Search

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the length change patterns of the native deep medial collateral ligament (dMCL) and potential anteromedial reconstructions (AMs) that might be added to a reconstruction of the superficial MCL (sMCL) to better understand the control of anteromedial rotatory instability (AMRI). Methods: Insertion points of the dMCL and potential AM reconstructions were marked with pins (tibial) and eyelets (femoral) in 11 cadaveric knee specimens. Length changes between the pins and eyelets were then tested using threads in a validated kinematics rig with muscle loading of the quadriceps and iliotibial tract. Between 0° and 100° knee flexion, length change pattern of the anterior, middle and posterior part of the dMCL and simulated AM reconstructions were analysed using a rotary encoder. Isometry was tested using the total strain range (TSR). Results: The tibiofemoral distance of the anterior dMCL part lengthened with flexion (+12.7% at 100°), whereas the posterior part slackened with flexion (−12.9% at 100°). The middle part behaved almost isometrically (maximum length: +2.8% at 100°). Depending on the femoral position within the sMCL footprint, AM reconstructions resulted in an increase in length as the knee flexed when a more centred position was used, irrespective of the tibial attachment position. Femoral positioning in the posterior aspect of the sMCL footprint exhibited <4% length change and was slightly less tight in flexion (min TSR = 3.6 ± 1.5%), irrespective of the tibial attachment position. Conclusion: The length change behaviour of potential AM reconstructions in a functionally intact knee is mainly influenced by the position of the femoral attachment, with different tibial attachments having a minimal effect on length change. Surgeons performing AM reconstructions to control AMRI would be advised to choose a femoral graft position in the posterior part of the native sMCL attachment to optimise graft length change behaviour. Given the high frequency of MCL injuries, sufficient restoration of AMRI is essential in isolated and combined ligamentous knee injuries. Level of Evidence: There is no level of evidence as this study was an experimental laboratory study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Both the superficial medial collateral ligament (sMCL) and the deep MCL (dMCL) contribute to the restraint of anteromedial (AM) rotatory instability (AMRI). Previous studies have not investigated how MCL reconstructions control AMRI. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to establish the optimal medial reconstruction for restoring normal knee kinematics in an sMCL- and dMCL-deficient knee. It was hypothesized that AMRI would be better controlled with the addition of an anatomically shaped (flat) sMCL reconstruction and with the addition of an AM reconstruction replicating the function of the dMCL. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A 6 degrees of freedom robotic system equipped with a force-torque sensor was used to test 8 unpaired knees in the intact, sMCL/dMCL sectioned, and reconstructed states. Four different reconstructions were assessed. The sMCL was reconstructed with either a single-bundle (SB) or a flattened hamstring graft aimed at better replicating the appearance of the native ligament. These reconstructions were tested with and without an additional AM reconstruction. Simulated laxity tests were performed at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of flexion: 10 N·m valgus rotation, 5 N·m internal and external rotation (ER), and an AM drawer test (combined 134-N anterior tibial drawer in 5 N·m ER). The primary outcome measures of this force-controlled setup were anterior tibial translation (ATT; in mm) and axial tibial rotation (in degrees). Results: Sectioning the sMCL/dMCL increased valgus rotation, ER, and ATT with the simulated AM draw test at all flexion angles. SB sMCL reconstruction was unable to restore ATT, valgus rotation, and ER at 30°, 60°, and 90° of flexion to the intact state (P <.05). Flat MCL reconstruction restored valgus rotation at all flexion angles to the intact state (P >.05). ER was restored at all angles except at 90°, but ATT laxity in response to the AM drawer persisted. Addition of an AM reconstruction improved control of ATT relative to the intact state at all flexion angles (P >.05). Combined flat MCL and AM reconstruction restored knee kinematics closest to the intact state. Conclusion: In a cadaveric model, AMRI resulting from an injured sMCL and dMCL complex could not be restored by an isolated SB sMCL reconstruction. A flat MCL reconstruction or an additional AM procedure, however, better restored medial knee stability. Clinical Relevance: In patients evaluated with a combined valgus and AM rotatory instability, a flat sMCL and an additional AM reconstruction may be superior to an isolated SB sMCL reconstruction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]