Patient Reported Clinical Outcomes Following PCL Suture Augmentation in Patients with Multiligamentous Knee Injury: A Retrospective Observational Study

Overview

Journal Orthop Res Rev

Publisher Dove Medical Press

Specialty Orthopedics

Date 2024 Feb 21

PMID 38380086

Authors

Amir Fathi

Ashley A Thompson

Ioanna K Bolia

Cory K Mayfield

Shane S Korber

Avinash Iyer

George F Hatch Iii

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the patient-reported outcomes between patients with posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction or repair alone versus PCL reconstruction or repair with internal bracing (IB) in the context of multi-ligament knee injuries (MLKI).

Methods: All patients who underwent surgical management of MLKI at two institutions between 2006 and 2020 were retrospectively identified and offered participation in the study. Patient reported outcomes were measured via three instruments: Lysholm Knee score, Multiligament Quality of Life (ML-QOL), and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer adaptive testing (CAT). The postoperative outcomes and reoperation rates were compared between the internal bracing and non-internal bracing groups.

Results: Fifty-two patients were analyzed; 34 were included in the IB group (17.6% female; age 33.1 ±1.60 years), and 18 were included in the non-IB group (11.1% female; age 34.1 ±3.72 years). Mean follow-up time of the entire cohort was 1.44 ± 0.22 years (IB: 1.21 ± 0.18; non-IB: 2.1 ±0.65). There were no significant differences between PROMIS CAT [PROMIS Pain (54.4 ±1.78 vs 51.7 ±1.70, p=0.319), Physical Function (44.3 ±2.27 vs 47.9 ±1.52, p=0.294), Mobility (44.0 ±1.71 vs 46.1 ±2.10, p=0.463)], ML-QOL [ML-QOL Physical Impairment (40.7 ±4.21 vs 41.7±5.10, p=0.884), Emotional Impairment (49.2 ±4.88 vs 44.7±5.87, p=0.579), Activity Limitation (43.5 ±4.56 vs 31.5±3.62, p=0.087), Societal Involvement (44.9 ±4.96 vs 37.5 ±5.30, p=0.345)] and Lysholm knee score (61.8 ±4.55 vs 61.0 ±4.95, p=0.916) postoperatively compared to the non-IB group.

Conclusion: In this group of patients, function and patient-reported outcomes between patients treated with PCL reconstruction and repair without internal brace versus those with additional internal brace augmentation were not significantly different. Further research encompassing a larger patient sample is necessary to investigate the efficacy of the internal brace for PCL injury in the context of MLKI injuries.

Citing Articles

Use of Internal Bracing in Multi-ligamentous Knee Injury Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.

Randall A, Pearse R, Khan S, Atkinson H Indian J Orthop. 2024; 58(11):1518-1527.

PMID: 39539338 PMC: 11555162. DOI: 10.1007/s43465-024-01260-x.

References

Dabis J, Wilson A . Repair and Augmentation with Internal Brace in the Multiligament Injured Knee. Clin Sports Med. 2019; 38(2):275-283. DOI: 10.1016/j.csm.2018.11.008. View

Logan M, Williams A, Lavelle J, Gedroyc W, Freeman M . The effect of posterior cruciate ligament deficiency on knee kinematics. Am J Sports Med. 2004; 32(8):1915-22. DOI: 10.1177/0363546504265005. View

Bin S, Nam T . Surgical outcome of 2-stage management of multiple knee ligament injuries after knee dislocation. Arthroscopy. 2007; 23(10):1066-72. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2007.05.008. View

Briggs K, Lysholm J, Tegner Y, Rodkey W, Kocher M, Steadman J . The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Lysholm score and Tegner activity scale for anterior cruciate ligament injuries of the knee: 25 years later. Am J Sports Med. 2009; 37(5):890-7. DOI: 10.1177/0363546508330143. View

Levy B, Dajani K, Whelan D, Stannard J, Fanelli G, Stuart M . Decision making in the multiligament-injured knee: an evidence-based systematic review. Arthroscopy. 2009; 25(4):430-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2009.01.008. View

