Volume 8 - Winter Supplementary                   Ann Appl Sport Sci 2020, 8 - Winter Supplementary: 0-0 | Back to browse issues page


XML Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Rhatomy S, Utomo D N, Suroto H, Mahyudin F. Knee Laxity or Loss of Knee Range of Motion after PCL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Ann Appl Sport Sci. 2020; 8 (S2)
URL: http://aassjournal.com/article-1-938-en.html
1- Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Dr. Soeradji Tirtonegoro General Hospital, Klaten, Indonesia. Faculty of Medicine, Public Health, and Nursing, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia , doktergustomrhatomy@yahoo.com
2- Department of Orthopaedic and Traumatology, Dr. Soetomo General Hospital, Surabaya, Indonesia. Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Airlangga, Indonesia
Abstract:   (62 Views)
Background. PCL reconstruction is a successful method for enhancing the patientchr('39')s quality of life but posterior knee laxity and knee stiffness have still occurred surgery. There is no study to evaluate knee laxity or loss of knee range of motion after surgery.
Objectives. To assess the outcomes after PCL reconstruction, we: 1) evaluated the range of motion of the knee, 2) evaluated posterior knee laxity, and 3) determined the factors that influence laxity or the loss of range of motion after surgery.
Methods. Articles that met the following criteria were enrolled in this review: 1) articles on peer-reviewed level 1 to 4 studies; 2) articles published in English; 3) articles on PCL reconstruction studies; 4) articles on isolated PCL rupture; 5) articles that describe laxity after surgery and 6) articles that describe the degree of range of motion after surgery.
Results. Involving a total of 1711 patients. There was a loss of extension and flexion after PCL reconstruction (9.15% and 28.9%, respectively). Knee laxity was still observed at the final examination in the posterior drawer test, KT 1000/2000 test, and Telos radiographic view (64.8%, 42.8%, and 47.9%, respectively). In the subgroup analysis, there was no significant difference in laxity between allograft group vs autograft group using the KT 1000/2000 measurement (mean difference [MD] = -0.42, 95% confidence interval [-1.41, 0.56], p = 0.40), Single Bundle vs Double Bundle (DB) using the KT 1000/2000 measurement (MD = -0.003, 95% CI [-1.35, 1.29], p < 0.00001), and transtibial vs tibial inlay using the Telos radiograph measurement (MD = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.39], p = 0.88), but DB significantly improved knee stability using the Telos radiographic measurement (MD = 0.69, 95% CI [0.29,1.09], p = 0.00008).
Conclusion. This study demonstrates that the loss of range of motion or laxity is still a problem after PCL reconstruction.
Full-Text [PDF 948 kb]   (19 Downloads)    
 
 
APPLICABLE REMARKS
  • PCL reconstruction is enhanced with functional outcome scores and joint laxity.
  • The loss of range of motion and laxity still occurs after surgery.
  • Further studies are needed to determine the factors that cause the loss of range of motion and laxity and how they can be prevented.

Type of Study: Systematic Review/Meta Analysis | Subject: Kinesiology and Sport Injuries
Received: 2020/08/16 | Accepted: 2020/10/26 | Published: 2020/12/10 | ePublished: 2020/12/10

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


© 2017 All Rights Reserved | Annals of Applied Sport Science

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb