Risk factors of cartilage lesion after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Anterior cruciate ligament injury is the most common sports injury in orthopaedics, which can adversely affect knee joint function and exercise of patients. Using arthroscopy to reconstruct the anterior cruciate ligament has become the first choice for treating anterior cruciate ligament rupture. However, different degrees of articular cartilage injury of the knee can be observed in patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. More importantly, the articular cartilage injury after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction indicates that it will develop into osteoarthritis in the long term. It is of great significance to fully understand the factors that lead to the occurrence and development of cartilage injury. This article reviews the effects of surgical methods, meniscus status, different grafts, time from injury to surgical intervention, postoperative knee joint stability, postoperative rehabilitation, knee joint anatomical factors, and demographic characteristics of patients on articular cartilage degeneration after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The present review provides insights into the anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, which can be used to investigate new treatment strategies to delay and prevent the progress of osteoarthritis. At the same time, it provides a holistic understanding of the influence of multiple factors on cartilage lesions after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Effects of remnant preservation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Compared with standard anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, it is controversial whether anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with remnant preservation can lead to better clinical outcomes. We conducted a systematic study and meta-analysis to assess the differences in clinical efficacy between the two. Method: We searched for clinical randomized controlled studies and cohort studies included in the Cochrane library, PubMed, and Embase from March 2012 to March 2022 in English. The included studies were ACLR with or without remant preservation, and the data were extracted and the quality of the included studies was assessed by two authors, respectively. Revman 5.4 was used for statistical analysis and conclusions were presented. Result: Ten articles containing a total of 777 patients were finally included. There was no significant difference in postoperative Lachman test [OR = 1.66, 95%CI (0.79, 3.49), P = 0.18 > 0.05], Tegner score [SMD = -0.13, 95%CI (-0.47, 0.22), P = 0.46 > 0.05], synovial coverage rate by second-look arthroscopy [OR = 1.55, 95%CI (0.66, 3.65), P = 0.32 > 0.05], the rate of cyclops lesion [OR = 3.92, 95%CI (0.53, 29.29), P = 0.18 > 0.05], joint range of motion [SMD = 0.27, 95%CI (-0.13, 0.68), P = 0.19 > 0.05] and re-injury rate [OR = 0.57, 95%CI (0.18, 1.74), P = 0.32 > 0.05] between the two groups. There were statistically significant differences in postoperative Lysholm score [SMD = 0.98, 95% CI (0.32, 1.64), P = 0.004 < 0.05], International Knee Documantation Committee grade (IKDC grade) [OR = 2.19, 95%CI (1.03, 4.65), P = 0.04 < 0.05], Pivot shift test [OR = 1.71, 95%CI (1.06, 2.77), P = 0.03 < 0.05], KT1000/2000 arthrometer side-to-side difference [SMD = -0.22, 95%CI (-0.42, -0.03), P = 0.02 < 0.05], operation time [SMD = 11.69, 95%CI (8.85, 14.54), P = 0.00001 < 0.05] and degree of tibial tunnel enlargement [SMD = -0.66, 95%CI (-1.08, -0.23), P = 0.002 < 0.05]. Conclusion: This meta-analysis concluded that remnant preservation significantly had better results in terms of patient functional score (Lysholm, IKDC), knee stability (Pivot shift test, postoperative side-to-side anterior laxity) and tibial tunnel enlargement. In terms of complications (incidence of Cyclops lesions, range of motion, re-injury rate), no significant differences were seen between the two groups. Although many studies concluded that remnant preservation could bring better synovial coverage, this meta-analysis indicated that there is insufficient evidence to support it, possibly due to different remnant preservation procedures.The potential risks associated with longer operation times are also worth considering.

[Clinical outcomes of hip arthroscopic treatment for femoroacetabular impingement:a comparative study between Inside-out and Outside-in approach].

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes and complications of hip arthroscopic treatment for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) performed with either Inside-out or Outside-in approach. METHODS: The clinical date of 48 patients with FAI treated by hip arthroscopy surgery and follow-up from June 2016 to June 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the different operative methods, the patients were divided into two groups. Inside-out group, from central compartment to peripheral compartment;Outside-in group, from peripheral compartment to central compartment. There were 14 males and 10 females in Inside-out group with an averageage of (39.8±7.6)years old, 13 males and 11 females in Inside-out group with an average age of (39.5±9.1)years old in Outside-in group. There was no significant difference in age, gender, body mass index, side, impingement type, medical history and follow-up time between the two groups. The complication occurrence rate, modified Harris hip score (mHHS)and nonarthritic hip score (NAHS) were compared between these two groups. RESULTS: The mHHs and NAHS scores of the two groups were significantly higher than those before operation, but there was no significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). In the Inside-out group, there were 4 cases of nerve traction injury and 3 cases of iatrogenic injury, while only 1 case of nerve traction injury occurred in the Outside-in group. The incidence of complications in the inside out group was higher than that in the outside in group (16.7% vs 4.2%, χ2=5.400, P=0.020). CONCLUSION: Both hip arthroscopic surgery methods can obtain satisfactory clinical efficacy in the treatment of FAI, but the incidence of postoperative complications of Outside-in surgical method is lower. The out-side in method can be preferentially selected for the patients with the indications of operation.

