Management of Acute Combined ACL-Medial and Posteromedial Instability of the Knee

Treatment of medial-sided injuries in patients with early bicruciate ligament reconstruction for knee dislocation

PURPOSE

In knee dislocation with bicruciate ligament and medial side injury (KDIIIM), treatment method of medial side injuries is controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of non-operative treatment of proximal and midsubstance and operative treatment of distal avulsion medial collateral ligament (MCL) ruptures in patients with early bicruciate reconstruction.

METHODS

One-hundred and forty-seven patients with a knee dislocation and bicruciate ligament injury (KDII-KDV) were identified. Sixty-two patients had KDIIIM injury. Of these, 24 patients were excluded and 13 were lost to follow-up. With a minimum of 2 years of follow-up, IKDC2000 (subjective and objective), Lysholm and Tegner scores and stress radiographs were recorded.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients were available for follow-up: 18 had a proximal or midsubstance grade-III MCL rupture (proximal MCL group) and 7 had a distal MCL avulsion (distal MCL group). In the proximal MCL and distal MCL groups, respectively, median IKDC2000 subjective scores were 80 (range 57-99) and 62 (range 39-87), and median Lysholm scores were 88 (range 57-99) and 75 (range 40-100). The median medial opening (side-to-side difference) was 2.4 mm (range 0.1-9.2) in the proximal MCL group and 2.5 mm (range 0.2-4.8) in the distal MCL group.

CONCLUSION

We found acceptable recorded outcomes in patients who underwent non-operative treatment of proximal and midsubstance grade-III MCL rupture and operative treatment of distal MCL avulsion with early bicruciate ligament reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Single-bundle MCL reconstruction with anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstruction does not restore knee kinematics

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare knee kinematics and kinetics following either single bundle, modified triangular or double-bundle reconstruction of the superficial medial collateral ligament (sMCL) with single bundle anatomic ACL reconstruction.

METHODS

Using a cadaveric model (n = 10), the knee kinematics and kinetics following three MCL reconstructions (single-bundle (SB), double-bundle (DB), modified triangular) with single bundle anatomic ACL reconstruction were compared with the intact and deficient knee state. The knees were tested under (1) an 89-N anterior tibial load, (2) 5 N-m internal and external rotational tibial torques, and (3) a 7 N-m valgus torque.

RESULTS

Anatomic ACL reconstruction with SB MCL reconstruction was able to restore anterior tibial translation and external rotation to intact knee values but failed to the internal and valgus rotatory stability. Anatomical DB MCL reconstruction (with SB ACL reconstruction) and the modified triangular MCL reconstruction (with SB ACL reconstruction) restored all knee kinematics to the intact value.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that clinical presentation with combined ACL and severe sMCL injury, single-bundle MCL with single-bundle ACL reconstruction does not restore knee kinematics. Anatomical double-bundle MCL reconstruction may produce slightly better biomechanical stability than the modified triangular MCL reconstruction, but the modified triangular reconstruction might be more clinically practical with the advantages of being less invasive and technically simpler while at the same time can restore a nearly normal knee joint.

A Case-Control Study Comparing Bone Bruising and Intra-articular Injuries in Patients Undergoing Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With and Without Medial Collateral Ligament Tears

Background:

Concomitant injuries can occur in patients with combined anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and medial collateral ligament (MCL) tears; however, no studies have compared these injuries in patients undergoing ACL reconstruction with an MCL tear to those with an intact MCL.

Purpose:

To compare bone bruising, meniscus tears, and chondral lesions in patients undergoing ACL reconstruction with an MCL tear (cases) to those with an intact MCL (controls).

Study Design:

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

Thirty-two cases and 352 controls were identified from a prospective registry. Bone bruising was confirmed on magnetic resonance imaging, and meniscus tears and chondral lesions were confirmed arthroscopically. Demographics and concomitant injuries were compared between cases and controls using exact chi-square tests. Multivariate logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, and mechanism and type of injury.

Results:

Cases had significantly more contact injuries than controls (58.1% vs 21.3%, P < .0001). The prevalence and odds of bone bruising of the lateral tibial plateau (89.7% vs 84.6%; P = .59; OR, 3.53; 95% CI, 0.45-27.71), lateral femoral condyle (82.8% vs 72.8%; P = .28; OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 0.64-5.88), medial tibial plateau (20.7% vs 31.7%; P = 0.29; OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.19-1.53), and medial femoral condyle (6.9% vs 8.3%; P ≥ .999; OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.21-5.40) did not differ significantly between cases and controls. The prevalence and odds of lateral meniscus tears (53.3% vs 43%; P = .34; OR, 1.85; 95% CI, 0.76-4.52), medial meniscus tears (31.3% vs 33.5%; P = .85; OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.37-2.21), and chondral lesions (16% vs 10.8%; P = .50; OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.15-3.21) also did not significantly differ between cases and controls.

Conclusion:

ACL-MCL injuries were most often due to a contact mechanism, whereas ACL tears without associated MCL injury were more frequently due to a noncontact mechanism. However, there were no significant differences in concomitant injuries in ACL-MCL knees versus ACL knees.