Comparison of 2 Surgical Techniques of Posterolateral Corner Reconstruction of the Knee

Abstract

Both surgical techniques for anatomical posterolateral corner reconstruction showed good results in the static laxity tests. The anatomical reconstruction of all structures, including the popliteus tendon, resulted in an abnormal internal tibial rotation during dynamic testing.

Surgical Management of Traumatic Knee Dislocation With Posterolateral Corner Injury

“…9,28 They have stated that there is no rigid attachment to the tibia except to the capsule, resulting in limited external rotation so that knee motion cannot be restored with reconstruction using a static graft. 9,28,34 In our study, when the popliteus tendon was not reconstructed, good results were achieved by our method of restoring stability of the posterior translation of the tibia, varus deformity, and external rotation, and this was in agreement with other authors. 9,28,34 From our study, we feel that reconstruction of the lateral ligament and the popliteofibular ligament in posterolateral corner injury in a traumatic knee dislocation will result in good functional stability without reconstruction of the popliteus tendon.…”

Anatomic study of popliteus complex of the knee in a Chinese population

“…LaPrade et al (2003) investigated the angle to the horizontal plane and the result was 37°( range 22°-40°), Wadia et al (2003) reported the angle made by the ligament as averaging 60°with the popliteus muscle, and Ishigooka et al (2004) found the inward inclination angle of the PFL with respect to the tibial major axis on the coronal plane to be 38.2°± 16°. The PFL is always reconstructed together with PT when repairing the PLS (Nau et al 2005;Jung et al 2008;McCarthy et al 2010). According to the present study, the angle between PFL and PT was 119.3°± 13.8°, which might be useful for surgeons when reconstructing the anatomic alignments of PFL and PT during surgery.…”

“…Many surgical methods recommend a tunnel anteroinferior to the LCL attachment on the femur condyle (Nau et al 2005;Zhang et al 2009;LaPrade et al 2003LaPrade et al , 2010. Whereas, according to research by Jung et al (2010) and Yang et al (2011), if the original site of the PT cannot be seen, a posteroinferior site femoral tunnel, as with the LCL attachment, is recommended.…”

“…Despite its important clinical significance, PLS injuries are still frequently undiagnosed and left untreated clinically due to its complex structures and variations in anatomy (Covey 2001;LaPrade et al 2003;Nau et al 2005;Zhang et al 2009). The structures of the PLS can be divided into two primary components: the lateral collateral ligament (LCL) and the popliteus complex (PC; Ullrich et al 2002;Zantop et al 2007;Gadikota et al 2010;Jung et al 2010;Yang et al 2011).…”

International Skeletal Trauma Symposia

“…[59] MRI of the PLC has improved but is often overcalled with false positives. [60]Treatment in conjunction with associated ligament injury involves primary repair with supplemental augmentation / reconstruction when midsubstance tissue damage is unrepairable [61][62][63][64] Biceps tenodesis is an alternate method but generally more anatomic procedures are recommended. Post-operative rehabilitation is based on associated injuries but must include protection from external rotation and varus stress in the early period (6-8 weeks).…”