多韧带膝关节损伤患者 PCL 缝合增强术后患者临床疗效报告:回顾性观察研究

IF 1.7 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS Orthopedic Research and Reviews Pub Date : 2024-02-16 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/ORR.S425781
Amir Fathi, Ashley A Thompson, Ioanna K Bolia, Cory K Mayfield, Shane S Korber, Avinash Iyer, George F Hatch Iii
{"title":"多韧带膝关节损伤患者 PCL 缝合增强术后患者临床疗效报告:回顾性观察研究","authors":"Amir Fathi, Ashley A Thompson, Ioanna K Bolia, Cory K Mayfield, Shane S Korber, Avinash Iyer, George F Hatch Iii","doi":"10.2147/ORR.S425781","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the patient-reported outcomes between patients with posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction or repair alone versus PCL reconstruction or repair with internal bracing (IB) in the context of multi-ligament knee injuries (MLKI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All patients who underwent surgical management of MLKI at two institutions between 2006 and 2020 were retrospectively identified and offered participation in the study. Patient reported outcomes were measured via three instruments: Lysholm Knee score, Multiligament Quality of Life (ML-QOL), and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer adaptive testing (CAT). The postoperative outcomes and reoperation rates were compared between the internal bracing and non-internal bracing groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-two patients were analyzed; 34 were included in the IB group (17.6% female; age 33.1 ±1.60 years), and 18 were included in the non-IB group (11.1% female; age 34.1 ±3.72 years). Mean follow-up time of the entire cohort was 1.44 ± 0.22 years (IB: 1.21 ± 0.18; non-IB: 2.1 ±0.65). There were no significant differences between PROMIS CAT [PROMIS Pain (54.4 ±1.78 vs 51.7 ±1.70, p=0.319), Physical Function (44.3 ±2.27 vs 47.9 ±1.52, p=0.294), Mobility (44.0 ±1.71 vs 46.1 ±2.10, p=0.463)], ML-QOL [ML-QOL Physical Impairment (40.7 ±4.21 vs 41.7±5.10, p=0.884), Emotional Impairment (49.2 ±4.88 vs 44.7±5.87, p=0.579), Activity Limitation (43.5 ±4.56 vs 31.5±3.62, p=0.087), Societal Involvement (44.9 ±4.96 vs 37.5 ±5.30, p=0.345)] and Lysholm knee score (61.8 ±4.55 vs 61.0 ±4.95, p=0.916) postoperatively compared to the non-IB group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this group of patients, function and patient-reported outcomes between patients treated with PCL reconstruction and repair without internal brace versus those with additional internal brace augmentation were not significantly different. Further research encompassing a larger patient sample is necessary to investigate the efficacy of the internal brace for PCL injury in the context of MLKI injuries.</p>","PeriodicalId":19608,"journal":{"name":"Orthopedic Research and Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10878190/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient Reported Clinical Outcomes Following PCL Suture Augmentation in Patients with Multiligamentous Knee Injury: A Retrospective Observational Study.\",\"authors\":\"Amir Fathi, Ashley A Thompson, Ioanna K Bolia, Cory K Mayfield, Shane S Korber, Avinash Iyer, George F Hatch Iii\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/ORR.S425781\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the patient-reported outcomes between patients with posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction or repair alone versus PCL reconstruction or repair with internal bracing (IB) in the context of multi-ligament knee injuries (MLKI).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All patients who underwent surgical management of MLKI at two institutions between 2006 and 2020 were retrospectively identified and offered participation in the study. Patient reported outcomes were measured via three instruments: Lysholm Knee score, Multiligament Quality of Life (ML-QOL), and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer adaptive testing (CAT). The postoperative outcomes and reoperation rates were compared between the internal bracing and non-internal bracing groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifty-two patients were analyzed; 34 were included in the IB group (17.6% female; age 33.1 ±1.60 years), and 18 were included in the non-IB group (11.1% female; age 34.1 ±3.72 years). Mean follow-up time of the entire cohort was 1.44 ± 0.22 years (IB: 1.21 ± 0.18; non-IB: 2.1 ±0.65). There were no significant differences between PROMIS CAT [PROMIS Pain (54.4 ±1.78 vs 51.7 ±1.70, p=0.319), Physical Function (44.3 ±2.27 vs 47.9 ±1.52, p=0.294), Mobility (44.0 ±1.71 vs 46.1 ±2.10, p=0.463)], ML-QOL [ML-QOL Physical Impairment (40.7 ±4.21 vs 41.7±5.10, p=0.884), Emotional Impairment (49.2 ±4.88 vs 44.7±5.87, p=0.579), Activity Limitation (43.5 ±4.56 vs 31.5±3.62, p=0.087), Societal Involvement (44.9 ±4.96 vs 37.5 ±5.30, p=0.345)] and Lysholm knee score (61.8 ±4.55 vs 61.0 ±4.95, p=0.916) postoperatively compared to the non-IB group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In this group of patients, function and patient-reported outcomes between patients treated with PCL reconstruction and repair without internal brace versus those with additional internal brace augmentation were not significantly different. Further research encompassing a larger patient sample is necessary to investigate the efficacy of the internal brace for PCL injury in the context of MLKI injuries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19608,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Orthopedic Research and Reviews\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10878190/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Orthopedic Research and Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/ORR.S425781\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Orthopedic Research and Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/ORR.S425781","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在膝关节多韧带损伤(MLKI)的情况下,比较单纯后交叉韧带(PCL)重建或修复与PCL重建或修复加内支撑(IB)患者的患者报告结果:通过回顾性研究确定了 2006 年至 2020 年期间在两家医疗机构接受多韧带膝关节损伤手术治疗的所有患者,并邀请他们参与研究。患者报告结果通过三种工具进行测量:Lysholm膝关节评分、多韧带生活质量(ML-QOL)和患者报告结果测量信息系统(PROMIS)计算机适应性测试(CAT)。比较了内固定组和非内固定组的术后效果和再手术率:分析了 52 名患者,其中内固定组 34 人(女性占 17.6%;年龄为 33.1 ± 1.60 岁),非内固定组 18 人(女性占 11.1%;年龄为 34.1 ± 3.72 岁)。整个队列的平均随访时间为 1.44 ± 0.22 年(IB:1.21 ± 0.18;非 IB:2.1 ± 0.65)。PROMIS CAT[PROMIS疼痛(54.4 ±1.78 vs 51.7 ±1.70,p=0.319)、身体功能(44.3 ±2.27 vs 47.9 ±1.52,p=0.294)、行动能力(44.0 ±1.71 vs 46.1 ±2.10,p=0.463)]、ML-QOL[ML-QOL 身体损伤(40.7 ±4.21 vs 41.7±5.10,p=0.884)、情感障碍(49.2±4.88 vs 44.7±5.87,p=0.579)、活动受限(43.5±4.56 vs 31.5±3.62,p=0.087)、社会参与(44.9±4.96 vs 37.5±5.30,p=0.345)]和Lysholm膝关节评分(61.8±4.55 vs 61.0±4.95,p=0.916):结论:在这组患者中,接受 PCL 重建和修复治疗的患者在功能和患者报告结果方面与接受无内支架治疗的患者和接受额外内支架增强治疗的患者没有显著差异。有必要对更多的患者样本进行进一步研究,以探讨在MLKI损伤的情况下,内支架对PCL损伤的疗效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Patient Reported Clinical Outcomes Following PCL Suture Augmentation in Patients with Multiligamentous Knee Injury: A Retrospective Observational Study.

