Modified arthroscopic repair of a posterior cruciate ligament tibial avulsion fracture improves IKDC and Lysholm score compared to open reduction.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyse the difference between arthroscopic fixation and open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) tibial avulsion fractures.

Methods: This retrospective study analysed patients with an acute PCL tibial avulsion fracture who underwent surgical treatment at our hospital and follow-up for at least 24 months. Variables based on sex, age, Meyers-McKeever type, surgical method, meniscus tear, external fixation, labour or sports, Lysholm knee score, IKDC score, and KT-1000 value were also recorded. Multifactor unconditional logistic regression and Student's t test with 1:1 propensity score matching (PSM) to remove confounding factors were used for analysis.

Results: Sixty-five cases achieved knee function graded as "good" or better, and 9 cases not. Single-factor analysis indicated that Meyers-McKeever type (χ = 4.669, P = 0.031) and surgical approach (χ = 9.428, P = 0.002) are related to functional outcomes. Multifactorial logistic regression analysis further confirmed that Meyers-McKeever typing (OR = 10.763, P = 0.036, [95% CI 1.174-98.693]) and surgical approach (OR = 9.274, P = 0.008, [95% CI 1.794-47.934]) are independent risk factors affecting prognosis. In addition, PSM verified significant differences in the Lysholm score (t = 3.195, P = 0.006), IKDC score (t = 4.703, P = 0.000) and A-KT/H-KT (t = 2.859, P = 0.012). However, the affected-side KT-1000 value (A-KT, mm, t = 1.225, P = 0.239) and healthy-side KT-1000 value (H-KT, mm, t = 1.436, P = 0.172) did not significantly differ between the two groups. The proportions of cases in which the Lysholm score, IKDC and A-KT/H-KT exceeded the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) were 62.5% (20/32), 62.5% (20/32) and 93.75% (30/32), respectively.

Conclusion: Compared with ORIF, an arthroscopic approach for PCL tibial avulsion fractures achieves better results.

Level Of Evidence: Retrospective cohort study; Level II.