This research aims to present a novel arthroscopic fixation technique that uses a double-row suture anchor for tibial spine avulsion and to evaluate its short-term clinical outcomes. The surgical technique is described and a retrospective case series is presented. Patients who presented with tibial spine avulsion type III and IV fractures according to the Meyers and McKeever classification and received the same surgical treatment from 2013 to 2018 in two specialised hospitals in Medellín City were included. All interventions were performed by an experienced surgeon. To determine outcomes during clinical follow-up, the Lysholm score and objective and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee scores were obtained before and at least 12 months after surgery. A total of 24 patients were followed, with a mean age of 31 years; 12 patients were female. The median time between trauma and surgical fixation was 12 days (IQR=7–23), with a median follow-up period of 13.5 months (IQR=9.5–31.5). When comparing patients’ state initially and during the postoperative period, statistically significant differences were found in all the scores analysed (p<0.05). Likewise, there were no complications and no reinterventions performed during follow-up, and all patients were satisfied with the outcomes of the procedure. Fixation of tibial spine avulsion fractures using the double-row suture anchor technique results in improvement in patients’ function, pain and activity level. The main conclusion is that the procedure is an anatomical technique that requires minimal access and leads to satisfactory clinical evolution of patients.
Level of evidence: Level V, case series.
- knee injuries
- orthopaedic sports medicine
- patient outcome assessment
- suture anchors
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors All authors participated significantly in the development of this work. GAJQ, RADP: planning, conduct and reporting of the study. AMHM: conduct and reporting of the study.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Obtained.
Ethics approval The research was approved by the ethics committee of the respective clinics and the Bioethics Committee of the Remington University Corporation (approval number 01052018).
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.