Anatomic medial knee reconstruction restores stability and function at minimum 2 years follow-up

Anatomic Flat Double-Bundle Medial Collateral Ligament Reconstruction

Several surgical techniques have been described to restore the anatomy of the medial collateral ligament, involving suture repair and reconstruction, with the latter having been associated with superior postoperative outcomes. Recently, a growing interest in anatomic isometric medial collateral ligament reconstruction (MCLR) has been developed, involving careful evaluation and finding the most appropriate location for the femoral placement of the allograft. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to describe anatomic MCLR aiming to restore medial knee stability by focusing on isometric positions within the native anatomy of the MCL.

Comparative study of superficial medial collateral ligament reconstruction combined with posterior oblique ligament reconstruction or posteromedial capsule advance in grade III injuries of the medial compartment in a complex knee injury scenario

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the combined reconstruction of the superficial medial collateral ligament (sMCL) and the posterior oblique ligament (POL) with the reconstruction of the sMCL associated with the advancement of the posteromedial capsule in a complex knee injury scenario. We hypothesized that both techniques would present similar knee stability and failure rates.

METHODS

This is a retrospective case-control study designed to compare the results of the two reported techniques for grade III MCL instability. Patients undergoing MCL reconstruction associated with anterior cruciate ligament, posterior cruciate ligament, or both, from 2010 to 2019, were included. The following parameters were evaluated: demographic data, type of graft, time from injury to surgery, associated meniscus injuries, follow up time, mechanism of trauma, postoperative objective IKDC, subjective IKDC and Lysholm scales, range of motion, reconstruction failure and complications.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight patients were evaluated, 37 of whom underwent reconstruction of the sMCL and POL, and 41 of whom underwent reconstruction of the sMCL with advancement of posteromedial structures. There was no difference in any preoperative variable. Patients undergoing reconstruction of the sMCL + advancement had greater loss of flexion (Group 1 3.4 ± 4.6 vs Group 2 8.4 ± 7.9; P = 0.002) and more individuals with flexion loss greater than 10° (Group 1, seven patients (18.9%) vs Group 2, 17 patients (41.5%); P = 0.031). Postoperative knee stability, failures and complications were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

Both techniques presented good functional results and low rates of complications. However, the advancement technique showed greater flexion loss, which should be considered when choosing the best surgical option.

Dynamic Ultrasound Can Accurately Quantify Severity of Medial Knee Injury: A Cadaveric Study

Purpose

To quantify the severity of medial knee injuries based on medial compartment gapping as measured by stress ultrasonography.

Methods

In 8 cadaveric knees, the distance between the medial tibial and femoral condyles was measured using ultrasonography. These measurements were obtained in the intact state and repeated after open sequential transection of the superficial medial collateral ligament (sMCL), deep medial collateral ligament (dMCL), posterior oblique ligament (POL), and arthroscopic transection of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). Knees were evaluated at 0° and 20° of knee flexion using the Telos device under 0 N and 100 N of valgus force. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and the DeLong test were used to determine whether measurements could distinguish between successive severity of MCL injury after identifying the optimal cutoff value for each injury state.

Results

Of the 8 cadaveric knees included in this study, 3 were male and 5 were female. The mean age was 58 ± 11 years (range 48-82 years). When measured using ultrasonography at 20° knee flexion with valgus load, the medial tibiofemoral distance significantly increased with increasing severity of medial knee injury (P values ranging from .049 to <.001). The optimal cutoff values for distinguishing between an intact knee and sMCL injury were 8.3 mm (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.98), between sMCL and dMCL injury 9.9 mm (AUC = 0.89), dMCL and POL 16.7 mm (AUC = 0.88), and POL and ACL 18.6 mm (AUC = 0.84). When we compared combined intact and sMCL-transected stages with dMCL-transected stage, the optimal cut-off point to differentiate stable from unstable injuries was equal to 13.8 mm of medial tibiofemoral distance (AUC = 0.97; sensitivity = 100%; specificity = 94.1%).

Conclusions

Dynamic ultrasonographic assessment can accurately quantify the severity of medial knee ligament injury based on medial compartment gapping. In our study, we found medial tibiofemoral distance >13.8 mm at 20° knee flexion under valgus force indicates the presence of dMCL injury with a diagnostic accuracy of 0.97.

Clinical Relevance

Dynamic ultrasonography can quantify severity of medial knee injury without radiation and at point of care in multiple clinical settings.

Medial Collateral Ligament Reconstruction: A Gracilis Tenodesis for Anteromedial Knee Instability

The main principle of the present medial collateral ligament reconstruction technique is to address anteromedial knee instability. Therefore, we describe a gracilis tenodesis with 2 functional bundles to reconstruct the deep and superficial medial collateral ligament. The proposed technique may be performed as an isolated or combined procedure with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Valgus instability in extension is a contraindication.

