[Comparison of intraoperative effects of computer navigation-assisted and simple arthroscopic reconstruction of posterior cruciate ligament tibial tunnel].

Objective:To compare the intraoperative effects of computer navigation-assisted versus simple arthroscopic reconstruction of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) tibial tunnel. Methods:The clinical data of 73 patients with PCL tears who were admitted between June 2021 and June 2022 and met the selection criteria were retrospectively analysed, of whom 34 cases underwent PCL tibial tunnel reconstruction with navigation-assisted arthroscopy (navigation group) and 39 cases underwent PCL tibial tunnel reconstruction with arthroscopy alone (control group). There was no significant difference in baseline data between the two groups, including gender, age, body mass index, side of injury, time from injury to surgery, preoperative posterior drawer test, knee range of motion (ROM), Tegner score, Lysholm score, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score between the two groups ( P>0.05). The perioperative indicators (operation time and number of guide wire drillings) were recorded and compared between the two groups. The angle between the graft and the tibial tunnel and the exit positions of the tibial tunnel in the coronal, sagittal, and transverse planes respectively were measured on MRI at 1 day after operation. The knee ROM, Tegner score, Lysholm score, and IKDC score were evaluated before operation and at last follow-up. Results:The operation time in the navigation group was shorter than that in the control group, and the number of intraoperative guide wire drillings was less than that in the control group, the differences were significant ( P<0.05). Patients in both groups were followed up 12-17 months, with an average of 12.8 months. There was no perioperative complications such as vascular and nerve damage, deep venous thrombosis and infection of lower extremity. During the follow-up, there was no re-injuries in either group and no revision was required. The results showed that there was no significant difference in the exit positions of the tibial tunnel in the coronal, sagittal, and transverse planes between the two groups ( P>0.05), but the angle between the graft and the tibial tunnel was significantly greater in the navigation group than in the control group ( P<0.05). At last follow-up, 30, 3, 1 and 0 cases were rated as negative, 1+, 2+, and 3+ of posterior drawer test in the navigation group and 33, 5, 1, and 0 cases in the control group, respectively, which significantly improved when compared with the preoperative values ( P<0.05), but there was no significant difference between the two groups ( P>0.05). At last follow-up, ROM, Tegner score, Lysholm score, and IKDC score of the knee joint significantly improved in both groups when compared with preoperative values ( P<0.05), but there was no significant difference in the difference in preoperative and postoperative indicators between the two groups ( P>0.05). Conclusion:Computer-navigated arthroscopic PCL tibial tunnel reconstruction can quickly and accurately prepare tunnels with good location and orientation, with postoperative functional scores comparable to arthroscopic PCL tibial tunnel reconstruction alone.