Revision Soft-Tissue Allograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Is Associated With Lower Patient-Reported Outcomes Compared With Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Patients Aged 40 and Older.

PURPOSE: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and graft failure rates in revision allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in patients aged 40 and older and compare them with primary ACLRs. METHODS: Patients aged 40 and older who underwent arthroscopic soft-tissue allograft ACLR between 2005 and 2016 with a minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were grouped based on revision versus primary ACLR. The rate of achieving an International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) score was recorded. Patient satisfaction, PROs, and graft failure were compared between groups using the χ2 test, Fisher exact test, and Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: We identified 32 patients who underwent revision ACLR and 201 patients who underwent primary ACLR aged 40 and older who met inclusion criteria with a mean follow-up of 6.2 and 6.9 years, respectively (P = .042). There was a lower rate of concomitant meniscal repair in the primary ACLR group (6% vs 21.9%, P = .007) There were no other differences in chondral injuries, mechanism of injury, or meniscal injuries between groups. The median IKDC score was greater in the primary ACLR group as compared with the revision ACLR group (83.9 vs 70.6, P < .001). Patients who underwent revision ACLR were less likely to achieve the IKDC PASS threshold (82.5% vs 56.3%, P = .001) and were less likely to report satisfaction as compared with patients who underwent primary ACLR (90.5% vs 78.1%, P =.038). No difference in graft failure rates was identified between groups (8% vs 15.6%, P = .180). CONCLUSIONS: Revision allograft ACLR in patients aged 40 and older was associated with lower PROs compared with primary ACLR. Patients who underwent revision ACLR failed to meet the IKDC PASS threshold more often and were dissatisfied with procedure results more than twice as often as patients that underwent primary ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective cohort study.

Preoperative factors associated with failure to reach the patient acceptable symptom state after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients aged 40 and older.

PURPOSE: To perform a predictive analysis to identify preoperative patient factors associated with failure to achieve a newly defined patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Score after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in patients aged ≥ 40 years with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a retrospective review of all patients aged 40 years or older receiving a primary allograft ACLR at a single institution between the years of 2005 and 2016, with 2-year minimum follow-up. Using an updated PASS threshold of 66.7 for the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score previously established for this patient cohort, a univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to identify preoperative patient characteristics predictive of failure to achieve PASS. RESULTS: A total of 197 patients with a mean follow-up of 6.2 ± 2.1 years (range 2.7 - 11.2) were included in the analysis (48.5 ± 5.6 years, 51.8% female, Body Mass Index (BMI) 25.9 ± 4.4). PASS was achieved by 162 patients (82.2%). Patients who failed to achieve PASS more often had lateral compartment cartilage defects (P = 0.001) and lateral meniscus tears (P = 0.004), higher BMIs (P = 0.004), and Workers' Compensation status (P = 0.043) on univariable analysis. Factors predictive of failure to achieve PASS on multivariable analysis included BMI and lateral compartment cartilage defect (OR 1.12 [1.03-1.23], P = 0.013; OR 5.1 [1.87-13.9], P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among patients ≥ 40 years who receive a primary allograft ACLR, patients who fail to achieve PASS more often had lateral compartment cartilage defects and higher BMIs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

The Majority of Patients Aged 40 and Older Having Allograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Achieve a Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State.

PURPOSE: To evaluate patient satisfaction, retear rates, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients aged 40 and older undergoing allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The secondary goal was to compare these parameters between groups of patients with intact versus failed grafts, and to evaluate these in relation to a historically reported International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) patient-acceptable symptoms state (PASS) score. METHODS: Records of patients aged 40 and older who underwent ACLR between 2005 and 2016 at a single institution with a minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Patient-reported satisfaction, outcome scores, and failure rates were analyzed. The rate of achieving a previously defined IKDC PASS score based on younger cohorts was reported, and an updated PASS threshold for older patients was calculated. RESULTS: 201 patients were included with a mean age of 48.6 years (range: 40-68) and mean follow-up of 6.2 years (range: 2.8-11.2). 182 (90.5%) patients reported satisfaction following surgery. 16 (8.0%) patients experienced failure of their ACLR, 10 of which underwent revision ACLR. The median IKDC score in the intact ACLR group was 86.2, compared to 66.7 in the failure group (P < .001). In total, 134 (72.4%) patients in the intact group achieved the historical PASS score of 75.9 on IKDC compared to only 4 (25%) in the failure group (χ2 = 15.396, P < .001). An updated IKDC PASS threshold for older cohorts was calculated to be 66.7. CONCLUSION: Patients aged 40 and older who underwent allograft ACLR had an 8.0% failure rate at a mean follow-up of 6 years. Graft failure in patients aged 40 and older was associated with worse PROs. The majority of patients achieved the historically reported IKDC PASS threshold. Additionally, an updated age-appropriate IKDC PASS score of 66.7 was calculated to aid in future ACLR studies assessing older patients. STUDY DESIGN: Level IV.

