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.
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.
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.