Healing Status of Meniscal Ramp Lesion Affects Anterior Knee Stability After ACL Reconstruction.

anterior cruciate ligament anterior stability ramp lesion repair

Journal

Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine
ISSN: 2325-9671
Titre abrégé: Orthop J Sports Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101620522

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
May 2020
Historique:
entrez: 20 5 2020
pubmed: 20 5 2020
medline: 20 5 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Although the biomechanical importance of the ramp lesion in the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-deficient knee has been demonstrated, there is no clear consensus on the appropriate treatment for ramp lesions during ACL reconstruction. To compare the postoperative outcomes for ramp lesions between patients treated with all-inside repair through the posteromedial portal and those whose ramp lesions were left in situ without repair during ACL reconstruction. We also determined whether ramp lesion healing status affected postoperative knee stability. Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. A total of 57 patients who underwent anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction between August 2011 and December 2017 had attendant ramp lesions. Of these, 25 ramp lesions that were considered stable were left in situ without repair (Nonrepaired group), and 25 ramp lesions, including 21 stable and 4 unstable lesions, were treated using all-inside repair through the posteromedial portal (Repaired group). We evaluated the side-to-side difference (SSD) in anterior tibial translation on stress radiographs and rotational stability by using the pivot-shift test 2 years after surgery, and healing status of the ramp lesions was evaluated on 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans 1 year after surgery. The mean SSDs in anterior translation were 2.4 ± 1.6 mm for the Nonrepaired group and 1.9 ± 1.6 mm for the Repaired group, with no significant differences. The positive ratios on the pivot-shift test were not significantly different between groups. Healing rates of ramp lesions on MRI scans showed a significant difference between the Nonrepaired group (60%) and the Repaired group (100%) ( Healing rates of ramp lesions were significantly better in the Repaired group than in the Nonrepaired group, although postoperative knee stability was not significantly different between groups. Anterior laxity in the knees in which the ramp lesion was unhealed was significantly greater compared with the knees in which the ramp lesion healed. All-inside repair through the posteromedial portal was a reliable surgical procedure to heal ramp lesions.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Although the biomechanical importance of the ramp lesion in the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-deficient knee has been demonstrated, there is no clear consensus on the appropriate treatment for ramp lesions during ACL reconstruction.
PURPOSE OBJECTIVE
To compare the postoperative outcomes for ramp lesions between patients treated with all-inside repair through the posteromedial portal and those whose ramp lesions were left in situ without repair during ACL reconstruction. We also determined whether ramp lesion healing status affected postoperative knee stability.
STUDY DESIGN METHODS
Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
METHODS METHODS
A total of 57 patients who underwent anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction between August 2011 and December 2017 had attendant ramp lesions. Of these, 25 ramp lesions that were considered stable were left in situ without repair (Nonrepaired group), and 25 ramp lesions, including 21 stable and 4 unstable lesions, were treated using all-inside repair through the posteromedial portal (Repaired group). We evaluated the side-to-side difference (SSD) in anterior tibial translation on stress radiographs and rotational stability by using the pivot-shift test 2 years after surgery, and healing status of the ramp lesions was evaluated on 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans 1 year after surgery.
RESULTS RESULTS
The mean SSDs in anterior translation were 2.4 ± 1.6 mm for the Nonrepaired group and 1.9 ± 1.6 mm for the Repaired group, with no significant differences. The positive ratios on the pivot-shift test were not significantly different between groups. Healing rates of ramp lesions on MRI scans showed a significant difference between the Nonrepaired group (60%) and the Repaired group (100%) (
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
Healing rates of ramp lesions were significantly better in the Repaired group than in the Nonrepaired group, although postoperative knee stability was not significantly different between groups. Anterior laxity in the knees in which the ramp lesion was unhealed was significantly greater compared with the knees in which the ramp lesion healed. All-inside repair through the posteromedial portal was a reliable surgical procedure to heal ramp lesions.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32426412
doi: 10.1177/2325967120917674
pii: 10.1177_2325967120917674
pmc: PMC7222250
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

2325967120917674

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2020.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest in the authorship and publication of this contribution. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.

Références

J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1973 Jul;55(5):923-40
pubmed: 4760100
Am J Sports Med. 2010 Mar;38(3):472-7
pubmed: 20097926
Arthroscopy. 2015 Apr;31(4):691-8
pubmed: 25660007
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1982 Jul;64(6):883-8
pubmed: 6896333
Arthroscopy. 2018 May;34(5):1631-1637
pubmed: 29456068
Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2015 Oct;23(10):2967-73
pubmed: 26264383
Am J Sports Med. 2018 Aug;46(10):2422-2431
pubmed: 29847148
Am J Sports Med. 2017 Apr;45(5):1004-1011
pubmed: 28060534
Am J Sports Med. 2015 Nov;43(11):2688-95
pubmed: 26430058
Arthroscopy. 2016 Nov;32(11):2269-2277
pubmed: 27184100
Arthroscopy. 2001 Mar;17(3):270-274
pubmed: 11239347
Am J Sports Med. 2016 Feb;44(2):400-8
pubmed: 26657852
Am J Sports Med. 2014 Apr;42(4):921-6
pubmed: 24567252
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1986 Jan;68(1):71-9
pubmed: 3753605
Arthroscopy. 2013 Jun;29(6):1072-8
pubmed: 23571132
Arthroscopy. 2006 Mar;22(3):240-51
pubmed: 16517306
Arthroscopy. 2004 Nov;20(9):936-45
pubmed: 15525926
Knee Surg Relat Res. 2015 Mar;27(1):56-60
pubmed: 25750895
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010 Feb;92(2):222-3
pubmed: 20130312
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990 Mar;(252):80-7
pubmed: 2406078
Am J Sports Med. 2012 Oct;40(10):2230-5
pubmed: 22962296
Am J Sports Med. 2011 May;39(5):1008-17
pubmed: 21278428
Am J Sports Med. 2011 Apr;39(4):832-7
pubmed: 21220541

Auteurs

Kazuhisa Hatayama (K)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Japan Community Health Care Organization Gunma Central Hospital, Maebashi, Japan.

Masanori Terauchi (M)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Japan Community Health Care Organization Gunma Central Hospital, Maebashi, Japan.

Kenichi Saito (K)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Maebashi, Japan.

Ryota Takase (R)

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Gunma University Graduate School of Medicine, Maebashi, Japan.

Hiroshi Higuchi (H)

Department of Orthopaedic Sports Surgery, Asakura Sports Rehabilitation Clinic, Maebashi, Japan.

Classifications MeSH