Arthroscopy Up to Date: Anterior Cruciate Ligament Anatomy.

PURPOSE: To categorize and summarize up-to-date anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) research published in Arthroscopy and The American Journal of Sports Medicine and systematically review each subcategory, beginning with ACL anatomy. METHODS: After searching for "anterior cruciate ligament" OR "ACL" in Arthroscopy and The American Journal of Sports Medicine from January 2012 through December 2014, we excluded articles more pertinent to ACL augmentation; open growth plates; and meniscal, chondral, or multiligamentous pathology. Studies were subcategorized for data extraction. RESULTS: We included 212 studies that were classified into 8 categories: anatomy; basic science and biomechanics; tunnel position; graft selection; graft fixation; injury risk and rehabilitation; practice patterns and outcomes; and complications. Anatomic risk factors for ACL injury and post-reconstruction graft failure include a narrow intercondylar notch, low native ACL volume, and increased posterior slope. Regarding anatomic footprints, the femoral attachment is 43% of the proximal-to-distal lateral femoral condylar length whereas the posterior border of the tendon is 2.5 mm from the articular margin. The tibial attachment of the ACL is two-fifths of the medial-to-lateral interspinous distance and 15 mm anterior to the posterior cruciate ligament. Anatomic research using radiology and computed tomography to evaluate ACL graft placement shows poor interobserver and intraobserver reliability. CONCLUSIONS: With a mind to improving outcomes, surgeons should be aware of anatomic risk factors (stenotic femoral notch, low ligament volume, and increased posterior slope) for ACL graft failure, have a precise understanding of arthroscopic landmarks identifying femoral and tibial footprint locations, and understand that imaging to evaluate graft placement is unreliable. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level III evidence.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Transtibial, Anteromedial Portal, and Outside-In Femoral Tunnel Drilling in Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: Controversy exists regarding the best method for creating the knee anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) femoral tunnel or socket. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the risks, benefits, advantages, and disadvantages of the endoscopic transtibial (TT) technique, anteromedial portal technique, outside-in technique, and outside-in retrograde drilling technique for creating the ACL femoral tunnel. METHODS: A PubMed search of English-language studies published between January 1, 2000, and February 17, 2014, was performed using the following keywords: "anterior cruciate ligament" AND "femoral tunnel." Included were studies reporting risks, benefits, advantages, and/or disadvantages of any ACL femoral technique. In addition, references of included articles were reviewed to identify potential studies missed in the original search. RESULTS: A total of 27 articles were identified through the search. TT technique advantages include familiarity and proven long-term outcomes; disadvantages include the risk of nonanatomic placement because of constrained (TT) drilling. Anteromedial portal technique advantages include unconstrained anatomic placement; disadvantages include technical challenges, short tunnels or sockets, and posterior-wall blowout. Outside-in technique advantages include unconstrained anatomic placement; disadvantages include the need for 2 incisions. Retrograde drilling technique advantages include unconstrained anatomic placement, as well as all-epiphyseal drilling in skeletally immature patients; disadvantages include the need for fluoroscopy for all-epiphyseal drilling. CONCLUSIONS: There is no one, single, established "gold-standard" technique for creation of the ACL femoral socket. Four accepted techniques show diverse and subjective advantages, disadvantages, risks, and benefits. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, systematic review of Level II through V evidence.

Stockinette application over a non-prepped foot risks proximal contamination.

This study sought to determine if there was an increased risk for surgical site contamination during stockinette application for a lower extremity surgery draping technique. Utilizing a simulated, sterile surgical field, stockinettes were applied over 10 cadaver lower extremities that were contaminated with non-pathogenic Escherichia coli on the foot. Of those, five specimens were then disinfected with Chloroprep and another 5 did not undergo any disinfection. All the specimens in which the stockinette was applied over a non-prepped foot showed proximal contamination. No contamination occurred in any of the specimens where the foot was disinfected. Stockinette can be a source of surgical site contamination when placed over a non-prepared foot.