Search

Introduction: posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injuries are an increasingly recognized cause of knee instability in the practice of orthopaedic surgery and sports medicine. Clinical interest in these injuries has been increasing over the last several decades as knowledge and understanding of the biomechanical consequences and surgical reconstruction options have progressed. These injuries can be extremely challenging for the treating physician as substantial controversy exists regarding the optimal management of this problem. There has also been increasing interest and recognition of the importance of secondary stabilizing structures, including the posterolateral and posteromedial corner injuries as well as the issues with malalignment that must also be addressed at the time of PCL surgery to optimize results. Thanks to the continuous research for a correct anatomical placement and new systems of fixation, we can now perform the tibial and femoral bone tunnel more easily and safely by retrograde out-in approach with a special "drill-pin". Conclusion: this technique provides a graduated precise execution of the tunnels. New methods were also developed to determine the so-called "second-generation cortical suspensory fixations" that have the feature of being "Adjustable": shortens implant by pulling on strands to allow cinching graft passing and tensioning button to regulate their length after fixation and then to create tension in the new graft, once introduced into the joint. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The anteroposterior (AP) stability of standard anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, referred to as 'vertical,' was compared with that of a modified femoral position, referred to as 'horizontal,' which is lower than and anterior to an operative knee at 90° flexion. Two consecutive series of 50 patients underwent vertical and horizontal arthroscopic single-bundle ACL reconstruction, respectively. For vertical reconstruction, the clock position was chosen, placing the graft at 10:30 in right knees and 1:30 in left knees, 1 to 2 mm anterior to the posterior femoral cortical cortex and at the back of the resident ridge. In the horizontal reconstruction, the transplant replaced the original ligament insertion at approximately the 9:30 o'clock position in right knees and the 2:30 o'clock position in left knees, approximately 2 mm in front of the posterior femoral cortical cortex. One year after surgery, the results of stabilometric evaluation revealed good performance after horizontal transplant. The mean clinical results changed from 1.0 (±1.3) mm for vertical to 0.7 (±1.3) mm for horizontal reconstruction. [Orthopedics. 2014; 37(5):321-324.]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: to compare the outcomes of arthroscopic reconstruction of the posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) by means of the double bundle technique with the ipsilateral semitendinosus and gracilis (St-Gr) and the single bundle technique with the ipsilateral patellar tendon (PT). Methods and measures: 14 patients had randomly been assigned to either PT ot St-Gr graft for PCL reconstruction. The IKDC Knee Ligament Evaluation Form, the Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, the Cincinnati Knee Rating Scale and concentric isokinetic knee extensor-flexor test at 60 and 180°/s were used to compare the results. Results: there were no significant differences in the clinical scores. The isokinetic tests, however, disclosed a significant loss of strength at the harvest site. Conclusion: since biomechanical considerations underscore the importance of recovery of the quadriceps after PCL reconstruction, employment of the semitendinous and gracilis with a possible loss of flexor strength could be rationally more acceptable solution than reconstruction with the patellar tendon and weakening of the extensors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: one of the most recent technique is the "all inside" anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. One of the main characteristic of this procedure is the sparing of the tibial cortex. Furthermore, the all-inside technique requires only one tendon harvested. Purpose: the present study describes two year clinical outcomes of the all-inside method for ACL reconstruction, and compares them with clinical results of a group of patients treated with the traditional transtibial single-bundle ACL reconstruction technique using the semitendinosus and gracilis tendons (ST-G). Study design: pilot study, using historical controls. Methods: ACL reconstruction was performed on two groups of 20 patients each. The patients in one group underwent the all-inside transtibial technique with ST tendon alone. The second group underwent ACL reconstruction with the traditional transtibial single-bundle procedure using quadrupled ST-G tendons. Follow up at 24 months was undertaken using the IKDC, VAS pain score, Lysholm and Tegner scales. Results: the VAS pain score for the traditional ACL group was 84.6 ± 12.6; whereas the score for the all-inside group was 81.6 ± 13.1, with no statistically significant differences between the two groups. In the traditional ACL reconstruction group the Lysholm scale gave a "good results" for 7 patient (35%) and "excellent results" for 13 patients (65%) and the all-inside group gave "sufficient results" for 4 patients (20%), "good results" for 7 patients (35%) and "excellent results" for 9 patients (45%) (n.s.). The median of Tegner score was 6.5 (2-10) for the standard method group and 6 (1-9) for the all-inside group (n.s). The IKDC evaluated 50% of patients from the standard technique group as class A, and 45% as class B and 5% as class C. As regards patients of the all inside technique 55% were class A, 40% class B and, here too, just 5% scored as class C. No patients were classed as group D in each group. Conclusions: this study suggests that, in respect to return to sports and adequate articular function, there are no differences between the all-inside transtibial ACL reconstruction technique and the traditional transtibial ACL reconstruction using ST-G. The role of all-inside transtibial ACL reconstruction remains dubious. Level of evidence: III or Level C according with Oxford Center of EBM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose  The development of new computer-assisted navigation technologies in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has attracted great interest; however, the debate remains open as to the real reliability of these systems. We compared conventional TKA with last generation computer-navigated TKA to find out if navigation can reach better radiographic and clinical outcomes. Methods  Twenty patients with tricompartmental knee osteoarthritis were prospectively selected for conventional TKA ( n  = 10) or last generation computer-navigated TKA ( n  = 10). Data regarding age, gender, operated side, and previous surgery were collected. All 20 patients received the same cemented posterior-stabilized TKA. The same surgical instrumentation, including alignment and cutting guides, was used for both the techniques. A single radiologist assessed mechanical alignment and tibial slope before and after surgery. A single orthopaedic surgeon performed clinical evaluation at 1 year after the surgery. Wilcoxon's test was used to compare the outcomes of the two groups. Statistical significance was set at p  < 0.05. Results  No significant differences in mechanical axis or tibial slope was found between the two groups. The clinical outcome was equally good with both techniques. At a mean follow-up of 15.5 months (range, 13-25 months), all patients from both groups were generally satisfied with a full return to daily activities and without a significance difference between them. Conclusion  Our data showed that clinical and radiological outcomes of TKA were not improved by the use of computer-assisted instruments, and that the elevated costs of the system are not warranted. Level of Evidence  This is a Level II, randomized clinical trial.