Nonsurgical Management of Osteoarthritis of the Knee: What You Should Be Injecting Now and in the Future.

Osteoarthritis of the knee affects many Americans. With the aging of the population and increasing comorbidities (eg, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, heart disease), the use of oral or topical NSAIDs is often contraindicated. Injectable treatment options are advantageous because of the ability to decrease or avoid the unwanted systematic adverse effects of NSAIDs. Injectable treatment options for osteoarthritis of the knee go back to the 1950s, beginning with corticosteroids, which remain widely used despite concerns that they may have adverse effects on articular chondrocytes and short duration of efficacy. The recent (FDA approval in 2017) introduction of a sustained-release corticosteroid (triamcinolone acetonide extended-release) offers significantly longer benefit than standard cortisone products and with substantially lower concentration levels of chondrocyte exposure to the steroid. Hyaluronic acid was added to the options for intra-articular injection in osteoarthritis of the knee in the late 1990s and remains widely used despite some controversy over its efficacy. Although guidelines for the use of hyaluronic acid for management of osteoarthritis of the knee have varied widely, careful analysis of the data and patient's perceived efficacy indicate its continued and important role in managing osteoarthritis of the knee. Finally, the past 15 years have seen an explosion in the use of biologics including platelet-rich plasma and pluripotential (often termed stem) cells. The science behind their use and efficacy is evolving and continued study is warranted.

Patient-reported outcomes of meniscal repair and meniscectomy in patients 40 years of age and older show similar good results.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients aged 40 years and older who underwent meniscal repair or meniscectomy. All patients aged 40 and older who underwent a meniscal repair at a single institution from 2006 to 2017 were included. Meniscal repair cases were matched with a meniscectomy control group in a 1:3 ratio, selected for an equal proportion of concomitant ACL reconstruction in each group. PROMs, collected at a minimum follow-up of 24 months, included International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form (IKDC), Marx activity scale, and a patient satisfaction scale. The primary outcome was IKDC score, which was compared between groups using a Mann-Whitney U test. Rate of failure, defined as repeat ipsilateral knee surgery or surgeon report of failure, was reported. Thirty-five meniscal repair patients and 131 meniscectomy patients were identified; 28 (80.0%) and 67 (51.1%) completed all PROMs with mean follow-up of 4.9 and 5.2 years, respectively. The mean age was 48.5 ± 7.0 years in the meniscal repair cohort and 52.8 ± 7.1 years in the meniscectomy cohort (p = 0.009). Concomitant ACL reconstruction was present in 46.4% and 49.3% of the meniscal repair and meniscectomy cohorts, respectively (n.s.). The median IKDC score was 78 (IQR 66, 87) in the repair cohort and 77 (IQR 56, 86) in the meniscectomy cohort (n.s.). The median Marx activity scale was 3.5 (IQR 0, 8) in the repair cohort and 3.0 (IQR 0, 9) in the meniscectomy cohort (n.s.). Over 85% of both groups were satisfied or very satisfied with no between-group differences (n.s.). In patients aged 40 years and older, patient-reported outcomes at an average of 5 years postoperatively were satisfactory and similar in patients undergoing meniscal repair and meniscectomy, indicating that age alone should not be a contraindication to meniscal repair.Level of evidence: Level III.

Editorial Commentary: Return to Sport Should Not Be Your Goal Following High Tibial Osteotomy With Concomitant Medial Meniscal Allograft Transplantation.