The Control of Anteromedial Rotatory Instability Is Improved With Combined Flat sMCL and Anteromedial Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Both the superficial medial collateral ligament (sMCL) and the deep MCL (dMCL) contribute to the restraint of anteromedial (AM) rotatory instability (AMRI). Previous studies have not investigated how MCL reconstructions control AMRI.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose was to establish the optimal medial reconstruction for restoring normal knee kinematics in an sMCL- and dMCL-deficient knee. It was hypothesized that AMRI would be better controlled with the addition of an anatomically shaped (flat) sMCL reconstruction and with the addition of an AM reconstruction replicating the function of the dMCL.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

A 6 degrees of freedom robotic system equipped with a force-torque sensor was used to test 8 unpaired knees in the intact, sMCL/dMCL sectioned, and reconstructed states. Four different reconstructions were assessed. The sMCL was reconstructed with either a single-bundle (SB) or a flattened hamstring graft aimed at better replicating the appearance of the native ligament. These reconstructions were tested with and without an additional AM reconstruction. Simulated laxity tests were performed at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of flexion: 10 N·m valgus rotation, 5 N·m internal and external rotation (ER), and an AM drawer test (combined 134-N anterior tibial drawer in 5 N·m ER). The primary outcome measures of this force-controlled setup were anterior tibial translation (ATT; in mm) and axial tibial rotation (in degrees).

RESULTS

Sectioning the sMCL/dMCL increased valgus rotation, ER, and ATT with the simulated AM draw test at all flexion angles. SB sMCL reconstruction was unable to restore ATT, valgus rotation, and ER at 30°, 60°, and 90° of flexion to the intact state (P < .05). Flat MCL reconstruction restored valgus rotation at all flexion angles to the intact state (P > .05). ER was restored at all angles except at 90°, but ATT laxity in response to the AM drawer persisted. Addition of an AM reconstruction improved control of ATT relative to the intact state at all flexion angles (P > .05). Combined flat MCL and AM reconstruction restored knee kinematics closest to the intact state.

CONCLUSION

In a cadaveric model, AMRI resulting from an injured sMCL and dMCL complex could not be restored by an isolated SB sMCL reconstruction. A flat MCL reconstruction or an additional AM procedure, however, better restored medial knee stability.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In patients evaluated with a combined valgus and AM rotatory instability, a flat sMCL and an additional AM reconstruction may be superior to an isolated SB sMCL reconstruction.

A Triple-Strand Anatomic Medial Collateral Ligament Reconstruction Restores Knee Stability More Completely Than a Double-Strand Reconstruction: A Biomechanical Study In Vitro

BACKGROUND

There are many descriptions of medial collateral ligament (MCL) reconstruction, but they may not reproduce the anatomic structures and there is little evidence of their biomechanical performance.

PURPOSE

To investigate the ability of "anatomic" MCL reconstruction to restore native stability after grade III MCL plus posteromedial capsule/posterior oblique ligament injuries in vitro.

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled laboratory study.

METHODS

Twelve cadaveric knees were mounted in a kinematic testing rig to impose tibial displacing loads while the knee was flexed-extended: 88-N anteroposterior translation, 5-N·m internal-external rotation, 8-N·m valgus-varus, and combined anterior translation plus external rotation (anteromedial rotatory instability). Joint motion was measured via optical trackers with the knee intact; after superficial MCL (sMCL), deep MCL (dMCL), and posterior oblique ligament transection; and then after MCL double- and triple-strand reconstructions. Double strands reproduced the sMCL and posterior oblique ligament and triple-strands the sMCL, dMCL, and posterior oblique ligament. The sMCL was placed 5 mm posterior to the epicondyle in the double-strand technique and at the epicondyle in the triple-strand technique. Kinematic changes were examined by repeated measures 2-way analysis of variance with posttesting.

RESULTS

Transection of the sMCL, dMCL, and posterior oblique ligament increased valgus rotation (5° mean) and external rotation (9° mean). The double-strand reconstruction controlled valgus in extension but allowed 5° excess valgus in flexion and did not restore external rotation (7° excess). The triple-strand reconstruction restored both external rotation and valgus throughout flexion.

CONCLUSION

In a cadaveric model, a triple-strand reconstruction including a dMCL graft restored native external rotation, while a double-strand reconstruction without a dMCL graft did not. A reconstruction with the sMCL graft placed isometrically on the medial epicondyle restored valgus rotation across the arc of knee flexion, whereas a reconstruction with a more posteriorly placed sMCL graft slackened with knee flexion.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

An MCL injury may rupture the anteromedial capsule and dMCL, causing anteromedial rotatory instability. Persistent MCL instability increases the likelihood of ACL graft failure after combined injury. A reconstruction with an anteromedial dMCL graft restored native external rotation, which may help to unload/protect an ACL graft. It is important to locate the sMCL graft isometrically at the femoral epicondyle to restore valgus across flexion.

Current concepts on management of medial and posteromedial knee injuries

Traditionally, while managing ligament injuries around the knee, medial side injuries are frequently overlooked or considered 'benign' with very little influence on overall knee stability outcomes. However, much has changed in the recent past, and like the lateral side of the knee, it is gaining considerable attention. It is now well known that the Medial collateral ligament and Posteromedial corner are fundamentally two distinct structures that differ in anatomy and biomechanics. When it comes to decision making between conservative versus operative approach for medial side injuries, treating orthopaedic surgeons are subjected to walking on a thin line trying to balance between potential residual laxity and joint stiffness. This review will delve into some of the recent works focusing on the medial side injuries and discuss the evolving concepts.