Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Femoral Cortical Button Fixation: A Case Series of Intraoperative Malpositioning.

Background: Malpositioning of the femoral button is a known technical complication after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with cortical suspensory fixation. The incidence of malpositioning, as well as the efficacy of methods to prevent malpositioning of cortical suspensory fixation devices, has not been reported. Purpose: To determine the rate of malpositioned cortical suspensory fixation devices after ACL reconstruction, investigate which intraoperative technique yields the lowest rate of malpositioning, and determine the return-to-duty rate for active-duty service members with malpositioned buttons and the revision rate for malpositioned buttons. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: The records of patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction with a cortical suspensory fixation device between 2008 and 2018 were reviewed at our institution. Postoperative radiographs were reviewed for evidence of malpositioned femoral buttons. Malpositioned buttons were classified as (1) fully positioned in the bone tunnel, (2) partially positioned in the bone tunnel, (3) >2 mm from cortical bone, or (4) deployed over the iliotibial band. Operative reports were reviewed to determine the intraoperative methods undertaken to verify the button position. The rate of malpositioned cases with subjective instability and revision surgery performed were determined. The ability of patients to return to full military duty was reviewed for active-duty personnel. Results: A total of 1214 patients met the inclusion criteria. A 3.5% rate (42 cases) of malpositioned cortical suspensory fixation devices (femoral buttons) was identified. For patients with malpositioned buttons, 7 (16.7%) patients underwent revision surgery in the immediate postoperative period. Techniques used to avoid malpositioning included direct arthroscopic visualization, direct open visualization, intraoperative fluoroscopy, and first passing the button through the skin before positioning on the femoral cortex. There was a 4.6% malposition rate using direct arthroscopic visualization and a 5.1% malposition rate using passage of the button through the skin, while no malpositioning occurred with intraoperative fluoroscopy or direct open visualization (P < .05). Overall, 12 (28.6%) patients with malpositioned buttons ultimately underwent revision surgery. Despite having been diagnosed with malpositioned buttons, 21 (63.6%) active-duty members were able to return to full duty. Conclusion: Malpositioning of femoral buttons during ACL reconstruction occurred in 3.5% of patients in this series. The techniques of intraoperative fluoroscopy and direct open visualization are encouraged to prevent malpositioning.

Subcortical Backup Tibial Fixation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Has Similar Maximal Strength to Current Techniques.

Purpose: To evaluate the biomechanical profile of subcortical backup fixation (subcortical button [SB]) in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction as compared with a bicortical post and washer (BP) and suture anchor (SA) when used with interference screw (IS) primary fixation and to evaluate the utility of backup fixation for tibial fixation with extramedullary cortical button primary fixation. Methods: Fifty composite tibias with polyester webbing-simulated graft were used to test constructs across 10 methods. Specimens were separated into the following groups (n = 5): 9-mm IS only, BP (with and without graft and IS), SB (with and without graft and IS), SA (with and without graft and IS), extramedullary suture button (with and without graft and IS), and extramedullary suture button with BP as backup fixation. Specimens were tested under cyclic loading and then loaded to failure. Maximal load at failure, displacement, and stiffness were compared. Results: Without a graft, the SB and BP had similar maximal loads (802.46 ± 185.18 N vs 785.67 ± 100.96 N, P = .560), and both were stronger than the SA (368.13 ± 77.26 N, P < .001). With graft and an IS, there was no significant difference in maximal load between the BP (1,461.27 ± 173.75 N), SB (1,362.46 ± 80.47 N), and SA (1,334.52 ± 195.80 N). All backup fixation groups were stronger than the control group with IS fixation only (932.91 ± 99.86 N, P < .001). There was no significant difference in outcome measures between the extramedullary suture button groups with and without the BP (failure loads of 721.39 ± 103.32 N and 718.15 ± 108.61 N, respectively). Conclusions: Subcortical backup fixation in ACL reconstruction has similar biomechanical properties to current methods and is a viable backup fixation alternative. Backup fixation methods work synergistically with IS primary fixation to strengthen the construct. There is no advantage to adding backup fixation to extramedullary button (all-inside) primary fixation when all suture strands are secured to the extramedullary button. Clinical Relevance: This study provides evidence that subcortical backup fixation is a viable alternative for surgeons during ACL reconstruction.