Meniscal allograft transplantation has been done for 3 decades as a salvage procedure for patients with painful compartments following total or near-total meniscectomy. In malaligned joints, periarticular osteotomies often are performed in conjunction with the transplantation. The goal has been to reduce pain and improve function. Early series showed that retear of transplanted menisci was common. Because many recipients of meniscal transplantations are young, the goal has been to reduce pain and restore function, and high-demand work or sporting activities have been discouraged.

The 2019 Arthroscopy Association of North America Traveling Fellowship-Los Gallos: New Friends on an Old Town Road.

We came in with high expectations, yet the Arthroscopy Association of North America (AANA) Traveling Fellowship far exceeded them. The 4 traveling fellows came from different backgrounds, different parts of North America, and different practice settings, including an independent private practice, a hybrid private-academic practice, the military, and academia. We were lucky to have been ushered along the way by our godfather, the distinguished John Richmond, M.D., Past-President of AANA and Associate Editor Emeritus of Arthroscopy, who was gracious enough to give his time to the expedition. Over the course of the journey, this gang came together quickly and forged relationships that will last a lifetime. We are extremely grateful to AANA for the privilege and will cherish the memories for years to come.

Subjective Outcomes After Allograft Reconstruction and Nonoperative Treatment of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Ruptures Are Similar in Patients Aged 40 Years and Older: A 2:1 Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Purpose: To compare subjective outcomes and rates of subsequent operations for patients aged 40 years and older with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures who elected nonoperative management or allograft ACL reconstruction (ACLR). Methods: This was a retrospective study comparing 2-year minimum results of nonoperative treatment and primary allograft ACLR among patients aged 40 years and older presenting to a single institution between the years 2005 and 2016. Patients who elected nonoperative management were 2:1 propensity score (PS)-matched to patients who elected ACLR based on age, sex, body mass index, sports-related mechanism of injury, Outerbridge grade III or IV chondral lesions, and medial or lateral meniscus tears. Univariate analysis was performed to compare subjective outcome measures of International Knee Documentation Committee and Marx activity level scores, subsequent operations, and satisfaction rates. Results: After 2:1 PS matching, 40 ACLR and 20 nonoperative patients with mean ages of 52.2 years and 54.5 years, respectively, were included with a mean follow-up of 5.7 years (SD 2.1 years, range 2.3-10.6 years). There were no significant differences between the groups in any of the matching variables. There were no significant differences in International Knee Documentation Committee scores (81.9 ± 14.1, CI 77.4-86.5 vs 84.3 ± 12.8, CI 78.3-90.3, P = .53), Marx activity level scores (5.8 ± 4.8, CI 4.2-7.3 vs 5.7 ± 5.1, CI 3.3-8.1, P = .96), or satisfaction rates (100% vs 90%, P = .11) between the ACLR and nonoperative groups. Four (10%) patients who underwent ACLR sustained a graft treated with revision ACLR. 7 (17.5%) ACLR and 0 nonoperative patients subsequently received further ipsilateral knee surgeries (P = .08), including 2 total knee arthroplasties. Conclusions: In this PS-matched analysis of patients aged 40 years and older with ACL ruptures, patients who elected nonoperative management had similar subjective outcomes compared with those who elected allograft ACLR. Patients who elected allograft ACLR did not have fewer subsequent operations than those who elected nonoperative treatment. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

High Levels of Satisfaction and Adequate Patient-Reported Outcomes After Operative Reconstruction of Multiligament Knee Injury With Allograft Among Patients Aged 40 Years and Older.

Purpose: To describe injury characteristics and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) among patients aged 40 years and older who underwent allograft reconstruction for multiligament knee injury (MLKI). Methods: Records of patients aged 40 years and older who underwent allograft multiligament knee reconstruction at a single institution between 2007 and 2017 with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Demographic information, concomitant injuries, patient satisfaction, and PROs including International Knee Documentation Committee and Marx activity scores were obtained. Results: Twelve patients were included with a minimum follow-up time of 2.3 years (mean, 6.1; range, 2.3-10.1 years) and a mean age at surgery of 49.8 years. Seven patients were male, and the most common mechanism of injury was sport-related. The most frequently reconstructed MLKIs were anterior cruciate ligament and medial collateral ligament (4), anterior cruciate ligament and posterolateral corner (2), and posterior cruciate ligament and posterolateral corner (2). The majority of patients reported satisfaction with their treatment (11). Median International Knee Documentation Committee and Marx scores were 73 (interquartile range, 45.5-88.0) and 3 (interquartile range 0-5), respectively. Conclusions: Patients aged 40 years and older can expect a high level of satisfaction and adequate PROs at 2-years follow-up after operative reconstruction for a MLKI with allograft. This demonstrates that allograft reconstruction for a MLKI in older patients may have clinical utility. Level of Evidence: IV, therapeutic case series.

