A comparison of three adjustable cortical button ACL fixation devices.

PURPOSE: Adjustable cortical fixation has gained popularity recently for ACL reconstruction; however, one concern with these types of devices is the potential for laxity occurring post-operatively. An indicator of clinical laxity is cyclic displacement during bench-top mechanical testing. The hypothesis was that the cyclic displacement and maximum strength of different adjustable buttons currently on the market would vary depending on their mechanism of fixation. METHODS: Three devices were studied: Biomet's ToggleLoc with ZipLoop Technology (ZL), Arthrex's TightRope RT (TR), and DePuy Mitek's RIGIDLOOP Adjustable (RLA). Each was tested in isolation on a servohydraulic test machine. The implants were pre-conditioned from 5 to 67 N for 10 cycles and then tested from 50 to 250 N for 1000 cycles at 1 Hz. Following cyclic loading, a load to failure test was conducted at a rate of 20 mm/min. Total displacement was calculated from the 1st to the 1000th cycle, and ultimate strength and failure mode were recorded. RESULTS: Results showed that the RLA had significantly lower displacement versus both the TR (p = 0.012) and the ZL (p < 0.001). The TR also showed significantly lower displacement than the ZL (p < 0.001). The RLA and the ZL were both significantly stronger than the TR (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both the RLA and TR showed clinically acceptable amounts of cyclic displacement and maximum strength. The clinical relevance of this study is that cyclic displacement results from bench-top tests may correlate with post-operative laxity, which ideally should be kept to a minimum.

Evaluation of sterilization methods following contamination of hamstring autograft during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Inadvertent contamination of the hamstring autograft during ACL reconstruction is infrequent, but can result in significant complications. The purpose of this study is to evaluate bacterial contamination of hamstring autografts dropped onto the operating room floor and methods of graft decontamination. METHODS: Hamstring tendons were harvested from patients. Excess tendon not used in the ACL procedure was divided into 6 segments. Segments were assigned to 6 groups (A through F, N = 30 in each group): group A: uncontaminated graft immediately postharvest (control), group B: graft dropped onto the floor (5 s), group C: graft dropped onto the floor (15 s). grafts in groups D to F were dropped onto floor for 15 s then rinsed with saline (group D), bacitracin solution (group E) or chlorhexidine 4 % solution (group F) for 3 min. All grafts were sent to the microbiology laboratory for anaerobic and aerobic cultures. RESULTS: Cultures were positive in 23 % of graft segments from group A (7/30), 33 % of grafts from group B (10/30), 23 % from group C (7/30), 30 % from group D (9/30) and 3 % from both group E (1/30) and group F (1/30). Sixteen unique organisms were identified, with Staphylococcus aureus as the most common isolate. Grafts rinsed in either bacitracin solution or 4 % chlorhexidine solutions were significantly less likely to be culture positive when compared to control graft segments (p < 0.05). However, there was no significant difference between uncontaminated grafts retrieved in <5 versus 15 s from the floor. CONCLUSION: This study supports the practice of decontaminating a dropped ACL hamstring autograft using either 4 % chlorhexidine or bacitracin solution. Specimens should be retrieved sterilely and washed for at least 3 min. This study also demonstrates no advantage in retrieval time of less than 5 s as compared to 15 s for uncontaminated graft. Hamstring harvest in ACL reconstruction may result in positive cultures, thus routine soaking of the hamstring autograft in either bacitracin or 4 % chlorhexidine solution is recommended. In addition, dropped hamstring autograft can be effectively sterilized with bacitracin or 4 % chlorhexidine solution. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Contact area and pressure in suture bridge rotator cuff repair using knotless lateral anchors.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether the use of knotless lateral anchors in a suture bridge construct produces better contact area and pressure parameters than a suture bridge construct with standard lateral anchors that require knots or a double-row repair. The hypothesis was that knotless lateral anchors would produce better contact area and pressure parameters than the other two constructs. METHODS: A total of fifteen matched pairs of cadaveric shoulders were divided into three groups. In Group 1, a suture bridge using knotless anchors for the lateral row was performed on five shoulders. A suture bridge using standard lateral row anchors that require knots was performed on the contralateral shoulders. In Group 2, suture bridge with knotless lateral row anchors was compared with double-row repair. In Group 3, suture bridge using standard lateral row anchors was compared with double-row repair. The contact conditions of the rotator cuff footprint were measured using pressure-sensitive film. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between any of the techniques regarding contact area F(2, 15.7) = 3.09, P = 0.07 or mean contact pressure F(2, 15.1) = 2.35, P = 0.12. A post hoc power analysis suggests differences between techniques are likely less than 91-113 mm(2) for area and 0.071-0.089 N for pressure. CONCLUSIONS: The use of knotless anchors in the lateral row of a suture bridge repair did not increase the footprint contact area or contact pressure when compared to a suture bridge repair requiring knots laterally or to a double-row repair.

Inappropriate transfer of patients with orthopaedic injuries to a Level I trauma center: a prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyze the appropriateness of transfer of patients with orthopaedic injuries to a Level I trauma center from surrounding Level II to IV centers. DESIGN: A prospective study was conducted over a 5-month period by collecting data on all orthopaedic patients being transferred to our facility. All transfer diagnoses were designated as appropriate or inappropriate. Patient demographics were calculated. SETTING: The transfer of patients occurred from 23 Level II to IV hospitals to a Level I trauma center. These hospitals service 1 to 1.5 million people a year. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: All patients transferred with orthopaedic injuries were recorded. Patient variables such as transfer diagnosis, age, gender, insurance status, time of arrival, day of transfer, transferring and accepting physicians, previous imaging studies, and patient disposition were recorded. Outcome measurements included chi tests to determine variation in demographics based on insurance and appropriateness of transfer. Multivariate regression analysis was also performed to determine influence of individual patient variables on the main outcome variable: appropriateness of transfer. RESULTS: Two hundred sixteen patients were transferred of which we considered 52% inappropriate. Sixty-eight percent of transfers occurred between 6:00 pm and 5:59 am and 60% of all transfers were over the weekend. Also, 69% of inappropriate transfers were discharged directly from the emergency department. Insurance was an independent factor affecting appropriateness of transfer. A larger percentage of inappropriate patients transferred were uninsured. The inappropriate patient who was transferred had more likelihood of being uninsured than insured. Moreover, there was a significantly higher percentage of inappropriate uninsured patients transferred after hours and over the weekend as compared with insured patients. More than 97% of inappropriate transfers were accepted by the emergency department physician without communication with the on-call orthopaedist at our facility. CONCLUSIONS: There is a trend among community hospitals to transfer uninsured patients with benign orthopaedic injuries inappropriately to a Level I trauma center. This effect is magnified on weekends and at night. Strict regulation of the Emergency Labor Act and better communication between Level II to IV hospitals and Level I orthopaedic surgeons can decrease the inappropriate transfer of patients and reduce the burden on our healthcare system.