Suture Versus Screw Fixation of Tibial Spine Fractures in Children and Adolescents: A Comparative Study.

BACKGROUND: Tibial spine fractures involve an avulsion injury of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) at the intercondylar eminence, typically in children and adolescents. Displaced fractures are commonly treated with either suture or screw fixation. PURPOSE: To investigate differences in various outcomes between patients treated with arthroscopic suture versus screw fixation for tibial spine avulsion fractures in one of the largest patient cohorts in the literature. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A search of medical records was performed with the goal of identifying all type 2 and type 3 tibial spine avulsion fractures surgically treated between 2000 and 2014 at a pediatric hospital. All patients had a minimum of 12 months clinical follow-up, suture or screw fixation only, and no major concomitant injury. RESULTS: There were 68 knees in 67 patients meeting criteria for analysis. There were no differences with regard to postsurgical arthrofibrosis (P = .59), ACL reconstruction (P = .44), meniscal procedures (P = .85), instability (P = .49), range of motion (P = .51), return to sport (P >.999), or time to return to sport (P = .11). Elevation of the repaired fragment on postoperative imaging was significantly greater in the suture group (5.4 vs 3.5 mm; P = .005). Postoperative fragment elevation did not influence surgical outcomes. The screw fixation group had more reoperations (13 vs 23; P = .03), a larger number of reoperations for implant removal (3 vs 22; P < .001), and nearly 3 times the odds of undergoing reoperation compared with suture patients (odds ratio, 2.9; P = .03). CONCLUSION: Clinical outcomes between suture and screw fixation were largely equivalent in our patients. Postoperative fragment elevation does not influence surgical outcomes. Consideration should be given for the greater likelihood of needing a second operation, planned or unplanned, after screw fixation.

Changes in Cross-sectional Area and Signal Intensity of Healing Anterior Cruciate Ligaments and Grafts in the First 2 Years After Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The quality of a repaired anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) or reconstructed graft is typically quantified in clinical studies by evaluating knee, lower extremity, or patient performance. However, magnetic resonance imaging of the healing ACL or graft may provide a more direct measure of tissue quality (ie, signal intensity) and quantity (ie, cross-sectional area). HYPOTHESES: (1) Average cross-sectional area or signal intensity of a healing ACL after bridge-enhanced ACL repair (BEAR) or a hamstring autograft (ACL reconstruction) will change postoperatively from 3 to 24 months. (2) The average cross-sectional area and signal intensity of the healing ligament or graft will correlate with anatomic features of the knee associated with ACL injury. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Patients with a complete midsubstance ACL tear who were treated with either BEAR (n = 10) or ACL reconstruction (n = 10) underwent magnetic resonance imaging at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after surgery. Images were analyzed to determine the average cross-sectional area and signal intensity of the ACL or graft at each time point. ACL orientation, stump length, and bony anatomy were also assessed. RESULTS: Mean cross-sectional area of the grafts was 48% to 98% larger than the contralateral intact ACLs at all time points (P < .01). The BEAR ACLs were 23% to 28% greater in cross-sectional area than the contralateral intact ACLs at 3 and 6 months (P < .02) but similar at 12 and 24 months. The BEAR ACLs were similar in sagittal orientation to the contralateral ACLs, while the grafts were 6.5° more vertical (P = .005). For the BEAR ACLs, a bigger notch correlated with a bigger cross-sectional area, while a shorter ACL femoral stump, steeper lateral tibial slope, and shallower medial tibial depth were associated with higher signal intensity (R2 > .40, P < .05). Performance of notchplasty resulted in an increased ACL cross-sectional area after the BEAR procedure (P = .007). No anatomic features were correlated with ACL graft size or signal intensity. CONCLUSION: Hamstring autografts were larger in cross-sectional area and more vertically oriented than the native ACLs at 24 months after surgery. BEAR ACLs had a cross-sectional area, signal intensity, and sagittal orientation similar to the contralateral ACLs at 24 months. The early signal intensity and cross-sectional area of the repaired ACL may be affected by specific anatomic features, including lateral tibial slope and notch width-observations that deserve further study in a larger cohort of patients. REGISTRATION: NCT02292004 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Bridge-Enhanced Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair: Two-Year Results of a First-in-Human Study.