Synovial inflammation in patients undergoing arthroscopic meniscectomy: molecular characterization and relationship to symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: Traumatic and degenerative meniscal tears have different anatomic features and different proposed etiologies, yet both are associated with the development or progression of osteoarthritis (OA). In established OA, synovitis is associated with pain and progression, but a relationship between synovitis and symptoms in isolated meniscal disease has not been reported. Accordingly, we sought to characterize synovial pathology in patients with traumatic meniscal injuries and determine the relationships between inflammation, meniscal and cartilage pathology, and symptoms. METHODS: Thirty-three patients without evidence of OA who were undergoing arthroscopic meniscectomy for meniscal injuries were recruited. Pain and function were assessed preoperatively; meniscal and cartilage abnormalities were documented at the time of surgery. Inflammation in synovial biopsy specimens was scored, and associations between inflammation and clinical outcomes were determined. Microarray analysis of synovial tissue was performed, and gene expression patterns in patients with and those without inflammation were compared. RESULTS: Synovial inflammation was present in 43% of the patients and was associated with worse preoperative pain and function scores, independent of age, sex, or cartilage pathology. Microarray analysis and real-time polymerase chain reaction revealed a chemokine signature in synovial biopsy specimens with increased inflammation scores. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that in patients with traumatic meniscal injury undergoing arthroscopic meniscectomy without radiographic evidence of OA, synovial inflammation occurs frequently and is associated with increased pain and dysfunction. Synovia with increased inflammation scores exhibit a unique chemokine signature. Chemokines may contribute to the development of synovial inflammation in patients with meniscal pathology; they also represent potential therapeutic targets for reducing inflammatory symptoms.

Surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee.

The role of surgical treatment in osteoarthritis of the knee continues to evolve. The indications for arthroscopy have narrowed. Orthopedic surgeons continue to explore options less invasive than total knee replacement for isolated unicompartmental arthritis of the knee joint. In addition to arthroscopy, this article discusses the merits and drawbacks of and indications for osteotomy, interpositional arthroscopy, patellofemoral replacements, and emerging technologies for total knee replacements.

Poor outcomes after SLAP repair: descriptive analysis and prognosis.

PURPOSE: In the first part of this study, we analyzed a subset of patients to determine what factors may have been present in those with poor outcomes after SLAP repair. In part 2, we evaluated clinical outcomes of these patients after further treatment. METHODS: We completed a retrospective medical record review of consecutive patients presenting between 2000 and 2007 with pain, stiffness, and/or mechanical symptoms after a SLAP repair. To evaluate for similarities among this cohort, data collection included demographics, age at initial SLAP repair, history of trauma, medical history, nonoperative and operative treatments, and physical examination. Outcome measures included patient satisfaction and the Simple Shoulder Test questionnaire. Subsequent treatment was then reviewed, investigating whether patients received physical therapy, cortisone injection, and/or revision surgery in an attempt to improve satisfaction. Outcome measures again included patient satisfaction and the Simple Shoulder Test questionnaire. RESULTS: We found 40 shoulders in 39 patients who met inclusion criteria. The mean age at the time of initial SLAP repair was 43 years. Of the patients, 30 (75%) presented with pain and decreased range of motion, 9 (22.5%) presented with pain but full range of motion, and 1 (2.5%) presented with pain and mechanical symptoms but full range of motion. The mean Simple Shoulder Test score upon presentation after SLAP repair was 3.04 out of 12 (SD, 2.18; range, 0 to 7). We included 34 shoulders in the analysis of treatment outcome. Of these, 29% (10 of 34) were satisfied after conservative treatment, 62% (13 of 21) were satisfied after revision surgery, and 68% (23 of 34) were satisfied overall after either type of further treatment. The mean Simple Shoulder Test score after further treatment was 8.73 out of 12 (SD, 3.45; range, 0 to 12). CONCLUSIONS: In this study 71% of patients (mean patient age, 43 years) with a poor outcome after SLAP repair were dissatisfied with conservative treatment. Therefore, once a patient has a poor outcome after SLAP repair, there is a high chance of conservative treatment failing. Although patients have better outcomes with operative intervention, 32% will continue to have a suboptimal result. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Design and characterization of a scaffold for anterior cruciate ligament engineering.

