Treating Combined Anterior Cruciate Ligament and Medial Collateral Ligament Injuries Operatively in the Acute Setting Is Potentially Advantageous.

Combined injury of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and medial collateral ligament (MCL) remains among the most common knee injury patterns in orthopaedics. Optimal treatment of grade III MCL injuries is still debated, especially when combined with ACL injury. Most patients with these severe injuries are treated conservatively for at least 6 weeks to allow for MCL healing, followed by delayed ACL reconstruction. Although acute treatment of the MCL was common in the 1970s, postoperative stiffness was frequently reported. Moreover, studies of such treatment failed to show clinical benefits of surgical over conservative treatment, and the MCL exhibited intrinsic healing capacity, leading to the consensus that all MCL injuries are treated conservatively. The current delayed treatment algorithm for ACL-MCL injuries has several disadvantages. First, MCL healing may be incomplete, resulting in residual valgus laxity that places the ACL graft at greater risk of failure. Second, delayed treatment lengthens the overall rehabilitation period, thereby prolonging the presence of atrophy and delaying return to preinjury activity levels. Third, the initial healing period leaves the knee unstable for longer and risks further intra-articular damage. Acute simultaneous surgical treatment of both ligaments has the potential to avoid these shortcomings. This article will review the evolution of treatment of ACL-MCL injuries and explain how it shifted toward the current treatment algorithm. We will (1) discuss why the consensus shifted, (2) discuss the shortcomings of the current treatment plan, (3) discuss the potential advantages of acute simultaneous treatment, and (4) present an overview of the available literature.

Role of Age on Success of Arthroscopic Primary Repair of Proximal Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears.

PURPOSE: To assess failure rates and patient-reported outcomes measures following arthroscopic primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair of proximal tears in different age groups. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2017, the first 113 consecutive patients treated with repair were retrospectively reviewed at minimum of 2 years. Patients were stratified into 3 age groups: ≤21, 22-35, and >35 years. Primary outcomes were ipsilateral reinjury or reoperation, and contralateral injury rates, and secondary outcomes consisted of Lysholm, modified Cincinnati, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective, pain, and satisfaction scores. Group differences were compared using χ2 tests and Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: Follow-up was obtained in 113 patients (100%). Median age was 35 years (interquartile range [IQR] 23-43) and median follow-up was 2.2 years (IQR 2.0-2.8). Overall, ACL reinjury occurred in 13 patients (11.5%), reoperation in 7 patients (6.2%), complications in 2 patients (1.8%) and contralateral ACL injury in 4 patients (3.5%). Overall, median Lysholm was 95 (IQR 89-100) and International Knee Documentation Committee subjective 92 (IQR 84-99). Treatment failure was significantly greater in the youngest age group (37.0%) as compared with the middle and older groups (4.2% and 3.2%, both P < .005). No significant differences were seen in reoperation, complication, or contralateral injury rates between groups (all P > .2), nor in patient-reported outcomes measures between the groups (all P > .1). CONCLUSIONS: The failure rate of primary repair of proximal ACL tears is high in patients aged 21 or younger (37.0%), and this should be taken into account when discussing repair in this patient group. In patients older than 21, repair may be an excellent treatment with low failure (3.5%) and complication rates (1.2%) and good subjective scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.

Large variation in indications, preferred surgical technique and rehabilitation protocol for primary anterior cruciate ligament repair: a survey among ESSKA members.

PURPOSE: To assess current surgical preferences and practice patterns regarding primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair among European Society for Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) members. METHODS: A web-based survey was designed, including questions regarding indications for primary repair, outcomes of primary repair, and rehabilitation protocols. An invitation for study participation was sent by email to all ESSKA e-mail contacts. Descriptive statistics were performed. RESULTS: A total of 169 surgeons responded to the survey (7% response rate of active members). Lack of supporting scientific evidence is the main reason for not using repair as a surgical treatment (63%). Most important indications were proximal avulsion tears (84%), younger age (49%), and older age (34%). Among those currently utilizing repair as a treatment option, transosseous tunnel fixation repair (34%) and repair with internal brace using transosseous tunnel fixation (32%) were the most preferred techniques. Eleven percent indicated dynamic intraligamentary stabilization as their preferred technique. A similar rate of progression for rehabilitation for repair and reconstruction techniques was noted among respondents. CONCLUSION: This practice survey shows that the majority of surgeons indicated the main reason for not incorporating primary repair in their current practices was a lack of supporting scientific evidence. Among those holding favourable attitudes and beliefs, most surgeons indicated patients with proximal tears, younger-aged, and older-aged patients might be eligible for repair. Prospective studies with higher levels of evidence are warranted to establish guidelines for repair, including indications, optimal surgical technique, and rehabilitation protocols. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V (expert opinion).

