ABSTRACT
Objectives: Compare, retrospectively, the medium- and long-term of return to sport rates and re-injury of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in patients submitted to single-bundle (SB) compared to double-bundle (DB) technique reconstruction. Methods: Athletes operated by SB or DB ACL reconstruction, with at least five years of follow-up at a single center, were included. The following data were collected: demographic data; competitive sports practice before the injury; previous surgery; injury/surgery to the contralateral knee; return to sports and level of the return; re-injury (time of the re-injury after the first surgery; mechanism of trauma for the re-injury; necessity of operative treatment); signs and complaints related to the knee the last clinical consultation. Results: Seventy-six athletes (27 SB and 49 DB) were included. The return to sport rate (98%) was the same for both groups, and the return to the previous level rate showed an improvement in the DB group but without statistical significance (63% vs. 79%; P = 0.173). However, other outcomes showed higher results for the DB group: lower re-injury rate throughout the follow-up period (41% vs. 18%; P = 0.034) and during the first year of follow-up (22% vs. 4%; P = 0.021), and less stiffness (0% vs. 22%, P = 0.001). While in primary reconstruction cases, there was not a higher re-injury rate using SB (P = 0.744), in the revision cases, SB was correlated with more re-injuries than DB (P = 0.002). Conclusion: The overall re-injury in the medium- and long-term and the return to practice sports at the same level as before surgery in athletes submitted to DB reconstruction were slightly better than those submitted to SB reconstruction, especially in the cases that were asecond time lesion ( revisioned knees).
ABSTRACT
Few complications regarding the use of bioabsorbable suture anchors in the shoulder have been reported. What motivated this case report was the unusual location of the anchor, found in the acromioclavicular joint which, to our knowledge, has never been reported so far. A 53-year old male with previous rotator cuff (RC) repair using bioabsorbable suture anchors presented with pain and weakness after 2 years of surgery. A suspicion of retear of the RC led to request of a magnetic resonance image, in which the implant was found located in the acromioclavicular joint. The complications reported with the use of metallic implants around the shoulder led to the development of bioabsorbable anchors. Advantages are their absorption over time, minimizing the risk of migration or interference with revision surgery, less artifacts with magnetic resonance imaging, and tendon-to-bone repair strength similar to metallic anchors. Since the use of bioabsorbable suture anchors is increasing, it is important to know the possible complications associated with these devices.
