scholarly journals A comparative study of functional outcome of transtibial and transportal femoral tunneling techniques for arthroscopic ACL reconstruction

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (9_suppl7) ◽  
pp. 2325967120S0053
Author(s):  
Sudeep Date
Keyword(s):  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Sports Medicine ◽  
Anatomical Reconstruction ◽  
Pivot Shift Test ◽  
Anatomical Location ◽  
Transtibial Technique ◽  
Evaluation Systems ◽  
Graft Harvest ◽  
Average Pain

Introduction: Acl reconstruction has revolutionarised the sports medicine world lately. Various methods of reconstruction have been advocated in the literature recently. ACL injury results in severe morbidity to an athletes career. The aim for anatomical reconstruction is to harvest the ACL graft at a more anatomical location on both the tibia and the femur. The purpose of this study is to compare the functional outcomes of the two methods of the graft harvestis to compare the functional outcomes of the two methods of the graft harvest Hypotheses: 60 patients were included in the study with complete ACL tear and were assessed at 3 6 and 9 months on the basis of various scores and relevant elements. Methods: All patients who were planned for arthroscopic ACL reconstruction surgery from the OPD, who were willing and fit the inclusion criteria were included in the study. They were then examined clinically with special tests i.e. Lachman’s test, anterior drawer test, pivot shift test and McMurray’s test and the findings were recorded including any associated meniscal injuries. They were then evaluated using 3 different evaluation systems i.e. IKDC, Lysholm and pain VAS. Results: Average mean age of the patients undergoing ACL reconstruction was (26%) in Transtibial and 23.3%. 90% of them were males. Majority of them were males (58%). The average IKDC score of transportal patients was significantly higher than transtibial patients at 6 months followup [P=0.001]. The average Lysholm knee score of transportal patients was significantly higher than the transtibial patients [P=0.047]. The average pain on VAS score of transportal group was significantly lower than transtibial at 6 months followup [P<0.001]. Complication of instability was more common in transtibial patients, 11(36.7%), when compared to transportal patients, 9(30%), however this difference was not significant [P=0.58]. Conclusion: Our study clearly stated that the transportal technique for acl reconstruction fetched superior results as compared to the transtibial technique in terms of knee instability, pain and other domains.

scholarly journals A New Reconstructive Technique of the Anterolateral Ligament with Iliotibial Band-Strip

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 321-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bart Stuyts ◽  
Elke Van den Eeden ◽  
Jan Victor
Keyword(s):  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Proximal Part ◽  
Anterolateral Ligament ◽  
Anatomical Reconstruction ◽  
Iliotibial Band ◽  
Anatomical Location ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
The Sacrifice ◽  
Insight Into

Background:Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is a well-established surgical procedure for the correction of ACL ruptures. However, the incidence of instability following ACL reconstruction is substantial. Recent studies have led to greater insight into the anatomy and the radiographic characteristics of the native anterolateral ligament (ALL), along with its possible role in residual instability after ACL reconstruction.Method:The current paper describes a lateral extra-articular tenodesis to reconstruct the ALL during ACL procedures, using a short iliotibial band strip. The distal insertion of this strip is left intact on the anterolateral side of the proximal tibia, and the proximal part is fixed at the anatomic femoral insertion of the ALL.Results:Our technique avoids the sacrifice of one of the hamstring tendons for the ALL reconstruction. Additionally, there is no interference with the anatomical location or function of the LCL.Conclusion:Our technique offers a minimally invasive and nearly complete anatomical reconstruction of the ALL with minimal additional operative time.

