Search

PurposeTo compare hamstring autograft primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) techniques including adult-type/anatomic, transphyseal, and transphyseal techniques by (1) ACL graft tear, (2) contralateral ACL tear, and (3) all-cause ipsilateral reoperation.MethodsA retrospective, single-surgeon review was performed including all ACLR with hamstring autograft in pediatric and adolescent patients from 2011 to 2019. Minimum 2-year follow-up was required for patients unless a tear or reoperation was sustained before that time point. Data collected included demographics and baseline surgical variables, type of reconstruction, sporting activity, and deviations from rehabilitation protocols. Comparisons were made among hamstring autograft reconstruction groups (adult-type/anatomic, transphyseal, and partial transphyseal) for primary outcomes of graft tear, contralateral ACL tears, and all-cause ipsilateral knee reoperations, including hardware removal. Secondary surgeries performed with different surgeons were noted.ResultsIn total, 214 patients of age 15.2 ± 2.0 years with 4.1 ± 1.7-year follow-up were included. Overall graft tear rate was 11.7% (11.0% adult-type vs 19.1% transphyseal vs 5.6% partial transphyseal; P= .18). On univariate analyses, all-cause ipsilateral reoperation did not differ by technique (21.3% vs 31.0% vs 33.3%; P= .20), and neither did contralateral ACL tear (8.1% vs 9.5% vs 0%; P= .17). 21.7% of ipsilateral revision ACLRs (all adult-type) and 16.7% of patients with any reoperations had subsequent procedures performed with a different surgeon.ConclusionsThe graft tear rates in primary hamstring autograft ACLRs in the adolescent population did not significantly differ by technique (11.0% vs 19.1% vs 5.6% in adult-type, transphyseal, and partial transphyseal reconstructions, respectively). Furthermore, contralateral ACL tears (8.1% vs 9.5% vs 0%) and all-cause (including > 1/4 hardware removal) ipsilateral knee reoperations (21.3% vs 31.0% vs 33.3%) did not statistically differ. Higher powered studies may detect statistical significance in the observed differences in this study.Level of evidenceLevel IV, therapeutic case series.

Purpose of ReviewMassive irreparable rotator cuff tears present a significant challenge to the orthopedic surgeon. No single treatment, particularly among joint-preserving options, has been shown to be superior. The purpose of this review is to discuss recent advances in the treatment of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears, including partial repair with and without graft augmentation, interposition grafts, superior capsule reconstruction, subacromial balloon spacers, tendon transfer, and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. We will also offer guidance on surgical indications based on our clinical experience.Recent FindingsPartial repair may offer reasonable clinical improvement for patients with lower preoperative function despite high re-tear rates. Additionally, several types of interposition grafts have shown promising short-term results and may outperform repair alone. Subacromial balloon spacers may lead to clinical improvement, especially in patients without glenohumeral osteoarthritis or pseudoparalysis, and recently received FDA approval for use in the USA. Superior capsule reconstruction is a technically demanding procedure that appears to produce excellent short-term results particularly when performed at high volume, but long-term studies in heterogeneous study groups are needed. Tendon transfers improve function by restoring force coupling in the shoulder, offering a promising option for younger patients. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is a reliable option for treatment of irreparable cuff tears in elderly patients with lower functional demands.SummaryIrreparable cuff tears remain a difficult condition to treat. Recommended treatment for younger patients without glenohumeral osteoarthritis is particularly controversial. For older patients with low-demand lifestyles and glenohumeral osteoarthritis, RTSA is an effective treatment option. For all discussed procedures, patient selection appears to play a critical role in clinical outcomes.

