Michael Strobel

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is commonly agreed to be the best imaging method for diagnosing and differentiating between submucosal lesions in the gastrointestinal tract. However, most of the current evidence for this derives from retrospective multicenter studies. A prospective multicenter analysis of the performance of EUS in diagnosing submucosal lesions in everyday practice was therefore conducted. METHODS: Over a 2-year period, this study included 150 patients (52% men, mean age 59.8 years) from 23 centers who had a presumptive diagnosis of a submucosal lesion on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The patients' symptoms and EUS results were recorded. Endoscopic and endosonographic findings regarding lesion size, layer of origin, and the presumptive diagnosis (benign or malignant) were recorded. The reference methods used were surgery, biopsy, other imaging tests, and a follow-up period of 6 months. RESULTS: Of the 150 patients, 102 had an intramural lesion (84 tumors, 18 other lesions such as cysts, aberrant pancreas, etc.), and 48 had an extraluminal compression--in most cases (n = 35) by normal organs or structures. For differentiating between a submucosal and an extraluminal compression, the sensitivity and specificity of endoscopy were 87% and 29%, whereas those of EUS were 92% and 100%. However, the sensitivity and specificity of EUS for differentiating between malignant and benign submucosal tumors were only 64% and 80%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of EUS in differentiating between submucosal tumors and extraluminal compressions is substantially superior to that of endoscopy, but EUS is still inadequate for differential diagnosis between benign and malignant submucosal tumors. However, EUS is still the best method of visualizing submucosal lesions precisely. The influence of EUS on the further management in these patients remains to be examined in subsequent studies.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to gain more information on the likelihood of developing cartilage lesions in posterior cruciate ligament (PCL)-deficient knees. TYPE OF STUDY: Retrospective clinical study. METHODS: Standardized arthroscopy records of 181 patients with a nonsurgically treated acute or chronic PCL injury were analyzed with respect to cartilage degeneration. Subgroups with different duration of PCL insufficiency, the influence of isolated PCL or combined PCL/posterolateral instability, and the grade of posterior laxity was analyzed. RESULTS: PCL insufficiency significantly increased the risk of developing medial femoral condyle and patellar cartilage degeneration over time. Of patients whose PCL deficiency was present for more than 5 years, 77.8% showed degenerative cartilage lesions of the medial femoral condyle and 46.7% showed cartilage degeneration of the patella. After 1 year of PCL insufficiency, the number of medial femoral cartilage lesions increased threefold (13.6% v 39.1%). With the presence of combined PCL/posterolateral insufficiency the amount of medial femoral degeneration was significantly increased (36.6% v 60.6%). CONCLUSIONS: We found that PCL insufficiency is not a benign injury with respect to the development of degenerative articular cartilage lesions. The early and continuous increase in cartilage degeneration at the medial femoral condyle and the patella should be considered when discussing operative versus conservative treatment for a PCL-deficient knee. The rapid development of medial arthritis should also be considered during decision making, particularly in patients with combined PCL/posterolateral instability or those who underwent previous partial medial menisectomy.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcome after 1-stage reconstructions of the anterior and posterior cruciate ligaments (ACL, PCL) with reconstruction of the posterolateral corner (PLC) structures using autogenous hamstring grafts in chronic knee injuries. TYPE OF STUDY: Prospective case series. METHODS: We reviewed 17 patients (13 men and 4 women) with chronic multiligamentous injuries after a minimum follow-up of 2 years (range, 24 to 66.3 months). Arthroscopically assisted combined ACL/PCL reconstructions with autogenous semitendinosus-gracilis tendon grafts were performed using the single-incision endoscopic ACL technique and the single femoral tunnel, single-bundle transtibial tunnel PCL technique. The PLC was reconstructed with a free autogenous semitendinous tendon graft. The primary outcome measures were the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score and stress radiography. As secondary outcome measure, all patients were evaluated with a subjective questionnaire, physical examination, radiologic assessment, and KT-1000 arthrometer testing. RESULTS: The mean time from injury to the reconstructive procedure was 70.2 +/- 96.7 months (range, 5.1 to 312.6 months). At final IKDC evaluation, 4 patients (29.4%) were graded level B (nearly normal), 10 patients (58.8%) level C (abnormal), and 2 patients (11.8%) level D (grossly abnormal). The mean postoperative subjective IKDC score was 71.8 +/- 19.3 points. Mean posterior tibial displacement as measured through stress radiography at 90 degrees of knee flexion was reduced from -15.06 +/- 4.68 mm preoperatively to -7.12 +/- 3.37 mm postoperatively (P < .001). Mean anterior tibial displacement was 0.94 +/- 2.75 mm preoperatively compared with -1.59 +/- 3.50 mm postoperatively (P < .01). Three patients had a fixed posterior tibial subluxation (posterior tibial displacement < or = -3 mm on anterior stress radiographs) postoperatively. Severe subjective instability was reduced significantly by the operative procedure (P < .001). The mean postoperative total anterior-posterior side-to-side difference with the KT-1000 arthrometer testing was 2.00 +/- 2.23 mm (range, -4 to 7 mm). CONCLUSIONS: Combined chronic ACL/PCL/PLC instabilities can be successfully treated with 1-stage arthroscopic cruciate ligament reconstruction combined with PLC reconstruction using autogenous hamstring grafts. Although current reconstruction techniques are not able to restore normal tibiofemoral kinematics, most patients recover a functionally stable knee and have considerably improved knee function compared with their preoperative status, based on subjective parameters and objective criteria. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series, no historical or control group.