Multiligament Knee Instability

2021 ◽  
pp. 803-813
Author(s):  
Charalambos Panayiotou Charalambous
Keyword(s):  
1994 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 599-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Veltri ◽  
Russell F. Warren

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 232596712110050
Author(s):  
Hanna Tigerstrand Grevnerts ◽  
Sofi Sonesson ◽  
Håkan Gauffin ◽  
Clare L. Ardern ◽  
Anders Stålman ◽  
...  

Background: In the treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, there is little evidence of when and why a decision for ACL reconstruction (ACLR) or nonoperative treatment (non-ACLR) is made. Purpose: To (1) describe the key characteristics of ACL injury treatment decisions and (2) compare patient-reported knee instability, function, and preinjury activity level between patients with non-ACLR and ACLR treatment decisions. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A total of 216 patients with acute ACL injury were evaluated during the first year after injury. The treatment decision was non-ACLR in 73 patients and ACLR in 143. Reasons guiding treatment decision were obtained from medical charts and questionnaires to patients and orthopaedic surgeons. Patient-reported instability and function were obtained via questionnaires and compared between patients with non-ACLR and ACLR treatment decisions. The ACLR treatment group was classified retrospectively by decision phase: acute phase (decision made between injury day and 31 days after injury), subacute phase (decision made between 32 days and up to 5 months after injury), and late phase (decision made 5-12 months after injury). Data were evaluated using descriptive statistics, and group comparisons were made using parametric or nonparametric tests as appropriate. Results: The main reasons for a non-ACLR treatment decision were no knee instability and no problems with knee function. The main reasons for an ACLR treatment decision were high activity demands and knee instability. Patients in the non-ACLR group were significantly older ( P = .031) and had a lower preinjury activity level than did those in the acute-phase ( P < .01) and subacute-phase ( P = .006) ACLR decision groups. There were no differences in patient-reported instability and function between treatment decision groups at baseline, 4 weeks after injury, or 3 months after injury. Conclusion: Activity demands, not patient-reported knee instability, may be the most important factor in the decision-making process for treatment after ACL injury. We suggest a decision-making algorithm for patients with ACL injuries and no high activity demands; waiting for >3 months can help distinguish those who need surgical intervention from those who can undergo nonoperative management. Registration: NCT02931084 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 232596712198931
Author(s):  
Lena Alm ◽  
Tobias Claus Drenck ◽  
Jannik Frings ◽  
Matthias Krause ◽  
Alexander Korthaus ◽  
...  

Background: Concomitant lesion of the medial collateral ligament (MCL) is associated with a greater risk of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft failure. Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare two medial stabilization techniques in patients with revision ACL reconstruction (ACLR) and concomitant chronic medial knee instability. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: In a retrospective study, we included 53 patients with revision ACLR and chronic grade 2 medial knee instability to compare medial surgical techniques (MCL reconstruction [n = 17] vs repair [n = 36]). Postoperative failure of the revision ACLR (primary aim) was defined as side-to-side difference in Rolimeter testing ≥5 mm or pivot-shift grade ≥2. Clinical parameters and postoperative functional scores (secondary aim) were evaluated with a mean ± SD follow-up of 28.8 ± 9 months (range, 24-69 months). Results: Revision ACLR was performed in 53 patients with additional grade 2 medial instability (men, n = 33; women, n = 20; mean age, 31.3 ± 12 years). Failure occurred in 5.9% (n = 1) in the MCL reconstruction group, whereas 36.1% (n = 13) of patients with MCL repair showed a failed revision ACLR ( P = .02). In the postoperative assessment, the anterior side-to-side difference in Rolimeter testing was significantly reduced (1.5 ± 1.9 mm vs 2.9 ± 2.3 mm; P = .037), and medial knee instability occurred significantly less (18% vs 50%; P = .025) in the MCL reconstruction group than in the MCL repair group. In the logistic regression, patients showed a 9-times elevated risk of failure when an MCL repair was performed ( P = .043). Patient-reported outcomes were increased in the MCL reconstruction group as compared with MCL repair, but only the Lysholm score showed a significant difference (Tegner, 5.6 ± 1.9 vs 5.3 ± 1.6; International Knee Documentation Committee, 80.3 ± 16.6 vs 73.6 ± 16.4; Lysholm, 82.9 ± 13.6 vs 75.1 ± 21.1 [ P = .047]). Conclusion: MCL reconstruction led to lower failure rates in patients with combined revision ACLR and chronic medial instability as compared with MCL repair. MCL reconstruction was superior to MCL repair, as lower postoperative anterior instability, an increased Lysholm score, and less medial instability were present after revision ACLR. MCL repair was associated with a 9-times greater risk of failure.


1983 ◽  
Vol 76 (11) ◽  
pp. 924-927
Author(s):  
Richard Rawlins

Twenty-three patients who have had a Macintosh type of fasciodesis for anterolateral rotary instability of the knee have been studied. Overall 73% were improved by this procedure; of those whose only instability was when turning on the run, 90% improved. These results have been compared with a series of 51 patients who had a pes anserinus transfer for anteromedial instability (D'Arcy 1978). It is suggested that both static and dynamic reconstructions have a place in the management of knee instability resulting from anterior cruciate injury.


2016 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 463-471 ◽  
Author(s):  
Genevieve Fleeton ◽  
Alison R. Harmer ◽  
Lillias Nairn ◽  
Jack Crosbie ◽  
Lyn March ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 35 (12) ◽  
pp. 3007-3013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin van der Esch ◽  
Marike van der Leeden ◽  
Leo D. Roorda ◽  
Willem F. Lems ◽  
Joost Dekker

The Knee ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 504-507 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Figueroa ◽  
Rafael Calvo ◽  
Ignacio E. Villalón ◽  
Andrés Schmidt-Hebbel ◽  
Francisco Figueroa ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (7) ◽  
pp. e767-e772
Author(s):  
Pierre Imbert ◽  
Philippe D'Ingrado ◽  
Maxime Cavalier ◽  
Charles Bessière ◽  
Christian Lutz

1987 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-32
Author(s):  
A. J. Walker ◽  
A. H. Osborne

AbstractTwenty seven patients are assessed who underwent the Ellison Procedure for antero-lateral instability of the knee. Twenty three of these returned to a normal sea-going category at a mean time of 4 months 3 weeks. The Ellison Procedure produced very satisfactory results in those with Grade I or II knee instability.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document