nach oben

Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery

Erschienen in:

Open Access 27.03.2022 | Arthroscopy and Sports Medicine

Clinical results after arthroscopic reconstruction of the posterolateral corner of the knee: A prospective randomized trial comparing two different surgical techniques

verfasst von: Sebastian Weiss, Matthias Krause, Karl-Heinz Frosch

Erschienen in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery | Ausgabe 2/2023

Abstract

Introduction

Arthroscopic reconstruction techniques of the posterolateral corner (PLC) of the knee have been developed in recent years. Reconstruction techniques for higher-grade PLC injuries have not yet been validated in clinical studies. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes of two different techniques and to present results of the first prospective randomized clinical trial of patients to undergo these novel procedures.

Materials and methods

19 patients with Fanelli Type B posterolateral corner injuries and additional posterior cruciate ligament ruptures were included in this prospective study. They were randomly assigned to one of two novel arthroscopic reconstruction techniques, based on open surgeries developed by Arciero (group A) and LaPrade (group B). Follow-up was conducted at 6 and 12 months postoperatively and included clinical examinations for lateral, rotational and posterior stability, range of motion and subjective clinical outcome scores (IKDC Subjective Score, Lysholm Score, Tegner Activity Scale and Numeric Rating Scale for pain).

Results

At 6 and 12 months postoperative, all patients in both groups presented stable to varus, external rotational and posterior forces, there were no significant differences between the two groups. At 12-month follow-up, group A patients showed significantly higher maximum flexion angles (134.17° ± 3.76° vs. 126.60° ± 4.22°; p = 0.021) compared to patients of group B. Duration of surgery was significantly longer in Group B patients than in group A (121.88 ± 11.63 vs. 165.00 ± 35.65 min; p = 0.003). Posterior drawer (side-to-side difference) remained more reduced in group A (2.50 ± 0.69 mm vs. 3.27 ± 0.92 mm; p = 0.184). Subjective patient outcome scores showed no significant differences between groups (Lysholm Score 83.33 ± 7.79 vs. 86.40 ± 9.21; p = 0.621).

Conclusions

This study indicates sufficient restoration of posterolateral rotational instability, varus instability and posterior drawer after arthroscopic posterolateral corner reconstruction without neurovascular complications.

Increased postoperative range of motion and a shorter and less invasive surgical procedure could favor the arthroscopic reconstruction technique according to Arciero over LaPrade’s technique in future treatment considerations.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Introduction

The posterolateral corner of the knee consists of the lateral/fibular collateral ligament (LCL/FCL) and the popliteus complex (PTC). The popliteus complex itself contains the popliteus muscle tendon unit (PLT) and the arcuate complex (AC), which is formed by the popliteofibular ligament (PFL), the fabellofibular ligament and the popliteomeniscal fibers [1]. It has a highly complex stabilizing function against various forces to the knee. The popliteus complex serves as the most important static and dynamic stabilizer against external tibial rotation and posterior tibial translation [2‐4] while the lateral collateral ligament provides stability against varus forces [5].

In recent years, arthroscopic reconstruction techniques have been developed to provide stability while utilizing the benefits of arthroscopic compared to open surgeries [6]. Advantages of arthroscopic procedures include a better visualization of anatomical landmarks for drill tunnel placements, minimal soft tissue damage, lower infection rates and especially a better protection of the common peroneal nerve since its preparation and visualization is obsolete [1].

For lower-grade instabilities (Fanelli Type A, PoLIS LI-A) [7], anatomic reconstruction of the popliteus complex (popliteus bypass) has shown promising results [8‐10]. Novel arthroscopic techniques for anatomical reconstruction in higher-grade instabilities (Fanelli Type B or C, PoLIS LI-B or LI-C [7]), based on Arciero’s and LaPrade’s procedures, have recently been described by Frings et al., and Kolb et al. [11‐13]. In a biomechanical evaluation of an arthroscopic reconstruction according to Arciero, a nearly normal stability of the knee could be restored [13].

So far, clinical results of these reconstruction techniques remained elusive. In this study, we aimed to detect differences in clinical outcomes of arthroscopic anatomical PLC reconstruction techniques described by Frings et al.. and Kolb et al.. and to present results of the first prospective randomized clinical trial of patients to undergo these procedures.

We hypothesized that both procedures can sufficiently restore posterior, lateral and external rotational stability in high-grade posterolateral corner injuries and that there would be no differences in clinical outcome between the two groups.

