Higher Infection Rate after ACL Reconstruction with Hamstrings Tendon Autografts Compared with Bone Patellar Bone Tendon Autografts: A Review.

Infection after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is a rare but devastating complication resulting in a deleterious impact on knee function as well as an increased related cost for treatment and rehabilitation for the patients. There are conflicting reports regarding the rate of infection between bone patellar tendon bone (BPTB) and hamstrings tendon (HT) autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Therefore, we performed this review to summarize all the available data regarding the risk of infection after ACL reconstruction, to provide insight on the infection risk between BPTB and HT autografts, and to discuss current recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of these infections. The incidence and risk of infection after ACL reconstruction with HT graft is higher compared with BPTB grafts. The most commonly subacute and late infections, quadruple type, need for cannulated instruments for harvesting, size and shape and fixation of the extra-tunnel material of the HT are important risk factors for infection. Combined antibiotics administration and adequate arthroscopic lavage and debridement are the optimal treatments for ACL reconstruction infection. Early diagnosis and treatment is the most important predictor for graft retention, which accounts more commonly for BPTB grafts. The treating physicians should be aware of the higher incidence of infection after ACL reconstruction with HT graft, as well as for the need for a high clinical suspicion for early diagnosis of the infection. These will increase the possibility of eradication of the infection and retention of the graft.

Clinical and Radiological Outcomes of Anteromedial Portal Versus Transtibial Technique in ACL Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The drilling technique used to make a femoral tunnel is critically important for determining outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The 2 most common methods are the transtibial (TT) and anteromedial (AM) techniques. PURPOSE: To determine whether graft orientation and placement affect clinical outcomes by comparing clinical and radiological outcomes after single-bundle ACL reconstruction with the AM versus TT technique. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Articles in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, and MEDLINE were searched from inception until April 25, 2020, using the following Boolean operators: transtibial OR trans-tibial AND (anteromedial OR trans-portal OR independent OR three portal OR accessory portal) AND anterior cruciate ligament. RESULTS: Of 1270 studies retrieved, 39 studies involving 11,207 patients were included. Of these studies, 14 were clinical, 13 were radiological, and 12 were mixed. Results suggested that compared with the TT technique, the AM technique led to significantly improved anteroposterior and rotational knee stability, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, and recovery time from surgery. A higher proportion of negative Lachman (P = .0005) and pivot-shift test (P = .0001) results, lower KT-1000 arthrometer maximum manual displacement (P = .00001), higher Lysholm score (P = .001), a higher incidence of IKDC grade A/B (P = .05), and better visual analog scale score for satisfaction (P = .00001) were observed with the AM technique compared with the TT technique. The AM drilling technique demonstrated a significantly shorter tunnel length (P = .00001). Significant differences were seen between the femoral and tibial graft angles in both techniques. Low overall complication and revision rates were observed for ACL reconstruction with the AM drilling technique, similar to the TT drilling technique. CONCLUSION: In single-bundle ACL reconstruction, the AM drilling technique was superior to the TT drilling technique based on physical examination, scoring systems, and radiographic results. The AM portal technique provided a more reproducible anatomic graft placement compared with the TT technique.

Successful return to sport in patients with symptomatic borderline dysplasia following hip arthroscopy and T-shaped capsular plication.

PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the return to sport and correlations of patients with symptomatic borderline hip dysplasia (BHD) after hip arthroscopy and T-shaped capsular plication at a minimum follow-up of 24 months. METHODS: Twenty-five patients who underwent hip arthroscopy and T-shaped capsular plication for symptomatic BHD were included in the study. All the patients were evaluated clinically prior to surgery (T0) and at two consecutive follow-ups (T1:15 ± 1.2 months and T2: 53.9 ± 23.2 months) using the visual analogue scale (VAS) pain score, whereas sports activity was assessed by the Hip Outcome Score Sport Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) activity scale, the Tegner score and the physical component (PCS) of the Short Form-12 (SF-12). Furthermore, the presence of correlations and the possible differences between subgroups were evaluated and analysed. RESULTS: A significant difference was found for HOS-SSS, VAS, Tegner, UCLA and PCS with the Friedman test for repeated measures through time points (p < 0.0001). Moreover, all the scores reported significant improvement compared to the previous time point (p < 0.0001) except the HOS-SSS between T1 and T2 (n.s.). Body Mass Index (BMI) was negatively correlated with HOS-SSS at T0 (rho = - 0.526 p = 0.006) and T1 (rho = - 0.425; p = 0.034), with Tegner at each follow-up (T0: rho = - 0470 p = 0.017; T1: rho = - 0.450; p = 0.024; T2: rho = - 0.448; p = 0.024), with UCLA at T1 (rho = - 0.396 p = 0.049), with pre-operative PCS (rho = - 0.413 p = 0.0401), and positively correlated with pre-operative VAS (rho = 0.436 p = 0.0291). CONCLUSIONS: Hip arthroscopy and T-shaped capsular plication in young patients with symptomatic BHD demonstrates a significant increase in return to sport and physical activity and low risk of complications. T-shaped capsular plication procedure may be considered in young and active patients for whom non-operative treatment failed and who have a significant limitation in sports activity; in these patterns of patients, the ideal treatment should reliably allow fast recovery in combination with very low invasiveness which will prevent osteoarthritis. The results of this study provide more accurate information regarding return to sport in patients with BHD after hip arthroscopy and T-shaped capsular plication. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Differences in graft orientation using the transtibial and anteromedial portal technique in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a magnetic resonance imaging study.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in graft orientation between transtibial (TT) and anteromedial (AM) portal technique using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Fifty-six patients who were undergoing ACL reconstruction underwent MRI of their healthy and reconstructed knee. Thirty patients had ACL reconstruction using the TT (group A), while in the remaining 26 the AM (group B) was used. In the femoral part graft orientation was evaluated in the coronal plane using the femoral graft angle (FGA). The FGA was defined as the angle between the axis of the femoral tunnel and the joint line. In the tibial part graft orientation was evaluated in the sagittal plane using the tibial graft angle (TGA). The TGA was defined as the angle between the axis of the tibial tunnel and a line perpendicular to the long axis of the tibia. The ACL angle of the normal knee in the sagittal view was also calculated. The mean FGA for group A was 72 degrees, while for the group B was 53 degrees and this was statistically significant (P < 0.001). The mean TGA for group A was 64 degrees, while for the group B was 63 degrees (P = 0.256). The mean intact ACL angle for group A was 52 degrees, while for the group B was 51 degrees. The difference between TGA and intact ACL angle was statistically significant (P < 0.001) for both groups. Using the AM portal technique, the ACL graft is placed in a more oblique direction in comparison with the TT technique in the femoral part. However, there are no differences between the two techniques in graft orientation in the tibial part. Normal sagittal obliquity is not restored with both techniques.