Midterm Outcomes, Complications, and Return to Sports After Medial Collateral Ligament and Posterior Oblique Ligament Reconstruction for Medial Knee Instability: A Systematic Review

Exploring the extension quantities of a medial collateral ligament pie-crusting model using a finite element method

Medial collateral ligament (MCL) pie-crusting can balance the soft tissue during total knee arthroplasty but requires more studies with the finite element method (FEM). We have developed three models of MCL pie-crusting utilizing FEM, treating the MCL in the following ways: (1) as a singular elastic body with both ends attached to the bone (model A), (2) as 19 bundled elastic bodies, each attached to both ends of the bone (model B), and (3) as 19 bundled elastic bodies with an adhesive component in the gap, attached to both ends of the bone (model C). The pie-crusting model was created by adding a cut around the center of each model. The left side of the model was fixed and forces of 80 and 120 N in the positive direction of the x-axis were applied. Model A was extended by 0.0068 and 0.010 mm for approximately 10 punctures. Model B-2 was extended by 1.34 and 2.01 mm, approximately twice as much as model B-1. Model C was extended by 0.34 and 0.50 mm for every 10 punctures added. These findings clarify that the model composed of aggregates of fibers with adhesive parts (model C) is suitable for MCL pie-crusting analysis.

Editorial Commentary: Don't Neglect the Medial Side of the Knee in Patients With Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury

The medial collateral ligament (MCL) of the knee, as well as the posteromedial complex (including the posterior oblique ligament [POL] and ramp lesions of the meniscus) is often considered the "neglected" ligament or corner because of the belief that these anatomic structures have enormous regenerative potential and therefore hardly ever need surgical treatment. In patients with anterior ligament cruciate (ACL) tears, the overall combined prevalence of MCL (superficial [sMCL] and deep [dMCL]) and isolated dMCL injuries is high (16.5% + 24.8% = 41.3%). In terms of the POL, with a restraint to both internal tibial rotation and valgus rotation during extension, I have some doubts regarding its role in anteromedial instability (AMRI). In fact, AMRI of the knee is caused mainly by injury to both the ACL and the MCLs, resulting in coupled anterior tibial translation and external rotation, causing the medial tibial plateau to subluxate anteriorly. The sMCL provides the most substantial restraint, and the dMCL and POL play more minor roles. Finally, in ACL-deficient knees, ramp lesions are prevalent (9.3%-24.0%), and failing to identify and treat these lesions results in knee instability. In my experience, all unstable ramp lesions should be repaired. In ACL-deficient knees in patients with a tibial slope >5°, an occult ramp lesion should be strongly suspected. In summary, the medial compartment of the knee is complex and encompasses many structures (MCL, POL, ramp, tibial slope), and I believe that we will increasingly move toward individualized treatment.

Reanalysis of the Posterior Oblique Ligament: Quantitative Anatomy, Radiographic Markers, and Biomechanical Properties

Background

The posterior oblique ligament (POL) is the largest structure of the posteromedial knee that is at risk of injury in conjunction with the medial collateral ligament (MCL). Its quantitative anatomy, biomechanical strength, and radiographic location have not been assessed in a single investigation.

Purpose

To evaluate the 3-dimensional and radiographic anatomy of the posteromedial knee and the biomechanical strength of the POL.

Study Design

Descriptive laboratory study.

Methods

Ten nonpaired fresh-frozen cadaveric knees were dissected and medial structures were elevated off bone, leaving the POL. The anatomic locations of the related structures were recorded with a 3-dimensional coordinate measuring machine. Anteroposterior and lateral radiographs were taken with radiopaque pins inserted into the pertinent landmarks, and the distances between the collected structures were calculated. Each knee was then mounted to a dynamic tensile testing machine, and pull-to-failure testing was performed to record the ultimate tensile strength, stiffness, and failure mechanism.

Results

The POL femoral attachment was a mean of 15.4 mm (95% CI, 13.9-16.8 mm) posterior and 6.6 mm (95% CI, 4.4-8.8 mm) proximal to the medial epicondyle. The tibial POL attachment center was a mean of 21.4 mm (95% CI, 18.1-24.6 mm) posterior and 2.2 mm (95% CI, 0.8-3.6 mm) distal to the center of the deep MCL tibial attachment and a mean of 28.6 mm (95% CI, 24.4-32.8 mm) posterior and 41.9 mm (95% CI, 36.8-47.0 mm) proximal to the center of the superficial MCL tibial attachment. On lateral radiographs, the femoral POL was a mean of 17.56 mm (95% CI, 14.83-21.95 mm) distal to the adductor tubercle and 17.32 mm (95% CI, 14.6-21.7 mm) posterosuperior to the medial epicondyle. On the tibial side, the center of the POL attachment was a mean of 4.97 mm (95% CI, 3.85-6.79 mm) distal to the joint line on anteroposterior radiographs and 6.34 mm (95% CI, 5.01-8.48 mm) distal to the tibial joint line on lateral radiographs, at the far posterior tibial aspect. The biomechanical pull-to-failure demonstrated a mean ultimate tensile strength of 225.2 ± 71.0 N and a mean stiffness of 32.2 ± 13.1 N.

Conclusion

The anatomic and radiographic locations of the POL and its biomechanical properties were successfully recorded.

Clinical Relevance

This information is useful to better understand POL anatomy and biomechanical properties as well as to clinically address an injury with repair or reconstruction.