Material and methods

This study was approved by the local ethics committee of the regional medical association (PV7212). Informed consent was obtained by each patient in this study.

Preoperative assessment

Patients who presented to our clinic between years 2018–2020 with high-grade injuries (Fanelli Type B, PoLIS LI-B [7]) to the posterolateral corner and consent to participate were included in this study. Inclusion criteria were chronic injuries (> 3 weeks) with a combined varus and posterolateral rotational instability and additional posterior instability due to injury to the posterior cruciate ligament. Patients with higher-grade posterolateral corner injuries and additional affected structures (biceps femoris muscle tendon rupture, iliotibial band injury, fracture of the fibular head, etc.) were excluded from this study, as they required additional open surgery to address these specific structures. Fanelli type A injuries were excluded as well.

Preoperative clinical evaluation was performed by an experienced and fellowship trained orthopedic surgeon and included the posterior drawer test in neutral, internal, and external rotation in 30° and 90° of knee flexion (dial test); lateral and medial gapping under varus and valgus stress opening in full extension and 20°–30° of flexion. Stress radiographs in 90° of flexion and neutral rotation were performed on the injured and non-injured knee to objectify the side-to-side difference of the posterior translation. Additionally, all patients underwent magnetic resonance imaging of the knee.

Surgical procedure

The type of surgical procedure was determined by block randomization, dividing patients into two subgroups. Surgeries were conducted strictly according to arthroscopic posterolateral corner reconstruction techniques described by Frings et al. [11] (Arciero’s technique, group A) and Kolb et al. [12] (LaPrade’s technique, Group B) (Fig. 1). Surgeries were all performed by the same surgeon with high expertise in arthroscopic knee surgery. Additional PCL reconstruction was performed arthroscopically during the same procedure [14]. The duration of the surgery was evaluated (starting from skin incision, including tendon harvest and all arthroscopic procedures until skin closure). Furthermore, length of stay as a hospital inpatient and surgery-related complications were investigated.

Rehabilitation

The first 2 weeks after surgery patients wore a PCL brace (Jack PCL Brace; Albrecht, Bernau am Chiemsee, Germany) with a maximum flexion of the knee of 20°. Passive flexion of the knee was performed up to 40° of flexion in prone position by physical therapists after drain removal. Patients were allowed partial weight bearing of 20 kg on crutches for 6 weeks.

In weeks 3 and 4, patients were passively mobilized up to 60° of flexion and then to 90° in weeks 5 and 6 while increasing weight bearing to half of their body weight. The brace was recommended with limited range-of-motion for 6 weeks (day and night) and for another 6 weeks without limited range-of-motion.

After 6 weeks, patients were allowed full range of motion and started full weight bearing. Additionally, active flexion of the knee against gravity and cycling was allowed.

Forced flexion against resistance was allowed after 12 weeks, simultaneously jogging was permitted. Stop-and-go sports were allowed depending on individual return-to-play and return-to-competition tests after 6–9 months.

Follow-up

Follow-up was conducted at 6 and 12 months after surgery by a single author, who was blinded to the type of surgical procedure to avoid bias. Clinical examination of range of motion and external rotation in 30° and 90° of flexion was performed with the use of a HALO Goniometer® (HALO, model HG1, HALO Medical Devices, Australia) [15]. Posterior drawer tests were measured with a Rolimeter® in the technique according to Höher et al. [16]. Varus instabilities were examined in 30° of knee flexion. All examinations were also performed on the contralateral knee and parameters were evaluated as side-to-side differences.

Subjective scores included the IKDC subjective score, the Lysholm Score and Tegner Activity Scale (TAS) as well as a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) for current pain at time of follow-up. All of the above subjective scores are validated and were presented in the German version, as it was the native language of all included patients [17‐19].

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 26.0 (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). Mean values ± standard deviations were reported for all parameters. Statistical tests were performed as Mann–Whitney test, all tests were non-parametric test and statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. As this study was designated as a pilot study of rare injuries, power analysis was not applicable.

Results

19 patients were included in this study, four patients were lost to follow-up for geographical reasons.