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 232596712110245
Author(s):  
Marios Loucas ◽  
Rafael Loucas ◽  
Riccardo D’Ambrosi ◽  
Michael Elias Hantes
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Anterior Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Pivot Shift Test ◽  
Single Bundle ◽  
Transtibial Technique ◽  
Drilling Technique ◽  
Anterior Cruciate

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.

scholarly journals Confirming Proper Button Deployment of Suspensory Fixation During ACL Reconstruction

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 232596712097434
Author(s):  
Daniel F. O’Brien ◽  
Lilah Fones ◽  
Victoria Stoj ◽  
Cory Edgar ◽  
Katherine Coyner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Soft Tissue ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Sports Medicine ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Graft Fixation ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Lateral Cortex ◽  
Suture Button ◽  
Suspensory Fixation

Background: Suspensory fixation of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) grafts has emerged as a popular device for femoral graft fixation. However, improper deployment of the suspensory fixation can compromise proper graft tensioning, leading to failure and revision. Also, soft tissue interposition between the button and bone has been associated with graft migration and pain, occasionally requiring revision surgery. Many surgeons rely on manual testing and application of distal tension to the graft to confirm proper button deployment on the lateral cortex of the femur for ACL graft fixation. Purpose: To determine the reliability of the manual resistance maneuver when applying distal tension to deploy the suspensory device along the lateral cortex of the femur. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: All patients undergoing ACLR with a suture button suspensory device for femoral fixation were eligible for enrollment in the study. The surgeries were performed by 3 board-certified, sports medicine fellowship–trained orthopaedic surgeons at a single outpatient surgical center between May 2018 and June 2019. All grafts were passed in a retrograde manner into the femoral tunnel, and a vigorous manual tensioning maneuver in a distal direction was placed on the graft to deploy and secure along the lateral cortex of the femur. Intraoperative mini c-arm fluoroscopy was obtained to demonstrate proper suture button positioning. If interposing tissue or an improperly flipped button was identified, rectifying steps were undertaken and recorded. Results: A total of 51 patients with a mean age of 33.3 years were included in the study. Of these patients, 74.5% had normal suture button positioning identified via intraoperative fluoroscopic imaging, while 15.7% had interposed soft tissue and 9.8% had an improperly flipped button. In all cases, the surgeon was able to rectify the malpositioning intraoperatively. Conclusion: Despite the manual sensation of proper suspensory button positioning, intraoperative fluoroscopy identified suture button deployment errors in ACLR 25% of the time. Correcting the malpositioning is not technically demanding. These findings advocate for routine intraoperative surveillance to confirm appropriate suture button seating during ACLR.

No difference in sensory outcome between vertical and oblique incisions for hamstring graft harvest during ACL reconstruction

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 146-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed M. F. Sharaby ◽  
Arafat Alfikey ◽  
Ismail S. Alhabsi ◽  
Suwailim Al-Ghannami
Keyword(s):  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Hamstring Graft ◽  
Graft Harvest

scholarly journals Twenty-Year Follow-up Study Comparing Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Ruptures in High-Level Athletes

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (5) ◽  
pp. 1129-1136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daan T. van Yperen ◽  
Max Reijman ◽  
Eline M. van Es ◽  
Sita M.A. Bierma-Zeinstra ◽  
Duncan E. Meuffels
Keyword(s):  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Nonoperative Treatment ◽  
Pivot Shift Test ◽  
Anterior Cruciate ◽  
High Level ◽  
Nonoperative Group

