Magnetic Resonance Arthrogram Outperforms Standard Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2 Weeks After First Shoulder Dislocation for Labral Tear Diagnosis.

PURPOSE: To determine the comparative accuracy and precision of routine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) versus magnetic resonance (MR) arthrogram in measuring labral tear size as a function of time from a shoulder dislocation. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated consecutive patients who underwent primary arthroscopic stabilization between 2012 and 2021 in a single academic center. All patients completed a preoperative MRI or MR arthrogram of the shoulder within 60 days of injury and subsequently underwent arthroscopic repair within 6 months of imaging. Intraoperative labral tear size and location were used as standards for comparison. Three musculoskeletal radiologists independently interpreted tear extent using a clock-face convention. Accuracy and precision of MR labral tear measurements were defined based on location and size of the tear, respectively. Accuracy and precision were compared between MRI and MR arthrogram as a function of time from dislocation. RESULTS: In total, 32 MRIs and 65 MR arthrograms (total n = 97) were assessed. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that intraoperative tear size, early imaging, and arthrogram status were associated with increased MR accuracy and precision (P < .05). Ordering surgeons preferred arthrogram for delayed imaging (P = .018). For routine MRI, error in accuracy increased by 3.4° per day and error in precision increased by 2.3° per day (P < .001) from time of injury. MR arthrogram, however, was not temporally influenced. Significant loss of accuracy and precision of MRI compared with MR arthrogram occurred at 2 weeks after an acute shoulder dislocation. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with MR arthrogram, conventional MRI demonstrates time-dependent loss of accuracy and precision in determining shoulder labral tear extent after dislocation, with statistical divergence occurring at 2 weeks. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, retrospective radiographic diagnostic study.

Nonanatomic femoral tunnel placement increases the risk of subsequent meniscal surgery after ACLR: Part II-Patients without recurrent ACL injury.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to identify risk factors for subsequent meniscal surgery following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) in patients without recurrent ACL injury. METHODS: Patients aged ≥14 years who underwent primary ACLR with minimum 1-year follow-up and without recurrent ACL injury were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics and surgical data at the time of ACLR were collected. Postoperative radiographs were used to measure femoral and tibial tunnel position, and posterior tibial slope. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify risk factors for subsequent meniscal surgery. RESULTS: Of 629 ACLRs that fulfilled the inclusion criteria, subsequent meniscal surgery was performed in 65 [10.3%] patients. Multivariate analysis revealed that medial meniscal repair at the time of ACLR, younger age, anterior femoral tunnel position and distal femoral tunnel position were significantly associated with subsequent meniscal surgery (p < 0.001, p = 0.016, p = 0.015, p = 0.035, respectively). The frequency of femoral tunnel placement >10% outside of the literature-established anatomic position was significantly higher in those who underwent subsequent meniscal surgery compared to those who did not (38.3% vs. 20.3%, p = 0.006). Posterior tibial slope and ACL graft type were not significantly associated with subsequent meniscal surgery. CONCLUSION: Medial meniscal repair at the time of ACLR, younger age and nonanatomic femoral tunnel placement were risk factors for subsequent meniscal surgery in patients without recurrent ACL injury. Femoral tunnel placement <10% outside of the native anatomic position is important to reduce the risk of subsequent meniscal surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

'Real world' clinical implementation of blood flow restriction therapy does not increase quadriceps strength after quadriceps tendon autograft ACL reconstruction.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare strength outcomes of individuals undergoing postoperative rehabilitation following quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with and without blood flow restriction therapy. METHODS: A retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing ACLR with QT autograft with a minimum of two quantitative postoperative isometric strength assessments via an electromechanical dynamometer (Biodex) was included. Demographics, surgical variables and strength measurement outcomes were compared between patients undergoing blood flow restriction therapy as part of postoperative rehabilitation versus those who did not. RESULTS: Eighty-one (81) patients met the inclusion criteria. No differences were found in demographic and surgical characteristics between those who received blood flow restriction compared with those who did not. While both groups had improvements in quadriceps peak torque and limb symmetry index (LSI; defined as peak torque of the operative limb divided by the peak torque of the nonoperative limb) over the study period, the blood flow restriction group had significantly lower mean peak torque of the operative limb at first Biodex strength measurement (95.6 vs. 111.2 Nm; p = 0.03). Additionally, the blood flow restriction group had a significantly lower mean LSI than those with no blood flow restriction at the second Biodex measurement timepoint (81% vs. 90%; p = 0.02). No other significant differences were found between the strength outcomes measured. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study show that the 'real world' clinical implementation of blood flow restriction therapy to the postoperative rehabilitation protocol following QT autograft ACLR did not result in an increase in absolute or longitudinal changes in quadriceps strength measurements. A better understanding and standardisation of the use of blood flow restriction therapy in the rehabilitation setting is necessary to delineate the true effects of this modality on strength recovery after QT autograft ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Margin convergence vs. superior capsular reconstruction for massive irreparable rotator cuff tears: outcomes are equivalent unless there is preoperative pseudoparesis.