All patients in both groups initially presented with chronic Fanelli Type B injuries with varus opening up to 10 mm, an increased external rotational instability in dial test compared to the contralateral knee and subjective instability. There were not relevant comorbidities in patients of either group which would have influenced patient outcomes, as higher-grade instabilities were not included and there was no preexistence of arthrofibrosis. There was no significant difference in patient age at the time of surgery (p = 0.356) or the extent of preoperative posterior drawer as side-to-side difference between groups A and B. Duration of surgery was significantly longer in Group B patients than in group A (165.00 ± 35.65 vs. 121.88 ± 11.63 min; p = 0.003). There was no significant difference in the duration of in-hospital stay and one surgery-related complication was present in each group (Table 1). There were no neurovascular complications of the surgical procedures.

Table 1

Patient demographics and treatment parameters

	Group A	Group B	p-Value¹
Age (years)	40.22 ± 11.49	35.38 ± 11.01	0.3559
Sex (male/female)	7/4	7/1	–
Duration of surgery (min)	121.88 ± 11.63	165.00 ± 35.65	0.003
Length of stay in hospital (days)	5.34 ± 1.51	5.25 ± 0.89	0.753
Complications	Dislocation of femoral PCL graft button (n = 1)	Arthrofibrosis requiring revision surgery (n = 1)	–

All values are listed as mean value ± standard deviation

¹Values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant and are highlighted in bold letters

All patients in both groups received additional PCL reconstruction during the same surgical procedure.

At 6-month follow-up, patients of group A showed similar flexion angles as group B, a slightly reduced remaining posterior drawer, a larger external rotation deficit at 30° of knee flexion and a smaller external rotation deficit at 90° of knee flexion compared to group B, all measured as side-to-side differences.

At 12 month follow-up, group A patients showed significantly better maximum flexion angles (134.17° ± 3.76° vs. 126.60° ± 4.22°; p = 0.021) compared to patients of group B. Posterior drawer (side-to-side difference) remained more reduced in group A compared to the preoperative state (2.50 ± 0.69 mm vs. 3.27 ± 0.92; p = 0.184). Group B showed less restraints in external rotation at 30° of flexion and slightly more restraints at 90° of flexion (Fig. 2). The patient of group B who showed arthrofibrosis had a preoperative range-of-motion of 130° (extension/flexion: 0–0–130°) and postoperative range-of-motion of 105° (extension/flexion: 0–5–110°) and was the only patient to present with an extension deficit.

All patients of both groups presented stable under varus stress at 6- and 12-month follow-up.

Aside from maximum flexion angles at 12 months, none of the above listed differences between the two groups showed statistical significance (Table 2).

Table 2

Clinical examination results at follow-up

	Group A	Group B	p-Value¹
Flexion angle preoperative (°)	133.30 ± 8.66	133.75 ± 5.18	0.870
Flexion angle 6 months (°)	124.38 ± 11.48	123.29 ± 7.23	0.464
Flexion angle 12 months (°)	134.17 ± 3.76	126.60 ± 4.22	0.021
Posterior drawer preoperative^a (mm)	14.82 ± 2.09	14.75 ± 1.58	0.959
Posterior drawer at 6 months^a (mm)	2.52 ± 0.88	3.24 ± 0.93	0.248
Posterior drawer at 12 months^a (mm)	2.50 ± 0.69	3.27 ± 0.92	0.184
External rotation at 30° of flexion at 6 months^a (°)	− 4.86 ± 3.67	− 3.67 ± 3.14	0.798
External rotation at 30° of flexion at 12 months^a (°)	− 5.67 ± 2.34	− 3.60 ± 4.28	0.509
External rotation at 90° of flexion at 6 months^a (°)	− 3.92 ± 5.83	− 5.00 ± 2.97	0.815
External rotation at 90° of flexion at 12 months^a (°)	− 2.40 ± 4.51	− 5.20 ± 3.77	0.260

None of the evaluated parameters showed statistical significance (p < 0.05)

^aMeasured as side-to-side difference

¹Values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant and are highlighted in bold letters

Subjective scores showed a higher IKDC Subjective Score and Lysholm Score, as well as lower average pain in the injured knee at 6-month follow-up in Group A. None of these differences proved to be statistically significant (Fig. 3).

All other subjective parameters only showed minor differences between groups (Table 3). Only one patient in each group reported intermittent subjective instability, all other patients described their knee as subjectively stable.