Background: An anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture has major consequences at midterm follow-up, with an increasing chance of developing an old knee in a young patient. The long-term (≥20 years) effects of the operative and nonoperative treatment of ACL ruptures are still unclear. Purpose: To compare the long-term treatment outcomes of operative versus nonoperative treatment of ACL ruptures in high-level athletes. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Fifty patients with an ACL rupture were eligible for participation, and they were treated either nonoperatively (n = 25) in 1992, consisting of structured rehabilitation and lifestyle adjustments, or operatively (n = 25) between 1994 and 1996 with an arthroscopic transtibial bone–patellar tendon–bone technique. The patients in the nonoperative group were drawn from those who responded well to 3 months of nonoperative treatment, whereas the patients in the operative group were drawn from those who had persistent instability after 3 months of nonoperative treatment. Both groups were pair-matched and assessed at 10- and 20-year follow-up regarding radiological knee osteoarthritis, functional outcomes (Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Tegner, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score), meniscal status, and knee stability (KT-1000 arthrometer, pivot-shift test, Lachman test, 1-legged hop test). Results: All 50 patients (100%) were included in the current study for follow-up. After 20 years, we found knee osteoarthritis in 80% of the operative group compared with 68% of the nonoperative group ( P = .508). There was no difference between groups regarding functional outcomes and meniscectomy performed. The median IKDC subjective score was 81.6 (interquartile range [IQR], 59.8-89.1) for the operative group and 78.2 (IQR, 61.5-92.0) for the nonoperative group ( P = .679). Regarding the IKDC objective score, 21 patients (84%) in the operative group had a normal or near normal score (A and B) compared with 5 patients (20%) in the nonoperative group ( P < .001). The pivot-shift test finding was negative in 17 patients (68%) versus 3 patients (13%) for the operative and nonoperative groups, respectively ( P < .001), and the Lachman test finding was negative in 12 patients (48%) versus 1 patient (4%), respectively ( P = .002). Conclusion: In this retrospective pair-matched follow-up study, we found that after 20-year follow-up, there was no difference in knee osteoarthritis between operative versus nonoperative treatment when treatment was allocated on the basis of a patient’s response to 3 months of nonoperative treatment. Although knee stability was better in the operative group, it did not result in better subjective and objective functional outcomes.

scholarly journals TRENDS IN PEDIATRIC ANTERIOR CRUCIATE LIGAMENT RECONSTRUCTION: A REVIEW OF SURGEON FELLOWSHIP, GEOGRAPHY, AND MENISCUS SURGERY IN THE ABOS PART 2 DATABASE

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2325967119S0007
Author(s):  
Henry B. Ellis ◽  
Curtis VandenBerg ◽  
Jennifer Beck ◽  
Andrew Pennock ◽  
Aristides I. Cruz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Geographic Variation ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Sports Medicine ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Young Patients ◽  
Meniscal Repair ◽  
Fellowship Training ◽  
Geographic Region ◽  
The South ◽  
Time Period

INTRODUCTION: An increased rate of pediatric and adolescent patients undergoing ACL reconstruction has clearly been established, and now considered one of the most common arthroscopic procedures performed in youth patients. Little knowledge exists on whether these trends truly represent an increase in ACL injury, identification, or surgical management. Trends, including surgeon training, meniscus treatment, or geographic differences, have not been reported. The purpose of this study was to review data from ACL reconstructions performed in patients under the age of 17 years, that were submitted to the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgeons (ABOS) Part 2 examination, with a goal of evaluating national treatment trends over a 16-year period. METHODS: A query to the ABOS SCRIBE database was submitted for all ACL reconstructions performed in patients less than 17 years old between 2002 and 2016. The query was designed to search for CPT procedure codes submitted by each applicant. Query data included geographic region, fellowship training of the applicant, age and sex of the patients, and associated procedures. Each case had an associated applicant number, and thus, the total number of ACL reconstructions performed by each surgeon during board collection was provided. Trends were reviewed for the aggregate data and a Mann-Whitney test was used for comparison of data between 2002 – 2009 (Early-ACL) and 2010-2016 (Recent-ACL) groups. RESULTS: Since 2002, there has been a 2.6% increase in pediatric ACL reconstructions performed by candidates applying for Part 2 of the ABOS examination. Additionally, a 193% increase in dual pediatric and sports medicine fellowship trained candidates performing pediatric ACL reconstruction since 2010 was seen. A majority of pediatric ACL procedures were performed by sports medicine trained surgeons (75.9%). During this time period, a total of 362 (or 8.3%) of pediatric ACL procedures were performed by surgeons with neither sports medicine nor pediatric orthopaedic fellowship training. Following 2009, a 44% increase in pediatric ACL reconstructions performed was noted (Figure 1A). Additionally, an increase in reconstructions performed in female patients compared to males was noted (Figure 1B). A majority of pediatric ACL reconstructions did not require additional meniscal treatment, however, meniscus repair was more likely to be performed after 2009 (p=0.0012). The number of meniscal repair procedures reported in the setting of ACL reconstruction generally increased over the study period. In 2002, 24% of ACL reconstructions required a meniscal repair compared to 41% in 2016 (Figure 1C). A majority of these repairs were performed by surgeons with sports medicine fellowship training. Geographic trends reported are based on patients <16 per available census records (Figure 1D). Geographic variation exists with of the highest rates of pediatric ACL reconstructions occurring in the South (4.62 per million) and Midwest (4.07 per million) in comparison to the Southeast (1.85 per million). When adjusting for population size per year, each region saw a significant increase in reported ACL surgeries from the Early-ACL to the Recent-ACL timeframe (p=0.005). The largest increases in surgeries reported between Early-ACL and Recent-ACL were seen in the Southeast (68% increase), Midwest (50% increase) and Southwest (47% increase). Of all the providers who performed surgery, 74% submitted only 1-2 cases from 2002-2016, with 26% of providers performing more than 55% of all of the pediatric ACL reconstruction cases. More than 75% of all cases were performed by sports medicine fellowship trained surgeons However, a large change was seen in dual sports and pediatric trained surgeon case volumes over this time period, with these surgeons performing 7.5 times more surgeries from 2010 to 2016 (Recent-ACL) when compared to 2002-2009 (Early-ACL). CONCLUSION: Since 2009, pediatric ACL reconstructions are more likely to be female and are more likely to undergo a meniscal repair. Geographic variation is noticeable, with more surgeries reported to be performed in the South. Dual pediatric and sports medicine fellowship trained candidates performing ACL reconstruction have significantly increased over time, although those surgeons who are only sports medicine fellowship trained continue to perform the bulk of ACL reconstructions in young patients.

