Adjustable-loop implants are non-inferior to fixed-loop implants for femoral fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Button implants with an adjustable-loop device (ALD) are often used in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Clinical research comparing ALDs with fixed-loop devices (FLD) has mainly been conducted in small patient populations with short follow-up times. To determine whether ALDs are safe to use in ACLR, a non-inferiority study with a large sample population and a long follow-up period would be beneficial. This study compared ALDs with FLDs to determine non-inferior revision surgery rates, knee stability, and patient-reported outcomes (PROM) in ACLRs. METHODS: This non-inferiority register-based cohort study was conducted using data from the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Registry (DKRR). A total of 12,723 patients > 15 years of age with primary ACLR using hamstring tendon autografts and either an FLD or ALD for femoral fixation were included: 9719 patients were in the FLD group, and 3014 patients were in the ALD group. The primary outcome was revision ACLR with a non-inferiority margin for ALDs at 4% at the 2-year follow-up. The secondary outcomes were anterior and rotatory knee stability and PROMs based on the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at the 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: The crude cumulative revision rates in ALD implants at 2 and 5 years were 2.1% (95% CI 1.62-2.68) and 5.0% (95% CI 4.22-5.96), respectively. In the FLD group, the rates were 2.2% (95% CI 1.89-2.48) at 2 years and 4.7% (95% CI 4.31-5.20) at 5 years. The 1-year side-to-side differences were 0.97 mm (95% CI 0.90-1.03) in the ALD group and 1.45 mm (95% CI 1.41-1.49) in the FLD group. In the FLD group, 13% had a positive pivot shift, and in the ALD group, 6% had a positive pivot shift. There were no differences in KOOS. CONCLUSION: ALDs were non-inferior to FLDs regarding revision rates, knee stability, and patient-reported outcomes. Based on this conclusion, ALDs are safe to use for femoral fixation in ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Anteromedial Portal Drilling Yielded Better Survivorship of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions When Comparing Recent Versus Early Surgeries With This Technique.

PURPOSE: To compare anteromedial (AM) and transtibial (TT) femoral drilling hole techniques in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, using the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Register, comparing revision rates and clinical outcomes from 2 time periods, 2007 to 2010 and 2012 to 2015. METHODS: A total of 8,386 primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions were registered between January 2007 to December 2010 and 8,818 in the period January 2012 to December 2015. Revision ACL was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were the objective and subjective clinical outcomes. Crude and adjusted relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence interval (CIs) were calculated. RESULTS: The adjusted RR for revision surgery in the AM (2007-10) group compared with the TT (2007-10) group was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.17-1.78; P < .05), but when comparing the AM (2012-15) group with TT (2012-15) group, the RR was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.68-1.45; P = .96). One-year postoperative objective stability testing showed an RR = 1.38 (95% CI, 1.19-1.60; P < .01) for rotational stability and an RR = 1.37 (95% CI, 0.99-1.89; P < .01) for sagittal stability when comparing AM (2007-10) to TT (2007-10). No significant difference in objective stability was found in the more recent period. Lastly, comparing the subjective scores, the AM (2012-15) had a significantly higher Tegner score 1 year postoperatively compared with the TT-group (2012-15). CONCLUSIONS: This study found an increased RR of revision anterior cruciate ligament and rotational and sagittal instability 1 year postoperatively for the AM technique in the period from 2007 to 2010. However, there was no significant difference in revision surgery and objective measures between the techniques from 2012 to 2015. Nevertheless, a higher activity level was found in the AM group. The results could indicate that the results found in the period 2007 to 2010 may have been caused by a learning curve when introducing a new and more complex procedure (AM). LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative trial.

Outcome after arthroscopic labral surgery in patients previously treated with periacetabular osteotomy: a follow-up study of 43 patients.

To identify factors predicting failure after hip arthroscopy in patients with previous periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) defined as a conversion to total hip replacement (THR) and to evaluate the patient reported outcome scores. Of 55 hips treated with hip arthroscopy after PAO from Aug 2008 to 2012 at Aarhus University Hospital, 43 hips were included (median age: 36.1 yrs, range 16.3-56.9 yrs). Indications were unacceptable pain, a positive FABER and impingement test and signs of labral damage on MR-arthrography. Outcomes were evaluated with mHHS and HOS. Failure was defined as conversion to a THR. Nine hips were converted to a THR. Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 52.8% (95% CI, 10%-83.8%) at 6.5 years follow-up. Statistically significant predictors of failure: joint space width after PAO <3.0 mm and Tönnis grade of 2. Fourteen hips needed revision hip arthroscopy. Labral damage was present in 84% of the hips. In 42% of the hips cartilage lesions of Becks grade >3 were found. Mean mHHS and HOS were 65.7 and 68.8 respectively at follow-up. A NRS pain score of >3 in rest and during activity were present in respectively, 43% and 62% of the patients. Hip arthroscopy after PAO demonstrated limited clinical benefit with no decrease in pain levels and 21% of patients needing reoperation to THR. Radiographic signs of joint degeneration after PAO are predictors of faiElure. Further studies are needed to clarify what role hip arthroscopy should play in this patient group.