Search

Purpose The aim of this study was to verify the effects of a new remnant augmentation technique with anatomical double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction for postoperative clinical scores, anterior stability and frequency of complications compared to remnant removal and cases with remnant defects. Methods The 105 patients who underwent anatomical double-bundle ACL reconstruction were divided into three groups. If the remnant was a Crain I-III type, remnant-preserving bone tunnel creation was attempted. After the creation of the bone tunnel, good continuity was maintained in 34 patients (preserved group). Due to lost continuity, the remnant was resected in 26 patients (resected group). No identifiable remnant continuity remained (Crain IV) in 45 patients (absent group). The Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity scale, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score, anterior stability measured using the KT-1000 arthrometer at 2 years postoperatively, and frequency of complications were compared among the three groups. Univariate and multiple linear regression analysis were performed to clarify the factors affecting postoperative anterior stability. Results The Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity scale, IKDC subjective score, and frequency of complications were not significantly different among the groups. The mean side-to-side difference of anterior stability was significantly better in the preserved group (0.3 ± 1.6 mm) compared to the resected group (1.6 ± 2.3 mm, p = 0.003) and absent group (1.6 mm ± 1.7, p = 0.009). The multiple linear regression analysis showed remnant preservation significantly related to postoperative anterior stability. Conclusion Although there were no differences in clinical scores, the ACL reconstruction with new preservation technique showed good anterior stability and no difference in the frequency of complications.

Case. We report a rare case of prefemoral fat pad impingement syndrome that was caused by a hyperplasia of the normal suprapatellar fat pad. Pain and catching were observed in the proximal-lateral patellofemoral joint, and MRI imaging confirmed a hyperplasic mass in the same area. Although conservative treatment showed no signs of improvement, symptoms improved after an arthroscopic excision of the mass. Conclusion. Prefemoral fat pad impingement syndrome is related to patellar motion and should be considered as one of the underlying causes of anterior knee pain (AKP). Surgeons should recognize that a small hyperplasia composed of normal adipose tissue can cause AKP.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the risk of medial tibial cortical perforation in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) due to peg positions on the tibial tray of the Persona Partial Knee (PPK). Preoperative CT images of 60 patients and 60 osteoarthritic knees (30 male and 30 female patients) were used. A tibial multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) image was reconstructed in preoperative planning software, and the implant was placed in a virtual osteotomy plane. In addition to PPK, Zimmer Unicompartmental Knee (ZUK) and TRIBRID (TBD) were used for evaluation. The horizontal distances from the medial tibial cortex to the anterior and posterior pegs (APCD/PPCD, respectively) were measured under neutral, 3-degree varus, 3-degree valgus and 2 mm distal positions. The differences between implants under the same positions and between positions using the same implants were compared. The percentage of total cases with APCD/PPCD of less than 3 mm and the perforation risk rate were calculated. The APCD of PPK was significantly shorter at all positions except for the varus position of TBD. The PPCD of PPK was significantly shorter at all positions compared to ZUK and TBD. There were no cases with an APCD of less than 3 mm. Except for varus positions, the perforation risk rate of PPCD was significantly higher for PPK than the other two implants. The posterior pegs of the PPK are located more medially than the other two implants, which may result in perforation of the medial tibial cortex during implantation. Surgeons should consider the risk involved in the type of implant used.

Because various biomechanical studies and clinical results have shown the effectiveness of an anatomical approach for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, this approach has become gradually commonplace to improve postoperative performance. Standard tunnel positioning methods with accuracy, reproducibility, and adaptability to varied concepts are essential for the success of anatomical ACL reconstruction. However, there were no standard tibial tunnel positioning methods to satisfy these conditions. This technical note reports our tibial tunnel positioning technique using bony and/or anatomical landmarks for anatomical ACL reconstruction.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate quantitative, morphological and positional differences between the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tibial footprint and anterolateral meniscal root (ALMR) insertion and investigate an intraoperative landmark to estimate their boundaries.Thirty-three fixed human cadaveric knees were evaluated. After resecting the components, the anterior fiber (AF) and posterior fiber (PF) of ALMR, the tibial center of ACL bundles (anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL) bundles) and ACL were marked. Insertion morphology was classified into three categories, and the distance and relative positional relationship between AF/PF insertions and the center of each attachment were measured on three-dimensional computed tomography images.There was no significant difference between the AF of AM and ACL (P = 0.16), but both were significantly shorter than the AF of PL (both P 0.001). There was no significant difference between the PF of ACL and PL (P = 0.99), which were significantly shorter than PF of AM (both P 0.001). Morphology of the ACL tibial insertion was classified as follows: triangular, 15 knees (45.5%); oval, 18 knees (54.5%); none, C-shape. Quantitative and positional analyses showed that the AF insertion was significantly closer to AM and ACL centers in the oval type than in the triangular type. Excluding two cases, the AF/PF insertion was located laterally to the ML center of the medial and lateral intercondylar tubercles.Proximity of ACL tibial footprint and ALMR varies by their footprint morphology. The medial and lateral intercondylar tubercles were useful landmarks for ALMR injury prevention.