Influence of Graft Type on Lower Extremity Functional Test Performance and Failure Rate After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Both autografts and allografts are used to reconstruct the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) after injury; however, it is unclear whether graft source affects lower extremity functional test performance or failure rate in an active military population. OBJECTIVE: To compare lower extremity functional test performance and graft failure rates between ACL grafts [allograft, hamstring, bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB)]. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2. METHODS: Ninety-eight cadets entering a US Service Academy with a history of unilateral ACL reconstruction (ACLR) agreed to participate. Before basic training, participants completed 4 lower extremity functional tests. Active injury surveillance was conducted within the study cohort to identify all subsequent graft failures. RESULTS: Cadets with hamstring autografts outperformed the BTB and allograft groups on the Lower Quarter Y-Balance Test-Posteromedial direction and single-leg hop test, respectively. No differences were detected by graft type for the other functional tests. The incidence of subsequent ipsilateral graft failures in patients with autograft was 8.11%. No failures were observed in the allograft group during the follow-up period. After controlling for sex, joint hypermobility, and time since injury and surgery, the risk of graft failure was 9.8 times higher for patients with a hamstring autograft than with a BTB (P = 0.045). CONCLUSION: After ACLR, graft type appears to influence some single-limb measures of lower extremity function and the risk of subsequent failure. Hamstring autografts demonstrated better functional performance but increased risk of graft failure. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Surgeons need to weigh the pros and cons of all graft options in relation to the patient's lifestyle. Regardless of graft type, individuals with an ACLR may require additional rehabilitation to regain neuromuscular control during dynamic single-limb tasks and mitigate graft failure.

Concomitant Glenohumeral Instability and Rotator Cuff Injury: An Epidemiologic and Case-Control Analysis in Military Cadets.

INTRODUCTION: Concomitant rotator cuff tear and glenohumeral instability in a large cohort of young and active patients has not been examined. The purpose of this study was to investigate the incidence, associated variables, and outcomes in military cadets undergoing shoulder stabilization procedures with these concomitant pathologies. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of a consecutive series of collegiate patients who underwent shoulder stabilization from 2014 to 2018 at a single service academy was conducted. Exclusion criteria were noncadets, revision instability cases, multidirectional instability, and prior rotator cuff repair. A nested case-control analysis was done in a matched series of patients with and without MRI evidence of rotator cuff tear. Baseline demographics, VAS pain scale, physical therapy duration, and time to surgery were analyzed. Postoperative metrics included rate of recurrent instability, subjective outcomes, VAS pain scale, and military-specific criteria. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-four cadets met the inclusion criteria, including 272 men and 52 women averaging 20.53 ± 1.80 years of age. MRI demonstrated concomitant rotator cuff tears in 5.56% of cases. A matched case-control comparison between patients with (rotator cuff tear group) and without (no rotator cuff tear group) rotator cuff tear showed no differences in preoperative data, recurrent instability rate, or postoperative VAS pain scores (0.24 versus 0.88, P = 0.207) at mean 44-month follow-up. Fifteen of 17 patients (88.2%) in each group returned to full activity (P > 0.999). No patients failed to graduate due to shoulder concerns. No patients in the rotator cuff tear group underwent a medical board for separation from the military compared with 2 (11.8%) in the no rotator cuff tear group (P = 0.163). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of concomitant rotator cuff tears in this study of military cadets undergoing shoulder stabilization was 5.56%. In a matched cohort comparison, the presence of a rotator cuff tear on preoperative MRI was not associated with inferior clinical outcomes.

Subcortical Backup Fixation in ACL Reconstruction.

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries result in knee instability in a majority of patients. Repair and reconstruction techniques have continually evolved over the past several decades. ACL reconstruction outcomes are directly impacted by physical therapy with early range of motion, weightbearing, and progressive strengthening. Therefore, the fixation must be sufficient to withstand the tensile and shear stresses across the graft construct during the biological healing phase. Occasionally, the primary fixation device is not strong enough to withstand these stresses. In turn, supplementary fixation devices, which are important especially in cases of revision ACL reconstruction, are imperfect. They occasionally become symptomatic, requiring hardware removal. Posts and washers require bicortical fixation, with moderate-sized holes in the tibia. Biocomposite screws rely on friction in the bone-screw interface, making them susceptible to failure. Tensioning can be problematic with the use of a post-and-washer construct. Subcortical fixation, which has not previously been described as a backup fixation method, provides several advantages. It requires a smaller, unicortical hole and provides fixation with a much lower profile than post-and-washer and interference-screw constructs. This is the first description of subcortical backup fixation in ACL reconstruction.