Purpose: To compare the patient-reported outcomes between patients with posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction or repair alone versus PCL reconstruction or repair with internal bracing (IB) in the context of multi-ligament knee injuries (MLKI).

Methods: All patients who underwent surgical management of MLKI at two institutions between 2006 and 2020 were retrospectively identified and offered participation in the study. Patient reported outcomes were measured via three instruments: Lysholm Knee score, Multiligament Quality of Life (ML-QOL), and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer adaptive testing (CAT). The postoperative outcomes and reoperation rates were compared between the internal bracing and non-internal bracing groups.

Results: Fifty-two patients were analyzed; 34 were included in the IB group (17.6% female; age 33.1 ±1.60 years), and 18 were included in the non-IB group (11.1% female; age 34.1 ±3.72 years). Mean follow-up time of the entire cohort was 1.44 ± 0.22 years (IB: 1.21 ± 0.18; non-IB: 2.1 ±0.65). There were no significant differences between PROMIS CAT [PROMIS Pain (54.4 ±1.78 vs 51.7 ±1.70, p=0.319), Physical Function (44.3 ±2.27 vs 47.9 ±1.52, p=0.294), Mobility (44.0 ±1.71 vs 46.1 ±2.10, p=0.463)], ML-QOL [ML-QOL Physical Impairment (40.7 ±4.21 vs 41.7±5.10, p=0.884), Emotional Impairment (49.2 ±4.88 vs 44.7±5.87, p=0.579), Activity Limitation (43.5 ±4.56 vs 31.5±3.62, p=0.087), Societal Involvement (44.9 ±4.96 vs 37.5 ±5.30, p=0.345)] and Lysholm knee score (61.8 ±4.55 vs 61.0 ±4.95, p=0.916) postoperatively compared to the non-IB group.

Conclusion: In this group of patients, function and patient-reported outcomes between patients treated with PCL reconstruction and repair without internal brace versus those with additional internal brace augmentation were not significantly different. Further research encompassing a larger patient sample is necessary to investigate the efficacy of the internal brace for PCL injury in the context of MLKI injuries.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Orthopedic Research and Reviews
Orthopedic Research and Reviews Medicine-Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Orthopedic Research and Reviews is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access journal focusing on the patho-physiology of the musculoskeletal system, trauma, surgery and other corrective interventions to restore mobility and function. Advances in new technologies, materials, techniques and pharmacological agents will be particularly welcome. Specific topics covered in the journal include: Patho-physiology and bioengineering, Technologies and materials science, Surgical techniques, including robotics, Trauma management and care, Treatment including pharmacological and non-pharmacological, Rehabilitation and Multidisciplinarian care approaches, Patient quality of life, satisfaction and preference, Health economic evaluations. The journal welcomes submitted papers covering original research, basic science and technology, clinical studies, reviews and evaluations, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary, case reports and extended reports.
期刊最新文献
3D Printing for Personalized Solutions in Cervical Spondylosis. Reconstruction of a Short Tibial Stump with a Long Fibula Using the Ilizarov Technique: A Case Study. Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury. Open Reduction and Fixation of Late-Presenting Pediatric Supracondylar Humeral Fractures: A Prospective Study. Biomechanical Characteristics of Kissing Spine During Extension Using a Human Cadaveric Lumbar Spinal Model.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1