Lack of Consensus on the Management of Medial Collateral Ligament Tears in the Setting of Concomitant Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: A Critical Analysis.

¼ There is no clear agreement on the optimal timing or superior type of fixation for medial collateral ligament (MCL) tears in the setting of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury.¼ Anatomic healing of medial knee structures is critical to maintain native knee kinematics, supported by biomechanical studies that demonstrate increased graft laxity and residual valgus rotational instability after ACL reconstruction (ACLR) alone in the setting of concomitant ACL/MCL injury.¼ Historically, most surgeons have favored treating acute combined ACL/MCL tears conservatively with MCL rehabilitation, followed by stress radiographs at 6 weeks after injury to assess for persistent valgus laxity before performing delayed ACLR to allow for full knee range of motion, and reduce the risk of postoperative stiffness and arthrofibrosis.¼ However, with the advancement of early mobilization and aggressive physical therapy protocols, acute surgical management of MCL tears in the setting of ACL injury can have benefits of avoiding residual laxity and further intra-articular damage, as well as earlier return to sport.¼ Residual valgus laxity from incomplete MCL healing at the time of ACLR should be addressed surgically, as this can lead to an increased risk of ACLR graft failure.¼ The treatment of combined ACL/MCL injuries requires an individualized approach, including athlete-specific factors such as level and position of play, timing of injury related to in-season play, contact vs. noncontact sport, and anticipated longevity, as well as consideration of the tear pattern, acuity of injury, tissue quality, and surgeon familiarity with the available techniques.

Minimal important clinical difference values are not uniformly valid in the active duty military population recovering from shoulder surgery.

BACKGROUND: There are multiple methods for calculating the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold, and previous reports highlight heterogeneity and limitations of anchor-based and distribution-based analyses. The Warfighter Readiness Survey assesses the perception of a military population's fitness to deploy and may be used as a functional index in anchor-based MCID calculations. The purpose of the current study in a physically demanding population undergoing shoulder surgery was to compare the yields of 2 different anchor-based methods of calculating MCID for a battery of PROMs, a standard receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve-based MCIDs and baseline-adjusted ROC curve MCIDs. METHODS: All service members enrolled prospectively in a multicenter database with prior shoulder surgery that completed pre- and postoperative PROMs at a minimum of 12 months were included. The PROM battery included Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), Patient Reported Outcome Management Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF), PROMIS pain interference (PI), and the Warfighter Readiness Survey. Standard anchor-based and baseline-adjusted ROC curve MCIDs were employed to determine if the calculated MCIDs were both statistically and theoretically valid (95% confidence interval [CI] either completely negative or positive). RESULTS: A total of 117 patients (136 operations) were identified, comprising 83% males with a mean age of 35.7 ± 10.4 years and 47% arthroscopic labral repair/capsulorrhaphy. Using the standard, anchor-based ROC curve MCID calculation, the area under the curve (AUC) for SANE, ASES, PROMIS PF, and PROMIS PI were greater than 0.5 (statistically valid). For ASES, PROMIS PF, and PROMIS PI, the calculated MCID 95% CI all crossed 0 (theoretically invalid). Using the baseline-adjusted ROC curve MCID calculation, the MCID estimates for SANE, ASES, and PROMIS PI were both statistically and theoretically valid if the baseline score was less than 70.5, 69, and 65.7. CONCLUSION: When MCIDs were calculated and anchored to the results of standard, anchor-based MCID, a standard ROC curve analysis did not yield statistically or theoretically valid results across a battery of PROMs commonly used to assess outcomes after shoulder surgery in the active duty military population. Conversely, a baseline-adjusted ROC curve method was more effective at discerning changes across a battery of PROMs among the same cohort.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Fixation Techniques.

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is among the most common procedures performed by orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons and has inherent challenges due to the complex anatomy and biomechanical properties required to reproduce the function and stability of the native ACL. Awareness of the anatomic and biomechanical factors, including graft selection and tunnel placement, along with graft tensioning and fixation techniques, is vital in achieving a successful clinical outcome. Common techniques for ACLR graft fixation include intratunnel fixation with interference screws, suspensory fixation, or hybrid fixation strategies, along with several supplemental fixation techniques. Interference screw fixation may decrease graft-tunnel motion, tunnel widening, and graft creep and may be performed with metallic, PEEK (polyether ether ketone), or bioabsorbable screws. Suspensory fixation techniques primarily include suture-buttons, anchors, staples, and screws/washers. Suspensory fixation allows adequate biomechanical strength, although some techniques have been linked to increased graft-tunnel motion and potential tunnel widening. Supplemental fixation techniques may be performed in the setting of concerns for adequacy of primary fixation and includes the use of suture anchors, staples, and screw/washer devices. Regardless of the implant chosen for fixation, secure fixation is paramount to avoid displacement of the graft and allow for integration into the bone tunnel and facilitates early postoperative rehabilitation. It is important for orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons performing primary and revision ACLR to be familiar with multiple fixation techniques.