BACKGROUND: Margin convergence (MC) and superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) are common treatment options for irreparable rotator cuff tears in younger patients, although they differ in associated costs and operative times. The purpose of this study was to compare range of motion, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and reoperation rates following MC and SCR. We hypothesized superior outcomes after SCR relative to MC regarding functional outcomes, subjective measures, and reoperation rates. METHODS: This was a multicenter retrospective review of 59 patients from 3 surgeons treating irreparable rotator cuff tears with either MC (n = 28) or SCR (n = 31) and minimum 1-year follow-up from 2014-2019. Visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), active forward flexion (FF), external rotation (ER), retear rate, and conversion rate to reverse shoulder arthroplasty were evaluated. t tests and χ2 tests were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively (P < .05). RESULTS: Baseline demographics, range of motion, and magnetic resonance imaging findings were similar between groups. Average follow-up was 31.5 months and 17.8 months for the MC and SCR groups, respectively (P < .001). The MC and SCR groups had similar postoperative FF (151° ± 26° vs. 142° ± 38°; P = .325) and ER (48° ± 12° vs. 46° ± 11°; P = .284), with both groups not improving significantly from their preoperative baselines. However, both cohorts demonstrated significant improvements in VAS score (MC: 7.3 to 2.5; SCR: 6.4 to 1.0) and SSV (MC: 54% to 82%; SCR: 38% to 87%). There were no significant differences in postoperative VAS scores, SSV, and rates of retear or rates of conversion to arthroplasty between the MC and SCR groups. In patients with preoperative pseudoparesis (FF < 90°), SCR (n = 9) resulted in greater postoperative FF than MC (n = 5) (141° ± 38° vs. 67° ± 24°; P = .002). CONCLUSION: Both MC and SCR demonstrated excellent postoperative outcomes in the setting of massive irreparable rotator cuff tear, with significant improvements in PROs and no significant differences in range of motion. Specifically for patients with preoperative pseudoparesis, SCR was more effective in restoring forward elevation. Further long-term studies are needed to compare outcomes and establish appropriate indications.

Increased Failure Rates After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair After Second Dislocation Compared to Primary Dislocation With Comparable Clinical Outcomes.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare rates of recurrent dislocation and postsurgical outcomes in patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability immediately after a first-time traumatic anterior dislocation versus patients who sustained a second dislocation event after initial nonoperative management. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed of patients undergoing primary arthroscopic stabilization for anterior shoulder instability without concomitant procedures and minimum 2-year clinical follow-up. Primary outcome was documentation of a recurrent shoulder dislocation. Secondary clinical outcomes included range of motion, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score (ASES), and Shoulder Activity Scale (SAS). RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients (mean age 21.3 years ± 7.3 years) met inclusion criteria. Sixty-three shoulders underwent surgical stabilization after a single shoulder dislocation, and 14 underwent surgery after 2 dislocations. Average follow-up was 35.9 months. The rate of recurrent dislocation was significantly higher in the 2-dislocation group compared to single dislocations (42.8% vs 14.2%, P = .03). No significant difference was present in range of motion, VAS, ASES, and SAS scores. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was 1.4 for VAS and 1.8 for SAS scores. The MCID was met or exceeded in the primary dislocation group in 31/38 (81.6%) patients for VAS, 23/31 (74.1%) for ASES, and 24/31 for SES (77.4%) scores. For the second dislocation cohort, MCID was met or exceeded in 7/9 (77.8%) for VAS, 4/7 (57.1%) for ASES, and 5/7 for SES (71.4%) scores. CONCLUSION: Immediate arthroscopic surgical stabilization after a first-time anterior shoulder dislocation significantly decreases the risk of recurrent dislocation in comparison to those who undergo surgery after 2 dislocation events, with comparable clinical outcome scores. These findings suggest that patients who return to activities after a primary anterior shoulder dislocation and sustain just 1 additional dislocation event are at increased risk of a failing arthroscopic repair. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective comparative study; Level of evidence, 3.

What to Do When It Is Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Number Two.

