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。
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.
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.