RESUMEN
PURPOSE: An anteroposterior (AP) laxity can increase over time after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using hamstring tendons; however, the associated risk factors remain unclear. This study aimed to investigate the risk factors of this phenomenon. METHODS: Overall, 151 patients who underwent ACLR using hamstring autografts were recruited. AP laxity was evaluated using Knee Lax 3 arthrometer at 5 months, 1 and 2 years postsurgery. Patients were categorised into groups I (>1 mm increase) and C (<1 mm increase) based on whether they experienced an irreversible increase in AP laxity after 1 or 2 years compared with 5 months. Patient demographics and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at 2 years postsurgery were compared between groups. RESULTS: Group I (n = 33, 21%) showed a side-to-side difference of 4.6 (3.0-7.2) mm in AP laxity preoperatively and 0.3 (-0.7 to 1.3), 1.1 (0.2-1.9) and 2.4 (1.7-3.2) mm at 5 months, 1 and 2 years postoperatively, while group C (n = 119, 79%) showed 4.3 (2.8-5.7) mm preoperatively and 1.3 (0-1.9), 0.9 (0.1-1.8) and 0.6 (-0.3 to 1.5) mm, respectively. No significant differences were observed in the overall KOOS at 2 years (n.s.). However, group I was older (36 [22-46] vs. 28 [19-39] years; p = 0.044), had longer surgical waiting periods (122 [69-341] vs. 81 [52-136] days; p = 0.041) and lower preoperative Tegner activity scale scores (6 [5-7] vs. 7 [6,7]; p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: While 33 patients (21%) experienced AP laxity increase over time, they had comparable clinical outcomes with group C. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: The association of peroneal tendon dislocation with peroneal bone morphology and postoperative redislocation rates remains unknown. This study compared the fibula morphology in patients with peroneal tendon dislocation with that in a control population. METHODS: The study enrolled 48 patients who underwent surgery for peroneal tendon dislocation at our institution during between 2018 and 2023. Thirty-five patients with preoperative magnetic resonance imaging of the ankle were defined as Group D and 35 with magnetic resonance imaging of the ankle for other reasons and with similar background data were selected as the control group (Group C). The posterior tilting angle of the fibula, posterolateral angle and posterolateral edge angle were evaluated at the plafond level. The posterior tilting angle, posterolateral angle and retromalleolar bone shape according to the Rosenberg classification (flat, convex, concave) were evaluated at the midpoint between the plafond and the tip. RESULTS: At the plafond level, the posterior tilting, posterolateral and posterolateral edge angles were 57.7 ± 11.1°, 123.8 ± 12.3° and 90.8 ± 13.7°, respectively, in Group D and 64.1 ± 15.4°, 121.1 ± 12.3° and 88.7 ± 12.2°, respectively, in Group C, with no significant differences. No significant between-group differences existed in the posterior tilting and posterolateral angles at the midpoint level. Moreover, no significant differences existed in distribution of the bone geometry according to the Rosenberg classification. CONCLUSION: There were no differences in morphology between patients with peroneal tendon dislocation and controls. This study provides useful information on the indications for primary surgery and whether bony approach is useful for peroneal tendon dislocation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.