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.

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.

Is vertebral body stenting in combination with CaP cement superior to kyphoplasty?

PURPOSE: In the evolution of the minimally invasive treatment of vertebral compression fractures, vertebral body stenting (VBS) was developed to reduce intraoperative and secondary loss of vertebral height. Particularly in combination with the usage of biodegradable cement, the influence of VBS on the rate of intraoperative complications and long-term outcome is unclear. The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences between balloon kyphoplasty (BKP) and VBS regarding their long-term clinical and radiological outcome in combination with calcium phosphate (CaP) application instead of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA). METHODS: This retrospective study included 49 patients with fresh mono-segmental thoracolumbar fractures without neurological signs treated with VBS or BKP and CaP cement (Calcibone). The outcome was evaluated with the visual analogue pain scale (VAS), the Oswestry disability score (ODI), and radiologically assessed. RESULTS: In the course of the radiological follow-up, the VBS group showed statistically significant less vertebral height loss than the BKP group. However, with respect to VAS and ODI scores there were no statistically significant differences between the VBS and BKP group in the clinical follow-up. The rate of cement leakage was comparable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques facilitated good clinical results in combination with absorbable cement augmentation. In particular, the VBS enabled us to benefit from the advantages of the resorbable isothermic CaP cement with an improved radiological outcome in the long term compared to BKP. However, there was a mentionable loss of reduction in the follow-up in both groups compared to previously published data with PMMA cement. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.