scholarly journals Current Trends Among US Surgeons in the Identification, Treatment, and Time of Repair for Medial Meniscal Ramp Lesions at the Time of ACL Surgery

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 232596711982726 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas N. DePhillipo ◽  
Lars Engebretsen ◽  
Robert F. LaPrade
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Acl Reconstruction ◽  
Sports Medicine ◽  
Orthopaedic Surgery ◽  
Cruciate Ligament ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
The United States ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Current Trends ◽  
Acl Surgery

Background: Given the potential hidden nature of medial meniscal ramp lesions and the controversy regarding treatment, it is important to understand the current trends regarding the identification and treatment strategies of meniscal ramp lesions by the leading surgeons and educators in the field of sports medicine. Purpose: To better understand the current trends in orthopaedic surgery regarding arthroscopic identification and treatment of medial meniscal ramp lesions at the time of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: An electronic questionnaire was sent in a blinded fashion to 91 directors of orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship training programs in the United States. Participants’ email addresses were obtained through the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine directory of current fellowship program directors. Inclusion criteria were only those surgeons who currently performed ACL reconstruction surgery. Exclusion criteria were those surgeons who did not perform ACL reconstruction or who chose to opt out of the survey. Results: Overall, 19 surgeons opted out of the survey; 36 responded from the remaining 72 surveys (50%). The majority (n = 31, 86%) reported routinely checking for a medial meniscal ramp lesion via inspection of the posteromedial meniscocapsular junction during an ACL reconstruction. The most common repair technique cited was all-inside (n = 24, 66.7%), followed by inside-out (n = 8, 22.2%). Three (8%) surgeons indicated that they did not repair meniscal ramp lesions. Regarding surgical treatment (repair vs no treatment), the majority reported using the extent of the tear (89%; partial vs full thickness) and the stability of the tear upon probing (81%) as the main criteria for intraoperative decision making. Nineteen (52.8%) surgeons required a mean time of <15 minutes for meniscal ramp repair; 16 surgeons (44.4%), 15 to 30 minutes; and 1 surgeon (2.8%), 30 to 45 minutes. Conclusion: This study provides insight regarding meniscal ramp tear identification, treatment, and repair strategies from the fellowship directors of sports medicine orthopaedic surgery in the United States. Such information may be useful for current orthopaedic surgeons to advance their practice according to the current trends surrounding ACL reconstruction and medial meniscal ramp repair.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document