Trauma and femoral tunnel position are the most common failure modes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To improve outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), it is important to understand the reasons for failure of this procedure. This systematic review was performed to identify current failure modes of ACLR. METHODS: A systematic search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and annual registries for ACLR failures. Studies were included when failure modes were reported (I) of ≥ 10 patients and (II) at a minimum of two-year follow-up. Modes of failure were also compared between different graft types and in femoral tunnel positions. RESULTS: This review included 24 cohort studies and 4 registry-based studies (1 level I, 1 level II, 10 level III, and 16 level IV studies). Overall, a total of 3657 failures were identified. The most common single failure mode of ACLR was new trauma (38%), followed by technical errors (22%), combined causes (i.e. multiple failure mechanisms; 19%), and biological failures (i.e. failure due to infection or laxity without traumatic or technical considerations; 8%). Technical causes also played a contributing role in 17% of all failures. Femoral tunnel malposition was the most common cause of technical failure (63%). When specifically looking at the bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) or hamstring (HT) autografts, trauma was the most common failure mode in both, whereas biological failure was more pronounced in the HT group (4% vs. 22%, respectively). Technical errors were more common following transtibial as compared to anteromedial portal techniques (49% vs. 26%). CONCLUSION: Trauma is the single leading cause of ACLR failure, followed by technical errors, and combined causes. Technical errors seemed to play a major or contributing role in large part of reported failures, with femoral tunnel malposition being the leading cause of failure. Trauma was also the most common failure mode in both BPTB and HT grafts. Technical errors were a more common failure mode following transtibial than anteromedial portal technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Prospective Comparison of Postoperative Pain and Opioid Consumption Between Primary Repair and Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament.

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) is associated with postoperative pain and necessitates using perioperative nerve blocks and multimodal analgesic plans. Purpose: To assess postoperative pain and daily opioid use after ACL repair versus ACLR and to assess whether ACL repair could be performed successfully without using long-acting nerve blocks. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: All eligible patients who underwent ACL surgery between 2019 and 2022 were prospectively enrolled. Patients were treated with primary repair if proximal tears with sufficient tissue quality were present; otherwise, they underwent single-bundle ACLR with either hamstring tendon or quadriceps tendon autograft. The patients were divided into 3 groups: ACLR with adductor canal nerve block (up to 20 mL of 0.25% bupivacaine with 2 mg dexamethasone), primary repair with nerve block, and primary repair without nerve block. Pain visual analog scale and number of opioids used were recorded during the first 14 postoperative days (PODs). Furthermore, patients completed the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) survey, and range of motion was assessed. Group differences were compared using Mann-Whitney U test and chi-square test. Results: Seventy-eight patients were included: 30 (39%) underwent ACLR, 19 (24%) ACL repair with nerve block, and 29 (37%) ACL repair without nerve block. Overall, the ACL repair group used significantly fewer opioids than the ACLR group on POD 1 (1 vs 3, P = .027) and POD 2 (1 vs 3, P = .014) while also using fewer opioids in total (3 vs 8, P = .038). This difference was even more marked when only analyzing those patients who received postoperative nerve blocks (1 vs 8, P = .029). Repair patients had significantly higher QoR-15 scores throughout the first postoperative week, and they had greater range of motion (all P < .05). There were no significant differences in pain scores, opioid usage, or QoR-15 scores between patients who underwent repair with versus without nerve block. Conclusion: The ACL repair group experienced less postoperative pain during the first 2 weeks after surgery and used significantly fewer opioids than the ACLR group. Furthermore, they had improved knee function and higher recovery quality than patients who underwent ACLR during the initial postoperative period. Postoperative nerve blocks may not be necessary after ACL repair.

Early and Delayed Surgery for Isolated ACL and Multiligamentous Knee Injuries Have Equivalent Results: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Early surgery for acute ligamentous injuries has recently shown good clinical and functional outcomes. PURPOSE: To assess the advantages of early vs delayed surgery in patients undergoing isolated anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) or multiligament-injured knee (MLIK) surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analyses of Level 1, 2, and 3 studies; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A systematic search was performed via PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane for studies reporting outcomes of timing of surgery after isolated ACL injury or in the MLIK setting using accelerated rehabilitation protocols. Two analyses were conducted to differentiate early and delayed treatment (3- and 6-week cutoffs). Collected outcomes included meniscal or chondral lesions, failure and reoperation rates, range of motion (ROM) deficits, other complications, muscle strength, instrumented laxity, and functional outcomes. Outcomes were reported in risk ratios (RR) or mean differences with 95% CIs. RESULTS: For timing of isolated ACL surgery, 16 studies were included with 2093 patients. High-grade evidence indicated that there were no differences in meniscal or chondral lesions, failure and reoperation rates, stiffness, ROM deficits, complications, muscle strength, instrumented laxity, and functional outcomes between patients treated early and late (all P > .05). When including only studies that set no preoperative criteria for early surgery, the findings were similar. Regarding MLIK surgery, 14 studies were included with 1172 patients. Low evidence was noted for the following: patients treated early had significantly fewer meniscal injuries (RR, 0.7; P = .04) and chondral injuries (RR, 0.5; P < .001), while no differences were found in reoperation rates, complications, stiffness, ROM deficits, muscle strength, instrumented laxity, and functional outcomes between the groups. Other than higher Lysholm scores in the early group for the 3-week analysis (mean difference, 6.8; P = .01), there were no differences between cutoff analyses. CONCLUSION: This systematic review with meta-analysis found no differences in clinical and functional outcomes between early and delayed surgery for isolated ACL injuries. For MLIK injuries, there were also no differences in surgical outcomes between early and delayed surgery.