Arthroscopic surgery of the shoulder joint and the subacromial space requires adequate visualization to be effectively performed. Visual clarity is essential to perform a safe and successful arthroscopic procedure. The major determinants to provide visualization in the subacromial space and the glenohumeral joint include adequate inflow (dependent on the dimension of the inflow cannula), flow rate versus pressure, pump system versus gravity, the use of electrocautery and radiofrequency devices, blood pressure control and hypotensive anesthesia, and the type of irrigation solution used with or without the use of epinephrine. In 2012, the cost of a 30-mL (30-mg) vial of epinephrine was $6 (adrenalin/epinephrine injection, USP, Par Pharmaceuticals), and approximately 3 to 4 bottles would be used on average for a single shoulder arthroscopy. In 2019, the same 30-mL bottle of epinephrine cost $237, a nearly 40-fold increase. The purpose of our study is to describe the various factors and techniques that can be used to maintain visual clarity in shoulder arthroscopy without the use of epinephrine in the irrigation solution and the cost savings associated without the use of epinephrine., Technique Video Video 1 Shoulder arthroscopy requires adequate visualization to be effectively performed. Visual clarity is essential to perform a safe arthroscopic shoulder procedure. In particular, bleeding in the subacromial space and the glenohumeral joint is an ever-present impediment to visualization. The major determinants to provide visualization are shown in this video. A couple of the key determinants include adequate inflow, flow rate versus pressure, the type of pump system used, and most importantly, blood pressure control and hypotensive anesthesia, along with the irrigation solution with or without the use of epinephrine. Visualization requires a properly functioning optical system of an arthroscopic lens, camera, and video equipment. Adequate joint distension is maintained by a pump system that delivers and maintains a clear medium into the joint. A pump pressure of 40 mm Hg is recommended as long as the systolic blood pressure is near 90 mm Hg, which provides adequate hydrostatic pressure on the capillaries to decrease bleeding. A proper arthroscopic cannula system is also key for shoulder arthroscopy. We recommend a 5.5-mm × 8.5-cm “J-lock” metal cannula system made by Smith and Nephew/Dyonics. The 5.5-mm cannula system provides an adequate inflow and flow rate through the arthroscope for adequate joint distension. With 3 portals being established, there is often no cannula placed in the anterior portal. This can sometimes lead to fluid outflow through this portal leading to bubbles or loss of visualization described as the Bernoulli Effect. Burkhart et al.3 described having his assistant place his finger over the portal. However, we recommend placing either a plastic or metal obturator into the portal to reduce or eliminate this effect. First, we demonstrate arthroscopic visualization of the glenohumeral joint in the lateral decubitus position, which we prefer. Again, we have adequate visualization viewing from posterior to anterior. The anterior-superior portal is hooked up to outflow, which is controlled by a clamp, and not to suction. Next, we visualize the subacromial space viewing from posterior to anterior. The shaver is placed through the anterior-superior portal, visualizing the rotator cuff and bursa down below. Adequate visualization is required, of course, in the subacromial space. Key is hypotensive anesthesia and the judicious use of the shaver versus the radiofrequency device to control bleeding. In 2012, the cost of a 30-mL vial of epinephrine was only $6. Seven years later, in 2019, that same 30-mL vial of epinephrine now costs $237. That is approximately a 390% increase in price over the past 7 years. Three or 4 bottles may be used during shoulder arthroscopy. We therefore discontinued the use of epinephrine in shoulder arthroscopy, saving over $900 per case, sometimes more depending on the duration of the case and number of vials used. Using the techniques described, we have found no problems with adequate visualization with shoulder arthroscopy, without the use of epinephrine. Attention to detail in all aspects of the surgical procedure is key in maintaining visual clarity.

The surgical treatment of ochronotic arthropathy remains unclear. Although there is no absolute cure for ochronotic arthropathy, current management typically begins with conservative treatment. Total joint replacement may eventually be necessary for joints that become severely degenerative. Ochronotic arthropathy is present in patients with alkaptonuric ochronosis, which is characterized by dark pigmentation of connective tissue and black discoloration of urine owing to a deficiency of homogentisic acid oxidase. As a result, soft tissues become brittle and subsequently more susceptible to mechanical stress, resulting in articular cartilage degeneration. The diagnosis of ochronotic arthropathy of the knee often occurs intraoperatively after discovery of darkened synovium and black deposits during arthroscopy. The purpose of this article is to describe arthroscopic debridement as an effective treatment option and diagnostic tool for ochronotic arthropathy of the knee after failure of conservative measures.

Elbow arthroscopy is an increasingly common procedure performed in orthopaedic surgery. However, because of the presence of several major neurovascular structures in close proximity to the operative portals, it can have potentially devastating complications. The largest series of elbow arthroscopies to date described a 2.5% rate of postoperative neurological injury. All of these injuries were transient nerve injuries resolved without intervention. A recent report of major nerve injuries after elbow arthroscopy demonstrated that these injuries are likely under-reported in literature. Because of the surrounding neurovascular structures, familiarity with normal elbow anatomy and portals will decrease the risk of damaging important structures. The purpose of this Technical Note is to review important steps in performing elbow arthroscopy with an emphasis on avoiding neurovascular injury. With a sound understanding of the important bony anatomic landmarks, sensory nerves, and neurovascular structures, elbow arthroscopy can provide both diagnostic and therapeutic intervention with little morbidity.