Biceps femoris tenodesis revisited A prospective cohort study of concurrent anterior cruciate and postero-lateral corner reconstruction

Autograft Versus Allograft in Posterolateral Corner Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Several approaches to surgical techniques and graft types exist in posterolateral corner (PLC) reconstruction. The literature lacks knowledge regarding outcomes after autograft versus allograft reconstruction for PLC injuries.

Purpose

To comprehensively review the current literature on PLC reconstruction and compare outcomes between autograft and allograft tissues.

Study Design

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

The PubMed and Scopus online databases were searched with the terms "PLC,""posterolateral knee,""posterolateral corner," and "reconstruction" in varying combinations. Patient characteristics, graft type, graft failure, surgical techniques, functional outcome scores, and varus laxity on stress radiographs were reviewed and compared between PLC reconstruction with autografts versus allografts.

Results

Included were 22 studies comprising 33 cohorts: 16 autografts (n = 280 knees) and 17 allografts (336 knees). There were 69 isolated PLC reconstructions (58 allografts and 11 autografts) and 493 multiligament reconstructions (269 autografts and 224 allografts). There was no difference in the mean patient age (30.5 vs 33.5 years, respectively; P = .11) or mean follow-up (39.5 vs 37.7 months, respectively; P = .68) between the autograft and allograft groups. There was no evidence to suggest a difference in graft failures between graft types (pooled mean autograft vs allograft: 0.44 vs 0.41 failures; P = .95). There was a significant difference in the mean postoperative Lysholm scores for autografts versus allografts (89.6 vs 85.5, respectively; P = .04). There was no difference between the cohorts in preoperative or postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores or postoperative varus laxity.

Conclusion

Our review and meta-analysis indicated no significant differences in graft failure rates or objective outcomes after PLC reconstruction based on graft type alone. There was a significant difference in postoperative Lysholm scores in favor of the autograft group and no significant difference in IKDC subjective scores.

Controversies in acute multiligamentary knee injuries (MLKI)

Multiligament injuries of the knee (MLKI), remain an infrequent pathology especially in developed countries compared to mono-ligament lesions. In Colombia, MLKI is frequent due to the high accident rate on motorcycles. In the city of Bogota alone, about 160 motorcycle accidents have been estimated daily, being one of the cities that proportionately use this means of transport less compared to small cities. The term MLKI, include all ruptures of two or more major ligaments and therefore it has a broad spectrum of clinical presentation which creates a great challenge for the orthopedists and the surgeons envolved in this topic. The literature is rich in studies level IV but very poor in level I and level II, which generates controversies and little consensus in the diagnosis and treatment of this pathology. However there has been a gradual and better understanding of all factors involved in the treatment of MLKI that has improved the functional results of these knees in our patients, in fact we currently are more precise to achieve accurate diagnosis, evolved from not surgical approach to operate most, applying new anatomical and biomechanical concepts, with specialized and skill surgical techniques with more stable and biocompatible fixation implants, which allow in most cases to initiate an early integral rehabilitation program. Nevertheless due to the complexity and severity of the lesions, in some patients the functional results are poor. The goal of this revision is to identify the most frequent controversies in the diagnosis and treatment of MLKI, defining which of them are agreed according to what is reported in the literature and share some concepts based from the experience of more than 25 years of the senior author (MM) in the management of these injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V - Expert Opinion.