Marx, Robert G.

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.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to investigate the functional and clinical outcomes of a consecutive series of patients who underwent fibular collateral ligament (FCL) and posterolateral corner (PLC) reconstruction by use of a single Achilles tendon allograft construct. Methods Patients were identified through prospective sports medicine databases at 2 academic institutions. Only patients who had undergone FCL and PLC reconstruction (as opposed to repair) were included. All patients followed a standard postoperative rehabilitation protocol. Various patterns of combined ligament injuries were included and divided into 2 groups (2 ligament v multiligament). Functional and clinical outcomes were assessed by clinical examination, Lysholm scores, and International Knee Documentation Committee subjective scores. Statistical analysis was performed by use of Wilcoxon paired rank‐sum tests and multivariate regression. Results We identified 16 knees in 16 patients, with a minimum of 2 years' follow‐up. There were 13 men and 3 women. The mean age was 30 years (range, 19 to 61 years). The mean length of clinical follow‐up was 30 months (range, 24 to 75 months). The mean International Knee Documentation Committee subjective scores were 80 points and 80 points ( P = .79) in the 2‐ligament and multiligament groups, respectively, and the mean Lysholm scores were 90 points and 89 points ( P = .96), respectively. Age ( P = .41), gender ( P = .84), and interval between injury and surgery ( P = .72) did not affect the clinical and functional outcomes between the 2 groups. Arthrofibrosis requiring manipulation developed in 1 patient. Residual varus laxity (1+) was noted in 4 patients, none of whom displayed functional instability. No patient has required revision reconstruction to date. Conclusions We describe a novel technique that takes into account the main static PLC stabilizers (FCL, popliteofibular ligament, and posterolateral capsule) that has not been previously reported. Our series showed no significant differences in clinical and functional outcomes between 2‐ligament and multiligament PLC‐based reconstructions. However, given the heterogeneity and small sample size of our study group, it is difficult to draw qualitative conclusions. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Background The triceps tendon has been described as a single unit with contribution from each of the 3 heads of the muscle. An observation at the time of surgical repair of a triceps tendon injury led to an anatomical study to further define the anatomy of this tendon as it inserts on the olecranon. Hypothesis The medial head of the triceps has a tendon that is distinct from, and deep to, the common tendon of the long and lateral heads. Study Design Descriptive laboratory study and case report. Methods Eight cadaveric elbows were dissected to examine the triceps tendon. None of the specimens had any evidence of prior injury or surgery to the elbow. All specimens were fresh-frozen and stored at–4°C until they were thawed for use. Skin and subcutaneous tissue were removed, and the tendon of each head of the triceps was explored from the muscle to its bony insertion. Results In all 8 specimens, on gross inspection, the medial head had a separate insertion deep to the common insertion of the lateral and long heads. The muscle of the medial head extended further distally than did the long and lateral heads. The medial head was muscular to its deep insertion, with a small amount of tendon blended with the muscle distally. Histologic analysis demonstrated that the tendon of the medial head and that of the other 2 heads are confluent distally at their olecranon insertion. Conclusion The medial head of the triceps has a tendon that is distinct from, and deep to, the common tendon of the long and lateral heads on gross inspection. Histologic studies show the insertion of these 2 tendons is confluent. Clinical Relevance This anatomy has important implications for surgical repair of these tendon injuries. Rupture of the deep triceps insertion alone can occur and lead to weakness of elbow extension with the elbow flexed beyond 90°. Triceps strength should be tested with the elbow fully flexed when injury to the tendinous insertion is suspected.