Table 3

Patient Outcome scores at follow-up

	Group A	Group B	p-Value¹
IKDC score at 6 months	74.49 ± 3.18	67.56 ± 20.63	> 0.999
IKDC score at 12 months	74.92 ± 10.78	79.56 ± 14.13	0.567
Lysholm score at 6 months	82.20 ± 6.18	75.81 ± 12.15	0.381
Lysholm score at 12 months	83.33 ± 7.79	86.4 ± 9.21	0.621
Tegner Activity Scale at 6 months	4.0 ± 0.7	3.6 ± 1.7	> 0.999
Tegner Activity Scale at 12 months	4.5 ± 1.3	4.4 ± 1.5	0.961
Pain level (NRS) at 6 months	1.6 ± 0.6	2.6 ± 2.6	0.643
Pain level (NRS) at 12 months	1.5 ± 1.2	1.2 ± 1.6	0.706

None of the evaluated parameters showed statistical significance (p < 0.05)

¹Values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant

Discussion

The most important findings of the present study were that all patients in both groups showed sufficient restoration of posterior, rotational and lateral joint stability in clinical examinations at both follow-up time points, as it was hypothesized in the aim of this study. Only two patients reported intermittent subjective instability which was not confirmed in objective clinical examinations and may be contributed to remaining muscular deficits. As restoration of objective and subjective joint stability was the primary indication for surgical treatment, arthroscopic reconstruction of the posterolateral corner in both techniques can be interpreted as successful.

In chronic injuries with high grade posterolateral rotational instabilities (Fanelli Type B or C, PoLIS LI-B or LI-C [7]), reconstruction has shown superior results compared to repair of injured structures [20‐23]. While there are a variety of different surgical approaches to non-anatomic and anatomic reconstructions (fibular-/tibia-based, single-/multi-graft), anatomic reconstructions developed by Arciero et al. [24] and LaPrade et al. [25] have shown the most promising biomechanical and clinical results [26‐28]. They are well established as open surgical procedures [29] and have shown equal restoration of joint stability in biomechanical studies [30].

As this study aimed to detect potential differences between the two surgical procedures, the only statistically significant outcome measure was the group A patients’ increased maximum flexion angle at 12 months postoperative as a relevant factor in judgement of functional outcomes. Aside from range of motion, only minor differences without statistical significance in objective and subjective outcome measures were found. Yet, further non-significant tendencies seemed to also show slightly better functional results in group A, displayed in postoperative posterior drawer and higher subjective outcome scores (IKDC, Lysholm, Tegner Activity Scale, NRS) after 6 months. These findings are in line with biomechanical studies of Treme et al., and Vezeridis et al. [30, 31], who showed similar results in restoration of joint stability against varus and external rotation forces with both surgical procedures. Drenck et al. [10] showed that reconstruction of the posterolateral corner via popliteus bypass graft, as it is performed in LaPrade’s procedure (group B), provides sufficient stability against external rotational forces. Clinical results of arthroscopic reconstruction in low-grade (Fanelli Type A) PLC injuries showed similar outcomes to open procedures [9].

This is also confirmed by our study as patients (in both groups) showed sufficient restoration of rotational stability with even a slight overconstraint in external rotation compared to the contralateral knee, yet there were no significant differences between the two groups.

Additionally to their clinical outcomes, both procedures need to be evaluated with regard to their invasiveness and risk of complications.

The surgical procedure took significantly longer in group B compared to group A patients and therefore is accompanied by an increased risk for general surgical complications (e.g., postoperative infection, pain, deep vein thrombosis) [32, 33]. It has to be considered that all patients received additional PCL reconstruction during the same surgery. As the PCL reconstruction technique was identical in every surgery, longer duration of surgery has to be attributed to the inherent differences of the two procedures.

Arciero’s technique [11] (group A) is a fibular-based, single-graft technique, while LaPrade’s technique [12] (group B) is a tibio-fibular-based, double-graft technique. The tibial fixation aspect in LaPrade’s technique aims to provide a more anatomic reconstruction but has also to be seen as a more invasive procedure. Additional preparation and establishment of the tibial drill tunnel presents additional trauma (and risk of collision with a tibial drill tunnel of the PCL graft), while the larger number of grafts increases scar tissue formation and therefore risk of reduced flexibility and arthrofibrosis [34, 35]. This aspect is confirmed by the reduced maximum flexion angles of group B patients after 12 months (126.60° ± 4.22° vs. 134.17° ± 3.76°; p = 0.021). One patient of group B in our study presented with arthrofibrosis that required revision arthrolysis surgery. The number of needed grafts is also highly relevant if patient autografts are used, as risk of donor site morbidity is increased with additional tendon harvests [36, 37]. While some experts in the field of PLC reconstruction, especially in North America, favorably use allografts, autografts are still the most widely used type of tendon graft [29].

