ACL reconstruction with femoral and tibial adjustable versus fixed-loop suspensory fixation: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Cortical suspensory fixation (CSF) devices gain more and more popularity as a reliable alternative to interference screws for graft fixation in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Adjustable-loop fixation may be associated with increased anterior laxity and inferior clinical outcome. The purpose of the study was to compare anterior laxity and clinical outcome after minimally invasive all-inside ACL reconstruction using an adjustable-loop (AL) to a standard technique with a fixed-loop (FL) CSF device. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary single-bundle ACL reconstruction with a quadrupled hamstring autograft at a single institution between 2012 and 2016 were reviewed. In the AL group minimally invasive popliteal tendon harvesting was performed with an all-inside approach (femoral and tibial sockets). In the FL group a traditional anteromedial approach was used for tendon harvesting and a femoral socket and full tibial tunnel were drilled. An objective clinical assessment was performed with Telos x-rays and the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Objective Score. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) included the IKDC Subjective Score, the Lysholm Knee Score, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Score (KOOS) and the Tegner Activity Scale. RESULTS: A total of 67 patients were enrolled in this retrospective study with a mean follow-up of 4 (± 1.5) years. The groups were homogenous at baseline regarding age, gender, and the time to surgery. At follow-up, no statistically significant differences were found regarding anterior laxity (AL: 2.3 ± 3 mm vs. FL: 2.3 ± 2.6 mm, p = 0.981). PRO scores were comparable between the AL and FL groups (IKDC score, 84.8 vs. 88.8, p = 0.185; Lysholm 87.3 vs. 89.9, p = 0.380; KOOS 90.7 vs. 91.4, p = 0.720; Tegner 5.5 vs. 6.2, p = 0.085). The rate of saphenous nerve lesions was significantly lower in the AL group with popliteal harvesting of the tendon (8.3% vs. 35.5%, p = 0.014). CONCLUSION: The use of an adjustable-loop device on the femoral and tibial side led to similar stability and clinical results compared to a fixed-loop device.

Surgery improves the clinical and radiological outcome in Rockwood type IV dislocations, whereas Rockwood type III dislocations benefit from conservative treatment.

PURPOSE: Despite the available classifications, diagnostics and treatment of acute acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) injuries are still vague and challenging for trauma and shoulder surgeons. This study aimed to evaluate the dynamic radiographic as well as clinical outcome of operatively and conservatively treated Rockwood (RW) type III and IV ACJ dislocations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with RW type III and IV ACJ dislocations between 2009 and 2016 (n = 226) were included in this retrospective data analysis with a prospective follow-up examination. According to their injury classification, patients were subdivided in an operative and conservative treatment group. Examiner blinded clinical evaluation including the constant score (CS), American shoulder and elbow surgery (ASES) score, the acromioclavicular joint instability (ACJI) score, visual analog scale (VAS), bilateral force measurements, and posttraumatic/postsurgical sequelae were assessed. Fluoroscopic evaluations including dynamic stability assessment with functional axillary views were performed for every patient. RESULTS: For follow-up examination (mean 4.8 years ± 0.3 SEM) 56 patients (29 RW type III, 27 RW type IV) were available. In patients with RW type III ACJ dislocations [operative (n = 10); conservative (n = 19)] prolonged duration of treatment was seen in operatively treated patients (p < 0.05). Clear improvement could be shown for the ACJI score (p < 0.05) and coracoclavicular (CC) and acromioclavicular (AC) distance (p < 0.05) in the operative group. In patients with RW type IV ACJ dislocations [operative (n = 18); conservative (n = 9)] superior clinical results were found in operated patients with highly significant differences for the ACJI score (p < 0.001). Radiographic dynamic horizontal analysis showed nearly normalized anteroposterior translation in operated patients (p < 0.05). No differences were found regarding arthroscopic or open procedures. CONCLUSION: Accurate diagnostics including sufficient dynamic stability assessment with functional axillary views are strongly advised for patients with ACJ dislocations. Conservative treatment should be recommended for patients with RW type III ACJ dislocations, due to shorter duration of treatment with good clinical results but lacking operative risks. In patients with RW type IV ACJ dislocations, surgical treatment is recommended because of superior clinical and radiological results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

The risk of graft impingement still exists in modern ACL surgery and correlates with degenerative MRI signal changes.

PURPOSE: Anatomic tunnel placement in ACL reconstruction is crucial to restore knee function. The aims of this study were to (i) evaluate the accuracy of tunnel placement for primary state-of-the-art ACL reconstruction, and (ii) examine the correlation between incorrect tunnel placement, graft appearance, and notch impingement. METHODS: In this retrospective study, all patients underwent primary single-bundle ACL reconstruction with independent drilling of the femoral and tibial tunnels according to anatomical landmarks. The accuracy of tunnel placement and the rate of notch impingement were analysed with MRI. The study cohort was subdivided according to the morphology of the graft: intact, degeneration, and re-rupture. The objective outcome was evaluated with the IKDC objective score, and the subjective outcomes were evaluated with the IKDC subjective score, the Lysholm knee score, the KOOS, and the Tegner activity scale score. RESULTS: Eighty-seven consecutive patients with a mean follow-up of 3.8 ± 1.4 years were evaluated. There was no significant difference among the groups concerning the baseline characteristics. The re-rupture rate was 9.2%. The position of the femoral tunnel was correct in 92% of the patients, and the position of the tibial tunnel was correct in 93% of the patients. In the intact group, impingement was not found in any of the cases, whereas the rate of impingement in the degeneration (65%) and re-rupture (80%) groups was significantly higher than that in the intact group (p < 0.001). The risk of impingement was more likely with femoral (71% vs. 13%, p < 0.001) or tibial (100% vs. 11%, p < 0.001) malpositioning. The objective IKDC score was A in 52 patients (60%), B in 26 patients (30%), and C in 9 patients (10%). The average subjective IKDC score, Lysholm score, and KOOS were comparable in the intact and degeneration groups but significantly lower in the patient group with newly diagnosed re-ruptures (p = 0.05). The Tegner activity scale score was comparable in all three groups. CONCLUSION: Even though the accuracy of femoral tunnel placement in modern single-bundle ACL reconstruction is greater, the risk of malpositioning and graft impingement remains. In our patient cohort, there was a clear correlation between ACL graft impingement, degenerative changes in MRI, and incorrect tunnel positioning. The surgeon must focus on accurate tunnel placement specific to individual patient anatomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.