Effect of Different Screw Materials on ACL Reconstruction With the Tape Locking Screw Technique: A Retrospective Study From the FAST Cohort.

Background: Screws for graft fixation are available in 3 different materials for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with the Tape Locking Screw (TLS) technique: titanium, poly-l-lactic acid bioabsorbable, and polyetheretherketone (PEEK). Purpose: To compare the effect of the 3 different fixation materials on graft and implant survival after ACLR with the TLS technique. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Included were 521 patients from the French Prospective ACL Study (FAST) cohort who underwent primary surgical ACLR with the TLS technique. Patients were divided into 3 groups depending on the type of screw material used: titanium (TLS-T group), poly-l-lactic acid bioabsorbable (TLS-B group), or PEEK (TLS-P group). The primary endpoint was a retear within 2 years after ACLR. The secondary endpoints were complication rate, return to sports rate, and functional scores. Objective and subjective functional scores-including the International Knee Documentation Committee, the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and the Lysholm score-were evaluated preoperatively and at the 2-year follow-up. Pain was assessed with the KOOS-Pain subscore recorded pre- and postoperatively every 6 months up to 2 years. Patient satisfaction was recorded at the 2-year follow-up. Results: No significant differences between the study groups were found in retear rates (4.4%, 4.5%, and 4.3% in the TLS-T, TLS-P, and TLS-B groups 2 years after surgery) or subjective and objective outcomes. The TLS-T group had the lowest rate of intraoperative implant-related complications (0.9%) compared with the TLS-P (4.3%) and TLS-B (7.7%) groups. Young age was a significant risk factor for retear in the TLS-T (P = .03) and TLS-B (P = .0001) groups, while a high level of sports was found to be a significant risk factor in the TLS-P (P = .04) group. All functional scores improved significantly at the 2-year follow-up (P < .0001), with no significant group difference. The KOOS-Pain subscore improved continuously with no significant group difference. The rate of return to preinjury sports was between 43.4% and 58.6%. The rate of highly satisfied patients at the final follow-up was between 86.2% and 91.8%. Conclusion: There was no difference in retear rate or objective and subjective functional scores between implant materials for TLS ACLR in this study.

Magnetic resonance imaging should be the first-line imaging modality for investigating suspected proximal hamstring avulsion injuries.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate how the initial diagnostic tool used-specifically ultrasound (US) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-for diagnosing proximal hamstring avulsion injury affects the delay before surgery and, secondarily, the outcomes of these injuries. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data (2012-2020). It targeted patients primarily treated for proximal hamstring avulsion injury. It included all patients with a preoperative US and/or MRI. Patients were divided into two groups based on the initial diagnostic tool used (US-first vs. MRI-first groups). The primary outcomes measure was the time from initial injury to surgical intervention (surgical delay). The secondary outcomes were the Parisien Hamstring Avulsion Score, as well as the activity level as measured by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Scale and Tegner Activity Scale. RESULTS: The analysis included 392 patients with a mean age of 43.8 ± 13.6 years for the MRI-first group and 47.6 ± 12.0 years for US-first group. Patients in the MRI-first group had a significantly shorter median time from injury to surgery of 20.0 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 11.0-61.0) compared to 30 days (IQR: 18-74) in the US-first group. At the final follow-up (4.2 ± 2.2 years for the MRI-first group and 5.1 ± 1.9 years for the US-first group), the MRI-first group had significantly higher mean Tegner Activity Scale and UCLA scores than the US-first group: The Tegner Activity Scale was median 5 (IQR: 3-7) for the MRI-first group versus median 4 (IQR: 2-6) for the US-first group (p < 0.05). The UCLA scores were 7.9 ± 2.4 for the MRI-first group compared to 7.3 ± 2.4 for the US-first group (p < 0.05). This difference was more pronounced when comparing the MRI-first group with the patient-false negative initial ultrasound. No difference was found regarding the Parisien Hamstring Avulsion Score. CONCLUSION: MRI as the initial diagnostic tool for proximal hamstring avulsion injury is associated with a shorter time to surgery and better postoperative outcomes in Tegner Activity Scale and UCLA scores, compared to US. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Impact of Lateral Extra-Articular Procedure Augmentation on Rerupture Risk and Tegner Activity Scale Outcomes in Adolescent Anterior Cruciate Ligament: A Matched Comparative Study With a Minimum 2-Year Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Despite the well-established role of lateral extra-articular procedures (LEAPs) in reducing failure rates after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) in the adult population, similar in-depth research for the adolescent and pediatric population remains lacking. PURPOSE: To examine the effect of the LEAP augmentation on the rerupture rate after ACLR in patients aged <18 years. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from October 2012 to June 2020, involving adolescents <18 years old undergoing primary ACLR with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Two groups, matched for age, sex, Tegner activity scale, and presence of meniscal injury, were established: ACLR alone and ACLR+LEAP augmentation. The primary outcome measure was the rate of rerupture after ACLR. The secondary outcome measures were the rate of non-graft rupture related reoperation after ACLR; rate of return to sport (RTS) rate, timing, and level compared with preinjury status; and functional scores including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) (Pain, Symptoms, Activities of Daily Living, Sport and Recreation, and Quality of Life), Tegner activity scale score, ACL Return to Sport after Injury (ACL-RSI) score, and Lysholm score. RESULTS: After accounting for follow-up losses, we analyzed 132 patients who underwent ACLR alone and 121 patients who underwent ACLR+LEAP from the initial 147 per group. The mean age of the patients in both groups was 16.1 years (SD, 1.1 and 1.0 years, respectively), with similar patient and injury characteristics across both groups (P > .05). Both groups also showed comparable preoperative functional scores. A significantly lower preoperative ACL-RSI score was observed in the ACLR-alone group compared with the ACLR+LEAP group (P = .0044). Graft rupture was significantly less common in the ACLR+LEAP group (2.5%) than in the ACLR-alone group (13.6%) (P = .002). The attributable risk reduction for ACLR+LEAP was 11.1%, and the calculated number needed to treat was 9. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significantly better rerupture-free survival at 5 years for the ACLR+LEAP group (P = .001). Cox regression confirmed a 6-fold increased rerupture risk in the ACLR-alone group (P = .004). At the final follow-up, despite similar IKDC, KOOS, Lysholm, and ACL-RSI values across both groups, the ACLR+LEAP group had a significantly higher Tegner score (7.2 vs 6.3; P = .0042). No significant differences were observed in RTS rates or sport level compared with preinjury states between the groups. CONCLUSION: ACLR+LEAP augmentation significantly reduced rerupture risk and facilitated higher postoperative activity levels in adolescents. REGISTRATION: NCT02511158 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Osseointegration for Amputees: Current Implants, Techniques, and Future Directions.

Osseointegrated prostheses provide a rehabilitation option for amputees offering greater mobility, better satisfaction, and higher use than traditional socket prostheses. There are several different osseointegrated implant designs, surgical techniques, and rehabilitation protocols with their own strengths and limitations. The 2 most prominent risks, infection and periprosthetic fracture, do not seem unacceptably frequent or insurmountable. Proximal amputations or situations leading to reduced mobility are exceptionally infrequent. Osseointegrated implants can be attached to advanced sensory and motor prostheses.