No Difference in Ligamentous Strain or Knee Kinematics Between Rectangular or Cylindrical Femoral Tunnels During Anatomic ACL Reconstruction With a Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Graft.

BACKGROUND: As our understanding of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) anatomy has evolved, surgical techniques to better replicate the native anatomy have been developed. It has been proposed that the introduction of a rectangular socket ACL reconstruction to replace a ribbon-shaped ACL has the potential to improve knee kinematics after ACL reconstruction. PURPOSE: To compare a rectangular femoral tunnel (RFT) with a cylindrical femoral tunnel (CFT) in terms of replicating native ACL strain and knee kinematics in a time-zero biomechanical anatomic ACL reconstruction model using a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) graft. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. METHODS: In total, 16 fresh-frozen, human cadaveric knees were tested in a 5 degrees of freedom, computed tomography-compatible joint motion simulator. Knees were tested with the ACL intact before randomization to RFT or CFT ACL reconstruction using a BTB graft. An anterior translation load and an internal rotation moment were each applied at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of knee flexion. A simulated pivot shift was performed at 0° and 30° of knee flexion. Ligament strain and knee kinematics were assessed using computed tomography facilitated by insertion of zirconium dioxide beads placed within the substance of the native ACL and BTB grafts. RESULTS: For the ACL-intact state, there were no differences between groups in terms of ACL strain or knee kinematics. After ACL reconstruction, there were no differences in ACL graft strain when comparing the RFT and CFT groups. At 60° of knee flexion with anterior translation load, there was significantly reduced strain in the reconstructed state ([mean ±standard deviation] CFT native, 2.82 ± 3.54 vs CFT reconstructed, 0.95 ± 2.69; RFT native, 2.77 ± 1.71 vs RFT reconstructed, 1.40 ± 1.76) independent of the femoral tunnel type. In terms of knee kinematics, there were no differences when comparing the RFT and CFT groups. Both reconstructive techniques were mostly effective in restoring native knee kinematics and ligament strain patterns as compared with the native ACL. CONCLUSION: In the time-zero biomechanical environment, similar graft strains and knee kinematics were achieved using RFT and CFT BTB ACL reconstructions. Both techniques appeared to be equally effective in restoring kinematics associated with the native ACL state. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These data suggest that in terms of knee kinematics and graft strain, there is no benefit in performing the more technically challenging RFT as compared with a CFT BTB ACL reconstruction.

The Medial structures of the knee have a significant contribution to posteromedial rotational laxity control in the PCL-deficient knee.

PURPOSE: Various reconstruction techniques have been employed to restore normal kinematics to PCL-deficient knees; however, studies show that failure rates are still high. Damage to secondary ligamentous stabilizers of the joint, which commonly occurs concurrently with PCL injuries, may contribute to these failures. The main objective of this study was to quantify the biomechanical contributions of the deep medial collateral ligament (dMCL) and posterior oblique ligament (POL) in stabilizing the PCL-deficient knee, using a joint motion simulator. METHODS: Eight cadaveric knees underwent biomechanical analysis of posteromedial stability and rotatory laxity using an AMTI VIVO joint motion simulator. Combined posterior force (100 N) and internal torque (5 Nm) loads, followed by pure internal/external torques (± 5 Nm), were applied at 0, 30, 60 and 90° of flexion. The specimens were tested in the intact state, followed by sequential sectioning of the PCL, dMCL, POL and sMCL. The order of sectioning of the dMCL and POL was randomized, providing n = 4 for each cutting sequence. Changes in posteromedial displacements and rotatory laxities were measured, as were the biomechanical contributions of the dMCL, POL and sMCL in resisting these loads in a PCL-deficient knee. RESULTS: Overall, it was observed that POL transection caused increased posteromedial displacements and internal rotations in extension, whereas dMCL transection had less of an effect in extension and more of an effect in flexion. Although statistically significant differences were identified during most loading scenarios, the increases in posteromedial displacements and rotatory laxity due to transection of the POL or dMCL were usually small. However, when internal torque was applied to the PCL-deficient knee, the combined torque contributions of the dMCL and POL towards resisting rotation was similar to that of the sMCL. CONCLUSION: The dMCL and POL are both important secondary stabilizers to posteromedial translation in the PCL-deficient knee, with alternating roles depending on flexion angle. Thus, in a PCL-deficient knee, concomitant injuries to either the POL or dMCL should be addressed with the aim of reducing the risk of PCL reconstruction failure.

Low rates of serious complications but high rates of hardware removal after high tibial osteotomy with Tomofix locking plate.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyse adverse events encountered in medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy (MOWHTO) utilizing contemporary surgical techniques with the Tomofix locking plate (DePuy Synthes, Raynham, MA, USA) and categorize them by their severity and need for further medical/surgical management. It was hypothesized that there would be low rates of serious complications after medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy utilizing an internal locking plate fixator. METHODS: This study included 169 consecutive patients (200 knees) who underwent MOWHTO with a Tomofix locking plate at a single center, completing a minimum 2-year follow-up. Types of intra- and post-operative adverse events were retrospectively identified by an independent observer and categorized by their severity and further need of management. Additional surgery due to elective hardware removal was not included in the adverse event classification. RESULTS: There were in total 58 (29%) adverse events, the majority (13.5%) of which required no additional treatment (class 1). Class 1 events included lateral cortex hinge fractures that were observed in 8.5% (17 knees) and delayed wound healing 2% (4/200). Adverse events requiring additional or extended nonoperative management (class 2) were 9%. These included post-operative stiffness in 1% (2/200), low grade infection in 1.5% (3/200), delayed union in 5.4% (11/200), deep vein thrombosis 0.5% (1/200). One hundred and four knees (52%) underwent elective hardware removal. Serious adverse events requiring unplanned additional or revision surgery and/or long-term medical care (class 3) were the least reported (6.5%). Aseptic non-union was reported in 2.5%, deep infection requiring revision in 2% and limited hardware failure 1%. CONCLUSION: A low rate of serious complications (6.5%) requiring unplanned additional surgery (class 3) was found. The overall rate of complications following MOWHTO with Tomofix locking plate was 29% and the majority (13.5%) required no additional treatment (class 1). Lateral hinge fractures were the most common complication (8.5%) and these were associated with corrections over 12 mm. However, 52% knees required a further operation for elective hardware removal. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, prospective study without control group.