Abstract
Introduction
John Insall described medial release to balance the varus knee; the release he described included releasing the superficial MCL in severe varus cases. However, this release can create instability in the knee. Furthermore, this conventional wisdom does not correct the actual pathology which normally exists at the joint line, and instead it focuses on the distal end of the ligament where there is no pathology.
We have established a new protocol consisting of 5 steps to balance the varus knee without releasing the superficial MCL and we tried this algorithm on a series of 115 patients with varus deformity and compared it to the outcome with a similar group that we have performed earlier using the traditional Insall technique.
Material and method
115 TKR were performed by the same surgeon using Zimmer Persona implant in varus arthritic knees. The deformities ranged from 15 to 35 degrees. First, the bony resection was made using Persona instrumentation as recommended by the manufacturer. The sequential balancing was divided into 5 steps (we will show a short video demonstrating the surgical techniques for each step) as follows:
-
Step 1: Releasing of deep MCL Step 2: Excising of osteophyte
-
Step 3: Excising of scarred tissue in the posteromedial corner soft phytes Step 4: Excision of the posteromedial capsule in case of flexion contracture Step 5: Releasing the semi-membranous (in gross deformity)
We used soft tissue tensioner to balance the medial and lateral gaps. When the gaps are balanced at early step, there was no need to carry on the other steps. We used only primary implant and we did not have to use any constrained implant. We have compared this group with a similar group matched for deformity from previous 2 years where the conventional medial release as described by Insall.
Results
We could balance all knees without releasing the superficial MCL ligament as follows:
-
-In[H1] 31 cases, we were able to balance the knees performing step 1 and step 2 only
-
-In 35 cases, we had to do step three in addition to 1 and 2 to achieve balance of cases
-
-In 25 cases, we performed step 4- those cases had pre-operative flexion contracture
-
-We had to proceed to step 5 only in 14 cases. These patients had the worst deformity in the group
We have used primary TKR in all cases; in 83 cases, we used a CR implant and in the rest, we used PS implant. Comparing this to the earlier conventional release we had to use 11 CCK implant on severe cases.
Patient satisfaction was better with the new algorithm group when compared with the traditional release
Preserving the superficial MCL allowed us to maintain stability post-operatively and allowed us to use minimum constraint such as CR in severe deformity.
Discussion
Many literatures have confirmed that cutting superficial MCL causes major medial instability after TKA. Releasing or pie crusting the superficial MCL can cause MCL insufficiency. Our protocol enable the surgeon to tackle the pathology rather than take a short-cut and releasing the superficial MCL. Reserving the superficial MCL allowed us to use minimal constraint even in severe deformity of 40 degrees of varus deformity. The conventional release has resulted in some cases instability, forcing us to use higher constraint such as CCK.
Conclusion
Although releasing the superficial MCL has been described in different ways in multiple literature, little attention has been paid to the pathology of the posteromedial corner. This paper clearly shows that the complex anatomy of the posteromedial corner require us to pay better attention and this paper present better algorithm reserving the superficial MCL and enabling us to correct the deformity and balancing the soft tissue without instability. We strongly recommend surgeons not to release the superficial MCL because this will create instability in some cases.
