Boyd, Joel L.

AbstractPurposeTo compare the accuracy and reliability of the anatomic and radiographic techniques for identifying the isometric point of the knee.MethodsOnly four specimens were used; however, eight experienced multiligament knee injury surgeons were recruited to address this limitation. Surgeons estimated the isometric point (EIP) on the medial and lateral sides using an anatomic and radiographic method. The x and y coordinates of the EIP were compared to the true isometric point (TIP). T‐tests and interclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were performed to determine the accuracy and reliability between the methods.ResultsThere was no difference in placement of the EIP on the medial side of the knee in the anterior/posterior (x; p = n.s.) and superior/inferior direction (y;p = n.s). The EIP was anterior (p = 0.001) to the TIP with the radiographic method on the lateral side and approached significance (p = 0.05) in the superior/inferior direction. The ICC (95 % CI) for identifying the EIP on the medial side in the anterior/posterior direction using the anatomic method was 0.64 (0.28–0.96) and 0.11 (−0.06 to 0.77) in the superior/inferior direction. Using the radiographic method, the ICC in the anterior/posterior and superior/inferior direction was 0.49 (0.14–0.94) and 0.15 (−0.47 to 0.81), respectively. On the lateral side, the ICC for the anatomic method was 0.84 (0.56–0.99) in the anterior/posterior direction and 0.36 (0.05–0.90) in the superior/inferior direction. Using the radiographic method, the ICC in the anterior/posterior and superior/inferior direction was 0.61 (0.26–0.96) and 0.89 (0.67–0.99), respectively.ConclusionsThere was no difference in accuracy on the medial side of the knee. On the lateral side, the anatomic method was more accurate in the anterior/posterior direction. Reliability was greater in the anterior/posterior direction on both sides of the knee. Surgeons were most likely to place the isometric point anterior and superior to the TIP on both the medial and lateral sides of the knee with either method which has the potential to cause graft lengthening. This should be taken into consideration during reconstruction/repair of the MCL/PMC and LCL/PLC.

Purpose The purpose of this systematic review was to address the treatment of multiligament knee injuries, specifically ( 1 ) surgical versus nonoperative treatment, ( 2 ) repair versus reconstruction of injured ligamentous structures, and ( 3 ) early versus late surgery of damaged ligaments. Methods Two independent reviewers performed a search on PubMed from 1966 to August 2007 using the terms “knee dislocation,” “multiple ligament–injured knee,” and “multiligament knee reconstruction.” Study inclusion criteria were ( 1 ) levels I to IV evidence, ( 2 ) “multiligament” defined as disruption of at least 2 of the 4 major knee ligaments, ( 3 ) measures of functional and clinical outcome, and ( 4 ) minimum of 12 months' follow‐up, with a mean of at least 24 months. Results Four studies compared surgical treatment with nonoperative treatment. There was a higher percentage of excellent/good International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores (58% v 20%) in surgically treated patients, as well as higher rates for return to work (72% v 52%) and return to full sport (29% v 10%). Two studies compared repair with reconstruction of damaged structures, with similar mean Lysholm scores (88 v 87) and excellent/good IKDC scores (51% v 48%). However, repair of the posterolateral corner had a higher failure rate (37% v 9%). Similarly, repair of the cruciates yielded decreased stability and range of motion and a lower return to preinjury activity levels (0% v 33%). There were 5 studies comparing early surgery (≤3 weeks) with late surgery. Early treatment resulted in higher mean Lysholm scores (90 v 82) and a higher percentage of excellent/good IKDC scores (47% v 31%), as well as higher sports activity scores (89 v 69) on the Knee Outcome Survey. Conclusions Our review suggests that early operative treatment of the multiligament‐injured knee yields improved functional and clinical outcomes compared with nonoperative management or delayed surgery. Repair of the posterolateral corner may yield higher revision rates compared with reconstruction.