With the above-mentioned differences between the two procedures, the procedure described by Frings et al. (Arciero’s procedure) appears to be less invasive while providing similar clinical results. The procedure described by Kolb et al. (LaPrade’s procedure) has the benefit of providing additional stability in cases of tibiofibular joint injuries.

Arthroscopic reconstruction of the posterolateral corner requires profound knowledge of anatomic relations, but has the advantage of allowing visualization of all key structures including the posteromedial aspect of the fibular head to place a fibular drill tunnel under visual instead of palpatory control [38, 39]. Aside from general benefits of arthroscopic compared to open surgery such as lower infection rates, less scar tissue, faster rehabilitation and less pain, this allows for improved fibular tunnel placement. While some experts have raised concerns that arthroscopic PLC reconstructions bear a higher risk of tunnel misplacement and neurovascular injuries [40, 41], our clinical results showed no neurovascular or tunnel-related complications. Studies have shown that development of a transseptal portal and posterolateral arthroscopy can be performed safely at intraoperative knee flexion of 90° [38, 42‐44]. The absence of postoperative common peroneal nerve damage symptoms in our study suggests that arthroscopic fibular drill tunnel placement does not cause neurovascular damage as commonly as recent studies have described [45]. While lack of intraoperative complications could be attributed to the small size of our study group, the common peroneal nerve injury rate of up to 57% in open fibular drill tunnel placement, as presented by Hohmann et al., in a cadaveric study, appears to be unlikely from our perspective and is not reflected in our clinical experience. Certainly, success of arthroscopic PLC reconstruction is strongly dependent on the surgeon’s experience in the field of arthroscopic reconstructive knee surgery.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First of all, the size of our study group is limited, due to the rare nature of these injuries especially in the pandemic situation of the last 18 months. Differences between the groups have a higher risk of being coincidental, as statistical evaluation showed no significant differences in most outcome measures.

Furthermore, while inclusion and exclusion criteria were very precise, time between injury and surgery showed variability, but was always > 3 weeks and therefore considered as a chronic injury.

Follow-up clinical examinations were performed via Rolimeter® instead of stress radiographs. While evaluation of posterior drawer and lateral instability in the injured state is commonly performed with stress radiographs, follow-up examinations have shown equally reliable results with these devices [16].

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

None.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the local ethics committee of the regional medical association (PV7212).

Informed consent was obtained from all patients involved in this study.

Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Kombi-Abonnement

Für Ihren Erfolg in Klinik und Praxis - Die beste Hilfe in Ihrem Arbeitsalltag

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf SpringerMedizin.de.

Jetzt testen ¹

e.Med Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie

Kombi-Abonnement

Mit e.Med Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie erhalten Sie Zugang zu CME-Fortbildungen der Fachgebiete, den Premium-Inhalten der dazugehörigen Fachzeitschriften, inklusive einer gedruckten Zeitschrift Ihrer Wahl.

Jetzt testen ²

Frosch KH, Akoto R, Heitmann M, Enderle E, Giannakos A, Preiss A (2015) Arthroscopic reconstruction of the popliteus complex: accuracy and reproducibility of a new surgical technique. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(10):3114–3120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3000-yCrossRefPubMed

LaPrade RF, Johansen S, Agel J, Risberg MA, Moksnes H, Engebretsen L (2010) Outcomes of an anatomic posterolateral knee reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92(1):16–22. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.I.00474CrossRefPubMed

Domnick C, Frosch KH, Raschke MJ, Vogel N, Schulze M, von Glahn M et al (2017) Kinematics of different components of the posterolateral corner of the knee in the lateral collateral ligament-intact state: a human cadaveric study. Arthroscopy 33(10):1821–1830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2017.03.035CrossRefPubMed

Thaunat M, Pioger C, Chatellard R, Conteduca J, Khaleel A, Sonnery-Cottet B (2014) The arcuate ligament revisited: role of the posterolateral structures in providing static stability in the knee joint. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22(9):2121–2127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2643-4CrossRefPubMed

