Return to Sports After ACL Augmentation With Anterolateral Reconstruction (ALR) Harvesting Gracilis Only Compared With ACL Reconstruction With ALR Harvesting Both Hamstring Tendons.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair (ACL-Rp) is known to be a valuable alternative to ACL reconstruction (ACL-Rc) in selected indications. The majority of the ACL-Rp techniques recommend the use of a synthetic brace. The use of the gracilis allows both a biological internal brace and anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALR). PURPOSE: The primary objective was to compare the early ability to return to sports between patients who underwent ACL-Rp using a gracilis autograft as an internal brace augmentation with ALR and patients who underwent the conventional ACL-Rc with ALR technique sacrificing both the gracilis and the semitendinosus. The secondary objective was to compare the failure rate, clinical scores, and return to sports at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was undertaken. A total of 49 patients who underwent ACL-Rp with ALR between December 2018 and May 2019 were propensity matched at a 1:1 ratio to those who underwent ACL-Rc with ALR during the same period. The decision to perform ACL-Rp with ALR was based on preoperative selection and intraoperative arthroscopic findings: proximal avulsion tear, partial ACL tear, low- to midlevel sports participation, and good tissue quality. The ability to return to sports was assessed using isokinetic tests and the Knee Santy Athletic Return to Sport test functional test at 6 months postoperatively. At the final follow-up, knee laxity parameters, return to sports, and clinical outcome (Lysholm score, Tegner Activity Scale score, International Knee Documentation Committee score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sport after Injury score) were recorded. RESULTS: The ACL-Rp group had significantly less hamstring strength deficit when compared with their counterparts who underwent ACL-Rc (0.2% vs 10.2% in concentric, P < .001; 2.5% vs 14% in eccentric, P < .001). The mean Knee Santy Athletic Return to Sport test score was significantly higher in the ACL-Rc group (69.7% ± 16.6% [range, 19%-100%] vs 61% ± 16.8% [range, 19%-100%]; P = .001). In the ACL-Rp group, 61% (30/49) of the patients were authorized to return to pivot sports versus 41% (20/49) in the ACL-Rc group (P = .04). At a mean final follow-up of 31.4 ± 3.5 months, no significant differences were demonstrated between groups with respect to clinical scores and knee laxity parameters. There was a trend for a higher failure rate in the ACL-Rp group without any significance (ACL-Rp: 6.1% [3/49] vs ACL-Rc: 0%; P = .08). CONCLUSION: At 6 months after operation, harvesting only the gracilis with this ACL-Rp and augmentation with ALR technique was linked to a better early ability to return to sports compared with the ACL-Rc with ALR technique harvesting both the gracilis and semitendinosus. This technique had a limited effect on early flexion strength and provided a satisfactory rerupture rate.

Endoscopic treatment of gluteus medius tendon tear.

Tears in the gluteus medius and minimus tendons are a common cause of greater trochanter pain syndrome (GTPS). Given the non-specific clinical signs and imaging findings, they are often misdiagnosed, with delayed treatment. The lesions can show several aspects: trochanteric bursitis, simple tendinopathy, partial or full-thickness tear, tendon retraction, or fatty degeneration. Non-surgical treatment associates physical rehabilitation and activity modification, oral analgesics, anti-inflammatories and peri-trochanteric injections (corticosteroids, PRP). In the event of symptoms recalcitrant to medical treatment, surgery may be indicated. A 5-stage classification according to intraoperative observations and elements provided by MRI is used to guide technique: isolated bursectomy with microperforation, single or double row tendon repair, or palliative surgery such as muscle transfer (gluteus maximus with or without fascia lata). The development of conservative hip surgery now makes it possible to perform all of these surgical techniques endoscopically, with significant improvement in functional scores and pain in the short and medium term and a lower rate of complications than with an open technique. However, tendon retraction and fatty degeneration have been reported to be factors of poor prognosis for functional results and tendon healing and palliative tendon transfer gives mixed results for recovery of tendon strength. It is therefore preferable not to wait for the onset of Trendelenburg gait to propose endoscopic repair of the gluteus medius tendon in case of pain with a tear visible on MRI and failure of more than 6 months' medical treatment. Based on expert opinion, this article provides an update on the diagnosis of gluteus medius lesions, treatment, and in particular the place of endoscopy, indications and current results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V.

Survival rate of cemented versus cementless tibial component in primary total knee arthroplasty over 5 years of follow-up: comparative study of 109 prostheses.

INTRODUCTION: Knee osteoarthritis is the main indication for primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It is now accepted that cementless implantation of the femoral component provides equivalent results to cemented one, however, the optimal fixation method of the tibial component remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to compare the survivorship of cemented versus cementless tibial baseplate in primary total knee arthroplasty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out a retrospective, monocentric study, including 109 TKA (Zimmer® Natural Knee II ultra-congruent mobile-bearing) implanted between 2004 and 2010 for primary osteoarthritis, comparing 2 groups depending on tibial component fixation method, one cemented (n = 68) and one cementless (n = 41). Clinical (Knee Society Rating System (KSS), Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) scores, range of motion) and radiodiological outcomes were assessed at last follow-up with a minimal follow-up of 5 years. RESULTS: Mean follow-up were 8.14 [5.31-12.7] and 8.06 [5.22-12.02] years, respectively, in cemented and cementless groups. The tibial component survival rate was 100% [95CI: 91.4-100] in the cementless group and 97.1% [95CI: 89.78-99.42] in the cemented group (2 aseptic loosenings) (p = 0.27). Radiolucent lines were present in 31.7% (n = 13) of the cementless and 44.1% (n = 30) of the cemented baseplates (p = 0.2). The postoperative KSS knee score was higher in the cementless group (99 ± 3 vs. 97 ± 7.5; p = 0.02), but there was no significant difference in KSS function, global KSS and HSS scores. Mean range of flexion was 120 ± 10° in the cementless group and 122.5 ± 15° in the cemented group (p = 0.37). No significant differences were found on the radiographic data or on complications. CONCLUSION: In this study, the survival rate of the tibial component is not influenced by its fixation method at a mean follow-up of 8 years in osteoarthritis, which confirms the reliability of cementless fixation in primary TKA.