Comparison of all-inside and conventional tunnel reconstructions for posterior cruciate ligament injuries
10.3760/cma.j.cn115530-20241202-00461
- VernacularTitle:全内与传统隧道重建技术治疗后交叉韧带损伤的疗效比较
- Author:
Qiaoqiao MA
1
;
Chengshang YAN
;
Shan ZHANG
;
Lei SHA
;
Tao JIANG
;
Yong LIU
;
Zihao WANG
;
Chuankai ZHANG
Author Information
1. 徐州仁慈医院关节外科，徐州 221000
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Posterior cruciate ligament;
Arthroscopy;
Trauma and injuries;
Tendons;
All-inside reconstruction
- From:
Chinese Journal of Orthopaedic Trauma
2025;27(5):431-437
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the clinical outcomes between all-inside and conventional transtibial tunnel reconstructions for posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injuries.Methods:A retrospective study was conducted to analyze the clinical data of the 108 patients who had been treated for PCL injuries at Department of Arthrosis Surgery, Xuzhou Renci Hospital, from March 2021 to March 2023. There were 48 females and 60 males, with an age of (30.3±10.8) years and an injury-to-surgery interval of (25.7±6.4) days. Of them, 49 left and 59 right knees were affected. By the difference in the tunnel reconstruction, the patients were divided into 2 groups: an all-inside group ( n=52) in which the PCL was reconstructed using the all-inside techniques and a conventional group in which the PCL was reconstructed using the conventional techniques. The following were observed and compared: operation time and postoperative hospital stay; visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores, The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective scores and Lysholm knee function scores at preoperation, postoperative 3 months and the last follow-up; posterior drawer test, posterior sag sign, reverse Lachman test and the diameter and morphology of the PCL shown by the knee joint MRI at the last follow-up. Results:The baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 groups ( P>0.05). All patients were followed up for (12.3±1.2) months. The all-inside group incurred significantly longer operation time [(128.3±7.6) min] than the conventional group [(103.5±6.9) min] ( P<0.05), but no significant difference was observed in postoperative hospital stay between the 2 groups ( P> 0.05). There was no significant difference in VAS pain score, IKDC subjective score, or Lysholm score between the 2 groups at preoperation, postoperative 3 months or the last follow-up ( P>0.05). In both groups, the VAS pain scores, IKDC subjective scores and Lysholm scores at postoperative 3 months and the last follow-up were significantly improved compared with those at preoperation ( P<0.05). At the last follow-up, the posterior drawer test, posterior sag sign, reverse Lachman test were negative in both groups, and the knee joint MRI showed good diameter and morphology of the PCL reconstructed. Conclusions:Both conventional and all-inside reconstructions yield satisfactory clinical outcomes for PCL injuries, demonstrating comparable functional recovery and complication incidence. However, the all-inside technique requires longer operation time than the conventional approach.