Pache S, Aman ZS, Kennedy M, Nakama GY, Moatshe G, Ziegler C et al (2018) Posterior cruciate ligament: current concepts review. Arch Bone Joint Surg 6(1):8–18PubMedPubMedCentral

Weiss S, Krause M, Frosch KH (2020) Posterolateral corner of the knee: a systematic literature review of current concepts of arthroscopic reconstruction. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 140(12):2003–2012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03607-zCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Weiler A, Frosch KH, Gwinner C, Strobel MJ, Lobenhoffer P (2021) The Posterolateral Instability Score (PoLIS) of the knee joint: a guideline for standardized documentation, classification, and surgical decision-making. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29(3):889–899. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06044-yCrossRefPubMed

Frosch KH, Akoto R, Drenck T, Heitmann M, Pahl C, Preiss A (2016) Arthroscopic popliteus bypass graft for posterolateral instabilities of the knee: a new surgical technique. Oper Orthop Traumatol 28(3):193–203. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00064-015-0432-6CrossRefPubMed

Li Y, Zhang H, Zhang J, Li X, Zheng T, Zhang Z et al (2019) The Clinical outcome of arthroscopic versus open popliteal tendon reconstruction combined with posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients with type a posterolateral rotational instability. Arthroscopy 35(8):2402–2409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2019.03.019CrossRefPubMed

10.

Drenck TC, Frings J, Preiss A, Muellner M, Akoto R, Alm L et al (2021) The treatment of posterolateral knee instability with combined arthroscopic popliteus bypass and PCL reconstruction provides good-to-excellent clinical results in the mid-term follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06590-zCrossRefPubMed

11.

Frings J, Kolb JP, Drenck TC, Krause M, Alm L, Akoto R et al (2019) Anatomic Reconstruction of the Posterolateral Corner: An All-Arthroscopic Technique. Arthrosc Tech 8(2):e153–e161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eats.2018.10.010CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Kolb JPF, Krause JM, Frosch KH (2019) LaPrade’s procedure as an all-arthroscopic technique for posterolateral corner reconstruction. Arthrosc Tech 8:999CrossRef

13.

Liu P, Gong X, Zhang J, Ao Y (2020) Anatomic, all-arthroscopic reconstruction of posterolateral corner of the knee: a cadaveric biomechanical study. Arthroscopy 36(4):1121–1131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2019.10.035CrossRefPubMed

14.

Zorzi C, Alam M, Iacono V, Madonna V, Rosa D, Maffulli N (2013) Combined PCL and PLC reconstruction in chronic posterolateral instability. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21(5):1036–1042. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-011-1771-yCrossRefPubMed

15.

Correll S, Field J, Hutchinson H, Mickevicius G, Fitzsimmons A, Smoot B (2018) Reliability and validity of the halo digital goniometer for shoulder range of motion in healthy subjects. Int J Sports Phys Ther 13(4):707–714CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Hoher J, Akoto R, Helm P, Shafizadeh S, Bouillon B, Balke M (2015) Rolimeter measurements are suitable as substitutes to stress radiographs in the evaluation of posterior knee laxity. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23(4):1107–1112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-2901-0CrossRefPubMed

17.

Kummel D, Preiss S, Harder LP, Leunig M, Impellizzeri FM (2018) Measurement properties of the German version of the IKDC subjective knee form (IKDC-SKF). J Patient Rep Outcomes 2:31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-018-0058-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Wirth B, Liffert F, de Bruin ED (2011) Development and evaluation of a German version of the Lysholm score for measuring outcome after anterior cruciate ligament injuries. Sportverletz Sportschaden 25(1):37–43. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0029-1245825CrossRefPubMed

19.

Wirth B, Meier N, Koch PP, Swanenburg J (2013) Development and evaluation of a German version of the Tegner activity scale for measuring outcome after anterior cruciate ligament injury. Sportverletz Sportschaden 27(1):21–27. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1330752CrossRefPubMed

20.

Stannard JP, Stannard JT, Cook JL (2015) Repair or reconstruction in acute posterolateral instability of the knee: decision making and surgical technique introduction. J Knee Surg 28(6):450–454. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1563403CrossRefPubMed

21.

Kennedy MI, Bernhardson A, Moatshe G, Buckley PS, Engebretsen L, LaPrade RF (2019) Fibular collateral ligament/ posterolateral corner injury: when to repair, reconstruct, or both. Clin Sports Med 38(2):261–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csm.2018.11.002CrossRefPubMed

22.

