Comparing the Anatomical Landmarks Versus the Coracoid-Based Landmarks Techniques for Coracoclavicular Stabilization After High-Grade Acromioclavicular Injury: A Biomechanical Study.

Background: In acute high-grade acromioclavicular (AC) joint injuries, the aim of treatment is robust reduction and stabilization of the joint. The anatomical landmarks method is most commonly used for stabilization, but loss of reduction often occurs because of the suture tunnels. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to evaluate and compare the stability of coracoclavicular (CC) stabilization using the anatomical landmarks and coracoid-based landmarks techniques in treating a high-grade AC joint injury. It was hypothesized that stabilization using coracoid-based landmarks would provide better stability. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Twenty fresh-frozen cadaveric shoulders (8 male and 2 female pairs) were randomized into 2 operative technique groups: 10 shoulders in the anatomical landmarks group and 10 shoulders in the coracoid-based landmarks group. The CC ligaments and AC capsule were cut at the midlevel, and CC stabilization and AC capsule repair were performed. For the anatomical landmarks technique, two 2.5-mm clavicular tunnels were created at 25 and 45 mm from the AC joint, while for the coracoid-based landmarks technique, two 2.5-mm clavicular tunnels were drilled using the medial and lateral borders of the coracoid base to choose the tunnel sites. Before injury creation and after stabilization, each shoulder underwent a loading force of 70 N in the superior and anteroposterior directions, and the displacement distance and stiffness were compared between the 2 techniques using the paired t test. Results: The mean difference in displacement before and after stabilization was higher in the anatomical landmarks technique than the coracoid-based landmarks technique (1.82 ± 3.52 vs -0.18 ± 4.78 mm in the superior direction and 7.47 ± 9.35 vs 1.76 ± 3.91 mm in the anteroposterior direction), but none of the differences in displacement or stiffness were statistically significant between the groups. Conclusion: No significant biomechanical differences in displacement or stiffness were seen between the anatomical landmarks technique and the coracoid-based landmarks technique. Clinical Relevance: Either stabilization technique can be utilized for repair of the CC ligaments in an acute AC injury setting.

The Danger Zone for Iatrogenic Neurovascular Injury in All-Inside Lateral Meniscal Repair in Relation to the Popliteal Tendon: An MRI Study.

BACKGROUND: Lateral meniscal repair can endanger the nearby neurovascular structure (peroneal nerve or popliteal artery). To our knowledge, there have been no studies to evaluate the danger zone of all-inside meniscal repair through the anteromedial (AM) and anterolateral (AL) portals in relation to the medial and lateral edges of the popliteal tendon (PT). PURPOSE: To establish the risk of neurovascular injury and the danger zone in repairing the lateral meniscus in relation to the medial and lateral edges of the PT. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive laboratory study. METHODS: Using axial magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies at the level of the lateral meniscus, lines were drawn to simulate a straight, all-inside meniscal repair device, drawn from the AM and AL portals to both the medial and lateral edges of the PT. In cases in which the line passed through the neurovascular structure, a risk of iatrogenic neurovascular injury was deemed, and measurements were made to determine the danger zones of neurovascular injury in relation to the medial or lateral edges of the PT. RESULTS: Axial MRI images of 240 adult patients were reviewed retrospectively. Repairing the body of the lateral meniscus through the AM portal had a greater risk of neurovascular injury than repairs made through the AL portal in relation to the medial edge of the PT (P = .006). The danger zone in repairing the lateral meniscus through the AM portal extended 1.82 ± 1.68 mm laterally from the lateral edge of the PT and 3.13 ± 2.45 mm medially from the medial edge of the PT. Through the AL portal, the danger zone extended 2.81 ± 1.94 mm laterally from the lateral edge of the PT and 1.39 ± 1.53 mm medially from the medial edge of the PT. CONCLUSION: Repairing the lateral meniscus through either the AM or the AL portals in relation to the PT can endanger the peroneal nerve or popliteal artery. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The surgeon can minimize the risk of iatrogenic neurovascular injury in lateral meniscal repair by avoiding using the all-inside meniscal device in the danger zone area as described in this study.

Multiple needle puncture combined with repetitive knee manipulation in total knee arthroplasty for correcting varus deformity.

PURPOSE: Multiple needle punctures (MNPs), for gap balancing in total knee replacement, have less variability in gap widening compared to the conventional released technique. This study aimed to evaluate the outcome of gap-balancing techniques in varus osteoarthritis (OA) knees, by serial MNP, after a total knee prosthesis trial component was placed, combined with repetitive knee manipulation. METHODS: This study was a retrospective, case-matched study of 161 patients. The data were collected from varus OA knee patients, who had total knee arthroplasty by a single surgeon. Sixty-eight patients required MNP, combined with repetitive knee manipulation for gap balancing, and 93 patients did not. Both groups of MNP patients underwent the same surgical technique and postoperative care protocols. RESULTS: Knee society scores, in terms of knee score and functional score, were not different in both groups when we started the study, at 6-month and 1-year follow-ups (p > 0.05). The femorotibial angle was not significantly different between groups at the start of the study, initial postoperative, 6 months, and 1 year (p = 0.74, 0.45, 0.99, and 0.82, respectively). Medial joint opening in knee radiographic was found in 3% of the patients in the MNP group and in 4% of patients in the control group at 1-year follow-up (p = 0.65). CONCLUSION: This study found MNP combined with repetitive knee manipulation was effective, reproductive, and a safe method for varus OA knee. We believe that the cycle of performed needle punctures, knee manipulation, and reevaluation could gradually lengthen the medial soft tissue without risk of over lengthening or medial collateral ligament rupture.

Adhesive strips as the sole method for skin closure is effective in total knee arthroplasty.

OBJECTIVE: Adhesive strips are used as the sole method for skin closure in many operations except total knee arthroplasty. The claims are decreased wound closure time, less tissue reaction, and lack of stitch marks. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of closure using adhesive strips versus running subcuticular stitches. METHODS: This study was a retrospective case-matched study. Running subcuticular stitches or adhesive strips were used for skin closure in 151 and 137 patients, respectively. All of the patients had an operation by a single surgeon and had the same patient care protocol. All of the patients were evaluated postoperatively for wound complication at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months follow-up. RESULTS: The wounds of most patients in both groups had healed. The incidence of superficial infection was not different between the groups (1.32% in the running subcuticular suture group and 1.46% in the adhesive strip group) (p = 0.92). One case (0.66%) in the running subcuticular suture group had deep infection, which required reoperation (p = 0.34). The patients in the running subcuticular suture group had higher unabsorbable sutures, which required further removal compared to the adhesive strip group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of adhesive strips is an effective skin closure method with a low rate of infection and skin complications. This technique is easy and there is no need for suture removal. Furthermore, there are no stitch marks and the cost of suturing is lower.