Several factors contribute to the greater complexity of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction compared with primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstructive surgery. Prior tunnels and hardware may compromise revision tunnel placement and secure fixation. This may necessitate two-stage revision or specific techniques to achieve anatomic revision tunnels. Prior autograft use may limit graft options. Individuals with a failed anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction are more likely to have risk factors for further failure. These may include malalignment, occult instability, knee hyperextension, or increased tibial slope. There are also higher rates of meniscus and cartilage injuries in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction that may require intervention. Successful revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction requires thoughtful preoperative planning along with multiple potential intraoperative plans depending on the pathology encountered. It is important to provide the orthopaedic surgeon with an up-to-date, evidence-based overview of how to approach and execute a successful revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Harvesting a second graft from the extensor mechanism for revision ACL reconstruction does not delay return of quadriceps function.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether harvesting a second graft from the ipsilateral extensor mechanism adversely affects clinical outcomes in revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. METHODS: A retrospective review of 34 patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with either quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft or bone-tendon-bone (BTB) autograft was conducted. Patients with two grafts (BTB+QT) from the extensor mechanism were matched based on age, laterality, and sex to patients who had primary reconstruction with hamstring (HS) autograft followed by revision with either BTB or QT autograft (HS+QT/BTB). Return of quadriceps function was assessed with time to return to jogging in a standardized rehab protocol or time to regain 80% quadriceps strength. Secondary outcomes included International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Marx scores at 12-month follow-up and return to sport. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in return to jogging or 80% quadriceps strength (HS 149.5 ± 38.2 days, BTB+QT 131.7 ± 40.1 days, n.s.), number able to return to sport (HS 62%, BTB+QT 93%, n.s.), months to return to sport (HS 10.6 ± 1.4, BTB+QT 10.5 ± 2.3, n.s.), return to pre-injury level of competition (HS 62%, BTB+QT 73%, n.s.), or IKDC (HS 77.2 ± 16.4, BTB+QT 74.8 ± 23.9, n.s.) and Marx scores (HS 9.2 ± 5.3, BTB+QT 8.0 ± 3.7, n.s.) at one-year follow-up. CONCLUSION: The main finding of the present study was that outcomes for patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction with a second extensor mechanism autograft were comparable to those seen for patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction with extensor mechanism autograft after primary ACL reconstruction with hamstring autograft. By better understanding the consequences of harvesting a second graft from the extensor mechanism, surgeons can better decide what graft to use in revision ACL reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Harvest location has a minimal impact on differences in cross-sectional area of quadriceps tendon in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with quadriceps tendon (QT) has been gaining popularity. However, it is unknown how differences in harvest location of the QT affect its thickness and cross-sectional area (CSA). The present study aimed to clarify the differences in thickness and CSA of the QT based on location of tendon harvesting. METHODS: Patients scheduled for, or who underwent, ACL reconstruction were prospectively included in the study. The short-axis images on ultrasound were used to assess the CSA of the QT at 30 and 60 mm proximal to the superior pole of the patella. QT autografts with CSAs greater than or equal to 10 mm of width were included and measured at three different locations, namely the center, medial one-third, and lateral one-third at the widest diameter of the QT. Patients with less than 10-mm width of the QT at 60 mm proximal to the superior pole of the patella were excluded. The thickness and CSA were compared based on the location of tendon harvest. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were recruited for the study. The mean thickness and CSA were larger in the center of the QT compared to the lateral one-third at 30 mm proximal to the superior pole of the patella (thickness, 6.7 ± 1.3 mm vs. 5.9 ± 1.3 mm; P = 0.009; CSA, 65.6 ± 11.4 mm2 vs. 58.8 ± 11.9 mm2; P = 0.036). There were no significant differences in thickness and CSA of the QT among the three assessment locations at 60 mm proximal to the superior pole of the patella (n.s.). CONCLUSION: The thickness and CSA of QT was greater in the center compared to the lateral one-third at 30 mm proximal to the QT insertion point. However, the difference in value was clinically non-significant, and therefore, harvest location of the QT autograft may not meaningfully impact intraoperative graft diameter. As a result, surgeons may choose the harvest location without concern for resultant graft diameter as long as the enough length of QT is secured. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Near complete quadriceps tendon healing 2 years following harvest in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Despite the recent increase in the use of quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR); however, there remains a paucity of literature evaluating the postoperative morphology of the QT. The present study aimed to determine the postoperative morphologic change of the QT at a minimum of 2 years following harvesting during ACLR. METHODS: Patients who underwent ACLR with QT autograft and underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at a minimum of 2 years following harvesting were retrospectively included in the study. The anterior-to-posterior (A-P) thickness, medial-to-lateral (M-L) width, cross-sectional area (CSA), and signal/noise quotient (SNQ) of the QT were assessed at 5 mm, 15 mm, and 30 mm proximal to the superior pole of the patella on MRI. The CSA was adjusted by the angle between the QT and the plane of the axial cut based on a cosine function (adjusted CSA). The A-P thickness, M-L width, adjusted CSA, and SNQ were compared pre- and postoperatively. In addition, defects or scar tissue formation in the harvest site were investigated on postoperative MRI. RESULTS: Thirty patients were recruited for the study. The mean duration between postoperative MRI and surgery was 2.8 ± 1.1 years. The mean A-P thickness was 10.3% and 11.9% larger postoperatively at 5 mm and 15 mm, respectively. The mean M-L width was 7.3% and 6.5% smaller postoperatively at 5 mm and 15 mm, respectively. There were no significant differences in the adjusted CSA between pre- and post-operative states (275.7 ± 71.6 mm2 vs. 286.7 ± 91.8 mm2, n.s.). There was no significant difference in the postoperative change in the SNQ of the QT at all assessment locations. Defect or scar tissue formation at the harvest site was observed in 4 cases (13.3%), and 5 cases (16.6%), respectively. CONCLUSION: At a minimum of 2 years following QT harvest during ACLR, the QT became slightly thicker and narrower (approximately 11% and 7%, respectively). While the current study demonstrates that QT re-harvesting can be considered due to nearly normalized tendon morphology, future histological and biomechanical studies are required to determine the re-harvesting potential of the QT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Knotted and knotless double row transosseous equivalent repair techniques for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair demonstrate comparable post-operative outcomes.

