ABSTRACT
Ramp lesions, commonly observed in patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, have been previously defined as longitudinal tears around the meniscocapsular junction. However, the definitions and interpretations of ramp lesions have varied, emphasizing the need to confirm their presence before surgery and the importance of direct visualization using arthroscopy. Recent histological studies have reported new findings on ramp lesions, shedding light on their attachment mechanisms. The anatomical structures around the ramp lesion, such as the posterior horn of medial meniscus (PHMM), semimembranosus (SM), posteromedial (PM) capsule, and meniscotibial ligament (MTL), were assessed regarding how these structures could be attached to each other. The studies of ramp lesions have also contributed to the progression of biomechanical studies explaining the cause and effects of ramp lesions. Ramp lesion has been proven to stabilize the anteroposterior (AP) instability of ACL. In addition, various laboratory studies have demonstrated the relationship between rotational instability of the knee joint and ramp lesions. The analysis of risk factors of ramp lesion helped to understand the injury mechanism of the lesion. Many authors have evaluated the prevalence of ramp lesions in patients with ACL injuries. The development of arthroscopy techniques has influenced the outcomes of ACL reconstruction with the easy detection of ramp lesions. This review article aims to analyze the past findings and recent advancements in anatomical, biomechanical, and epidemiological studies of ramp lesions in patients who underwent ACL reconstruction, and provide various perspectives ramp lesions in patients with ACL reconstruction.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of reports clarifying the implication of knee osteoarthritis (OA) on spinal sagittal alignment of patients undergone surgery for lumbar spine. This study aimed to analyze how osteoarthritic knee affects radiographic and clinical results of degenerative lumbar disease patients undergone lumbar fusion. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records and radiographs of 74 consecutive degenerative lumbar disease patients who underwent posterior instrumentation and fusion surgery between May 2016 and June 2017 and were followed up for minimum 3 years postoperatively. The patients were divided into 2 groups according to the severity of knee OA by Kellgren-Lawrence grading (KLG) scale (group I, KLG 1 or 2 [n = 39]; group II, KLG 3 or 4 [n = 35]). Patient demographic data, comorbidities, spinal sagittal parameters and clinical scores were extracted and compared at preoperative, postoperative 1 month and the ultimate follow-up between the groups. In radiographic assessment, sagittal alignment parameters and sagittal balance were used. In clinical assessment, the scores of Oswestry disability index (ODI) and Scoliosis Research Society questionnaire (SRS-22) were used. For the frequency analysis of categorical variables across the groups, chi-square test was used and student t tests was used to compare the differences of continuous variables. RESULTS: In radiographic assessment, TLK (thoracolumbar kyphosis), LL (lumbar lordosis), PT (pelvic tilt), C7 SVA (sagittal vertical axis) in both groups improved significantly after surgery (p < 0.05). However, LL, PT, C7SVA improved at postoperative 1 month in the group II were not maintained at the ultimate postoperative follow-up. In clinical assessment, preoperative Oswestry disability index (ODI, %) and all SRS-22 subscores of the group I and II were not different (p > 0.05). There were significant differences between the groups at the ultimate follow-up in ODI (- 25.6 vs - 12.1, p < 0.001), SRS total score (%) (28 vs 20, p = 0.037), function subscore (1.4 vs 0.7, p = 0.016), and satisfaction subscore (1.6 vs 0.6, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Osteoarthritic knee with KLG 3 or 4 have a negative influence on maintaining postoperative spinal sagittal alignment, balance, and the clinical outcomes achieved immediately by posterior instrumentation and fusion for lumbar degenerative disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was retrospectively registered with approval by the institutional review board (IRB) of our institution (approval number: 2018-11-007).
