Flexible instruments outperform rigid instruments to place anatomic anterior cruciate ligament femoral tunnels without hyperflexion.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the ability of flexible instruments compared with rigid instruments to place anatomic femoral tunnels in anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions by use of both transtibial drilling and anteromedial drilling without hyperflexion. METHODS: Rigid and flexible pins were placed in 12 matched pairs of cadaveric knees with transtibial drilling (6 pairs) and anteromedial drilling (6 pairs) at 110° of flexion. Intraosseous pin lengths, femoral exit locations, and tunnel alignment were measured. RESULTS: Transtibial drilling with rigid pins placed relatively vertical femoral tunnels 5.8 ± 1.0 mm superior to the central anterior cruciate ligament insertion. Transtibial drilling with flexible pins placed tunnels in the center of the femoral attachment, but the tunnels were relatively close to the posterior femoral cortex, with a mean distance of 8.0 ± 5.9 mm (P < .05), compared with transtibial drilling with rigid pins. Anteromedial drilling resulted in central anatomic pin placements with rigid and flexible instruments. Tunnel lengths with flexible pins were longer (42.0 ± 7.2 mm) compared with tunnel lengths with rigid pins (32.5 ± 7.1 mm) (P < .01). Flexible pins exited farther from the posterior cortex compared with rigid pins (P < .01). In 3 of 6 knees with rigid pins, the exit point was at the posterior border of the femoral cortex. All flexible pins exited a safe distance from the posterior femoral cortex. CONCLUSIONS: Transtibial drilling with rigid instruments did not produce anatomic femoral tunnels. Transtibial drilling with flexible pins produced anatomic tunnels, but the tunnels were close to the posterior femoral cortex. Anteromedial drilling without hyperflexion produced anatomic tunnels by use of rigid and flexible instruments, but with flexible instruments, the tunnels were longer and were farther from the posterior femoral cortex. Anteromedial drilling with flexible pins produced tunnels with good length and the best position. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Flexible instruments compared with rigid instruments can facilitate the creation of anatomic femoral tunnels by use of anteromedial drilling without hyperflexion.

Distal triceps rupture.

Distal triceps rupture is an uncommon injury. It is most often associated with anabolic steroid use, weight lifting, and laceration. Other local and systemic risk factors include local steroid injection, olecranon bursitis, and hyperparathyroidism. Distal triceps rupture is usually caused by a fall on an outstretched hand or a direct blow. Eccentric loading of a contracting triceps has been implicated, particularly in professional athletes. Initial diagnosis may be difficult because a palpable defect is not always present. Pain and swelling may limit the ability to evaluate strength and elbow range of motion. Although plain radiographs are helpful in ruling out other elbow pathology, MRI is used to confirm the diagnosis, classify the injury, and guide management. Incomplete tears with active elbow extension against resistance are managed nonsurgically. Surgical repair is indicated in active persons with complete tears and for incomplete tears with concomitant loss of strength. Good to excellent results have been reported with surgical repair, and very good results have been achieved even for chronic tears.

Comparison of spin echo T1-weighted sequences versus fast spin-echo proton density-weighted sequences for evaluation of meniscal tears at 1.5 T.

PURPOSE: At our institution, fast spin-echo (FSE) proton density (PD) imaging is used to evaluate articular cartilage, while conventional spin-echo (CSE) T1-weighted sequences have been traditionally used to characterize meniscal pathology. We sought to determine if FSE PD-weighted sequences are equivalent to CSE T1-weighted sequences in the detection of meniscal tears, obviating the need to perform both sequences. METHOD AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of knee arthroscopies performed by two arthroscopy-focused surgeons from an academic medical center over a 2-year period. The preoperative MRI images were interpreted independently by two fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologists who graded the sagittal CSE T1 and FSE PD sequences at different sittings with grades 1-5, where 1 = normal meniscus, 2 = probable normal meniscus, 3 = indeterminate, 4 = probable torn meniscus, and 5 = torn meniscus. Each meniscus was divided into an anterior and posterior half, and these halves were graded separately. Operative findings provided the gold standard. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was performed to compare the two sequences. RESULTS: There were 131 tears in 504 meniscal halves. Using ROC analysis, the reader 1 area under curve for FSE PD was significantly better than CSE T1 (0.939 vs. 0.902, >95% confidence). For reader 2, the difference met good criteria for statistical non-inferiority but not superiority (0.913 for FSE PD and 0.908 for CSE T1; >95% non-inferiority for difference at most of -0.027). CONCLUSION: FSE PD-weighted sequences, using our institutional protocol, are not inferior to CSE T1-weighted sequences for the detection of meniscal tears and may be superior.

Beginning hip arthroscopy: indications, positioning, portals, basic techniques, and complications.

Hip arthroscopy is becoming increasingly popular for the diagnosis and treatment of hip pathology, and the indications continue to evolve. The two most common approaches are the supine and lateral decubitus position. Both approaches can be performed effectively; however, each approach has its own benefits and drawbacks. In this review we will describe the indications for hip arthroscopy, the pros and cons of each approach, and the necessary equipment, portals, portal placement, commercially available distraction devices, and complications.