Miniplate Suture Button Augmentation for Soft Tissue Graft Tibial Fixation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction requires reliable and rigid graft fixation. Tibial-sided fixation is frequently cited as the “weak point” of the femur-graft-tibia construct. Some authors have recommended supplemental fixation with a staple or screw suture to post improve the strength and stiffness of the fixation. However, with these fixations, there is a risk for symptomatic hardware. Miniplate is flatter than screw or staple and does not penetrate the bone when attached. It is used as a button for suspensory fixation to enhance interference screw tibial fixation. Objective: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of the miniplate suture button for supplemental soft tissue graft tibial fixation in ACL reconstruction. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was carried out between August 2016 and December 2019. A total of 40 patients had undergone primary ACL reconstruction, performed with hamstring tendon grafts that were secured using a miniplate suture button for supplemental interference screw tibial fixation. A total of 18 patients were excluded, leaving 22 patients at 1-year follow-up. Results: At least 1-year follow-up, the remaining 22 patients had significant difference between preoperative and postoperative outcome of anterior drawer test, Lachman test and pivot shift test (p<0.05). Lysholm knee scores improved significantly from 54.0±12.53 to 90.04±5.38. However, 3 patients (13.6%) experienced symptomatic hardware pain and 3 patients (13.6%) tendered around the miniplate site. There were no radiographic changes in miniplate displacement, deformed or broken plate, and bony reaction around miniplate. Conclusion: The use of a miniplate suture button as a supplemental fixation showed adequate fixation strength and showed good results in postoperative manual ligament laxity test and functional scores at minimum 1-year follow-up. However, there is still symptomatic pain at the hardware site. Keywords: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, Supplemental fixation, Suture button

Radiographic Outcomes of Lisfranc Injuries Treated with a Suture Button Device

Category: Midfoot/Forefoot Introduction/Purpose: Controversy exists regarding the optimal treatment of Lisfranc injuries of the midfoot. There has been increasing interest in using a suture button device in lieu of traditional screw fixation. Biomechanical studies comparing screw fixation with suture button devices have demonstrated conflicting results. This study evaluates the radiographic outcomes of patients with Lisfranc injuries treated with a suture button device or a hybrid technique with supplemental fixation. Methods: Forty-three patients with a Lisfranc injury were treated operatively with either a suture button device (Tightrope, Arthrex, Naples, FL) or a hybrid technique with supplemental hardware fixation. The distances between the first and second metatarsal (M1-M2) and the medial cuneiform and second metatarsal (C1-M2) were measured on weightbearing radiographs. These measurements were used to assess the accuracy of reduction, maintenance of reduction, and magnitude of reduction. The accuracy of reduction was determined by comparing weightbearing AP radiographs of the uninjured foot with weightbearing radiographs of the operatively treated foot at 6 weeks postoperatively. The magnitude of reduction was assessed via a comparison of weightbearing AP radiographs of the injured foot preoperatively to the operatively treated foot at 6 weeks postoperatively. The maintenance of reduction was determined by comparing radiographic measurements at 6 weeks postoperatively to measurements taken at 12 weeks postoperatively. Results: An accurate reduction was obtained in both treatment groups with no significant difference in the M1-M2 and C1-M2 measurements at 6 weeks postoperatively compared to the uninjured foot. The magnitude of reduction was greater and statistically significant for the hybrid fixation group but was not maintained (Hybrid fixation M1-M2 magnitude of reduction: -1.39, p < .001; C1-M2 magnitude of reduction: -1.77, p < .001). The suture button treatment group attained a satisfactory reduction that was maintained with no statistically significant difference in the M1-M2 and C1-M2 distances at 6 weeks and 12 weeks postoperatively (Tightrope M1-M2 maintenance of reduction: 0.04, p=0.88; C1-M2 maintenance of reduction: 0.39, p=0.21). Conclusion: After open reduction of Lisfranc injuries, the suture button device appears to adequately maintain the reduction when patients have returned to full activity. Based on radiographic parameters, the suture button construct provides an effective alternative to traditional screw fixation for the treatment of Lisfranc injuries.

Complications of Radial Column Plating of the Distal Radius

Background: Distal radius fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation are commonly stabilized with a volar locking plate; however, more complex fracture patterns may require supplemental fixation with fragment-specific implants. The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of distal radius fractures treated with radial column plates. Methods: A consecutive series of 61 patients who sustained distal radius fractures underwent radial column plating alone or in conjunction with other implants between August 2006 and January 2014. Thirty-one patients returned for follow-up or returned a mailed questionnaire at an average of 4.1 years. The outcomes measures included Visual Analog Scale (VAS); Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH); and Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE) scores. Results: Sixty-one patients with a mean age of 55 years (range, 20-87) met inclusion criteria and were available for follow-up or chart review at an average of 5.2 years (range, 1.6-9.0 years). Seventeen of 61 (28%) underwent radial column plate removal. Twenty patients returned for final follow-up examination, and 11 completed questionnaires via mail. Subjective scores included a mean postoperative VAS of 0.72, DASH score of 17.2, and PRWE score of 15.7. Hardware sensitivity and wrist stiffness were the most common complications at final follow-up. Conclusions: Radial column plating of the distal radius is a safe treatment modality and a valuable adjunct in the setting of complex distal radius fractures, but patients should be counseled that there is a 28% chance that hardware removal may be required. Our retrospective review found evidence of few complications and objective scores consistent with return to normal function.

330 Surgical Site Infections in Standalone Lateral Interbody Fusion: Analysis of a Prospective, Multi-center Patient Outcomes Registry

INTRODUCTION Surgical site infections (SSI) following lumbar spinal fusion procedures are associated with extended hospital stays, increased complications, and lower patient outcome satisfaction. Additionally, hospitals can face stiff financial penalties from CMS for increased rates of SSI. Modern minimally invasive approaches for anterior interbody fusion (XLIF) were developed to minimize approach-related morbidity compared to direct anterior and conventional posterior approaches, the latter of which are associated with infection rates from 2.7% to as high as 10.9%. The aim of this study is to evaluate infection rates following XLIF in those patient with and without supplemental internal fixation. METHODS A total of 994 patients treated with XLIF from T12-L1 to L5-S1 (619 with supplemental internal fixation, 375 standalone) were evaluated and included in the analysis. On average, patients were treated at fewer levels in the standalone versus fixated group (mean 1.7 versus 2.1 levels). RESULTS >A total of nine (9) surgical site infections were reported in 994 XLIF patients (0.9%), with no significant differences between standalone and fixation (0.8% and 1% respectively, P = 1.00). The standalone group had two superficial infections, which only extended the post-operative length of stay. The supplemental fixation group had two infections from posterior instrumentation and three superficial infections, all of which only required longer hospitalization. Additionally, there were two deep wound infections, one in each cohort, that required I&D. No patients suffered long-term consequences. CONCLUSION Infections following XLIF were rare (<1%) in a relatively large, multi-centric experience and did not vary with use of supplemental fixation. Compared to previously reported outcomes in the anterior and posterior approach, XLIF is associated with decreased rates of infection, thereby reducing harm to the patient and cost to the hospital.