Minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis for treatment of proximal humeral shaft fractures.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a minimally invasive percutaneous plate osteosynthesis (MIPPO) procedure for proximal humeral shaft fractures using lateral minimal proximal and distal approaches and lateral bridge plating with primary radial nerve control, and to assess its clinical and radiographic outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review was done for the medical records of adult patients admitted for fracture of the proximal humeral shaft without associated injury to the ipsilateral upper limb and who consented to undergo a novel MIPPO technique herein reported. Patients were reviewed at regular follow-up periods and assessed at a final follow-up for evaluation of Constant, normalized Constant, and QuickDASH scores. RESULTS: There were 21 adult patients with mean age of 56 years. Three patients were lost from early follow-up; one of them had post-operative radial nerve paralysis. Eighteen patients were reviewed for the purpose of this study at a mean of 20 months of final follow-up; among them, one patient developed post-operative radial nerve paralysis with complete recovery after three months. Bone healing was achieved without any malalignment in 17 patients at a mean of 15 weeks, and one patient developed nonunion. At final assessment (mean, 20 months), the mean values of Constant, normalized Constant, and QuickDASH scores were 84 (range, 59 to 100), 95 (range, 73 to 100), and 5 (range, 0 to 18.2) respectively. CONCLUSION: Compared to pre-reported methods of MIPPO, this technique of lateral proximal and distal mini-approaches with lateral bridge plating after primary control of the radial nerve seems safe and feasible for proximal humeral shaft fractures. It gives good clinical and radiographic results with excellent restoration of upper limb function, very low incidence of post-operative radial nerve injury, and high rate of bone union in good alignment.

FARES method for reduction without medication of first episode of traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to demonstrate the efficiency of (FARES) method for reduction of first-episode anterior shoulder dislocation, as well as its safety, reliability, and quick easy reproducibility by inexperienced physicians without any use of medications. METHODS: This was a prospective study of 28 patients with first episode of anterior shoulder dislocation that underwent closed reduction using FARES method by junior orthopaedic residents without use of any analgesic, muscle relaxant, or anesthesia. Only two attempts of reduction were allowed for each patient. The time needed for reduction was recorded, and the patients were asked to grade their pain according to a visual analog scale from 0 to 10. RESULTS: Reduction was achieved after one attempt in 21 patients (75%) and after two attempts in three additional patients (total 85.7%). The mean time needed for reduction was 62.66 seconds, and the mean visual analog scale for pain evaluation was 5.29. CONCLUSION: FARES method is a fast, reliable, and safe method for reduction of a first episode of anterior shoulder dislocation and can be easily performed by inexperienced physicians and junior residents.

Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Graft Combined With Modified Lemaire Technique Versus Hamstring Graft Combined With Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction: A Clinical Comparative Matched Study With a Mean Follow-up of 5 Years From The SANTI Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Additional lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) has recently been correlated with improved clinical outcomes and reduced failure rates in revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR). However, no data are available on clinical outcomes and reoperation after revision ACLR using different LET procedures. PURPOSE: To compare the clinical outcomes of ACL + anterolateral ligament (ALL) reconstruction using hamstring tendon graft (HT-ALL) and a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) graft + modified Lemaire tenodesis procedure (BPTB-Lemaire) in the setting of revision ACLR and to determine whether ALL reconstruction is associated with an increased rate of adverse outcomes when compared with a modified Lemaire tenodesis procedure. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Descriptive data and clinical outcomes were prospectively collected from patients who underwent revision ACLR with LET between 2009 and 2018 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Patients with an HT autograft combined with ALL reconstruction (HT-ALL group) were matched in a 1:1 propensity ratio to patients with a BPTB autograft combined with a modified Lemaire LET procedure (BPTB-Lemaire group). The evaluated parameters included complications and reoperations; knee laxity tests; return to sports; and various scores, including the Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity scale, Anterior Cruciate Ligament Return to Sport After Injury scale, Marx activity rating scale, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee evaluation form, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. RESULTS: In total, 36 matched pairs were included in the analysis. The mean follow-up durations for the BPTB-Lemaire and HT-ALL groups were 56 ± 35 and 57 ± 23 months, respectively (P = .91). No significant differences were found in graft rupture rate (HT-ALL, 0%; BPTB-Lemaire, 11.1%; P = .13) or reoperations (HT-ALL, 8.3%; BPTB-Lemaire, 22.2%; P = .23). No specific complications with regard to LET were noted in either group. Additionally, there were no significant differences in knee laxity parameters, return to sports, or clinical scores between the groups at the final follow-up, except for the Tegner activity scale score (HT-ALL, 6.4; BPTB-Lemaire, 7.3; P = .03). HT-ALL was associated with a shorter surgical time (41.4 vs 59.8 minutes; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: HT-ALL was at least equivalent, in terms of clinical outcomes, to the more commonly performed procedure, BPTB-Lemaire. Performing ALL reconstruction in the setting of revision ACLR is therefore safe and effective.

Management of the Failed First Revision ACL Reconstruction: Clinical Outcomes of Nonsurgical Management Versus Second Revision ACL Reconstruction From the SANTI Group.

