Nonoperative Management, Repair, or Reconstruction of the Medial Collateral Ligament in Combined Anterior Cruciate and Medial Collateral Ligament Injuries-Which Is Best? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
- PMID: 36960920
- DOI: 10.1177/03635465231153157
Nonoperative Management, Repair, or Reconstruction of the Medial Collateral Ligament in Combined Anterior Cruciate and Medial Collateral Ligament Injuries-Which Is Best? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Abstract
Background: Combined injury of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and the medial collateral ligament (MCL) is a common injury pattern and accounts for 20% of all ligamentous knee injuries. Despite advancements in surgical technique, there is no up-to-date consensus regarding the superiority of nonoperative versus operative management in higher-grade MCL tears of combined ACL-MCL injuries.
Purpose: To interpret recent literature on treatment options and to provide an updated evidence-based approach for management of combined ACL-MCL knee injuries.
Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.
Methods: We performed a systematic review on outcomes following treatment of concomitant ACL and MCL injuries. A computerized search was conducted in PubMed, Embase.com, and Scopus.com. Authors independently assessed eligible studies and screened titles and abstracts. Articles reporting on patients with concomitant ACL and MCL injuries with or without concomitant procedures were included. Data regarding study design, sample size, patient age and sex, length of follow-up, timing of surgery, indications, surgical methods, concomitant procedures, outcomes, and complications were recorded. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and functional outcomes, including Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, International Knee Documentation Committee scores, Lysholm and Tegner scores, and range of motion, were estimated via meta-analysis and compared statistically by surgical approach.
Results: In total, 18 studies were included in the systematic review with level 1 to level 4 evidence, with a total of 1,534 cases, were included in the systematic review. Of these, 16 studies with sufficient statistical reporting including 997 cases with sufficient follow-up were included in meta-analysis. Three different approaches to combined ACL-MCL injuries were identified: ACL reconstruction with (1) nonoperative MCL, (2) MCL repair, and (3) MCL reconstruction. There was no statistical difference between nonoperative versus surgically managed MCL injuries for PROs, range of motion at final follow up, or quadriceps strength.
Conclusion: Reconstruction of combined injury in a delayed fashion facilitates return of range of motion and may allow time for low-grade MCL tears to heal. If residual valgus or anteromedial rotatory laxity remains after a period of rehabilitation, then concomitant surgical management of ACL and MCL injuries is warranted. Avulsion MCL injuries and Stener-type lesions may benefit from early repair techniques.
Keywords: ACL; MCL; knee; knee ligaments; ligaments.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declared that they have no conflicts of interest in the authorship and publication of this contribution. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
Miscellaneous