Heterotopic Ossification After Arthroscopic Procedures: A Scoping Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Heterotopic ossification (HO) is the formation of bone in soft tissue resultant from inflammatory processes. Lesion formation after arthroscopic procedures is an uncommon but challenging complication. Optimal prophylaxis and management strategies have not been clearly defined. PURPOSE: To present a scoping review of the pathophysiology, risk factors, diagnostic modalities, prophylaxis recommendations, and current treatment practices concerning HO after arthroscopic management of orthopaedic injuries. STUDY DESIGN: Scoping review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A scoping review via a PubMed search was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. The search strategy was based on the terms "heterotopic ossification" AND "arthroscopy." The clinical outcomes review included studies on the arthroscopic management of orthopaedic injuries in which the primary subject matter or a secondary outcome was the development of HO. An analysis of the pathophysiology, diagnostic modalities, and management options was reported. RESULTS: A total of 43 studies (33,065 patients) reported on HO after hip arthroscopy, while 21 (83 patients) collectively reported on HO after arthroscopic procedures to the shoulder, elbow, knee, or ankle; however, management techniques were not standardized. Identified risk factors for HO included male sex and mixed impingement pathology, while intraoperative capsular management was not suggested as a contributing factor. Diagnosis of ossification foci was performed using radiography and computed tomography. The rate of HO after hip arthroscopy procedures approached 46% without prophylaxis, and administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) decreased occurrence rates to 4% but carries associated risks. External beam radiation has not been exclusively studied for use after arthroscopic procedures. CONCLUSION: HO is a known complication after arthroscopic management of orthopaedic injuries. NSAID prophylaxis has been demonstrated to be effective after hip arthroscopy procedures. Patients with persistent symptoms and mature lesions may be indicated for surgical excision, although variability is present in patient-reported outcome scores postoperatively.

Team Medical Coverage.

In recent years, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and professional organizations have endorsed independent medical teams to promote athletes' wellbeing. In this independent arrangement, the team physician is the head of the medical team and with the assistance from the health care administrator, the team physician provides oversight of team medical personnel, who are delivering health care under the direction of the team physician. The purpose of this chapter is to review the role of the modern-day team physician, highlighting areas of controversy surrounding team medical coverage.

Comparison of Weightbearing and Nonweightbearing Juvenile Osteochondritis Dissecans Lesions of the Lateral Femoral Condyle.

BACKGROUND: Repetitive microtrauma may contribute to osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) lesions of the femoral condyle. The effect of differential loading between OCD weightbearing (WB) zones has not been studied. PURPOSE: To determine whether clinical and radiographic variables differ by WB zone in lateral femoral condyle OCD lesions. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of patients aged <18 years with lateral femoral condyle OCD lesions presenting at a single institution between 2004 and 2018. Patients with OCD lesions outside of the lateral femoral condyle were excluded. Lesions were localized on radiographs using the Cahill and Berg classification, referencing the Blumensaat line and an extension of the posterior femoral cortex. Progeny bone characteristics evaluated at baseline and 24-month follow-up included ossification, distinct borders from parent bone, and displacement. Baseline lesion dimensions were measured on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. We evaluated posttreatment pain level, return-to-activity rate, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including the Pediatric International Knee Documentation Committee score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and Pediatric Functional Activity Brief Scale. RESULTS: A total of 62 lateral femoral condyle OCD lesions (mean follow-up, 24.1 months) presented within the study period: 26 WB lesions and 36 nonweightbearing (NWB) lesions. At presentation, no differences between the lesion types were observed in symptom chronicity or symptomatology. NWB lesions were deeper on MRI scans (sagittal depth, 7.11 vs 5.96 mm; P = .046; coronal depth ratio, 0.05 vs 0.01 mm; P = .003), were more likely to develop progeny bone (69.4% vs 44%; P = .047), and demonstrated higher radiographic healing rates (52.8% vs 24%; P = .025) compared with WB lesions. PROMs at follow-up were available for 25 of 62 patients (40.3%), with no statistically significant differences between cohorts at any time. Return to full activity was observed in 72% of WB and 82.1% of NWB lesions (P = .378). CONCLUSION: Lateral femoral condyle OCD lesions of the knee in WB and NWB zones presented similarly at initial evaluation; however, NWB lesions demonstrated higher rates of progeny bone formation and radiographic healing at mean 2-year follow-up.

Meniscus Anatomy and Basic Science.

A basic understanding of meniscal anatomy and biomechanics is important for physicians evaluating knee injuries and surgeons treating meniscal injuries. This chapter provides a concise review of meniscal anatomy and biomechanics relevant for the evaluation and treatment of meniscus injuries. Anatomic landmarks relevant for meniscal root repair and transplant are discussed, along with the gross, microscopic, vascular, and neuroanatomy of the menisci.

The Burden of Meniscus Injury in Young and Physically Active Populations.

Meniscus injuries affect the young and physically active population. Although meniscus injuries are common in many sports, football, soccer, basketball, and wrestling are associated with the greatest risk. In an occupational setting, jobs requiring kneeling, squatting, and increased physical activity level have the greatest risk. Meniscus injury can be isolated to the meniscus or associated with other concomitant injuries, including anterior cruciate ligament tears and tibial plateau fractures. The frequency of meniscal repair is increasing because of a better understanding of meniscal pathophysiology, technological advancements, and a focus on meniscal preservation following injury to mitigate long-term consequences such as osteoarthritis.