BACKGROUND: Bridge-enhanced anterior cruciate ligament repair (BEAR) combines suture repair of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) with a specific extracellular matrix scaffold (the BEAR scaffold) that is placed in the gap between the torn ends of the ACL to facilitate ligament healing. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to report the 12- and 24-month outcomes of patients who underwent the BEAR procedure compared with a nonrandomized concurrent control group who underwent ACL reconstruction (ACLR) with an autograft. We hypothesized that the BEAR group would have physical examination findings, patient-reported outcomes, and adverse events that were similar to those of the ACLR group. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Ten patients underwent BEAR, and 10 underwent ACLR with a 4-stranded hamstring autograft. At 24 months, 9 of the 10 BEAR patients and 7 of the 10 ACLR patients completed a study visit. Outcomes reported included International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective and objective results, knee anteroposterior (AP) laxity findings via an arthrometer, and functional outcomes. RESULTS: There were no graft or repair failures in the first 24 months after surgery. The IKDC subjective scores in both groups improved significantly from baseline (P < .0001) at 12 and 24 months, to 84.6 ± 17.2 in the ACLR group and to 91.7 ± 11.7 in the BEAR group. An IKDC objective grade of A (normal) was found in 44% of patients in the BEAR group and in 29% of patients in the ACLR group at 24 months; no patients in either group had C (abnormal) or D (severely abnormal) grades. Arthrometer testing demonstrated mean side-to-side differences in AP laxity that were similar in the 2 groups at 24 months (BEAR, 1.94 ± 2.08 mm; ACLR, 3.14 ± 2.66 mm). Functional hop testing results were similar in the 2 groups at 12 and 24 months after surgery. Hamstring strength indices were significantly higher in the BEAR group compared with the ACLR group (P = .0001). CONCLUSION: In this small, first-in-human study, BEAR produced similar outcomes to ACLR with a hamstring autograft. BEAR may result in knee stability and patient-reported outcomes at 2 years sufficient to warrant longer term studies of efficacy in larger groups of patients.

The Bridge-Enhanced Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair (BEAR) Procedure: An Early Feasibility Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the safety of the newly developed bridge-enhanced anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair (BEAR), which involves suture repair of the ligament combined with a bioactive scaffold to bridge the gap between the torn ligament ends. As the intra-articular environment is complex in its response to implanted materials, this study was designed to determine whether there would be a significant rate of adverse reaction to the implanted scaffold. HYPOTHESIS: The primary hypothesis was that the implanted scaffold would not result in a deep joint infection (arthrocentesis with positive culture) or significant inflammation (clinical symptoms justifying arthrocentesis but negative culture). The secondary hypotheses were that patients treated with BEAR would have early postoperative outcomes that were similar to patients treated with ACL reconstruction with an autologous hamstring graft. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: A total of 20 patients were enrolled in this nonrandomized, first-in-human study. Ten patients received BEAR treatment and 10 received a hamstring autograft ACL reconstruction. The BEAR procedure was performed by augmenting a suture repair with a proprietary scaffold, the BEAR scaffold, placed in between the torn ends of the ACL at the time of suture repair. The BEAR scaffold is to our knowledge the only device that fills the gap between the torn ligament ends to have current Investigational Device Exemption approval from the Food and Drug Administration. Ten milliliters of autologous whole blood were added to the scaffold prior to wound closure. Outcomes were assessed at 3 months postoperatively. The outcomes measures included postoperative pain, muscle atrophy, loss of joint range of motion, and implant failure (designated by an International Knee Documentation Committee grade C or D Lachman test and/or an absence of continuous ACL tissue on magnetic resonance images). RESULTS: There were no joint infections or signs of significant inflammation in either group. There were no differences between groups in effusion or pain, and no failures by Lachman examination criteria (BEAR, 8 grade A and 2 grade B; ACL reconstruction, 10 grade A). Magnetic resonance images from all of the BEAR and ACL-reconstructed patients demonstrated a continuous ACL or intact graft. In addition, hamstring strength at 3 months was significantly better in the BEAR group than in the hamstring autograft group (mean ± SD: 77.9% ± 14.6% vs 55.9% ± 7.8% of the contralateral side; P < .001). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that the BEAR procedure may have a rate of adverse reactions low enough to warrant a study of efficacy in a larger group of patients.

Treating Subscapularis and Lesser Tuberosity Avulsion Injuries in Skeletally Immature Patients: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To develop evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of skeletally immature patients with subscapularis and lesser tuberosity avulsion injuries. METHODS: We searched the online databases PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) for relevant publications on subscapularis and lesser tuberosity injuries in skeletally immature patients. All publication dates and languages were included. From studies identified, data were extracted to identify patient characteristics, history and physical examination findings, time to diagnosis, results from imaging studies, and treatment outcomes. These findings were combined and descriptively analyzed. RESULTS: We identified 32 publications on 60 patients with a mean age of 13.5 ± 1.7 years. The most common physical examination finding at the time of diagnosis was anterior shoulder pain, followed by subscapularis muscle weakness. The sensitivity of imaging was 16% for radiographs and 95% for magnetic resonance imaging. The median time to diagnosis was 2 months (interquartile range, 1 to 7 months). Of 60 patients, 10 (17%) underwent successful nonoperative treatment. Fifty patients (83%) underwent surgical repair, without differences in clinical outcomes after open versus arthroscopic repair. Five cases (8%) were identified where delayed treatment was associated with suboptimal outcomes and ongoing shoulder pain. CONCLUSIONS: Subscapularis and lesser tuberosity avulsion injuries in skeletally immature patients are most commonly seen in male patients during early adolescence. A high index of suspicion should be maintained in patients with anterior shoulder pain and subscapularis muscle weakness, especially after a fall on an outstretched arm or an eccentric external rotation injury. Magnetic resonance imaging should be considered early, even if radiographic findings are negative. Both open and arthroscopic repairs are effective in restoring function, if fixation respects the soft bone of the lesser tuberosity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of low-quality studies.