Non-anatomical reconstruction of chronic posterolateral corner knee injuries show failure rates from 0% to 36% versus 4.3% to 24.2% for anatomic reconstruction techniques: An updated systematic review reflecting the 2019 expert consensus statement.

Objective: To review and update the literature regarding outcomes following surgical management of chronic, grade III posterolateral corner (PLC) injuries, with an emphasis on estimating failure rates based upon objective parameters in light of the 2019 expert consensus, while secondarily comparing the failure rates of anatomic versus non-anatomic reconstruction techniques.
Methods: A literature search was performed using the PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases. Inclusion criteria consisted of level I-IV human clinical studies reporting subjective and objective outcomes in patients following surgical management for chronic (>6 weeks from injury) grade III PLC injuries, with a minimum two-year follow-up. The criterion for objective surgical failure was based on post-operative varus stress radiographs and defined as a side-to-side difference of 3 ​mm or more of lateral gapping.
Results: A total of six studies, consisting of 10 separate cohorts encompassing a total of 230 patients, were identified. PLC reconstruction was performed in all cohorts, with 80 ​% (n ​= ​8/10) of these cohorts utilising an anatomic reconstruction technique. A failure rate ranging from 4.3 ​% to 36 ​% was found. Subgroup analysis revealed a failure rate of 4.3 ​%-24.2 ​% for anatomic reconstruction techniques, whereas a 0 ​%-36 ​% failure rate was found for non-anatomic reconstruction. Arthrofibrosis was the most common complication (range, 0 ​%-12.1 ​%) following surgery. 0 ​%-8 ​% of patients required revision PLC surgery.
Conclusion: PLC reconstruction yields a wide variability in failure rates according to the side-to-side difference of 3 ​mm or more of lateral gapping on post-operative varus stress radiographs, with low revision rates following anatomic and non-anatomic reconstruction techniques.
Level of Evidence: IV; Systematic Review of Level III and IV studies.
Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
(Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)