Arthroscopic Treatment of Acetabular Rim Fracture after Traumatic Posterior Hip Dislocation: A Case Series Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical and radiographic short-term results of arthroscopic treatment for posterior labrum tears with an attached bony fragment after traumatic posterior hip dislocation. METHODS: Between July 2014 and May 2019, a consecutive series of nine patients diagnosed with a posterior labrum tear with an attached bony fragment after traumatic posterior hip dislocation were treated by hip arthroscopic techniques. The patients had been injured in traffic accidents (n = 6) or high falls (n = 3). All patients were provided primary treatment at the emergency department of our institution, and then were transferred to our department for arthroscopy. Demographic data (e.g. gender, age, etc), intraoperative findings, the preoperative and postoperative multiple clinical scores and radiological results were subsequently assessed. Visual analogue scale for pain (VAS) and modified Harris hip scores (mHHSs) were measured and compared before surgery, and at the last follow-up. RESULTS: A total of nine patients were enrolled, all of them were male, with a mean age at surgery of 32.2 ± 5.6 years (range, 22-65 years). The patients were followed-up for an average of 26.5 ± 4.1 (range, 24 to 50 years). During the arthroscopic surgery, all patients had labral tears with posterior acetabular rim fracture. All patients had loose osteochondral fragments. Five had partial or complete tears of ligamentum teres. Two patients had osteochondral damage. Two had capsular rupture. Postoperative X-ray films and three dimension computed tomography (3D-CT) showed satisfactory reduction of posterior acetabular wall fractures. The mHHS before surgery and at 1 year and 2 years after surgery were 51.8 ± 4.3, 81.8 ± 2.0 and 87.5 ± 1.9 respectively; VAS scores were 5.6 ± 0.5, 1.3 ± 0.3 and 0.7 ± 0.3 respectively. As compared with the condition before surgery, there was a significant improvement in the mHHS and VAS scores at 1 year and 2 years after surgery (P < 0.01). There was no significant improvement in the mHHS and VAS scores between 1 year and 2 years after surgery (P < 0.05). At the final follow-up, all patients had regained full range of motion (ROM) and were satisfied with the results. None of the patients showed signs of heterotopic ossification, avascular necrosis or progression of osteoarthritis of the hip joint. CONCLUSION: Traumatic dislocation is accompanied by a variety of intra-articular hip joint pathologies. Managing posterior acetabular rim fracture after traumatic posterior hip dislocation using arthroscopic reduction and fixation with anchors is a safe and minimally invasive option and delays the progression of traumatic osteoarthritis.

Interbundle Impingement Pressure in Individualized and Nonindividualized Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Cadaveric Study.

BACKGROUND: Graft impingement is one of the main concerns in double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (DB-ACLR). Impingement between the anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL) bundles has been postulated to cause graft deterioration or rerupture, but this has not been thoroughly investigated, and the interbundle impingement pressure (IIP) has not been well researched. PURPOSE: To determine the IIP between the AM and PL bundles in the native anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and in DB-ACLR with individualized and nonindividualized double-tunnel placement. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: A total of 30 fresh-frozen, nonpaired, human cadaveric knees were randomly divided into 3 groups of 10 knees: native intact ACL (NI group), DB-ACLR tunnel placement using the preserved remnant procedure (individualized reconstruction) (PR group), and DB-ACLR tunnel placement using the bony landmark procedure (nonindividualized reconstruction) (BL group). Pressure sensors were inserted between the AM and PL bundles. The knee was moved passively from full extension to full flexion, and the IIP between the 2 ACL bundles was measured every 15°. Similarly, the impingement pressure was measured between the ACL and intercondylar roof and between the ACL and posterior cruciate ligament (PCL). RESULTS: No significant differences were found in the maximum, mean, or minimum ACL-roof and ACL-PCL impingement pressures among the 3 groups. The IIP significantly increased when the knee joint was flexed >120° in all 3 groups (P < .001). Compared with the other 2 groups, the BL group had significantly higher maximum and mean IIP throughout the range of knee movement (P < .001) and from maximum extension to 120° of flexion (P < .001). The BL group also had significantly higher minimum IIP than the other 2 groups when knee flexion was >120° (P < .001). No significant differences were seen in maximum, minimum, or mean IIP between the NI and PR groups. CONCLUSION: The PR procedure (individualized DB-ACLR) was more consistent with the interbundle biomechanical conditions of the native ACL, whereas the BL procedure (nonindividualized DB-ACLR) had higher maximum and mean IIP. The IIP was higher than the ACL-intercondylar roof or ACL-PCL pressures, and it increased significantly when knee flexion was >120°. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These data suggest that surgeons can perform individualized DB-ACLR using preserved remnants for tunnel placement as impingement-free DB-ACLR.