Age and Bone Bruise Patterns Predict Tear Location in the Anterior Cruciate Ligament.

Purpose: To assess the influence of demographic risk factors, anatomic risk factors, and injury mechanisms on anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear patterns. Methods: All patients undergoing knee magnetic resonance imaging at our institution for acute ACL tears (within 1 month of injury) in 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients with partial ACL tears and full-thickness posterior cruciate ligament injuries were excluded. On sagittal magnetic resonance images, the proximal and distal remnant lengths were measured, and the tear location was calculated as the distal remnant length divided by the total remnant length. Previously reported demographic and anatomic risk factors associated with ACL injury were then reviewed, including the notch width index, notch angle, intercondylar notch stenosis, alpha angle, posterior tibial slope, meniscal slope, and lateral femoral condyle index. In addition, the presence and severity of bone bruises were recorded. Finally, risk factors associated with ACL tear location were further analyzed using multivariate logistic regression. Results: A total of 254 patients (44% male patients; mean age, 34 years; age range, 9-74 years) were included, of whom 60 (24%) had a proximal ACL tear (tear at the proximal quarter). Multivariate enter logistic regression analysis showed that older age (P = .008) was predictive of a more proximal tear location whereas open physes (P = .025), bone bruises in both compartments (P = .005), and posterolateral corner injury (P = .017) decreased the likelihood of a proximal tear (R 2 = 0.121, P < .001). Conclusions: No anatomic risk factors were identified to play a role in tear location. Although most patients have midsubstance tears, proximal ACL tears were more commonly found in older patients. Bone contusions involving the medial compartment are associated with midsubstance tears; these findings may indicate that different injury mechanisms play a role in the location at which the ACL tears. Level of Evidence: Level III, prognostic, retrospective cohort study.

Primary Repair versus Reconstruction in Patients with Bilateral Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries: What Do Patients Prefer?

Purpose: The purpose is to evaluate knee preference and functional outcomes of patients with primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair in one knee and ACL reconstruction in the contralateral side. Methods: All patients who underwent both procedures were retrospectively reviewed at minimum two-year follow-up. Patients were asked to complete questionnaires regarding their operated knees' preferences during rehabilitation, daily activities, sports activities, and overall function. Furthermore, the Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee, Forgotten Joint Score-12, and Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury were completed. Results: Twenty-one patients were included. All patients underwent ACL reconstruction first, which was displayed at younger age at surgery (24 vs. 33 years, p = 0.010) and longer follow-up (10.2 vs. 2.3 years, p < 0.001), respectively. Thirty-three percent preferred the repaired knee, 11% the reconstructed knee, and 56% had no preference; however, 78% indicated that their repaired knee was less painful during rehabilitation and 83% reported earlier range of motion (ROM) return following repair, which was similar for both knees in 17%. Eighty-three percent of patients indicated better function and progression during rehabilitation with their repaired knee and 11% with their reconstructed knees. No statistical differences were found in patient-reported outcomes between both procedures (all p > 0.4). Objective laxity assessment showed mean side-to-side difference of 0.6 mm between both sides in favor of the reconstructed knee. Conclusion: This study showed that ACL repair and ACL reconstruction lead to similar functional outcomes. However, patients undergoing both procedures may have less pain, earlier ROM return, and faster rehabilitation progression following primary repair.

Bilateral simultaneous anterior cruciate ligament tears treated with single staged simultaneous primary repair: A case report.

INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE: Simultaneous bilateral anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are a rare injury pattern within the literature. There is not a consensus optimal management of this injury. Bilateral primary ACL repair in a single stage surgery provides knee stability with a minimally morbid surgery in a single rehabilitation period. This case report offers another option for surgeons to consider in the treatment of this rare injury. CASE PRESENTATION: A 45-year-old female skier presented with simultaneous bilateral isolated proximal anterior cruciate ligament injuries. MRI demonstrated bilateral proximal ACL tear patterns which were amenable to primary ACL repair. The patient subsequently underwent acute single-staged arthroscopic primary ACL repair with suture augmentation of both knees. She attained rehabilitation milestones and was fully cleared to return to sporting activities one year post-operatively. Two years post-operatively the patient continues to do well with excellent clinical outcomes. CLINICAL DISCUSSION: The other treatment modalities reported in the literature were single staged and two staged ACL reconstruction with either autograft or allograft. While single staged procedures are more time and cost efficient, the primary concern is that simultaneous rehabilitation of bilateral ACL reconstructions may lead to severe quadriceps deconditioning. Primary ACL repair poses a potential solution as a minimally morbid surgery with faster rehabilitation from surgery. CONCLUSION: Due to the limited invasiveness and morbidity of ACL primary repair with suture augmentation, simultaneous primary repair surgery could be an excellent treatment option for this rare patient population, saving time and cost while providing appropriate knee stability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, Case Report.

Reliable Internal Consistency and Adequate Validity of the Forgotten Joint Score-12 after Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair.

PURPOSE: To validate the Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) as a subjective outcome metric for patients undergoing arthroscopic primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair. METHODS: In this retrospective study, all patients undergoing primary ACL repair for complete isolated proximal tears between 2008 and 2018 were eligible for inclusion. Patients were contacted and asked to complete the FJS-12, Lysholm Knee Score, modified Cincinnati score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), and Anterior Cruciate Ligament Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI) scale at a minimum of 1 year of follow-up. Internal consistency, convergent validity, and ceiling effects were analyzed. RESULTS: Ninety-six patients could be included (62%), with a mean FJS-12 score of 86.9 ± 14.0 (range, 31.3-100). The FJS-12 showed reliable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.89). Construct validity was moderate to strong (r = 0. 621-0.702). Ceiling effect for the FJS-12 was 21.9%, which was lower than for the Lysholm (44.6%), modified Cincinnati (45.1%), equal to the IKDC subjective (21.9%), and SANE score (22.0%) but higher compared to the ACL-RSI (12.8%). Furthermore, internal consistency for the other scores was also good to excellent (range Cronbach's alpha = 0.627-0.953). CONCLUSION: The FJS-12 shows high internal consistency and construct validity after primary ACL repair. Furthermore, this metric showed equal or less ceiling effect than most other scores, although still notable. This study suggests that the FJS-12 is an easy and validated outcome metric to evaluate subjective primary repair outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.

Treatment of severe COVID-19 with convalescent plasma in Bronx, NYC.

Convalescent plasma with severe acute respiratory disease coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies (CCP) may hold promise as a treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We compared the mortality and clinical outcome of patients with COVID-19 who received 200 mL of CCP with a spike protein IgG titer ≥ 1:2430 (median 1:47,385) within 72 hours of admission with propensity score-matched controls cared for at a medical center in the Bronx, between April 13 and May 4, 2020. Matching criteria for controls were age, sex, body mass index, race, ethnicity, comorbidities, week of admission, oxygen requirement, D-dimer, lymphocyte counts, corticosteroid use, and anticoagulation use. There was no difference in mortality or oxygenation between CCP recipients and controls at day 28. When stratified by age, compared with matched controls, CCP recipients less than 65 years had 4-fold lower risk of mortality and 4-fold lower risk of deterioration in oxygenation or mortality at day 28. For CCP recipients, pretransfusion spike protein IgG, IgM, and IgA titers were associated with mortality at day 28 in univariate analyses. No adverse effects of CCP were observed. Our results suggest CCP may be beneficial for hospitalized patients less than 65 years, but data from controlled trials are needed to validate this finding and establish the effect of aging on CCP efficacy.

Treatment of Severe COVID-19 with Convalescent Plasma in the Bronx, NYC.

Convalescent plasma with severe acute respiratory disease coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) antibodies (CCP) may hold promise as treatment for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). We compared the mortality and clinical outcome of patients with COVID-19 who received 200mL of CCP with a Spike protein IgG titer ≥1:2,430 (median 1:47,385) within 72 hours of admission to propensity score-matched controls cared for at a medical center in the Bronx, between April 13 to May 4, 2020. Matching criteria for controls were age, sex, body mass index, race, ethnicity, comorbidities, week of admission, oxygen requirement, D-dimer, lymphocyte counts, corticosteroids, and anticoagulation use. There was no difference in mortality or oxygenation between CCP recipients and controls at day 28. When stratified by age, compared to matched controls, CCP recipients <65 years had 4-fold lower mortality and 4-fold lower deterioration in oxygenation or mortality at day 28. For CCP recipients, pre-transfusion Spike protein IgG, IgM and IgA titers were associated with mortality at day 28 in univariate analyses. No adverse effects of CCP were observed. Our results suggest CCP may be beneficial for hospitalized patients <65 years, but data from controlled trials is needed to validate this finding and establish the effect of ageing on CCP efficacy.