BACKGROUND: The optimum management strategy after failure of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (RACLR) is not clearly defined. The literature evaluating differences in outcomes between surgical and nonsurgical management is sparse. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose was to evaluate the outcomes of surgical versus nonsurgical management of failed first RACLR. It was hypothesized that the long-term clinical outcomes of second RACLR would be superior with respect to knee stability, return to sport, and patient-reported outcome measures when compared with nonsurgical treatment. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Patients who experienced failure of first RACLR were evaluated. All participants followed the same rehabilitation protocol regardless of whether they underwent nonsurgical treatment or a second RACLR. Follow-up comprised regular clinical review and a standardized telephone interview at the end of the study period. Patient-reported outcome measures were recorded at the final follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 41 patients with a mean follow-up of 104 ± 52.7 months (range, 40-140 months) were evaluated. Of these, 31 underwent a second RACLR, and 10 patients chose nonsurgical treatment. There was a high rate of return to sport in both groups, but patients undergoing second RACLR had significantly better Tegner (6.35 vs 4.8; P = .012), Lysholm (88.5 vs 78.3; P = .0353), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Quality of Life (72.6 vs 56.3; P = .0490), and KOOS Sport and Recreation scores (81.4 vs 62.5; P = .0033). Significantly more patients undergoing second RACLR achieved the Patient Acceptable Symptom State for KOOS Sport and Recreation than those who underwent nonsurgical management (74.2% vs 30%; P = .015). The most important predictor of failure to achieve a good/excellent Lysholm score in multivariate analysis was nonsurgical management (P = .0095). CONCLUSION: Both second RACLR and nonsurgical management of failed first RACLR were associated with high rates of return to sport. However, second RACLR was associated with significantly better functional outcome scores with respect to Tegner, Lysholm, KOOS Quality of Life, and KOOS Sport and Recreation scores compared to nonsurgical management. In addition, nonsurgical treatment was the only significant predictor of failure to achieve a good/excellent Lysholm score at the final follow-up, and this was likely a function of inferior knee stability in that group.

Arthroscopic ACL Reconstruction After Failed ACL Repair.

For some authors, repair of the torn anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) in selected patients can be considered a valuable surgical treatment option. One of the main advantages is that it leaves all grafts available for any type of reconstruction in case the repair fails. This Technical Note describes arthroscopic ACL reconstruction after failure of an ACL repair.

Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee: Pearls and Pitfalls of Anatomical Reduction and Secure Fixation.

Osteochondritis dissecans of the knee is characterized by sterile necrosis of the subchondral bone and typically affects skeletally immature patients. When left untreated, osteochondritis dissecans can lead to early-onset osteoarthritis, resulting in pain and disability. This study shows the pearls and pitfalls of an arthroscopic technique of fixation performed successfully using a bioabsorbable nail for unstable osteochondritis dissecans lesions located in the medial femoral condyle of the knee.

Outside-In Drilling Allows Avoidance of Two-Stage Surgery in Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

The presence of preoperative tunnel widening and/or malposition can pose technical challenges for revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. This Technical Note describes the use of outside-in drilling to avoid the need for 2-stage reconstruction in the presence of tunnel widening or semi-anatomic tunnels.

Influence of Preoperative Tunnel Widening On the Outcomes of a Single Stage-Only Approach to Every Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: An Analysis of 409 Consecutive Patients From the SANTI Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative tunnel widening is a frequently reported indication for performing a 2-stage revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) instead of a single-stage procedure. However, the strength of the available evidence to support a 2-stage strategy is low. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of a single stage-only approach to revision ACLR. It was hypothesized that this approach would be associated with significant improvements from baseline in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and knee stability and that there would be no significant differences in any postoperative outcomes between patients with and without preoperative tunnel widening. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of a large series of consecutive patients undergoing revision ACLR with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Preoperative tunnel widening was assessed using digital radiographs. All patients underwent single-stage surgery with an outside-in technique, regardless of the degree of tunnel widening. Clinical outcomes were compared according to whether tunnel widening was present (either tunnel ≥12 mm) or not (both tunnels <12 mm). RESULTS: The study included 409 patients with a mean ± SD follow-up of 69.6 ± 29.0 months. After revision ACLR, there was a significant reduction in the side-to-side anteroposterior laxity difference, from 7.7 ± 2.2 mm preoperatively to 1.2 ± 1.1 mm at 2 years (P < .001). The mean International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and all subscales of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) exceeded the thresholds for the Patient Acceptable Symptom State defined for primary ACLR. An overall 358 patients had retrievable preoperative radiographs. According to the tunnel diameter measurements, 111 patients were allocated to group A (both tunnels <12 mm) and 247 patients to group B (either/both tunnels ≥12 mm). There were no significant differences between groups with respect to anteroposterior side-to-side laxity difference, graft rupture rates, non-graft rupture related reoperations, or contralateral anterior cruciate ligament injury rates. There was also no significant difference between groups that exceeded minimal detectable change thresholds for any of the PROMs recorded (ACL-RSI [Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Return to Sports After Injury], Lysholm, Tegner, IKDC, KOOS). CONCLUSION: A single-stage approach to revision ACLR is associated with excellent clinical results when an outside-in drilling technique is utilized. The presence of preoperative tunnel widening does not significantly influence PROMs, knee stability, graft rupture rates, or non-graft rupture related reoperation rates.