Outpatient-based diagnostic criteria for partial ACL injury: clinical outcomes of non-operative treatment and radiographic predictor.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to (1) evaluate the short-term clinical outcomes of patients who underwent non-operative treatment for partial anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears diagnosed using the outpatient-based diagnostic criteria and (2) investigate the radiographic predictors distinguishing patients at risk of non-operative treatment failure. METHODS: From 2010 to 2019, patients diagnosed with partial ACL tears and treated with non-operative treatment were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were then classified into two groups: those who successfully responded to non-operative treatment (group S) and those who failed to respond to non-operative treatment and required surgical reconstruction within 6 months after injury (group F). ACL laxity, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and several radiographic parameters were analyzed. To identify radiographic predictors related to clinical outcomes, radiographic parameters were compared between the groups, which were statistically matched for potential confounders (age and activity level) using inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: A total of 44 patients were analyzed (mean age, 28.7 ± 8.7 years; 31 men), and classified into two groups (group S, 23 patients; group F, 21 patients). There were no significant differences in ACL laxity and PROs between the groups at 1 year after either non-operative treatment or surgical reconstruction. A comparison of radiographic parameters between the groups revealed significant differences in several parameters related to secondary signs of ACL injury. Subsequent regression analyses revealed that anterior tibial translation and extent of bone bruises were radiographic predictors related to clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: Non-operative treatment for partial ACL tears diagnosed using the outpatient-based diagnostic criteria can provide successful short-term clinical outcomes in selective patients. Secondary signs of ACL injuries, particularly the amount of anterior tibial translation and the extent of bone bruises, are radiographic predictors that could differentiate patients at risk of non-operative treatment failure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective cohort study, III.

Anatomical tibial component is related to more medial tibial stress shielding after total knee arthroplasty in Korean patients.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to investigate stress shielding of anatomical tibial components (ATCs) in comparison to conventional symmetric tibial components (STCs) in Korean patients which may be related to medial tibial bone loss. METHOD: 78 knees in 59 patients with ATCs (Persona™) and 74 knees in 58 patients with STCs (NexGen LPS-Flex™) were retrospectively reviewed. Radiographic parameters and clinical outcomes in both groups were compared. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify risk factors for medial tibial bone loss. RESULTS: Medial tibial bone loss was significantly greater in the ATC group (1.6 ± 1.3 mm) than in the STC group (0.4 ± 0.8 mm) (p < 0.001). The ATC group showed a shorter distance between the distal metal tip and anteromedial cortex and higher invading into the sclerotic bone lesion (ISBL) than the STC group (p = 0.034 and p = 0.044, respectively). Multiple logistic regression analysis suggested ATC, a shorter distance to the anteromedial cortex, and the presence of ISBL as risk factors for medial tibial bone loss. The odds ratios of medial tibial bone loss according to type of prosthesis, distance to anteromedial cortex, and presence of ISBL were 6.25 (range 2.86-13.63, p < 0.001), 0.69 (range 0.51-0.93, p = 0.015), and 3.79 (range 1.56-9.21, p = 0.003), respectively. Notwithstanding, there was no difference in clinical outcomes between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In Korean patients, ATCs potentially causes greater medial tibial bone loss due to stress shielding than STCs. The design, however, does not yet appear to affect clinical outcomes at mid-term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective cohort study, level III.