Van de Velde S, Bingham J, Gill T, Li G . Analysis of tibiofemoral cartilage deformation in the posterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009; 91(1):167-75. PMC: 2663325. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00177. View

Trasolini N, Hatch G, Wright D, Levy B, Stuart M, McGarry M . Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Internal Brace Augmentation Reduces Posterior Tibial Translation Under Cyclic Loading. Orthopedics. 2021; 44(4):235-240. DOI: 10.3928/01477447-20210621-03. View

Grotting J, Nelson T, Banffy M, Yalamanchili D, Eberlein S, Chahla J . Biomechanical evaluation of PCL reconstruction with suture augmentation. Knee. 2020; 27(2):375-383. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2020.01.004. View

Song E, Park H, Ahn Y, Seon J . Transtibial versus tibial inlay techniques for posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: long-term follow-up study. Am J Sports Med. 2014; 42(12):2964-71. DOI: 10.1177/0363546514550982. View

10.

Lysholm J, Gillquist J . Evaluation of knee ligament surgery results with special emphasis on use of a scoring scale. Am J Sports Med. 1982; 10(3):150-4. DOI: 10.1177/036354658201000306. View

11.

Shin J, Maak T . Arthroscopic Transtibial PCL Reconstruction: Surgical Technique and Clinical Outcomes. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2018; 11(2):307-315. PMC: 5970124. DOI: 10.1007/s12178-018-9489-9. View

12.

Otto A, Helal A, Imhoff F, Mehl J, Herbst E, Achtnich A . Promising clinical and magnetic resonance imaging results after internal bracing of acute posterior cruciate ligament lesions in multiple injured knees. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020; 28(8):2543-2550. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-020-05852-6. View

13.

Everhart J, Du A, Chalasani R, Kirven J, Magnussen R, Flanigan D . Return to Work or Sport After Multiligament Knee Injury: A Systematic Review of 21 Studies and 524 Patients. Arthroscopy. 2018; 34(5):1708-1716. DOI: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.12.025. View

14.

Trasolini N, Korber S, Gipsman A, San A, Weber A, Hatch 3rd G . Performance of PROMIS Computer Adaptive Testing As Compared With Established Instruments for Multiple-Ligament Knee Injuries. Orthop J Sports Med. 2019; 7(9):2325967119867419. PMC: 6728687. DOI: 10.1177/2325967119867419. View

15.

Levy B, Piepenbrink M, Stuart M, Wijdicks C . Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Independent Suture Tape Reinforcement: An In Vitro Biomechanical Full Construct Study. Orthop J Sports Med. 2021; 9(2):2325967120981875. PMC: 7890739. DOI: 10.1177/2325967120981875. View

16.

Raja B, Arora M, Gowda A, Maheshwari V, Regmi A . Augmentation with Fibertape Leads to Biomechanically Superior but Similar Clinical Outcomes in ACL Surgeries: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Indian J Orthop. 2023; 57(5):722-747. PMC: 10147891. DOI: 10.1007/s43465-022-00805-2. View

17.

Monson J, Schoenecker J, Schwery N, Palmer J, Rodriguez A, LaPrade R . Postoperative Rehabilitation and Return to Sport Following Multiligament Knee Reconstruction. Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil. 2022; 4(1):e29-e40. PMC: 8811527. DOI: 10.1016/j.asmr.2021.08.020. View

18.

Wascher D, Dvirnak P, DeCoster T . Knee dislocation: initial assessment and implications for treatment. J Orthop Trauma. 1997; 11(7):525-9. DOI: 10.1097/00005131-199710000-00011. View

19.

Chahal J, Whelan D, Jaglal S, Smith P, MacDonald P, Levy B . The multiligament quality of life questionnaire: development and evaluation of test-retest reliability and validity in patients with multiligament knee injuries. Am J Sports Med. 2014; 42(12):2906-16. DOI: 10.1177/0363546514552629. View

20.

Paterson-Byrne P, Wilson W, Hopper G, Mackay G . Primary repair of multiligament knee injury with InternalBrace ligament augmentation. BMJ Case Rep. 2022; 15(1). PMC: 8728444. DOI: 10.1136/bcr-2021-247173. View