Clinical outcomes of acute displaced posterior cruciate ligament tibial avulsion fracture: A retrospective comparative study between the arthroscopic suture and EndoButton fixation techniques

Abstract

BackgroundTibial avulsion fracture of the posterior cruciate ligament is not rare in the clinic. Arthroscopic treatment is increasingly accepted, but the choice of fixation has been debated. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes of suture and EndoButton fixation under arthroscopy for acute displaced posterior cruciate ligament avulsion fractures. MethodsA total 68 of 83 PCL tibial avulsion fracture cases from 2009 to 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Some patients received arthroscopic suture initially, and later the others received arthroscopic EndoButton fixation. Associated lesions were treated if present. The Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, KT-1000 arthrometry and plain radiography were evaluated at follow-up. The assessment data at two years of follow-up were used for comparing the two different fixation groups. ResultsThe follow-up time of 63 patients was more than 2 years. In total, 32 of the 63 patients were in the suture group, and 31 were in the EndoButton group. At two years of follow-up, knee function according to the Lysholm score was a mean of 92.5 with a 95% confidence interval [CI] of 89.45 to 96.40 in the suture group and a mean of 93.5 with a 95% CI of 90.52 to 97.28 in the EndoButton group (P=.785). More than 90% of patients in both groups rated their knee function as normal or nearly normal on IKDC subjective evaluation. KT-1000 arthrometry showed that there was no difference between the two groups, with 0 to 3mm of laxity in 91% of the cases in the suture group versus 90% of cases in the EndoButton group. All patients achieved bony healing within 3 months. No significant complications were noted in the study. ConclusionsBoth the arthroscopic suture and EndoButton fixation methods for acute displaced posterior cruciate ligament avulsion fractures resulted in comparably good clinical outcomes, radiologic healing, and stable knees at mid-term follow-up. Level of evidenceIII; retrospective comparative study.