Repair Versus Reconstruction of the Fibular Collateral Ligament and Posterolateral Corner in the Multiligament-Injured Knee

Bruce A. Levy, Khaled A. Dajani, Joseph A. Morgan, Jay P. Shah, DIane L. Dahm, Michael J. Stuart

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

127 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Treatment of the multiligament-injured knee remains controversial. Purpose: To compare clinical and functional outcomes of a consecutive series of multiligament-injured knees that underwent repair of the fibular collateral ligament (FCL) and posterolateral corner (PLC), followed by delayed cruciate ligament reconstructions, with those that had single-stage multiligament reconstruction. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients with multiligament knee injury treated by a single surgeon were identified in our prospective database. Between February 2004 and May 2005, patients underwent repair of medial- and lateral-sided injuries, followed by delayed cruciate ligament reconstructions. Between May 2005 and February 2007, patients underwent single-stage multiligament knee reconstruction. All patients followed a standard rehabilitation protocol. Inclusion criteria were minimum 2-year follow-up and multiligament knee injury including the FCL/PLC. International Knee Documentation Committee subjective and Lysholm scores and objective clinical data were documented. Results: We identified 45 knees (42 patients); 17 knees (14 patients) were excluded, leaving 28 knees (28 patients) in the study. The repair/staged group (10 knees in 10 patients) had a mean follow-up of 34 months (range, 24-49 months). The reconstruction group (18 knees in 18 patients) had a mean follow-up of 28 months (range, 24-41 months). Four of the 10 FCL/PLC repairs (40%) and 1 of the 18 FCL/PLC reconstructions (6%) failed (P =.04). After revision reconstructions, there were no statistically significant differences between mean International Knee Documentation Committee subjective scores (79 vs. 77, P =.92) and mean Lysholm scores (85 vs 88, P =.92). Regression analysis showed no effect on failure based on age, sex, injury mechanism, time to surgery, interval between stages, total number of ligaments injured, or location of tear. Conclusion: Our series demonstrated a statistically significant higher rate of failure for repair compared with reconstruction of the FCL/PLC. Reconstruction of the FCL/PLC structures is a more reliable option than repair alone in the setting of a multiligament knee injury.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)804-809
Number of pages6
JournalAmerican Journal of Sports Medicine
Volume38
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2010

Fingerprint

Collateral Ligaments
Knee
Knee Injuries
Ligaments
Documentation
Wounds and Injuries
Tears
Cohort Studies
Rehabilitation
Regression Analysis
Databases

Keywords

  • fibular collateral ligament
  • knee dislocation
  • multiligament knee reconstruction
  • posterolateral corner

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation

Cite this

Repair Versus Reconstruction of the Fibular Collateral Ligament and Posterolateral Corner in the Multiligament-Injured Knee. / Levy, Bruce A.; Dajani, Khaled A.; Morgan, Joseph A.; Shah, Jay P.; Dahm, DIane L.; Stuart, Michael J.

In: American Journal of Sports Medicine, Vol. 38, No. 4, 01.04.2010, p. 804-809.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Levy, Bruce A. ; Dajani, Khaled A. ; Morgan, Joseph A. ; Shah, Jay P. ; Dahm, DIane L. ; Stuart, Michael J. / Repair Versus Reconstruction of the Fibular Collateral Ligament and Posterolateral Corner in the Multiligament-Injured Knee. In: American Journal of Sports Medicine. 2010 ; Vol. 38, No. 4. pp. 804-809.
@article{340fc2684fd54da494886285c3cf84de,
title = "Repair Versus Reconstruction of the Fibular Collateral Ligament and Posterolateral Corner in the Multiligament-Injured Knee",
abstract = "Background: Treatment of the multiligament-injured knee remains controversial. Purpose: To compare clinical and functional outcomes of a consecutive series of multiligament-injured knees that underwent repair of the fibular collateral ligament (FCL) and posterolateral corner (PLC), followed by delayed cruciate ligament reconstructions, with those that had single-stage multiligament reconstruction. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients with multiligament knee injury treated by a single surgeon were identified in our prospective database. Between February 2004 and May 2005, patients underwent repair of medial- and lateral-sided injuries, followed by delayed cruciate ligament reconstructions. Between May 2005 and February 2007, patients underwent single-stage multiligament knee reconstruction. All patients followed a standard rehabilitation protocol. Inclusion criteria were minimum 2-year follow-up and multiligament knee injury including the FCL/PLC. International Knee Documentation Committee subjective and Lysholm scores and objective clinical data were documented. Results: We identified 45 knees (42 patients); 17 knees (14 patients) were excluded, leaving 28 knees (28 patients) in the study. The repair/staged group (10 knees in 10 patients) had a mean follow-up of 34 months (range, 24-49 months). The reconstruction group (18 knees in 18 patients) had a mean follow-up of 28 months (range, 24-41 months). Four of the 10 FCL/PLC repairs (40{\%}) and 1 of the 18 FCL/PLC reconstructions (6{\%}) failed (P =.04). After revision reconstructions, there were no statistically significant differences between mean International Knee Documentation Committee subjective scores (79 vs. 77, P =.92) and mean Lysholm scores (85 vs 88, P =.92). Regression analysis showed no effect on failure based on age, sex, injury mechanism, time to surgery, interval between stages, total number of ligaments injured, or location of tear. Conclusion: Our series demonstrated a statistically significant higher rate of failure for repair compared with reconstruction of the FCL/PLC. Reconstruction of the FCL/PLC structures is a more reliable option than repair alone in the setting of a multiligament knee injury.",
keywords = "fibular collateral ligament, knee dislocation, multiligament knee reconstruction, posterolateral corner",
author = "Levy, {Bruce A.} and Dajani, {Khaled A.} and Morgan, {Joseph A.} and Shah, {Jay P.} and Dahm, {DIane L.} and Stuart, {Michael J.}",
year = "2010",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/0363546509352459",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
pages = "804--809",
journal = "American Journal of Sports Medicine",
issn = "0363-5465",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Repair Versus Reconstruction of the Fibular Collateral Ligament and Posterolateral Corner in the Multiligament-Injured Knee

AU - Levy, Bruce A.

AU - Dajani, Khaled A.

AU - Morgan, Joseph A.

AU - Shah, Jay P.

AU - Dahm, DIane L.

AU - Stuart, Michael J.

PY - 2010/4/1

Y1 - 2010/4/1

N2 - Background: Treatment of the multiligament-injured knee remains controversial. Purpose: To compare clinical and functional outcomes of a consecutive series of multiligament-injured knees that underwent repair of the fibular collateral ligament (FCL) and posterolateral corner (PLC), followed by delayed cruciate ligament reconstructions, with those that had single-stage multiligament reconstruction. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients with multiligament knee injury treated by a single surgeon were identified in our prospective database. Between February 2004 and May 2005, patients underwent repair of medial- and lateral-sided injuries, followed by delayed cruciate ligament reconstructions. Between May 2005 and February 2007, patients underwent single-stage multiligament knee reconstruction. All patients followed a standard rehabilitation protocol. Inclusion criteria were minimum 2-year follow-up and multiligament knee injury including the FCL/PLC. International Knee Documentation Committee subjective and Lysholm scores and objective clinical data were documented. Results: We identified 45 knees (42 patients); 17 knees (14 patients) were excluded, leaving 28 knees (28 patients) in the study. The repair/staged group (10 knees in 10 patients) had a mean follow-up of 34 months (range, 24-49 months). The reconstruction group (18 knees in 18 patients) had a mean follow-up of 28 months (range, 24-41 months). Four of the 10 FCL/PLC repairs (40%) and 1 of the 18 FCL/PLC reconstructions (6%) failed (P =.04). After revision reconstructions, there were no statistically significant differences between mean International Knee Documentation Committee subjective scores (79 vs. 77, P =.92) and mean Lysholm scores (85 vs 88, P =.92). Regression analysis showed no effect on failure based on age, sex, injury mechanism, time to surgery, interval between stages, total number of ligaments injured, or location of tear. Conclusion: Our series demonstrated a statistically significant higher rate of failure for repair compared with reconstruction of the FCL/PLC. Reconstruction of the FCL/PLC structures is a more reliable option than repair alone in the setting of a multiligament knee injury.

AB - Background: Treatment of the multiligament-injured knee remains controversial. Purpose: To compare clinical and functional outcomes of a consecutive series of multiligament-injured knees that underwent repair of the fibular collateral ligament (FCL) and posterolateral corner (PLC), followed by delayed cruciate ligament reconstructions, with those that had single-stage multiligament reconstruction. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients with multiligament knee injury treated by a single surgeon were identified in our prospective database. Between February 2004 and May 2005, patients underwent repair of medial- and lateral-sided injuries, followed by delayed cruciate ligament reconstructions. Between May 2005 and February 2007, patients underwent single-stage multiligament knee reconstruction. All patients followed a standard rehabilitation protocol. Inclusion criteria were minimum 2-year follow-up and multiligament knee injury including the FCL/PLC. International Knee Documentation Committee subjective and Lysholm scores and objective clinical data were documented. Results: We identified 45 knees (42 patients); 17 knees (14 patients) were excluded, leaving 28 knees (28 patients) in the study. The repair/staged group (10 knees in 10 patients) had a mean follow-up of 34 months (range, 24-49 months). The reconstruction group (18 knees in 18 patients) had a mean follow-up of 28 months (range, 24-41 months). Four of the 10 FCL/PLC repairs (40%) and 1 of the 18 FCL/PLC reconstructions (6%) failed (P =.04). After revision reconstructions, there were no statistically significant differences between mean International Knee Documentation Committee subjective scores (79 vs. 77, P =.92) and mean Lysholm scores (85 vs 88, P =.92). Regression analysis showed no effect on failure based on age, sex, injury mechanism, time to surgery, interval between stages, total number of ligaments injured, or location of tear. Conclusion: Our series demonstrated a statistically significant higher rate of failure for repair compared with reconstruction of the FCL/PLC. Reconstruction of the FCL/PLC structures is a more reliable option than repair alone in the setting of a multiligament knee injury.

KW - fibular collateral ligament

KW - knee dislocation

KW - multiligament knee reconstruction

KW - posterolateral corner

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77953307872&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77953307872&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0363546509352459

DO - 10.1177/0363546509352459

M3 - Article

C2 - 20118498

AN - SCOPUS:77953307872

VL - 38

SP - 804

EP - 809

JO - American Journal of Sports Medicine

JF - American Journal of Sports Medicine

SN - 0363-5465

IS - 4

ER -