Acute Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Performed Within 10 Days of Injury Does Not Increase Risk of Postoperative Arthrofibrosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) remains a controversial topic. Previous reviews have demonstrated that there are no differences between early and delayed ACLR; however, these studies have been limited by heterogeneous definitions of acute ACL injury. PURPOSE: To evaluate postoperative patient functional outcomes and risk for arthrofibrosis after acute arthroscopic ACLR performed ≤10 days after injury. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using multiple medical databases. Inclusion criteria were studies that evaluated postoperative range of motion outcomes for patients undergoing ACLR ≤10 days after initial ACL injury. For included comparative studies comparing patient groups undergoing ACLR ≤10 days and patients undergoing "delayed" ACLR after ≥3 weeks of initial injury, quantitative analysis was performed to assess for differences in postoperative arthrofibrosis, reoperation rates, and patient-reported outcomes between groups. DerSimonian-Laird binary random-effects models were constructed to quantitatively describe the association between the ACLR time period and patient outcomes by generating effect estimates in the form of odds ratios with 95% CIs. Qualitative analysis was performed to describe variably reported patient outcomes and the risk of arthrofibrosis after ACLR for noncomparative studies. RESULTS: Screening yielded 6 full-text articles with 448 patients who underwent ACLR (296 ACLR <10 days, 152 ACLR >3 weeks), with a pooled mean age of 28.1 years. For studies amenable to quantitative analysis, there were no significant differences between ACLR performed ≤10 days and ACLR performed at the 3-week point or after in terms of postoperative stiffness (3 studies; odds ratio, 1.27; P = .508), Tegner scores (2 studies; mean difference, -0.056; P = .155), or reoperation for stiffness (3 studies; odds ratio, 0.869; P = .462). The overall incidence of postoperative arthrofibrosis after 12 months of follow-up was 11 of 296 (3.7%) for ACLRs performed ≤10 days versus 6 of 152 (3.9%) for those performed at the 3-week point or after. CONCLUSION: ACLR performed ≤10 days after the inciting injury does not increase the risk of postoperative arthrofibrosis and demonstrates similar patient-reported outcomes compared with ACLR performed at the 3-week point or after.

No Difference in Recurrent Instability Between Knotted and Knotless Repair Techniques in Arthroscopic Treatment of Isolated Posterior Labral Tears: A Systematic Review.

Purpose: To compare clinical failure, recurrent instability, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and return to sport (RTS) between knotted and knotless fixation methods in arthroscopic posterior labral repair for isolated posterior shoulder instability (PSI). Methods: Multiple databases were queried according to Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for clinical studies with Level I to IV evidence, including knotted and knotless suture anchors for arthroscopic posterior labral repair. Combined anterior and posterior instability, multidirectional instability, SLAP injuries, unspecified repair techniques, majority open procedures, and revision surgery were excluded. Results: Screening yielded 17 full-text articles reporting on 852 shoulders undergoing posterior labral repair. Recurrent instability ranged from 0% to 21%, and the rate of revision surgery ranged from 0% to 11% in knotted only, 0% in knotless only, and 2.0% to 8.1% in knotted and knotless studies. Six studies with both pre- and postoperative visual analog scale scores and 7 studies with both pre- and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Score scores all showed improvement in scores after intervention regardless of repair technique. Thirteen studies reported RTS or duty rates with a minimum of 79%. Conclusions: Overall recurrent instability after posterior labral repair for isolated PSI was low with improvement in PROMs and favorable RTS rates regardless of fixation method. There was no clear difference in recurrent instability or revision surgery between knotted and knotless fixation methods for isolated posterior labral repair. However, the current literature is predominantly limited by Level III and IV evidence. The quality of literature and lack of standardization on the definition of clinical failure and recurrent instability among surgeons preclude any definitive conclusion regarding one clinically superior fixation method. Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.

Biomechanical comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction fixation methods and implications on clinical outcomes.

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is one of the more common surgeries encountered by orthopaedic surgeons, which has its inherent challenges due to the complex anatomy and biomechanical properties required to reproduce the function and stability of the native ACL. Multiple biomechanical factors from graft choice and tunnel placement to graft tensioning and fixation methods are vital in achieving a successful clinical outcome. Common methods of ACLR graft fixation in both the primary and revision setting are classified into compression/interference, suspensory, or hybrid fixation strategies with multiple adjunct methods of fixation. The individual biomechanical properties of these implants are crucial in facilitating early post-operative rehabilitation, while also withstanding the shear and tensile forces to avoid displacement and early graft failure during graft osseointegration. Implants within these categories include the use of interference screws (IFSs), as well as suspensory fixation with a button, posts, surgical staples, or suture anchors. Outcomes of comparative studies across the various fixation types demonstrate that compression fixation can decrease graft-tunnel motion, tunnel widening, and graft creep, at the risk of damage to the graft by IFSs and graft slippage. Suspensory fixation allows for a minimally invasive approach while allowing similar cortical apposition and biomechanical strength when compared to compression fixation. However, suspensory fixation is criticized for the risk of tunnel widening and increased graft-tunnel motion. Several adjunct fixation methods, including the use of posts, suture-anchors, and staples, offer biomechanical advantages over compression or suspensory fixation methods alone, through a second form of fixation in a second plane of motion. Regardless of the method or implant chosen for fixation, technically secure fixation is paramount to avoid displacement of the graft and allow for appropriate integration of the graft into the bone tunnel. While no single fixation technique has been established as the gold standard, a thorough understanding of the biomechanical advantages and disadvantages of each fixation method can be used to determine the optimal ACLR fixation method through an individualized patient approach.