Advances in biomedical engineering have led to an understanding of the human body's capacity for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) healing if provided the correct impetus--a long-term bioresorbable scaffold that anticipates the defect site's requirements. Tissue engineering an ACL requires a scaffold that can meet multiple and often conflicting mechanical and biological design requirements. The design and characterization of a hydrophilic silk scaffold is presented as an example of the preclinical testing required to fully characterize a scaffold for ACL reconstruction. We hypothesize that by providing a structural scaffold which anticipates ACL repair mechanisms, an "engineered" autologous ligament with excellent functional integrity can be developed by the body itself. Mechanical, biological, and patient-clinician testing demonstrate that the hydrophilic silk scaffold is a mechanically robust, biocompatible, long-term bioresorbable ACL scaffold with demonstrated safety that can be implanted in accordance with standard surgical procedures.

Delayed ACL Reconstruction in Patients ≥40 Years of Age Is Associated With Increased Risk of Medial Meniscal Injury at 1 Year.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears in the pediatric and young adult ACL-deficient knee are often associated with meniscal or chondral injury with delayed time to surgery. The incidence of ACL reconstruction performed in patients aged ≥40 years is rising, and it is unclear if delayed surgery in this cohort similarly affects the health of the meniscus and cartilage. PURPOSE: To evaluate whether delayed reconstruction in a cohort of patients aged ≥40 years is associated with an increased risk of meniscal or chondral injury. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Records of patients aged ≥40 years who underwent primary arthroscopic ACL reconstruction between 2012 and 2016 at an academic hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Patient characteristic data and time to surgery were recorded. Operative reports were analyzed for meniscal and chondral injuries as well as treatment. Patients were grouped according to time to surgery, defined as early (<90 days) or delayed (≥90 days). Logistic regression modeling was used to form associations between elapsed time to surgery and patient characteristics to meniscal and chondral damage. Additionally, risks for meniscal and chondral injury were analyzed at time points of 180 days and 1 year from injury to surgery. RESULTS: A total of 227 patients met the study criteria: 106 patients underwent early surgery, and 121 underwent delayed surgery. The authors identified 127 medial meniscal tears and 106 lateral meniscal tears. Medial, lateral, and patellofemoral compartment chondral injury was reported in 127, 82, and 130 patients, respectively. Delayed surgery (≥90 days) was not associated with increased risk of medial or lateral meniscal tears or any chondral injury at 90 days. Each year of increased age was associated with an increased odds ratio: 1.09 ( P = .001) for medial meniscal tears, 1.06 ( P = .014) for lateral meniscal tears, 1.10 ( P = .001) for medial compartment chondral injuries, and 1.07 ( P = .007) for patellofemoral compartment chondral injuries. Additionally, each unit of increased body mass index was associated with an increased odds ratio: 1.09 ( P = .039) for medial meniscal tears and 1.14 ( P = .003) for medial compartment cartilage injury. Analysis of 180-day and 1-year time points revealed an increased risk (odds ratio, 3.47; 95% CI, 1.55-7.77; P = .002) for medial meniscal injury when surgery was delayed for >1 year. CONCLUSION: Delayed ACL reconstruction (≥90 days) among patients aged ≥40 years was not associated with an increased risk of meniscal or chondral injury. Increasing age and body mass index were associated with higher risks of meniscal and chondral injuries in this cohort. Delay in surgery for >1 year was associated with increased risk of medial meniscal tear.

