Around-the-knee osteotomies part 1: definitions, rationale and planning-state of the art.

Knee osteotomies are essential orthopedic procedures with the ability to preserve the joint and correct ligament instabilities. Literature supports the correlation between lower limb malalignment and outcomes after knee ligament reconstruction and cartilage procedures. Concepts such as joint line obliquity, posterior tibial slope angle, and intra-articular deformity correction are integral components of both preoperative planning and postoperative evaluations. The concept of preserving and/or restoring joint line congruence during simultaneous correction of varus or valgus deformity can be achieved through several different approaches. With advancements in osteotomy research and surgical planning technology, the surgical decision-making has increased in complexity. Based upon a patient's specific deformity, decisions need to be made whether to perform a single-level (proximal tibia or distal femur) versus double-level (both proximal tibia and distal femur) osteotomy, and whether to correct deformity in a single plane (coronal or sagittal) or perform a biplanar osteotomy, correcting two of the malalignments in either coronal, sagittal, or axial planes. Osteotomy procedures prioritize safety, reproducibility, precision, and meticulous planning. Equally important is the proactive management of possible complications and the implementation of preventive strategies for complications such as hinge fractures and unintentional changes to alignment in other planes. This review navigates the intricate landscape of lower limb alignment, commencing with foundational definitions and rationale for performing osteotomies, progressing through the planning phase, and addressing the critical aspect of complication prevention, all while looking ahead to anticipate future advancements in this field. However, rotational osteotomies and tibial tubercle osteotomies in isolation or as an adjunct procedure are beyond the scope of this review.

Suture-Augmented Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair for Proximal Avulsion or High-Grade Partial Tears Shows Similar Side-to-Side Difference and No Clinical Differences at Two Years Versus Conventional Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction for Mid-Substance Tears or Poor Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tissue Quality.

PURPOSE: To compare objective and subjective clinical outcomes between suture-augmented anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair (SAACLR) and conventional ACL reconstruction (CACLR) with minimum 2-year follow-up. METHODS: In this nonrandomized, prospective study, 30 patients underwent SAACLR for proximal ACL avulsion or high-grade partial ACL tear (Sherman grade 1 or 2) and 30 patients underwent CACLR for proximal one-third/distal two-thirds junction tears and mid-substance tears (Sherman grade 3 or 4) tear types by 1 surgeon between 2018 and 2020. Failure was defined as ACL reinjury. Outcome measures were KT-1000 for side-to-side knee laxity evaluation, Visual Analog Scale for pain, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Severity Score (KOOS), Tegner Activity Scale, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated for IKDC and KOOS subscores. RESULTS: Three failures (10%) occurred in the SAACLR group, with no failures in the CACLR group (P = .24). A total of 23 (85%) SAACLR patients and 27 (90%) CACLR patients had patient-reported outcomes and physical examination at minimum 2 years. Two-year KT-1000 testing with 20 lbs showed less than 1 mm side-to-side difference between the groups. No significant differences in the percentage of patients meeting the MCID were found between the SAACLR and CACLR groups at 2 years: IKDC, 10.81 (82%) versus 10.54 (93%) (P = .48); KOOS Pain, 11.55 (73%) versus 10.58 (78%) (P = .94); KOOS Symptoms, 8.15 (77%) versus 10.32 (74%) (P = 1.0); KOOS Activities of Daily Living, 12.19 (59%) versus 12.28 (70%) (P = .60); 18.99 (71%) versus 16.77 (86%) (P = .42). Significantly higher IKDC scores were observed with SAACLR versus CACLR at 3 months (P = .01) and 6 months (P = .02), and significantly higher Lysholm scale, Tegner Activity Scale, and all KOOS subscale scores were observed at 6 months. CONCLUSIONS: At 2 years after surgery, KT-1000 testing showed less than 1 mm side-to-side difference and no differences were observed between the groups in the percentage of patients who met or exceeded the MCID. Significantly higher early patient-reported outcome scores were found with SAACLR versus CACLR. The rerupture rate between the groups was not significantly different. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, Prospective cohort study.

Rare presentation of bilateral thumb psoriatic arthritis treated with arthrodesis: a case report.