PURPOSE: To compare failure rates and outcomes after transosseous equivalent (TOE) double row (DR) knotted suture bridge versus knotless suture tape bridge repair techniques for rotator cuff tears. METHODS: A consecutive series of 272 shoulders in 256 patients who underwent arthroscopic, double row, TOE repair for full-thickness tears of the supraspinatus tendon were reviewed. Eighty-four shoulders were repaired using knotted suture bridge (KSB) technique, and 188 shoulders were repaired using all knotless suture tape bridge (KTB) technique. Revision procedures and concomitant subscapularis tendon repairs were excluded from analysis. The minimum follow-up was 12 months. Primary outcome was failure of surgical repair, defined as either confirmed retear on MRI and/or need for revision surgery. Secondary clinical outcome measures were assessed including range of motion, strength, visual analog scale (VAS), operative time, subjective shoulder value (SSV), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) mental and physical health, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score (ASES), Brophy shoulder activity scores, and need for manipulation under anesthesia (MUA). RESULTS: A total of 127 shoulders (38 KSB and 89 KTB) met inclusion criteria for the study. No significant difference in demographic variables were present between the groups at baseline. Supraspinatus tear size and average follow-up time did not differ significantly between groups. Failure rates were similar between the KSB and KTB repairs (13.1 vs 7.9%, n.s.). There was no significant difference in functional outcomes including strength, range of motion in forward flexion and external rotation, as well as patient reported outcomes including VAS, SSV, PROMIS, ASES, and Brophy scores between the groups. There was also no difference in post-operative stiffness requiring MUA. CONCLUSION: Both KSB and KTB repair techniques demonstrate low retear rates with excellent functional outcomes when compared to pre-operative examination. Both KSB and KTB techniques are viable options for achieving a successful rotator cuff repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Preoperative quantitative pivot shift does not correlate with in vivo kinematics following ACL reconstruction with or without lateral extraarticular tenodesis.

PURPOSE: Quantitative pivot shift (QPS) testing using PIVOT technology can detect high- and low-grade rotatory knee instability following anterior cruciate ligament injury or reconstruction (ACLR). The aim of this project was to determine if preoperative QPS correlates with postoperative knee kinematics in the operative and contralateral, healthy extremity following ACLR with or without lateral extraarticular tenodesis (LET) using a highly precise in vivo analysis system. A positive correlation between preoperative QPS and postoperative tibial translation and rotation following ACLR with or without LET in the operative and healthy, contralateral extremity was hypothesized. METHODS: Twenty patients with ACL injury and high-grade rotatory knee instability were randomized to undergo anatomic ACLR with or without LET as part of a prospective randomized trial. At 6 and 12 months postoperatively, in vivo kinematic data were collected using dynamic biplanar radiography superimposed with high-resolution computed tomography scans of patients' knees during downhill running. Total anterior-posterior (AP) tibial translation and internal-external tibial rotation were measured during the gait cycle. Spearman's rho was calculated for preoperative QPS and postoperative kinematics. RESULTS: In the contralateral, healthy extremity, a significant positive correlation was seen between preoperative QPS and total AP tibial translation at 12 months postoperatively (rs = 0.6, p < 0.05). There were no additional significant correlations observed between preoperative QPS and postoperative knee kinematics at 6 and 12 months postoperatively in the operative and contralateral, healthy extremity for combined isolated ACLR and ACLR with LET patients as well as isolated ACLR patients or ACLR with LET patients analyzed separately. DISCUSSION: The main finding of this study was that there was a significant positive correlation between preoperative QPS and total AP tibial translation at 12 months postoperatively in the contralateral, healthy extremity. There were no significant correlations between preoperative QPS and postoperative in vivo kinematics at 6 and 12 months following ACLR with or without LET. This suggests that QPS as measured with PIVOT technology does correlate with healthy in vivo knee kinematics, but QPS does not correlate with in vivo kinematics following ACLR with or without LET.