McCarthy M, Ridley TJ, Bollier M, Cook S, Wolf B, Amendola A (2015) Posterolateral knee reconstruction versus repair. Iowa Orthop J 35:20–25PubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Gormeli G, Gormeli CA, Elmali N, Karakaplan M, Ertem K, Ersoy Y (2015) Outcome of the treatment of chronic isolated and combined posterolateral corner knee injuries with 2- to 6-year follow-up. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 135(10):1363–1368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-015-2291-xCrossRefPubMed

24.

Arciero RA (2005) Anatomic posterolateral corner knee reconstruction. Arthroscopy 21(9):1147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2005.06.008CrossRefPubMed

25.

LaPrade RF, Johansen S, Wentorf FA, Engebretsen L, Esterberg JL, Tso A (2004) An analysis of an anatomical posterolateral knee reconstruction: an in vitro biomechanical study and development of a surgical technique. Am J Sports Med 32(6):1405–1414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546503262687CrossRefPubMed

26.

Moulton SG, Geeslin AG, LaPrade RF (2016) A systematic review of the outcomes of posterolateral corner knee injuries, part 2: surgical treatment of chronic injuries. Am J Sports Med 44(6):1616–1623. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546515593950CrossRefPubMed

27.

LaPrade RF, Johansen S, Engebretsen L (2011) Outcomes of an anatomic posterolateral knee reconstruction: surgical technique. J Bone Joint Surg Am 93(Suppl 1):10–20. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.J.01243CrossRefPubMed

28.

Rios CG, Leger RR, Cote MP, Yang C, Arciero RA (2010) Posterolateral corner reconstruction of the knee: evaluation of a technique with clinical outcomes and stress radiography. Am J Sports Med 38(8):1564–1574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546510363462CrossRefPubMed

29.

Gelber PE, Drager J, Maheshwer B, Leyes M, Barenius B, Robinson J et al (2020) Large variability exists in the management of posterolateral corner injuries in the global surgical community. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 28(7):2116–2123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-05922-9CrossRefPubMed

30.

Treme GP, Salas C, Ortiz G, Gill GK, Johnson PJ, Menzer H et al (2019) A biomechanical comparison of the arciero and laprade reconstruction for posterolateral corner knee injuries. Orthop J Sports Med 7(4):2325967119838251. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967119838251CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Vezeridis PS, Engler ID, Salzler MJ, Hosseini A, Gwathmey FW Jr, Li G et al (2020) Biomechanics following isolated posterolateral corner reconstruction comparing a fibular-based docking technique with a tibia and fibular-based anatomic technique show either technique is acceptable. Arthroscopy 36(5):1376–1385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2019.12.007CrossRefPubMed

32.

Salzler MJ, Lin A, Miller CD, Herold S, Irrgang JJ, Harner CD (2014) Complications after arthroscopic knee surgery. Am J Sports Med 42(2):292–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546513510677CrossRefPubMed

33.

Friberger Pajalic K, Turkiewicz A, Englund M (2018) Update on the risks of complications after knee arthroscopy. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 19(1):179. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-018-2102-yCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Patel NK, Lian J, Nickoli M, Vaswani R, Irrgang JJ, Lesniak BP et al (2021) Risk factors associated with complications after operative treatment of multiligament knee injury. Orthop J Sports Med 9(3):2325967121994203. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967121994203CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Lee JH, Cook JL, Wilson N, Rucinski K, Stannard JP (2020) Outcomes after multiligament knee injury reconstruction using novel graft constructs and techniques. J Knee Surg. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1716356CrossRefPubMed

36.

Strauss MJ, Varatojo R, Boutefnouchet T, Condello V, Samuelsson K, Gelber PE et al (2019) The use of allograft tissue in posterior cruciate, collateral and multi-ligament knee reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27(6):1791–1809. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05426-1CrossRefPubMed

37.

Sun J, Wei XC, Li L, Cao XM, Li K, Guo L et al (2020) Autografts vs synthetics for cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthop Surg 12(2):378–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/os.12662CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Frings J, Weiss S, Kolb J, Behrendt P, Frosch KH, Krause M (2021) Arthroscopic anatomy of the posterolateral corner of the knee: anatomic relations and arthroscopic approaches. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-03864-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Krause M, Akoto R, Drenck TC, Frosch KH, Preiss A (2019) Posterolateral rotatory knee instability-mri evaluation of anatomic landmarks for tibial drill tunnel placement in open and arthroscopic popliteus tendon reconstruction. J Knee Surg 32(7):667–672. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1666832CrossRefPubMed

40.