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a seronegative inflammatory arthritis that occurs concomitantly with cutaneous manifestations and tendinous pathology that affects up to 1% of the general population. While the majority of cases are mild, nearly 20% of PsA patients will progress to severe disease manifesting as debilitating polyarticular inflammation and joint destruction. PsA is most commonly asymmetric and bilateral severe disease involving the same joints in each hand has rarely been reported in the literature. It is estimated that PsA only presents bilaterally in a quarter of patients. The recent increase in popularity and efficacy of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) has led to increasing rarity of such severe disease progression. We present a case of a 47-year-old male with PsA who had a unique pattern of bilateral first metacarpophalangeal (MP) and interphalangeal (IP) involvement with minimal erosion leading to significant joint pain, instability, dislocation, and loss of function. After failure of conservative treatment that included both DMARDs and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), the patient opted for surgical management. The purpose of this report is to identify a rare presentation of PsA and consider the significance of MP joint arthrodesis as a viable treatment to restore functional status and improve quality of life.

Suture Augmented Versus Standard Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Matched Comparative Analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare outcomes between standard anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using hamstring grafts with and without suture augmentation (SA). METHODS: Patients who underwent ACLR with hamstring autografts or allografts with minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Patients undergoing ACLR with SA were matched 1:1 by age, gender, body mass index, graft type, and revision status to standard ACLR. Range of motion, pain, postoperative activity, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and complications were collected. Paired 2-tailed Student's t-tests and Pearson's χ2-tests were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. A multivariate analysis of variance was conducted. Return to preinjury activity level was assessed using Spearman's rho and Pearson's χ2-tests. RESULTS: Sixty patients at a mean age of 29.50 ± 6.60 years, 43.4% male, body mass index 26.27 ± 3.37, and follow-up of 29.54 ± 5.37 months were included. Preoperative PROMs were not significantly different (P >. 05). Postoperative range of motion was similar between groups (P = .457). Postoperative average daily (0.60 ± 1.25 vs 1.66 ± 1.90) and maximum daily pain (1.57 ± 1.83 vs 3.35 ± 2.28) were significantly lower for SA (P < .014). SA predicted improvement in PROMs (P < .05) and maximum pain scores (P = .001). SA was significantly correlated with improved time to return to preinjury activity level (9.17 ± 2.06 vs 12.88 ± 3.94 months; P = .002) and percentage of preinjury activity level (93.33% ± 13.22% vs 83.17% ± 17.69%; P = .010). There was a trend toward improved rate of return to preinjury activity level for SA (76.7% vs 56.7%; P = .100). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that SA hamstring ACLRs were associated with improved PROMs, less pain, and a higher percentage of and earlier return to preinjury activity level when compared with standard hamstring ACLRs without evidence of overconstraint. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Predictors of Knee Arthrofibrosis and Outcomes after Arthroscopic Lysis of Adhesions following Ligamentous Reconstruction: A Retrospective Case-Control Study with Over Two Years' Average Follow-Up.

Arthrofibrosis can be a devastating complication after ligamentous knee reconstruction. Beyond early range of motion (ROM), manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) and arthroscopic lysis of adhesions (LOAs) are the most frequently employed interventions for the condition. There is a paucity of data regarding predictive factors of arthrofibrosis requiring MUA and LOA, and even less data regarding changes in validated patient-reported outcome measures following the procedure. A retrospective case-control study was performed at an academic, urban Level I trauma center of patients that developed arthrofibrosis requiring MUA and LOA following ligamentous reconstruction. The indication for LOA was failure to achieve a 90° arc of ROM by 6 weeks. Seventeen cases and 141 controls were identified. Follow-up for cases was 26.9 ± 17.1 months (mean ± standard deviation). Time from initial reconstruction to LOA was 75.2 ± 27.9 days. Cases had higher body mass indices by a mean of 2.9 (p = 0.024). The most significant risk factors for stiffness were concomitant anterior cruciate ligament, posterior cruciate ligament, and posterolateral corner/lateral collateral ligament injury (odds ratio [OR], 17.08), knee dislocation (OR, 12.84), and use of an external fixator (OR, 12.81, 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.03-54.20) (all p < 0.0026). Mean Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Indices, and International Knee Documentation Committee scores improved by 47.5, 50.5, and 47.3% (all p < 0.0038), respectively. All patients reported improvement in pain, with maximum daily pain scores improving by a mean of 4.1 points on the Numeric Pain Rating Scale (p < 0.001). Mean ROM arc improved by 38.8° (p < 0.001). All 17 cases were satisfied with the procedure. Twelve cases (70.59%) reported a full return to preinjury level of activity. No factors were identified that predicted success from the procedure, likely due to inadequate sample size. Arthrofibrosis following knee injury and ligamentous reconstruction can be predicted by the severity of injury and early intervention with MUA and arthroscopic LOA can lead to a satisfactory outcome for the patient.