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with all-soft tissue quadriceps tendon versus quadriceps tendon with bone block.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether there was a difference in clinical outcomes between patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction (ACLR) with all-soft tissue quadriceps tendon (sQT) autograft versus QT with bone block (bQT). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 708 patients who underwent QT ACLR was conducted. Primary ACLR patients with at least 1 year of follow-up were identified and those who received sQT were compared to those who received bQT. Data collection entailed patient demographics, surgical variables, patient reported outcomes (PROs), knee stability testing, and complications. The primary outcome of interest was International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, reported as mean score, pre- and postoperative difference, and number who met minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Secondary outcomes included Lachman and pivot shift grade, other patient reported outcomes (PROs), complication rates, and return to sport (RTS). RESULTS: A total of 195 patients (147 sQT, 48 bQT) who underwent primary QT ACLR met criteria for analysis, with mean follow-up of 17.0 ± 7.9 months. No difference was detected between cohorts with respect to postoperative IKDC score (sQT: n = 120, 81.0 ± 18.9, bQT: n = 10, 80.9 ± 20.4, n.s.), proportion of patients who met MCID (sQT: 68/78 [87%], bQT: 6/7 [86%], n.s.), or results of stability testing. In the sQT cohort, 86% (106/123) of athletes achieved full RTS, compared to 85% (34/40) in the bQT cohort (n.s.). Time to RTS was less than a year in both cohorts (sQT: 10.5 ± 3.8 months [n = 106], bQT: 11.1 ± 3.9 months [n = 31], n.s.). Graft rupture occurred in 7 (5%) sQT patients and 3 (6%) bQT patients (n.s.), and all clinical failures were due to graft rupture (n.s.). No differences were detected for rates of postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: No differences in clinical outcomes were detected between patients who underwent primary ACLR with sQT autograft versus bQT autograft. Currently, the decision to employ sQT or bQT is largely determined by surgeon preference. This study demonstrates excellent outcomes with both preparations and supports the use of either graft type at the discretion of the treating surgeon. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Remplissage reduces recurrent instability in high-risk patients with on-track Hill-Sachs lesions.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare recurrent instability rates between patients with on-track Hill-Sachs lesions who underwent arthroscopic labral repair (ALR) alone and those who underwent ALR with remplissage (ALR-R). Our hypothesis was that ALR-R would decrease the rate of recurrent instability, especially among patients at high risk of recurrent instability after ALR, such as contact athletes with near-track Hill-Sachs lesions. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, retrospective analysis of patients aged 14-50 years with on-track Hill-Sachs lesions who underwent ALR-R or ALR without remplissage between January 2014 and December 2019 with minimum 2-year follow-up. The exclusion criteria included prior ipsilateral shoulder surgery, >15% glenoid bone loss (GBL), off-track Hill-Sachs lesion, concomitant shoulder procedure, and connective tissue disorder. Age, sex, follow-up, and contact sports participation were recorded. GBL, Hills-Sachs interval (HSI), glenoid track, and distance to dislocation (DTD) were determined from preoperative magnetic resonance imaging scans. Affected-shoulder range of motion, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index scores, Subjective Shoulder Value scores, and recurrent dislocation and/or revision surgery status were also collected. A subgroup analysis was performed on "high-risk" patients (defined as participants in contact sports with DTD <10 mm) from each cohort. RESULTS: The ALR-R cohort included 56 patients, and the ALR cohort included 127. ALR-R patients had greater GBL (P = .004) and a greater HSI (P < .001). In the ALR-R cohort, only 1 patient (1.8%) had a recurrent dislocation and there were no revision operations. In comparison, in the ALR cohort, 14 patients (11.0%) had recurrent dislocations (P = .040) and 8 (6.3%) underwent revision operations (P = .11). Univariate analysis showed that remplissage protected against recurrent dislocation (P = .040) whereas younger age (P = .004), contact sports participation (P = .001), and increased GBL (P = .048) were associated with recurrent dislocation. Multivariate analysis showed that HSI (P = .001) and contact sports participation (P = .002) predicted recurrent dislocation. Among high-risk patients, only 1 patient (4.2%) in the ALR-R group had a recurrent instability event vs. 6 (66.7%) in the ALR group (P < .001). The high-risk ALR-R subgroup also had significantly better final Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (P = .008) and Subjective Shoulder Value (P = .001) scores than the high-risk ALR subgroup. CONCLUSIONS: Anterior shoulder instability patients with on-track Hill-Sachs lesions have lower recurrent dislocation rates after ALR plus remplissage when compared with ALR alone. This is especially true for high-risk patients, such as contact athletes with a DTD <10 mm.

