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 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.
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 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.
Objective To observe the effectiveness of the combination of dynamic and static stabil ity in the treatment of old knee medial collateral l igament injury. Methods Between March 2004 and June 2008, 26 cases of old knee medial collateral l igament injury were treated, including 19 males and 7 females with a mean age of 38 years (range, 21-48 years). Injury was caused by traffic accident in 6 cases, by sprains in 12 cases, by fall ing from height in 8 cases. The location was left knee in 15 cases and right knee in 11 cases. Of them, 24 patients showed the positive result of knee valgus test, 2 cases showed sl ightly relaxed knee tendon. The knee X-ray films of valgus stress position showed that the medial joint space differences between both knees were 3-5 mm in 2 cases and 5-12 mm in 24 cases. The injuries included avulsion of the medial femoral condyle starting point in 19 cases, central laceration in 6 cases, and tibial point laceration concomitant meniscus injury in 1 case. The time from injury to hospital ization was 3-14 months (mean, 6.4 months). Gracil is muscle was used to repair knee medial collateral l igament and the sartorius muscle transfer to reconstruct the medial rotation of knee stabil ity function. Results All incisions healed by first intention. No joint infection, deep vein thrombosis, or other postoperative compl ications occurred. Twentysix cases were followed up 12-58 months with an average of 30 months. The results of knee valgus stress test were negative with no joint tenderness. At 3 months after operation, the knee X-ray films of valgus stress position showed the medial joint space differences between both knees were less than 1 mm. According to the modified Lysholm-Scale score, the results were excellent in 18 cases, good in 7 cases, and fair in 1 case with an excellent and good rate of 96% at last follow-up. Conclusion A combination of dynamic and static stabil ity in repairing old knee medial collateral l igament injury is easy-to-operate and has the advantages to perform the operation in the same incision, so it can avoid the shortcomings of single repair method and achieve better effectiveness.
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 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 the short-term effectiveness of one-stage anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), posterior cruciate ligament (PCL), and posterolateral complex (PLC) reconstruction combined with medial collateral ligament repair for KD-Ⅳ knee dislocation. Methods Between January 2018 and June 2020, 9 patients with KD-Ⅳ knee dislocation were treated. Of 9 cases, 7 were male and 2 were female with an average age of 32.3 years (range, 23-43 years). The knee dislocation was caused by falling from height in 6 cases and traffic accident in 3 cases. The injury located at left knee in 2 cases and right knee in 7 cases. The time from injury to operation was 14-24 days, with an average of 19 days. The preoperative International Knee Joint Documentation Committee (IKDC) score was 45.6±4.2, Lysholm score was 42.4±7.0, and the knee joint active flexion range of motion was (75.2±12.3)°. The posterior drawer test, pivot-shift test, Dial test, and 0° valgus stress test were all positive. Under arthroscopy, PCL was reconstructed with the autologous tendons, ACL with allogeneic Achilles tendon, PLC with the allogeneic anterior tibial tendon by Larson enhanced reconstruction method, and MCL was repaired with anchor or simple suture. Results The operation time was 2-3 hours (mean, 2.5 hours). All incisions healed by first intention after operation. All patients were followed up12-25 months (mean, 16.1 months). After operation, 2 cases developed knee flexion disorder and pain, and 1 case had knee joint stiffness. At last follow-up, the IKDC score was 76.9±7.4, the Lysholm score was 81.6±6.4, and the knee active flexion range of motion was (122.9±7.2)°, all of which significantly improved when compared with preoperative ones (P<0.05). During follow-up, there was no failure of the grafts. At last follow-up, there were significant differences in the posterior drawer test, pivot-shift test, Dial test, and 0° valgus stress test between pre- and post-operation (P<0.05). The imaging review showed that the positions of the bone tunnels were satisfactory, the reconstructed ACL, PCL, and PLC structures were continuous, and MCL insertions were restored. Conclusion One-stage ACL, PCL, and PLC reconstruction combined with MCL repair to treat KD-Ⅳ knee dislocation can effectively restore knee joint stability, improve joint laxity, and improve joint movement.
ObjectiveTo investigate the effectiveness of arthroscopic GraftLink technique reconstruction combined with suture anchor fixation in treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture and medial collateral ligament (MCL) grade Ⅲ injury.MethodsBetween June 2015 and February 2018, 28 patients with ACL rupture and MCL grade Ⅲ injury were treated. Arthroscopic GraftLink technique was used to reconstruct ACL with autologous peroneus longus tendon (PLT), and suture anchor fixation was used to repair MCL. There were 22 males and 6 females, aged 21-47 years, with an average age of 30.4 years. The cause of injury included traffic accident in 18 cases, falling from height in 7 cases, and sports injury in 3 cases. The time from injury to admission was 1-2 weeks, with an average of 1.3 weeks. The preoperative Lysholm score of knee joint was 46.8±3.0 and the International Knee Documentation Commission (IKDC) score was 49.2±2.7. The American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) score of ankle joint was 98.29±0.72. Both Lachman test and valgus stress test were positive. There were 8 cases of meniscus injury and 2 cases of cartilage injury.ResultsThe operation time ranged from 55 to 90 minutes, with an average of 72.5 minutes. All incisions healed by first intention after operation, and no complications related to operation occurred. All patients were followed up 6-38 months, with an average of 20.7 months. At 3 months after operation, the range of motion of the knee joint was 116- 132°, with an average of 122°. Lachman test showed that the anterior translation more than 5 mm in 2 cases, and the others were negative; while the valgus stress test showed that all patients were positive. At 6 months after operation, the Lysholm score and IKDC score of knee joint were 90.2±1.8 and 93.5±2.3, respectively, which were significantly higher than preoperative scores (t=31.60, P=0.00; t=29.91, P=0.01); AOFAS score of ankle joint was 97.86±0.68, with no significant difference compared with preoperative score (t=2.89, P=0.08). KT-1000 test showed that the difference of anterior relaxation between bilateral knee joints was less than 2 mm in 25 cases and 3 to 5 mm in 3 cases.ConclusionThe method of ACL reconstruction via arthroscopic GraftLink technique with PLT and MCL repair via suture anchor fixation has the advantages of less knee injury and faster recovery, and there is no significant impact on ankle function after tendon removal.