Safety and Efficacy of Repeat Administration of Triamcinolone Acetonide Extended-release in Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Phase 3b, Open-label Study.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this work is to assess the safety and efficacy of repeat administration of triamcinolone acetonide extended-release (TA-ER) in patients with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA), including those with advanced radiographic severity. METHODS: In this phase 3b, single-arm, open-label study, patients aged ≥ 40 years received the first intra-articular TA-ER injection on day 1. Patients received the second injection timed to the response to the first injection (at either week 12, 16, 20, or 24). Patients who received two injections were evaluated every 4 weeks for 52 weeks. Safety was evaluated via treatment-emergent adverse events and any change at 52 weeks in index-knee radiographs (chondrolysis, osteonecrosis, insufficiency fractures, subchondral bone changes). Exploratory efficacy endpoints included Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)-A (pain), -B (stiffness), -C (function), and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Quality of Life (KOOS-QoL) after each injection. Initiative in Methods, Measurements and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) criteria were used to determine moderate and substantial treatment response. RESULTS: A total of 208 patients were enrolled and received the first injection of TA-ER; 179 (86.1%) received the second injection (median time to second injection: 16.6 weeks). Both injections were well tolerated, with no unexpected adverse events or significant radiographic changes at week 52. The magnitude and duration of clinical benefit after the first and second injections were similar, and most patients reported a substantial (≥ 50%) analgesic response after both doses. CONCLUSIONS: Repeat administration of TA-ER using a flexible dosing schedule timed to patient response was well tolerated, with no radiographic evidence of cartilage impact. Both injections resulted in similar improvements in OA symptoms across a broad spectrum of disease severity reflective of that seen in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03046446. FUNDING: Flexion Therapeutics, Inc. Plain language summary available for this article.

The use of long-term bioresorbable scaffolds for anterior cruciate ligament repair.

The absence of adequate options to restore full knee joint function through anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction prompts the need to develop new ligament replacement strategies. Recent focus within the ligament engineering field has been on the establishment of appropriate anterior cruciate ligament graft design requirements and evaluation methods. A range of biomaterials and graft constructions has been explored in an attempt to identify the optimal ligament replacement. Thorough and standardized evaluation methods are required throughout all phases of development, from initial in vitro bench screening through a large animal in vivo model. The initial positive clinical, gross pathologic, histologic, and mechanical results from a 12-month in vivo goat study demonstrate the potential of bioengineered ligament devices.

A reproducible landmark for the tibial tunnel origin in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: avoiding a vertical graft in the coronal plane.

Improper tunnel placement during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction may result in residual instability. Proper femoral tunnel orientation relies on tibial tunnel placement with a transtibial technique. Our recommended technique is to use the junction of the anterior border of the superficial medial collateral ligament and the superior border of the gracilis tendon as a reproducible anatomic landmark for the tibial tunnel. In a cadaveric model the mean angle for the tibial tunnel was 65.7 degrees +/- 5.5 degrees in the coronal plane and 75 degrees +/- 7.2 degrees in the sagittal plane. By use of the clock-face method, the mean angle for the femoral tunnel was 44.9 degrees +/- 13 degrees , or approximately the 10:30 position (for a right knee) or 1:30 position (for a left knee).

A retrospective comparison of the incidence of bacterial infection following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with autograft versus allograft.

PURPOSE: To compare the incidence of bacterial infection in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with autograft versus allograft. METHODS: We completed a retrospective medical record review of ACL reconstructions performed at our institutions between 2001 and 2005. These included 170 autograft, 628 allograft, and 3 combined autograft/allograft reconstructions. Data collection included patient demographics, comorbidities, preoperative antibiotics, fixation type, and the occurrence of deep postoperative infection. RESULTS: Of the 801 patients who underwent ACL reconstruction, 6 (0.75%) developed a confirmed deep infection. There were 2 confirmed deep infections in 170 autograft reconstructions (1.2%) compared with 4 confirmed deep infections in 628 allograft reconstructions (0.6%). Multivariate analysis revealed that ACL reconstruction using autograft had a nearly twice the risk of infection compared to allograft reconstructions (adjusted odds ratio, 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.16 to 12.94). CONCLUSIONS: This study failed to find a higher rate of deep bacterial infection in ACL reconstructions when allograft tissue was used. We therefore feel that surgeons should consider allograft tissue as an alternative to autograft when there is a concern about donor-site morbidity, or for revision reconstructions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic retrospective comparative study.