Editorial Commentary: Both Bristow and Latarjet Procedures Result in Low Rates of Recurrent Shoulder Instability Despite Potential for Bone Resorption and Lack of Graft Healing.

Anterior shoulder instability surgery has evolved over the decades, including both anatomic and nonanatomic repairs and reconstructions. Surgeons are continually advancing their skills and performing more of these procedures using arthroscopic as opposed to open techniques in patients with and without glenoid bone loss. However, there is a steep learning curve and increased technical demands when performing these procedures arthroscopically. Despite high success rates, bone graft resorption or lack of healing after Latarjet and Bristow procedures is well documented, and it is possible that patients develop enough scarring that their shoulders remain stable. Osteoarthritis after these nonanatomic procedures can occur making shoulder arthroplasty and reconstruction technically more challenging because of scarring and the altered anatomy. It remains to be seen whether these arthroscopic techniques as opposed to open surgery lessen the scarring and thus the technical demands of shoulder reconstruction in the small subset of patients who unfortunately develop symptomatic shoulder osteoarthritis. Therefore, in my practice, these techniques are carefully chosen for select patients. My indications for use of the Bristow procedure as a primary procedure for anterior shoulder instability are in patients who perform mixed martial arts fighting and high-level wrestlers without significant glenoid or humeral bone loss. My indications for the Latarjet procedure are in patients with chronic anterior instability and associated anterior glenoid bone loss 15% to 30%, off-track Hill-Sachs lesions, and revision surgery, particularly in high-demand contact and collision athletes. These 2 arthroscopic procedures, despite being nonanatomic, provide surgeons with excellent treatment options for those difficult patients with anterior shoulder instability. Despite high success rates with these arthroscopic procedures, patients should be counseled on the risks of graft resorption, graft nonunion, and possible shoulder osteoarthritis. The appropriate indications for these arthroscopic procedures can enhance the successful outcomes for high-risk patients with shoulder instability while also considering the possible long-term impacts of altering shoulder anatomy and scarring in the rare patient who develops shoulder osteoarthritis.

The effect of graft tissue on anterior cruciate ligament outcomes: a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial comparing autograft hamstrings with fresh-frozen anterior tibialis allograft.

PURPOSE: To compare the results and outcome of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using autogenous hamstring tendon versus fresh-frozen allograft anterior tibialis tendon. METHODS: A prospective randomized study was conducted from September 2002 to October 2006. We randomized 147 patients to undergo ACL reconstruction with either autogenous hamstring or fresh-frozen allograft anterior tibialis tendon. Of these patients, 102 (69%) completed a minimum of 2 years' follow-up. There were 54 patients in the hamstring group (73% of those originally enrolled in the group) and 48 patients in the allograft group (66%). All patients underwent standardized subjective and objective evaluation with functional outcome assessments (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC]), and standardized radiographs were also obtained. RESULTS: The mean age was 32.0 years for the autograft group and 33.3 years for the allograft group. There was no difference in stability between the 2 groups (P > .05). The mean IKDC subjective score was 91.0 for the autograft group and 90.9 for the allograft group (P > .05). The functional IKDC scores for the autograft group were normal in 46 patients (85%), nearly normal in 7 patients (13%), and severely abnormal in 1 patient. For the allograft group, the functional IKDC scores were normal in 43 patients (90%) and nearly normal in 5 (10%) (P > .05). There were 4 reoperations in the allograft group and 3 reoperations in the autograft group. No patient underwent revision ACL surgery or planned to undergo revision surgery because of instability in either group during the study period despite the 1 patient in the autograft group with a pivot shift and a maximum manual KT measurement (MEDmetric, San Diego, CA) of 5 mm. CONCLUSIONS: The use of fresh-frozen anterior tibialis allograft (non-treated) for ACL reconstruction produced similar subjective and functional outcomes at 24 months' minimal follow-up compared with patients undergoing ACL reconstruction with autograft hamstring tendon. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative study.

Controversies in soft-tissue anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: grafts, bundles, tunnels, fixation, and harvest.

