Paper 133: Comparison of Open Versus Arthroscopic Fixation for Isolated PCL Tibial Bony Avulsions: A Prospective Randomized Study with Minimum 2 Year Follow-up

Pardiwala, Dinshaw; Agrawal, Deepak; Patil, Vishal; Saini, Uttam Chand; Dhawal, Patel

doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2012.05.616

Cited by 17 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There was one case of deep infection in the open approach group 4) . Limitation of motion was noted in 6 cases in the open approach group 1 , 16) and in 14 cases in the arthroscopic approach group 1 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 16) . Four patients in the open approach group experienced reduction loss (2 cases) or metal irritation (2 cases) 1 , 4) .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…This minimally invasive approach provides satisfactory exposure of the fracture site in a safe, simple, and less time-consuming manner for treatment of PCL injuries. Among the studies included in our analysis, this approach was used by Chiarapattanakom et al 3) and Pardiwala et al 16) (in their open group). It avoids dissection of the neurovascular structures in the popliteal fossa as well, but it does not provide adequate exposure to the lateral base of the PCL and the capsule.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Five studies and two comparative studies reported the outcomes of the arthroscopic approach 1 , 5 , 7 – 10 , 16) . Overall, 174 patients underwent the arthroscopic approach with a minimum 12-month follow-up.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Zhao et al 7) made a Y-shaped bone tunnel and fixed the pull-out suture with a titanium button. Three articles (including one comparative study) described fixation was achieved using a pull-out suture through double tunnels 9 , 10 , 16) . Gui et al 8) performed pull-out suture fixation through a single tunnel.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The side-to-side differences at final follow up on the KT-2000 were measured in 10 studies (3 studies on posterior open approach 3 , 13 , 14) , 5 on arthroscopic approach 5 , 7 – 10) , and 2 comparative studies 1 , 16) ). At the final follow-up, the range of side-to-side difference was 0–5 mm irrespective of the approach.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Open Posterior Approach versus Arthroscopic Suture Fixation for Displaced Posterior Cruciate Ligament Avulsion Fractures: Systematic Review

Song¹,

Nha

Lee

2018

Knee Surg Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo compare the clinical outcomes between the open posterior approach and arthroscopic suture fixation for displaced posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) avulsion fractures.MethodsA literature search was performed on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases. The inclusion criteria were as follows: papers written in English on displaced PCL avulsion fractures, clinical trial(s) with clear description of surgical technique, adult subjects, a follow-up longer than 12 months and modified Coleman methodology score (CMS) more than 60 points.ResultsTwelve studies were included with a mean CMS value of 72.4 (standard deviation, 7.6). Overall, 134 patients underwent the open posterior approach with a minimum 12-month follow-up, and 174 patients underwent arthroscopic suture fixation. At final follow-up, the range of Lysholm score was 85–100 for the open approach and 80–100 for the arthroscopic approach. Patients who were rated as normal or nearly normal in the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee assessment were 92%–100% for the open approach and 90%–100% for the arthroscopic approach. The range of side-to-side difference was 0–5 mm for both approaches.ConclusionsBoth arthroscopic and open methods for the treatment of PCL tibial-side avulsion injuries resulted in comparably good clinical outcomes, radiological healing, and stable knees.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Open Posterior Approach versus Arthroscopic Suture Fixation for Displaced Posterior Cruciate Ligament Avulsion Fractures: Systematic Review

Song¹,

Nha

Lee

2018

Knee Surg Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Knöcherne Ausrisse des hinteren Kreuzbandes

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Arthroscopic reduction and internal fixation (ARIF) versus open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) to elucidate the difference for tibial side PCL avulsion fixation: a randomized controlled trial (RCT)

Sundararajan

Joseph

Ramakanth

et al. 2020

Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To compare the clinical, radiological outcomes, economic and technical diferences for ORIF by cancellous screw ixation versus ARIF by double-tunnel suture ixation for displaced tibial-side PCL avulsion fractures. Methods Forty patients with displaced tibial-sided PCL avulsions were operated upon after randomizing them into two groups (20 patients each in the open and arthroscopic group) and followed up prospectively. Assessment included duration of surgery, cost involved, pre-and post-operative functional scores, radiological assessment of union, and posterior laxity using stress radiography and complications. ResultsThe mean follow-up period was 33 months (27-42) (open group) and 30 months (26-44) (arthroscopic group). The duration of surgery was signiicantly larger in the arthroscopic group (47.8 ± 17.9 min) as compared to the open group (33.4 ± 10.1 min). The costs involved were signiicantly higher in the arthroscopic group (p− 0.01). At inal followup, knee function in the form of IKDC (International Knee Documentation Committee) evaluation (89.9 ± 4.8-open and 89.3 ± 5.9-arthroscopic) and Lysholm scores (94.2 ± 4.1-open and 94.6 ± 4.1-arthroscopic) had improved signiicantly with the diference (n.s.) between the two groups. The mean posterior tibial displacement was 5.7 ± 1.8 mm in the open group and 6.3 ± 3.1 mm in the arthroscopic group which was (n.s.). There were two non-unions and one popliteal artery injury in the arthroscopic group. Conclusion Both ARIF and ORIF for PCL avulsion fractures yield good clinical and radiological outcomes. However, ORIF was better than ARIF in terms of cost, duration of surgery, and complications like non-union and iatrogenic vascular injury. Level of evidence II.

show abstract

Paper 133: Comparison of Open Versus Arthroscopic Fixation for Isolated PCL Tibial Bony Avulsions: A Prospective Randomized Study with Minimum 2 Year Follow-up

Cited by 17 publications

References 0 publications

Open Posterior Approach versus Arthroscopic Suture Fixation for Displaced Posterior Cruciate Ligament Avulsion Fractures: Systematic Review

Open Posterior Approach versus Arthroscopic Suture Fixation for Displaced Posterior Cruciate Ligament Avulsion Fractures: Systematic Review

Knöcherne Ausrisse des hinteren Kreuzbandes

Arthroscopic reduction and internal fixation (ARIF) versus open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) to elucidate the difference for tibial side PCL avulsion fixation: a randomized controlled trial (RCT)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About