Overhead athletes have comparable intraoperative injury patterns and clinical outcomes to non-overhead athletes following surgical stabilization for first-time anterior shoulder instability at average 6-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Anterior shoulder instability is a common problem affecting young, athletic populations that results in potential career-altering functional limitations. However, little is known regarding the differences in clinical outcomes after operative management of overhead vs. non-overhead athletes presenting with first-time anterior shoulder instability. We hypothesized that overhead athletes would have milder clinical presentations, similar surgical characteristics, and diminished postoperative outcomes when compared with non-overhead athletes after surgical stabilization following first-time anterior shoulder instability episodes. METHODS: Patients with first-time anterior shoulder instability events (subluxations and dislocations) undergoing operative management between 2013 and 2020 were included. The exclusion criteria included multiple dislocations and multidirectional shoulder instability. Baseline demographic characteristics, imaging data, examination findings, and intraoperative findings were retrospectively collected. Patients were contacted to collect postoperative patient-reported outcomes including American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score, Brophy activity index score, and Subjective Shoulder Value, in addition to return-to-work and -sport, recurrent dislocation, and revision rates. RESULTS: A total of 256 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 178 (70%) were non-overhead athletes. The mean age of the entire population was 23.1 years. There was no significant difference in concomitant shoulder pathology, preoperative range of motion, or preoperative strength between cohorts. A greater proportion of overhead athletes presented with instability events not requiring manual reduction (defined as subluxations; 64.1% vs. 50.6%; P < .001) and underwent arthroscopic surgery (97% vs. 76%, P < .001) compared with non-overhead athletes. A smaller proportion of overhead athletes underwent open soft-tissue stabilization compared with non-overhead athletes (1% vs. 19%, P < .001). Outcome data were available for 60 patients with an average follow-up period of 6.7 years. No significant differences were found between groups with respect to recurrent postoperative instability event rate (13.0% for overhead athletes vs. 16.8% for non-overhead athletes), revision rate (13.0% for overhead athletes vs. 11.1% for non-overhead athletes), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score, Brophy score, Subjective Shoulder Value, or rates of return to work or sport. CONCLUSION: Overhead athletes who underwent surgery after an initial instability event were more likely to present with subluxations compared with non-overhead athletes. With limited follow-up subject to biases, this study found no differences in recurrence or revision rates, postoperative patient-reported outcomes, or return-to-work or -sport rates between overhead and non-overhead athletes undergoing shoulder stabilization surgery following first-time instability events. Although larger prospective studies are necessary to draw firmer conclusions, the findings of this study suggest that overhead athletes can be considered in the same treatment pathway for first-time dislocation as non-overhead athletes.

A high tibial slope, allograft use, and poor patient-reported outcome scores are associated with multiple ACL graft failures.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical outcomes, radiographic characteristics, and surgical factors between patients with single and multiple anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft failures. It was hypothesized that patients experiencing multiple ACL graft failures exhibit lower patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) and a higher (steeper) posterior tibial slope (PTS) than patients with single ACL graft failure. METHODS: Patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction with a minimum follow-up of 12 months were included in this retrospective cohort study. Based on the number of ACL graft failures, patients were assigned either to the group "single ACL graft failure "or" multiple ACL graft failures ". The PTS was measured on strict lateral radiographs. Validated PROs including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective knee form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Lysholm Score, Tegner Activity Scale, ACL-Return to Sport after Injury Scale, and Visual Analogue Scale for pain were collected. RESULTS: Overall, 102 patients were included with 58 patients assigned to the single ACL graft failure group and 44 patients to the multiple ACL graft failures group. Quadriceps tendon autograft was used significantly more often (55% vs. 11%, p < 0.001) and allografts were used significantly less often (31% vs. 66%, p < 0.001) as the graft for first revision ACL reconstruction in patients with single versus multiple ACL graft failures. Patients with multiple ACL graft failures were associated with statistically significantly worse PROs (IKDC: 61.7 ± 19.3 vs. 77.4 ± 16.8, p < 0.05; Tegner Activity Scale: 4 (range, 0-7) vs. 6 (range 2-10), p < 0.05), higher PTS (12 ± 3° vs. 9 ± 3°, p < 0.001), and higher rates of subsequent surgery (73% vs. 14%, p < 0.001) and complications (45% vs. 17%, p < 0.05) than patients with single ACL graft failure. CONCLUSION: Compared to single ACL graft failure in this study multiple ACL graft failures were associated with worse PROs, higher PTS, and allograft use. During the first revision ACL reconstruction, it is recommended to avoid the use of allografts and to consider slope-reducing osteotomies to avoid multiple ACL graft failures and improve PROs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

