Search

Background: Graft impingement is one of the main concerns in double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (DB-ACLR). Impingement between the anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL) bundles has been postulated to cause graft deterioration or rerupture, but this has not been thoroughly investigated, and the interbundle impingement pressure (IIP) has not been well researched. Purpose: To determine the IIP between the AM and PL bundles in the native anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and in DB-ACLR with individualized and nonindividualized double-tunnel placement. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 30 fresh-frozen, nonpaired, human cadaveric knees were randomly divided into 3 groups of 10 knees: native intact ACL (NI group), DB-ACLR tunnel placement using the preserved remnant procedure (individualized reconstruction) (PR group), and DB-ACLR tunnel placement using the bony landmark procedure (nonindividualized reconstruction) (BL group). Pressure sensors were inserted between the AM and PL bundles. The knee was moved passively from full extension to full flexion, and the IIP between the 2 ACL bundles was measured every 15°. Similarly, the impingement pressure was measured between the ACL and intercondylar roof and between the ACL and posterior cruciate ligament (PCL). Results: No significant differences were found in the maximum, mean, or minimum ACL-roof and ACL-PCL impingement pressures among the 3 groups. The IIP significantly increased when the knee joint was flexed >120° in all 3 groups ( P < .001). Compared with the other 2 groups, the BL group had significantly higher maximum and mean IIP throughout the range of knee movement ( P < .001) and from maximum extension to 120° of flexion ( P < .001). The BL group also had significantly higher minimum IIP than the other 2 groups when knee flexion was >120° ( P < .001). No significant differences were seen in maximum, minimum, or mean IIP between the NI and PR groups. Conclusion: The PR procedure (individualized DB-ACLR) was more consistent with the interbundle biomechanical conditions of the native ACL, whereas the BL procedure (nonindividualized DB-ACLR) had higher maximum and mean IIP. The IIP was higher than the ACL–intercondylar roof or ACL-PCL pressures, and it increased significantly when knee flexion was >120°. Clinical Relevance: These data suggest that surgeons can perform individualized DB-ACLR using preserved remnants for tunnel placement as impingement-free DB-ACLR.

The present study aimed to introduce a novel technique to reconstruct medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) via arthroscopy for recurrent patellar dislocation. A retrospective review of a prospectively collected registry was undertaken. A total of 34 patients (35 knees) who underwent arthroscopic reconstruction of MPFL from December 2017 to August 2019 were identified. Kujala score, Tegner score, Lyscholm score, patellar tilt, and congruence angle were recorded preoperatively and postoperatively. The occurrences of patient satisfaction, complications, and recurrent dislocation were recorded. The cohort consisted of both genders equally, and the mean age was 21.0±7.8 years, the mean body mass index was 22.5±3.5, and the mean follow-up time was 21.8±5.6 months. The patellar tiltdecreased from 46.4±19.3° to 12.5±16.9° (P < 0.001), the congruence angle decreased from 46.4±19.3° to 12.5±16.9° (P < 0.001), Kujala score improved from 55.1±4 to 88.7±4.4 (P < 0.001); Tegner score improved from 1.3±0.4 to 3.7±1.1 (P < 0.001), and Lyscholm score improved from 55.5±3.9 to 89.1±4.8 (P < 0.001). Among them, 30 (88.2%) patients fully recovered to normal pain-free daily life, 24 patients (70.6%) returned to sports, 32 patients were satisfied with surgery, and no redislocations were encountered. MPFL reconstruction via arthroscopy improves the knee joint function in patients with recurrent patellar dislocation and is a safe and effective surgical treatment for recurrent patellar dislocation.

Background To illustrate a novel technique of treating anterior cruciate ligament injury. Methods If the ACL stump is strong enough and of good quality, we combine the ACL reconstruction and repair together. Results It is assumed that this will be better for the knee biomechanics in contrast to the simple reconstruction. This technique may also save the graft. That means we can only harvest one tendon gracilis or semitendinosus to satisfy the need of the knee stability. Conclusions This technique of combining the reconstruction and repair protects the knee proprioceptive feelings, accelerate the revascularization and strengthen the reconstructed ACL. This technique may also save the ligament graft and avoid the complications of the donor site. We are looking forward to comparing the outcomes of this technique to the outcomes of simple ACL reconstruction.