Acute Proximal Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears: Outcomes After Arthroscopic Suture Anchor Repair Versus Anatomic Single-Bundle Reconstruction.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical and radiologic results of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) suture anchor repair and microfracturing with anatomic ACL single-bundle reconstruction in patients with acute proximal ACL avulsion tears. METHODS: Between January 2010 and December 2013, 420 patients underwent ACL treatment. Forty-one patients were included in this study. The inclusion criteria were as follows: unilateral acute proximal ACL rupture, concomitant meniscus lesions, no previous knee ligament surgery, and no additional ligament injuries or absence of ligament injury of the contralateral knee. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging confirming a proximal avulsion tear of the ACL was required. Patients had to undergo surgical treatment within 6 weeks after injury. Follow-up examination included Lachman and pivot-shift testing, KT-1000 measurement, and the International Knee Documentation Committee score. RESULTS: At a mean follow-up of 28 months (range, 24 to 31 month), 20 patients in each group were available. A mean KT-1000 arthrometer result of less than 3 mm indicated stability in all patients (P = .269). Three patients had a 1+ Lachman test (P = .072) and 4 patients had a 1+ pivot-shift test in the ACL repair group (P = .342). The International Knee Documentation Committee score results did not differ significantly (P > .99), but there was a significant correlation between poor results and failure rate (P = .001) in the refixation group. The failure rate was 15% in the ACL refixation group and 0% in the reconstruction group (P = .231). Magnetic resonance imaging confirmed homogeneous signal and proper ACL position in 100% of patients in the control group and 86% in the ACL repair group. CONCLUSIONS: Proximal refixation of the ACL using knotless suture anchors and microfracturing restores knee stability and results in comparable functional outcomes to a control group treated with single-bundle ACL reconstruction. The results suggest that refixation of the ACL is a feasible treatment option in selected patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case-control study.

Different patterns of lateral meniscus root tears in ACL injuries: application of a differentiated classification system.

PURPOSE: Posterior lateral meniscus root tears (PLMRTs) affect the intra-articular pressure distribution in the lateral compartment of the knee. The biomechanical consequences of these injuries are significantly influenced by the integrity of the meniscofemoral ligaments (MFLs). A newly introduced arthroscopic classification system for PLMRTs that takes MFL integrity into account has not yet been clinically applied but may be useful in selecting the optimal method of PLMRT repair. METHODS: Prospective ACL reconstruction data were collected. Concomitant injuries of the lateral meniscus posterior horn were classified according to their shape and MFL status. The classifications were: type 1, avulsion of the root; type 2, radial tear of the lateral meniscus posterior horn close to the root with an intact MFL; and type 3, complete detachment of the posterior meniscus horn. RESULTS: Between January 2011 and May 2012, 228 consecutive ACL reconstructions were included. Lateral and medial meniscus tears were identified in 38.2% (n = 87) and 44.7% (n = 102), respectively. Of the 87 lateral meniscus tears, 32 cases had PLMRTs; the overall prevalence of PLMRTs was 14% (n = 32). Two medial meniscus root tears were detected. All PLMRTs were classified according to the classification system described above, and the fixation procedure was adapted to the type of meniscus tear. CONCLUSION: The PLMRT tear is a common injury among patients undergoing ACL repair and can be arthroscopically classified into three different types. Medial meniscus root tears are rare in association with ACL tears. The PLMRT classification presented here may help to estimate the injury's impact on the lateral compartment and to identify the optimal treatment. These tears should not be overlooked, and the treatment strategy should be chosen with respect to the type of root tear. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

The Patella Pro study - effect of a knee brace on patellofemoral pain syndrome: design of a randomized clinical trial (DRKS-ID:DRKS00003291).

BACKGROUND: Patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFPS) is a frequent cause of anterior knee pain predominantly affecting young female patients who do not have significant chondral damage. Development of PFPS is probably multifactorial, involving various knee, hip, and foot kinematic factors. Biomechanical studies have described patellar maltracking and dynamic valgus (functional malalignment) in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome. The literature provides evidence for short-term use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs; short-term medially directed taping; and exercise programs focusing on the lower extremity, hip, and trunk muscles. Evidence supporting the use of patellar braces is limited because previous studies have been low quality. The aim of this article is to publish the design of a prospective randomized trial that examines the outcomes of patients with PFPS after treatment with a new patellar brace (Patella Pro) that applies medially directed force on the patella. METHODS/DESIGN: For this multicenter trial, 156 patients (adolescents and young adults) with PFPS were recruited from orthopedic practices and orthopedic hospitals and randomly allocated to 3 months of supervised physiotherapy in combination with the Patella Pro brace or supervised physiotherapy alone. The primary outcome measures are pain (numerical analog scale); knee function (Kujala score and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score); and self-reported perception of recovery at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year. DISCUSSION: Only limited evidence for the use of a patellar brace for the treatment of PFPS exists in the literature. Disputable evidence for the use of orthoses for PFPS patients has been presented in one meta-analysis, in which only one of three studies found the effect of a medially directed patellar brace to be significant. Because of these low-quality studies, the authors concluded that this evidence should be regarded as limited, and we feel there is a need for further well-designed studies to evaluate the effect of patellar bracing on PFPS-related pain. The Patella Pro study is a prospective randomized trial in which supervised physiotherapy in combination with a patellar brace is compared with supervised physiotherapy alone. This trial started in April 2012 and finished in October 2013. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS-ID:DRKS00003291, January 3rd, 2012.

The biomechanical effect of a lateral meniscus posterior root tear with and without damage to the meniscofemoral ligament: efficacy of different repair techniques.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of the meniscofemoral ligament (MFL) in maintaining lateral-compartment contact pressures after injury to the posterior root of the lateral meniscus, and to measure the ability to restore intra-articular loads to normal by repairing the posterior root to the tibia after transection of the posterior root and the MFL. METHODS: Ten human cadaveric knee joints were axially loaded to 100 N. A digital pressure sensor measured the contact pressure in the lateral compartment. Five different conditions were tested: intact, after release of the posterior root of the lateral meniscus, after transection of the MFL along with release of the posterior root, refixation of the posterior root of the lateral meniscus to the tibia using an anatomic transosseous tunnel, and refixation of the root of the lateral meniscus using a tibial anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tunnel. RESULTS: After transection of the posterior lateral meniscus root, the contact pressure did not increase significantly. The additional transection of the MFL led to a significant increase in the contact pressure. Anatomic fixation of the meniscus posterior horn reduced the femorotibial pressure to nearly pre-sectioning values. The reattachment of the meniscus posterior horn through a tibial ACL tunnel was equivalent to an anatomic fixation. CONCLUSIONS: In the case of a root tear of the lateral meniscus, the MFL maintains meniscus function and stabilizes the pressure in the lateral compartment. A complete detachment of the posterior meniscus horn (MFL and root tear) leads to an increase in the intra-articular pressure. A root repair normalizes the pressure down to normal values. The tibial ACL tunnel is suitable to perform the repair and to lead out the suture. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In the case of a complete detachment of the meniscus posterior horn, fixation of the posterior root is necessary to restore the meniscus function and to guarantee an equal pressure distribution in the lateral compartment. It can be combined with an ACL reconstruction.