Freddie Fu: A Leader of Leaders.

Freddie Fu had a profound and undeniable impact on the field of orthopaedic surgery. He was a leader both personally and professionally and dedicated his career to ensuring that those around him had the opportunity to thrive. His life and career were distinguished by his exceptional leadership, boundless collaboration, and dedication to diversity. Freddie Fu's ability to train future leaders represents one of his greatest professional legacies, which will continue to permeate the field of orthopaedic surgery for decades to come. He was a giant, and those fortunate enough to train under him are better because of it.

Quadriceps tendon autograft is becoming increasingly popular in revision ACL reconstruction.

PURPOSE: To evaluate trends in revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R), with emphasis on intra-articular findings, grafts, and concurrent procedures. It was hypothesized that revision ACL-Rs over time show a trend toward increased complexity with increased use of autografts over allografts. METHODS: This was a two-center retrospective study including patients undergoing revision ACL-R between 2010 and 2020. Demographic and surgical data including intra-articular findings and concurrent procedures were collected and compared for the time periods 2010-2014 and 2015-2020. All collected variables were compared between three pre-defined age groups (< 20 years, 20-30 years, > 30 years), right and left knees, and males and females. A time series analysis was performed to assess trends in revision ACL-R. RESULTS: This study included 260 patients with a mean age of 26.2 ± 9.4 years at the time of the most recent revision ACL-R, representing the first, second, third, and fourth revision ACL-R for 214 (82%), 35 (14%), 10 (4%), and 1 (< 1%) patients, respectively. Patients age > 30 years showed a significantly longer mean time from primary ACL-R to most recent revision ACL-R (11.1 years), compared to patients age < 20 years (2.2 years, p < 0.001) and age 20-30 years (5.5 years, p < 0.05). Quadriceps tendon autograft was used significantly more often in 2015-2020 compared to 2010-2014 (49% vs. 18%, p < 0.001). A high rate of concurrently performed procedures including meniscal repairs (45%), lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET; 31%), osteotomies (13%), and meniscal allograft transplantations (11%) was shown. Concurrent LET was associated with intact cartilage and severely abnormal preoperative knee laxity and showed a statistically significant and linear increase over time (p < 0.05). Intact cartilage (41%, p < 0.05), concurrent medial meniscal repairs (39%, p < 0.05), and LET (35%, non-significant) were most frequently observed in patients aged < 20 years. CONCLUSION: Quadriceps tendon autograft and concurrent LET are becoming increasingly popular in revision ACL-R. Intact cartilage and severely abnormal preoperative knee laxity represent indications for LET in revision ACL-R. The high rate of concurrent procedures observed demonstrates the high surgical demands of revision ACL-R. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with lateral extraarticular tenodesis better restores native knee kinematics in combined ACL and meniscal injury.

