Anatomic Flat Double-Bundle Medial Collateral Ligament Reconstruction.

Several surgical techniques have been described to restore the anatomy of the medial collateral ligament, involving suture repair and reconstruction, with the latter having been associated with superior postoperative outcomes. Recently, a growing interest in anatomic isometric medial collateral ligament reconstruction (MCLR) has been developed, involving careful evaluation and finding the most appropriate location for the femoral placement of the allograft. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to describe anatomic MCLR aiming to restore medial knee stability by focusing on isometric positions within the native anatomy of the MCL.

Differences in postoperative knee function based on concomitant treatment of lateral meniscal injury in the setting of primary ACL reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant lateral meniscal (LM) injuries are common in acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures. However, the effect of addressing these injuries with various treatment methods during primary ACL reconstruction (ACLR) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is unknown. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare postoperative Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at 2-, 5-, and 10-years after isolated primary ACLR to primary ACLR with various treatment methods to address concomitant LM injury. METHODS: This study was based on data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry. Patients ≥ 15 years with data on postoperative KOOS who underwent primary ACLR between the years 2005 and 2018 were included in this study. The study population was divided into five groups: 1) Isolated ACLR, 2) ACLR + LM repair, 3) ACLR + LM resection, 4) ACLR + LM injury left in situ, and 5) ACLR + LM repair + LM resection. Patients with concomitant medial meniscal or other surgically treated ligament injuries were excluded. RESULTS: Of 31,819 included patients, 24% had LM injury. After post hoc comparisons, significantly lower scores were found for the KOOS Symptoms subscale in ACLR + LM repair group compared to isolated ACLR (76.0 vs 78.3, p = 0.0097) and ACLR + LM injury left in situ groups (76.0 vs 78.3, p = 0.041) at 2-year follow-up. However, at 10-year follow-up, no differences were found between ACLR + LM repair and isolated ACLR, but ACLR + LM resection resulted in significantly lower KOOS Symptoms scores compared to isolated ACLR (80.4 vs 82.3, p = 0.041). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that LM injury during ACLR is associated with lower KOOS scores, particularly in the Symptoms subscale, at short- and long-term follow-up. However, this finding falls below minimal clinical important difference and therefore may not be clinically relevant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Effect of Concomitant Lateral Meniscal Management on ACL Reconstruction Revision Rate and Secondary Meniscal and Cartilaginous Injuries.

BACKGROUND: Simultaneous meniscal tears are often present with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, and in the acute setting, the lateral meniscus (LM) is more commonly injured than the medial meniscus. PURPOSE: To investigate how a concomitant LM injury, repaired, resected, or left in situ during primary ACL reconstruction (ACLR), affects the ACL revision rate and cartilaginous and meniscal status at the time of revision within 2 years after the primary ACLR. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Data for 31,705 patients with primary ACLR, extracted from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry, were used. The odds of revision ACLR, and cartilaginous as well as meniscal injuries at the time of revision ACLR, were assessed between the unexposed comparison group (isolated ACLR) and the exposed groups of interest (ACLR + LM repair, ACLR + LM resection, ACLR + LM repair + LM resection, or ACLR + LM injury left in situ). RESULTS: In total, 719 (2.5%) of the included 29,270 patients with 2 years follow-up data underwent revision ACLR within 2 years after the primary ACLR. No significant difference in revision rate was found between the groups. Patients with concomitant LM repair (OR, 3.56; 95% CI, 1.57-8.10; P = .0024) or LM resection (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.18-2.62; P = .0055) had higher odds of concomitant meniscal injuries (medial or lateral) at the time of revision ACLR than patients undergoing isolated primary ACLR. Additionally, higher odds of concomitant cartilage injuries at the time of revision ACLR were found in patients with LM resection at index ACLR compared with patients undergoing isolated primary ACLR (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.14-2.63; P = .010). CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrated higher odds of meniscal and cartilaginous injuries at the time of revision ACLR within 2 years after primary ACLR + LM resection and higher odds of meniscal injury at the time of revision ACLR within 2 years after primary ACLR + LM repair compared with isolated ACLR. Surgeons should be aware of the possibility of concomitant cartilaginous and meniscal injuries at the time of revision ACLR after index ACLR with concomitant LM injury, regardless of the index treatment type received.