Search

E' estremamente importante preservare il menisco quanto più possibile per evitare la progressione della degenerazione articolare del ginocchio. In effetti, un numero considerevole di pazienti soffre a causa degli effetti in seguito ad una meniscectomia artroscopica anche parziale.Stone, Steadman e Rodkey hanno sviluppato un nuovo tipo di scaffold in collagene I per sostituire il menisco in caso di rotture parziali/subtotali irreparabili: il CMI (Collagen Meniscus Implant). Dopo 13 anni di buoni risultati nell’uso del CMI mediale, nel 2006 abbiamo iniziato uno studio multicentrico europeo per valutarne l'efficacia e l'efficacia di uno scaffol meniscale equivalente appositamente progettato per riparare i difetti parziali/subtotati del menisco laterale (Lateral CMI). In questo articolo si descrivono le indicazioni per l’impianto di uno scaffol meniscale collagenico, l'evoluzione della tecnica chirurgica (da una tecnica di sutura artroscopica “in-out” ad una “all-inside”) nei nostri 13 anni di esperienza e una breve relazione sui nostri risultati clinici.

Purpose: To determine the medium-term implant survivorship, the clinical results and the failure mechanisms of a novel unicompartmental arthroplasty for uncemented resurfacing of the medial tibio-femoral compartment. Methods: Seventy-six consecutive patients were prospectively evaluated with a mean final follow-up of 6 years (SD 5.3 months). In 44 patients, the diagnosis was osteoarthritis, and in 32 patients, it was avascular necrosis of the medial femoral condyle. The Hospital for Special Surgery Score was used for objective clinical evaluation, and a self-administered visual analogue scale was used to quantify residual pain at each observation point. Implant survivorship was determined assuming revision for any reason as endpoint. Results: Nineteen patients were revised (6 with osteoarthritis and 13 with avascular necrosis of the medial femoral condyle). The mean interval time from index surgery to revision was 11.2 months (SD 4.66 months). Implant survivorship was higher in patients with osteoarthritis with respect to those with avascular necrosis of the medial femoral condyle (p = 0.018). Aseptic loosening was the most frequent failure mechanism. Femoral component loosening was reported in five patients and tibial component loosening was reported in other six patients. Assuming revision for any reason as endpoint, an implant survivorship of 74.3 % at 6-year follow-up was determined. In the remaining 57 patients, satisfactory clinical results were obtained. Hospital for Special Surgery Score and visual analogue scale for residual pain showed significant improvements (p

Background: There have been no direct in vivo biomechanical comparisons performed between an anatomic double-bundle (ADB) and a nonanatomic double-bundle (NADB) anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Hypothesis: There are differences in kinematic outcomes between ADB and NADB ACL reconstruction techniques. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Twenty-six consecutive patients (mean age, 30 years; range, 18-32 years; 23 men, 3 women; 17 right knees, 9 left knees) with an isolated ACL injury were included in the study. The first 13 consecutive patients underwent NADB reconstruction (combination of a single-bundle and an over-the-top reconstruction), and the following 13 consecutive patients were treated with an ADB approach (using 2 tibial tunnels and 2 femoral tunnels placed in the center of the native femoral and tibial insertion sites). Grafts were pretensioned at 80 N and secured with cortical fixation systems under manual maximum force tension. Standard clinical laxity and pivot-shift tests were quantified at time zero before and after ACL reconstruction by means of a surgical navigation system dedicated to kinematic assessment; displacement of the medial and lateral compartments during the tests was also analyzed. Results: The ADB-reconstructed knees showed a larger preoperative-to-postoperative difference in anterior-posterior tibial plateau displacement of the medial and lateral compartments when compared with the NADB-reconstructed knees during the internal-external rotation test at 30° of flexion ( P < .050). No other significant differences in laxity or pivot-shift values were noted. The mean surgical time for ADB reconstruction was significantly higher than that for NABD reconstruction (62 ± 13 and 43 ± 10 minutes, respectively; P < .0001). Conclusion: Results showed a greater anterior-posterior translation of both compartments during the rotational passive laxity test in the ADB reconstruction group or overconstraint caused by the NADB technique. The 2 analyzed double-bundle ACL reconstructions did not show any significant quantitative difference in isolated anterior-posterior laxity and pivot-shift phenomenon at time zero. Clinical Relevance: Nonanatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction can control anterior-posterior laxity and the pivot-shift phenomenon as well as ABD ACL reconstruction.