Chahla J, Murray IR, Robinson J, Lagae K, Margheritini F, Fritsch B et al (2019) Posterolateral corner of the knee: an expert consensus statement on diagnosis, classification, treatment, and rehabilitation. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27(8):2520–2529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-018-5260-4CrossRefPubMed

41.

Chahla J, Williams BT, LaPrade RF (2020) Editorial commentary: shedding light on the posterolateral corner of the knee: can we do it with the scope? is there a real benefit? Arthroscopy 36(4):1132–1134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2020.01.030CrossRefPubMed

42.

Ahn JH, Lee SH, Jung HJ, Koo KH, Kim SH (2011) The relationship of neural structures to arthroscopic posterior portals according to knee positioning. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(4):646–652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-010-1326-7CrossRefPubMed

43.

Makridis KG, Wajsfisz A, Agrawal N, Basdekis G, Djian P (2013) Neurovascular anatomic relationships to arthroscopic posterior and transseptal portals in different knee positions. Am J Sports Med 41(7):1559–1564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546513492704CrossRefPubMed

44.

Kim SJ, Song HT, Moon HK, Chun YM, Chang WH (2011) The safe establishment of a transseptal portal in the posterior knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(8):1320–1325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-011-1429-9CrossRefPubMed

45.

Hohmann E, Van Zyl R, Glatt V, Tetsworth K, Keough N (2021) The anatomical relationship of the common peroneal nerve to the proximal fibula and its clinical significance when performing fibular-based posterolateral reconstructions. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 141(3):437–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-020-03708-9CrossRefPubMed

Titel: Clinical results after arthroscopic reconstruction of the posterolateral corner of the knee: A prospective randomized trial comparing two different surgical techniques
verfasst von: Sebastian Weiss
Matthias Krause
Karl-Heinz Frosch
Publikationsdatum: 27.03.2022
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery / Ausgabe 2/2023
Print ISSN: 0936-8051
Elektronische ISSN: 1434-3916
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-022-04403-7

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Clinical results after arthroscopic reconstruction of the posterolateral corner of the knee: A prospective randomized trial comparing two different surgical techniques

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publisher's Note

Introduction

Material and methods

Preoperative assessment

Surgical procedure

Rehabilitation

Follow-up

Statistical analysis

Results

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Declarations

Conflict of interest

Ethical approval

Publisher's Note

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

e.Med Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Mehr Frauen im OP – weniger postoperative Komplikationen

TEP mit Roboterhilfe führt nicht zu größerer Zufriedenheit

Lever-Sign-Test hilft beim Verdacht auf Kreuzbandriss

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publisher's Note

Introduction

Material and methods

Preoperative assessment

Surgical procedure

Rehabilitation

Follow-up

Statistical analysis

Results

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Declarations

Conflict of interest

Ethical approval

Informed consent

Publisher's Note

Unsere Produktempfehlungen

e.Med Interdisziplinär

e.Med Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2023

Ultrasonographic evaluation of contact configuration between flexor pollicis longus tendon and the volar prominence of volar plate in patients with distal radius fracture

Descriptive analysis and short-term follow-up clinical results of osteochondral lesions of the distal tibia based on data of the German Cartilage Register (Knorpelregister® DGOU)

Two-stage shoulder arthroplasty after deep infection of the shoulder caused by arthroplasty, osteosynthesis or other surgical procedures: microbial spectrum, complications and functional outcome after at least 1 year follow-up

Bone tunnel placement influences shear stresses at the coracoid process after coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction: a finite element study and radiological analysis

Repeat revision TKR for failed management of peri-prosthetic infection has long-term success but often require multiple operations: a case control study

Salvage of limb salvage in oncological reconstructions of the lower limb with megaprosthesis: how much to push the boundaries?

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Mehr Frauen im OP – weniger postoperative Komplikationen

TEP mit Roboterhilfe führt nicht zu größerer Zufriedenheit

Lever-Sign-Test hilft beim Verdacht auf Kreuzbandriss

Ein Drittel der jungen Ärztinnen und Ärzte erwägt abzuwandern

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie