PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: 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).
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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.
摘要：
■在多韧带膝关节损伤(MLKI)的情况下，比较单纯使用后交叉韧带(PCL)重建或修复与单纯使用内支撑(IB)重建或修复的PCL患者的患者报告结果。
对2006年至2020年期间在两个机构接受MLKI手术治疗的所有患者进行回顾性鉴定，并参与研究。通过三种仪器测量患者报告的结果：Lysholm膝关节评分，多元化的生活质量（ML-QOL），和患者报告结果测量信息系统(PROMIS)计算机自适应测试(CAT)。比较内支撑组和非内支撑组的术后结局和再手术率。
■分析了52例患者；IB组包括34例患者（女性占17.6％；年龄33.1±1.60岁），非IB组包括18例（11.1％为女性；年龄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）。PROMISCAT之间没有显着差异[PROMIS疼痛（54.4±1.78vs51.7±1.70，p=0.319），身体功能（44.3±2.27vs47.9±1.52，p=0.294），流动性（44.0±1.71vs46.1±2.10，p=0.463）]，ML-QOL[ML-QOL身体损害（40.7±4.21vs41.7±5.10，p=0.884），情绪障碍（49.2±4.88vs44.7±5.87，p=0.579），活动限制（43.5±4.56vs31.5±3.62，p=0.087），与非IB组相比，术后社会参与（44.9±4.96vs37.5±5.30，p=0.345）]和Lysholm膝关节评分（61.8±4.55vs61.0±4.95，p=0.916）。
■在这组患者中，无内支管的PCL重建和修复治疗患者与额外的内支管增强治疗患者的功能和患者报告的结局无显著差异.在MLKI损伤的情况下，有必要进行包括更大患者样本的进一步研究，以研究内部支架对PCL损伤的功效。
对2006年至2020年期间在两个机构接受MLKI手术治疗的所有患者进行回顾性鉴定，并参与研究。通过三种仪器测量患者报告的结果：Lysholm膝关节评分，多元化的生活质量（ML-QOL），和患者报告结果测量信息系统(PROMIS)计算机自适应测试(CAT)。比较内支撑组和非内支撑组的术后结局和再手术率。
■分析了52例患者；IB组包括34例患者（女性占17.6％；年龄33.1±1.60岁），非IB组包括18例（11.1％为女性；年龄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）。PROMISCAT之间没有显着差异[PROMIS疼痛（54.4±1.78vs51.7±1.70，p=0.319），身体功能（44.3±2.27vs47.9±1.52，p=0.294），流动性（44.0±1.71vs46.1±2.10，p=0.463）]，ML-QOL[ML-QOL身体损害（40.7±4.21vs41.7±5.10，p=0.884），情绪障碍（49.2±4.88vs44.7±5.87，p=0.579），活动限制（43.5±4.56vs31.5±3.62，p=0.087），与非IB组相比，术后社会参与（44.9±4.96vs37.5±5.30，p=0.345）]和Lysholm膝关节评分（61.8±4.55vs61.0±4.95，p=0.916）。
■在这组患者中，无内支管的PCL重建和修复治疗患者与额外的内支管增强治疗患者的功能和患者报告的结局无显著差异.在MLKI损伤的情况下，有必要进行包括更大患者样本的进一步研究，以研究内部支架对PCL损伤的功效。