PURPOSE: To determine if anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) with lateral extraarticular tenodesis (LET) is beneficial for restoring knee kinematics with concomitant meniscal pathology causing rotatory knee instability. METHODS: Twenty patients with an ACL tear were randomized to either isolated ACLR or ACLR with LET. Patients were divided into four groups based on the surgery performed and the presence of meniscal tear (MT): ACLR without MT, ACLR with MT, ACLR with LET without MT, and ACLR with LET with MT. Kinematic data normalized to the contralateral, healthy knee were collected using dynamic biplanar radiography superimposed with high-resolution computed tomography scans of patients' knees during downhill running. Anterior tibial translation (ATT) and tibial rotation (TR) as well as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were analyzed at 6- and 12-months postoperatively. RESULTS: At 6 months, ACLR with LET resulted in significantly decreased ATT at heel strike compared to ACLR (ACLR without MT: 0.3 ± 0.8 mm and ACLR with MT: 1.4 ± 3.1 mm vs. ACLR with LET without MT: - 2.5 ± 3.4 mm and ACLR with LET with MT: - 1.5 ± 1.2 mm ATT, p = 0.02). At 6 months, at toe off ACLR with LET better restored ATT to that of the contralateral, healthy knee in patients with meniscal pathology, while in patients without meniscal pathology, ACLR with LET resulted in significantly decreased ATT (1.0 ± 2.6 mm ATT vs. - 2.6 ± 1.7 mm ATT, p = 0.04). There were no significant differences in kinematics or PROMs between groups at 12 months. CONCLUSION: For combined ACL and meniscus injury, ACLR with LET restores native knee kinematics at toe off but excessively decreases ATT at heel strike in the early post-operative period (6 months) without altering knee kinematics in the long term. Future large-scale clinical studies are needed to better understand the function of LET and ultimately improve patient outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Low posterior tibial slope is associated with increased risk of PCL graft failure.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of posterior tibial slope (PTS) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) graft failure after PCL reconstruction. METHODS: Patients undergoing PCL reconstruction with a minimum 2-year follow-up were included in this retrospective cohort study. A chart review was performed to collect patient-, injury-, and surgery-related data. Medial PTS was measured on preoperative lateral radiographs. Validated PROs, including the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Lysholm Score, Tegner Activity Scale, and Visual Analogue Scale for pain, were collected at final follow-up. A correlation analysis was conducted to assess the relationship between PTS and PROs. A logistic regression model was performed to evaluate if PTS could predict PCL graft failure. RESULTS: Overall, 79 patients with a mean age of 28.6 ± 11.7 years and a mean follow-up of 5.7 ± 3.3 years were included. After a median time from injury of 4.0 months, isolated and combined PCL reconstruction was performed in 22 (28%) and 57 (72%) patients, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in PROs and PTS between patients undergoing isolated and combined PCL reconstruction (non-significant [n.s.]). There were no significant correlations between PTS and PROs (n.s.). In total, 14 (18%) patients experienced PCL graft failure after a median time of 17.5 months following PCL reconstruction. Patients with PCL graft failure were found to have statistically significantly lower PTS than patients without graft failure (7.0 ± 2.3° vs. 9.2 ± 3.3°, p < 0.05), while no differences were found in PROs (n.s.). PTS was shown to be a significant predictor of PCL graft failure, with a 1.3-fold increase in the odds of graft failure for each one-degree reduction in PTS (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that PTS does not affect PROs after PCL reconstruction, but that PTS represents a surgically modifiable predictor of PCL graft failure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Non-anatomic tunnel position increases the risk of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft failure is a complication that may require revision ACL reconstruction (ACL-R). Non-anatomic placement of the femoral tunnel is thought to be a frequent cause of graft failure; however, there is a lack of evidence to support this belief. The purpose of this study was to determine if non-anatomic femoral tunnel placement is associated with increased risk of revision ACL-R. METHODS: After screening all 315 consecutive patients who underwent primary single-bundle ACL-R by a single senior orthopedic surgeon between January 2012 and January 2017, 58 patients were found to have both strict lateral radiographs and a minimum of 24 months follow-up without revision. From a group of 456 consecutive revision ACL-R, patients were screened for strictly lateral radiographs and 59 patients were included in the revision group. Femoral tunnel placement for each patient was determined using a strict lateral radiograph taken after the primary ACL-R using the quadrant method. The center of the femoral tunnel was measured in both the posterior-anterior (PA) and proximal-distal (PD) dimensions and represented as a percentage of the total distance (normal center of anatomic footprint: PA 25% and PD 29%). RESULTS: In the PA dimension, the revision group had significantly more anterior femoral tunnel placement compared with the primary group (38% ± 11% vs. 28% ± 6%, p < 0.01). Among patients who underwent revision; those with non-traumatic chronic failure had statistically significant more anterior femoral tunnel placement than those who experienced traumatic failure (41% ± 13% vs. 35% ± 8%, p < 0.03). In the PD dimension, the revision group had significantly more proximal femoral tunnel placement compared with the primary group (30% ± 9% vs 38% ± 9%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: In this retrospective study of 58 patients with successful primary ACL-R compared with 59 patients with failed ACL-R, anterior and proximal (high) femoral tunnels for ACL-R were shown to be independent risk factors for ACL revision surgery. As revision ACL-R is associated with patient- and economic burden, particular attention should be given to achieving an individualized, anatomic primary ACL-R. Surgeons may reduce the risk of revision ACL-R by placing the center of the femoral tunnel within the anatomic ACL footprint. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.