Increased stability has been reported with both autografts and allografts for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, meta-analysis has shown significantly lower overall knee stability rates and more than double the abnormal stability rate with allografts. Some issues surrounding allograft sterilization (ie, risk of disease transmission) are unresolved, and cost is also a concern. Single-bundle ACL reconstruction can produce high stability rates when tunnels are properly placed, but there is evidence that double-bundle repair may offer greater rotatory stability. Cortical fixation has been associated with increased stability owing to the high stiffness of cortical bone. Anterior and posterior approaches are both recommended. The controversy related to single-bundle versus double-bundle ACL reconstruction remains unresolved.

Gravity reduces the tibia when using a tibial guide that targets the intercondylar roof.

BACKGROUND: Reduction of the tibia relative to the femur with the knee in maximum extension is required to correctly position the tibial tunnel in the sagittal plane when using a guide that targets the intercondylar roof. The authors found no studies that determined (1) whether gravity reduces the tibia and (2) whether roof impingement is prevented without a roofplasty and without positioning the tibial tunnel too posteriorly. METHODS: The position of the tibia relative to the femur was measured from a lateral radiograph of the treated knee in maximum extension with and without the tibial guide and of the contralateral normal knee in extension in single-leg stance (control). RESULTS: The position of the tibia with and without the tibial guide was not different (P = .33, not significant) and was only 0.7 mm more posterior than the control knee (P = .0075). A roofplasty was not required, and the clearance was 2 mm or less. CONCLUSION: Gravity reduces the tibia on the femur when using a guide that targets the intercondylar roof. The use of a tibial guide that targets the intercondylar roof prevents roof impingement without a roofplasty and without positioning the tibial tunnel too posteriorly.

How four weeks of implantation affect the strength and stiffness of a tendon graft in a bone tunnel: a study of two fixation devices in an extraarticular model in ovine.

BACKGROUND: For a tendon graft to function as an anterior cruciate ligament, the tendon must heal to the bone tunnel. We studied the effect of 4 weeks of implantation on the strength and stiffness of a tendon in a bone tunnel using two different fixation devices in an ovine model. HYPOTHESIS: The type of fixation device in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction may affect early healing, which can be measured as the strength and stiffness of a tendon in a bone tunnel. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: An extraarticular tendon graft reconstruction was performed in ovine tibias. The graft was fixed with either a bioresorbable interference screw or a WasherLoc. After 4 weeks of implantation the strength and stiffness of the complex and the tendon graft-bone tunnel interface were determined by incrementally loading specimens to failure. RESULTS: For the interference screw, the strength deteriorated 63% and the stiffness deteriorated 40%. For the WasherLoc, the strength was similar and the stiffness improved 136%. CONCLUSIONS: The type of fixation device determines whether the strength and stiffness of a tendon in a bone tunnel increases or decreases after implantation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The pace of rehabilitation may need to be adjusted based on the type of fixation device used to secure a soft tissue graft.

Scientific justification and technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autogenous and allogeneic soft-tissue grafts.

The DLSTG is the strongest and stiffest autogenous graft source available for reconstruction of the torn anterior cruciate ligament. Harvest morbidity is low compared with other autogenous graft sources, such as the patellar bone-tendon-bone graft. Soft-tissue allografts provide an excellent alternative for patients requiring revision surgery or for patients who want to avoid any morbidity associated with autogenous graft harvest. Successful use of any soft-tissue graft source, however, relies on precise placement of the tibial and femoral tunnels to prevent roof and PCL impingement and to restore tensile behavior in the graft tissue similar to the native ACL. The use of high-strength, high-stiffness fixation devices that secure the graft at the end of the tunnel promote tendon tunnel healing, restore stability without high graft tensioning, and allow safe, aggressive rehabilitation. The Bone Mulch Screw/WasherLoc screw system provides the surgeon with a consistent, reproducible technique that restores stability and function to the ACL-deficient knee using a soft-tissue graft in both males and females.

Principles for using hamstring tendons for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

The use of autogenous hamstring tendon as a graft source for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction continues to gain in popularity. The low harvest morbidity and excellent biomechanical graft properties coupled with improved fixation of soft tissue grafts are all reasons for excellent clinical outcomes of ACL reconstruction using hamstring tendons. In addition, surgeon awareness of the complications associated with poor tunnel placement and more exacting tunnel placement techniques help prevent roof and posterior cruciate ligament impingement and contribute to the successful outcomes of hamstring ACL constructs.