the knee joint function. ResultsAll patients achieved primary incision healing without acute postoperative complications of incision infection and deep vein thrombosis in the lower limb. The patients were followed up 28-65 months (mean, 46.3 months) in the repair group, and 26-69 months (mean, 45.9 months) in the conservation group. No knee stiffness, vascular or nerve injury, and knee joint infection occurred in 2 groups. All the patients recovered medial stability at 2 years postoperatively. At 2 years after operation, no significant difference was shown in knee ROM between 2 groups (t=0.26, P=0.80); the VAS score of the repair group was significantly lower than that of the conservation group (t=5.22, P=0.00); medial joint opening, IKDC score, and Lysholm score were significantly improved when compared with preoperative ones in 2 groups (P < 0.05), but no significant difference was found between 2 groups (P>0.05). ConclusionWhether or not additional dMCL repair is performed can recover medial stability after sMCL reconstruction. However, the additional dMCL repair is better in relieving medial knee pain than the conservative treatment.