PRESENTATION OF CASE: 1st case: A-39-years-old male, complain of irreducible right patella dislocation with valgus knee and already done soft tissue procedure for patella dislocation. Long-leg radiographs of the right leg showed 18° valgus mechanical angle. 2nd case: A-26-years-old obese female, complain of dislocation of left patella and history of surgery for dislocation at 5 years old. Long-leg radiographs of the right leg showed 11° valgus mechanical angle.
DISCUSSION: After knowing the cause of the patellar dislocation from history taking, physical and supporting examination, we performed lateral open wedge distal femoral osteotomy also MPFL and MCL reconstruction, and tibial tuberosity medialization osteotomy. There is improvement mean score in Tegner Lysholm Knee Scoring system and IKDC Scoring at 6 months after surgery.
CONCLUSION: Lateral open wedge distal femur osteotomy combine with MPFL and MCL reconstruction and tibial tuberosity medialization realignment procedure can be successfully done for improve irreducible patellar dislocation in valgus knee, from clinical and radiological evaluation have good outcome after surgery.
Material and Methods: Patients with ACL re-injury to either knee after successful primary ACLR were included in Group I and those with no further re-injury were included in Group II. Variables including age, gender, side, body mass index (BMI), thigh atrophy, anterior knee laxity difference between both knees measured by KT-1000 arthrometer, mean time of return to sports (RTS), graft type, type of game, mode of injury, Tegner Activity Score, hormone levels, femoral tunnel length (FTL), posterior tibial slope (PTS) and notch width index (NWI) were studied. Binary logistic regression was used to measure the relative association.
Results: A total of 128 athletes were included with 64 in each group. Mean age in Group I and II were 24.90 and 26.47 years respectively. Mean follow-up of Group I and Group II were 24.5 and 20.11 months respectively. Significant correlation was present between ACL re-injury and following risk factors; PTS of >10º, KT difference of >3.0mm, thigh atrophy of >2.50cm and time to RTS <9.50 months P value <0.05). No correlation was found with age, sex, BMI, type of game, Tegner Activity Score, mode of injury, NWI, size of graft, FTL and hormone levels.
Conclusion: Possible risk factors include PTS of ≥ 10º, KT difference of ≥ 3.0mm at 1 year follow-up, thigh atrophy of ≥ 2.50cm at 1 year follow-up and RTS <9.5 months after primary ACLR.
Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction using anatomic versus low tibial tunnels. We hypothesized that the outcomes of low tibial tunnel placement would be superior to those of anatomic tibial tunnel placement at the 2-year follow-up after remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction.
Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data for patients who underwent remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction between March 2011 and January 2018 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years (N = 63). On the basis of the tibial tunnel position on postoperative computed tomography, the patients were divided into those with anatomic placement (group A; n = 31) and those with low tunnel placement (group L; n = 32). Clinical scores (International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, Lysholm score, and Tegner activity level), range of motion, complications, and stability test outcomes at follow-up were compared between the 2 groups. Graft signal on 1-year follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans was compared between 22 patients in group A and 17 patients in group L.
Results: There were no significant differences between groups regarding clinical scores or incidence of complications, no between-group differences in posterior drawer test results, and no side-to-side difference on Telos stress radiographs (5.2 ± 2.9 mm in group A vs 5.1 ± 2.8 mm in group L; P = .900). Postoperative 1-year follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans showed excellent graft healing in both groups, with no significant difference between them.
Conclusion: The clinical and radiologic outcomes and complication rate were comparable between anatomic tunnel placement and low tibial tunnel placement at 2-year follow-up after remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction. The findings of this study suggest that both tibial tunnel positions are clinically feasible for remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction.
Material and Methods: From an initial number of 10 patients, seven were contactable and available for analysis. All patients underwent PCL and/or PLC reconstruction (modified Larson's procedure) between 2017 and 2019. The mean age of our cohort was 31.4±9.6 years (range, 21 to 46). Assessment of functional outcomes pre- and post-operatively were done using the Lysholm knee scoring scale, the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and visual analogue scale (VAS). The mean follow-up from operation at time of reporting was seven months (range, 2 to 12 months).
Results: There were four combined PCL and PLCs, two isolated PLCs and one patient who underwent an isolated PCL reconstruction. There were significant improvements between pre-operative and post-operative in all functional outcome scores utilised following PCL reconstruction and/or modified Larson's reconstruction. Lysholm knee scoring scale improved from pre-operative to post-operative at 41.14±12.32 to 74.86±13.52 (p=0.0001), KOOS from 49.71±11.19 to 71.43±13.84 (p=0.001), and VAS from 5.71±2.06 to 2.86±2.48 (p=0.001). Our sub-analysis showed that higher functional outcomes were present when surgery was done less than six months from the time of index injury. There were no complications (eg. Infections, revisions) in this cohort at the time of reporting.
Conclusion: Reconstructive surgery for PCL and/or PLC injury is successful in increasing the functional outcomes of patients post-operatively. Delays from injury to surgery remains a problem in the public setting as patients may need to await appropriate imaging and approval of funding. Increased awareness for early surgical intervention may improve overall outcomes of PCL and/or PLC reconstruction in Malaysia.
METHODS: 63 patients who underwent remnant-preserving single-bundle PCL reconstruction between 2011 and 2018 with a minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the femoral tunnel position: group A (33 patients with anatomical femoral tunnel) and group H (30 patients with high femoral tunnels). The femoral tunnel was positioned at the center (group A) or upper margin (group H) of the remnant anterolateral bundle. The position of the femoral tunnel was evaluated using the grid method on three-dimensional computed tomography. Clinical and radiological outcomes and failure rates were compared between the groups at the 2-year follow-up.
RESULTS: The position of the femoral tunnel was significantly high in group H than in group A (87.4% ± 4.2% versus 76.1% ± 3.7%, p scores (International Knee Documentation Committee subjective, Lysholm, and Tegner activity scores), range of motion, and posterior drawer test. Radiological outcomes also showed no intergroup differences in the side-to-side differences of posterior tibial translation and osteoarthritis progression. Side-to-side difference on the Telos stress radiograph was 5.2 ± 2.9 mm in group A and 5.2 ± 2.7 mm in group H (n.s.). There were four failures in group A (12.1%) and one in group H (3.3%). The differences between the groups were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION: The clinical and radiological outcomes and failure rates of the high femoral tunnels were comparable with those of the anatomical femoral tunnels at the 2-year follow-up after remnant-preserving single-bundle PCL reconstruction. The findings of this study suggest that high femoral tunnels can be considered an alternative in remnant-preserving single-bundle PCL reconstruction.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.