Posterior Labral Tear Extension Concomitant With Shoulder Bankart Injuries Is not Uncommon.

Purpose: To identify the rate and risk factors of posterior labral involvement in operatively managed Bankart lesions and assess the effectiveness of MRI arthrogram for preoperative identification of such injury patterns. Methods: A consecutive cohort of patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair were retrospectively reviewed. All subjects underwent a prearthroscopy MRI arthrogram. Operative findings were used as the gold standard for posterior labral tear extension. Patient demographic and surgical data were then analyzed to identify independent factors associated with the presence of concomitant posterior labral injury. Results: Of 124 patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart stabilization, 23 (19%) were noted to demonstrate posterior labral injury on arthroscopic evaluation. Factors associated with injury to the posterior labrum included those sustaining two or fewer dislocations events (P =.001), an earlier average presentation (P = .001), and a reported "contact" mechanism of dislocation (P = .02). Posterior labral involvement did not correlate with surgical positioning (beach-chair versus lateral) or the need for revision surgery. On the basis of review of preoperative imaging, MRI arthrogram demonstrated a sensitivity of 83% and a specificity of 95% for detection of posterior labral injury. Conclusions: Posterior propagation of Bankart lesions is relatively common following shoulder dislocations, with a rate of 18.5%. Risk factors for posterior labral extension include two or fewer dislocations, early presentation from the time of injury, and contact sports. On the basis of these findings, careful assessment of the posterior labrum on MRI arthrogram may reveal the majority, but not all, of these lesions. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective case-controlled study.

More anatomic tunnel placement for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction by surgeons with high volume compared to low volume.

PURPOSE: Correct placement of the femoral and tibial tunnels in the anatomic footprint during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is paramount for restoring rotatory knee stability. Recent studies have looked at surgeon volume and its outcomes on procedures such as total knee arthroplasty and infection rates, but only few studies have specifically examined tunnel placement after ACLR based on surgeon volume. The purpose of this study was to compare the placement of femoral and tibial tunnels during ACLR between high-volume and low-volume surgeons. It was hypothesized that high-volume surgeons would have more anatomic tunnel placement compared with low-volume surgeons. METHODS: A retrospective review of all ACLR performed between 2015 and 2019 at an integrated health care system consisting of both academic and community hospitals with 68 orthopaedic surgeons was conducted. Surgeon volume was categorized as less than 35 ACLR per year (low volume) and 35 or more ACLR per year (high volume). Femoral tunnel placement for each patient was determined using an exact strict lateral radiograph (less than 6 mm of offset between the posterior halves of the medial and lateral condyles) taken after the primary ACLR using the quadrant method. The centre of the femoral tunnel was measured in relation to the posterior-anterior (PA) and proximal-distal (PD) dimensions (normal centre of anatomic footprint: PA 25% and PD 29%). Tibial tunnel placement for each patient was determined on the same lateral radiographs by measuring the mid-sagittal tibial diameter and the centre of the tibial attachment area of the ACL from the anterior tibial margin (normal centre of anatomic footprint: 43%). Each lateral radiograph was reviewed by one of two blinded reviewers. RESULTS: A total of 4500 patients were reviewed, of which 645 patients met all the inclusion/exclusion criteria and were included in the final analysis. There were 228 patients in the low-volume group and 417 patients in the high-volume group. Low-volume surgeons performed a mean of 5 ACLRs per year, whereas surgeons in the high-volume group performed a mean of 40 ACLRs per year. In the PA dimension, the low-volume group had significantly more anterior femoral tunnel placement compared with the high-volume group (32 ± 10% vs 28 ± 9%, p < 0.01). In the PD dimension, the low-volume group had statistically significant more proximal femoral tunnel placement compared to the high-volume group (32 ± 9% vs 35 ± 9%, p < 0.01). For the tibial tunnel, the low-volume group had significantly more posterior tibial tunnel placement compared with the high-volume group (41 ± 10% vs 38 ± 7%, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Low-volume surgeons placed their femoral tunnels significantly more anterior and proximal (high) during ACLR, and placed their tibial tunnels significantly more posterior, compared with high-volume surgeons. Prior research has indicated that anatomic placement of the femoral and tibial tunnels during ACLR leads to improved rotatory knee stability. The findings of this study demonstrate the importance of surgical volume and experience during ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Does flexible tunnel drilling affect the femoral tunnel angle measurement after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction?

PURPOSE: To quantify the mean difference in femoral tunnel angle (FTA) as measured on knee radiographs between rigid and flexible tunnel drilling after anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients that underwent primary anatomic ACL reconstruction with a single femoral tunnel drilled with a flexible reamer were included in this study. The control group was comprised of 50 patients all of who underwent primary anatomic ACL reconstruction with a single femoral tunnel drilled with a rigid reamer. All femoral tunnels were drilled through a medial portal to ensure anatomic tunnel placement. The FTA was determined from post-operative anterior-to-posterior (AP) radiographs by two independent observers. A 5° difference between the two mean FTA was considered clinically significant. RESULTS: The average FTA, when drilled with a rigid reamer, was 42.0° ± 7.2°. Drilling with a flexible reamer resulted in a mean FTA of 44.7° ± 7.0°. The mean difference of 2.7° was not statistically significant. The intraclass correlation coefficient for inter-tester reliability was 0.895. CONCLUSIONS: The FTA can be reliably determined from post-operative AP radiographs and provides a useful and reproducible metric for characterizing femoral tunnel position after both rigid and flexible femoral tunnel drilling. This has implications for post-operative evaluation and preoperative treatment planning for ACL revision surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.