Purpose To assess (1) if 6 anatomic landmarks (ALs) could be arthroscopically confirmed with remnant preservation and (2) if creating tibial tunnels using these landmarks reduces individual variation and improves reproducibility in double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Methods We retrospectively reviewed data of patients who chronologically underwent double-bundle ACL reconstruction by either referencing the footprint after remnant dissection (non-AL group) or subsequently with the ALs (AL group). Using operative videos, 3 independent observers judged whether they could confirm 6 ALs (medial intercondylar ridge, medial and lateral intercondylar tubercles, anterior horn of lateral meniscus, Parsons' knob, and L-shaped ridge) in 20 patients randomly selected from the AL group. We then compared tunnel positions between the 2 groups, measured from the anterior and medial borders of the proximal tibia and expressed as percentage of the total depth and width of the proximal tibia using 3-dimensional computed tomography. Results One hundred four patients (non-AL group, n = 54; AL group, n = 50) were included. All 6 ALs were arthroscopically confirmed in most cases (89.7% to 100%). The mean percentages of the anteroposterior (AP) depth for anteromedial (AM) tunnel, mediolateral (ML) width for AM tunnel, AP depth for posterolateral (PL) tunnel, and ML width for PL tunnel, respectively, were 27.8% ± 6.6%, 46.7% ± 2.8%, 41.4% ± 7.3%, and 46.1% ± 2.6% for the non-AL group and 30.7% ± 4.5%, 45.7% ± 2.2%, 45.2% ± 4.5%, and 46.9% ± 2.1% for the AL group, revealing significantly less variation in the AL group compared with the non-AL group, excluding the ML width of the PL tunnel ( P = .007, .046, .002, .209, respectively). Conclusions Six landmarks could be reliably confirmed in cases with remnant preservation, and creating tibial tunnels using these landmarks were reproducible and resulted in less individual variation. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective comparative study.

In anatomical anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery using the outside-in technique, the aperture of the femoral lateral cortex may become elliptical. Retrospective cross-sectional study To evaluate the extent of elliptical eccentricity in lateral apertures relative to aperture positioning and clinical failure rate in anatomical anterior cruciate ligament double-bundle reconstruction using outside-in technique. In 75 patients, the aperture elongation factor was defined as the ratio of the major axis of the elliptical aperture to the drill size. Using the lateral epicondyle as a reference point, the lateral femur was divided into sections by distance and angle, and the minimum area was evaluated to assess the relationship between the elongation factor and aperture position of the lateral cortex for each bundle. The incidence and associated clinical performance regarding cortical button migration were also investigated. Aperture elongation factors were 120.2 ± 13.3% and 120.0 ± 16.3% on the anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL) sides, respectively. Femoral tunnel elongation was smallest when the entry point axis were both between 30 to 60° and distance was between 10 to 20 mm and 0 to 10 mm on the AM and PL sides, respectively. During the postoperative follow-up period, intra-tunnel migration was confirmed in 4 of 75 cases (5.3%). Fixation failure neither affected clinical scores nor knee laxity. Areas of minimum elongation for each bundle on both AM and PL sides were found anteroproximally to the lateral epicondyle and positioned near each other. Elongation did not directly affect the clinical outcome. Level of evidence grade: prognostic level III

Background The tibial tubercle deviation associated with recurrent patellar dislocation (RPD) has not been studied sufficiently. New methods of evaluation were used to verify the extent of tubercle deviation in a group with patellar dislocation compared with that in a control group, the frequency of patients who demonstrated a cutoff value indicating that tubercle transfer was warranted on the basis of the control group distribution, and the validity of these methods of evaluation for diagnosing RPD. Methods Sixty-six patients with a history of patellar dislocation (single in 19 [SPD group] and recurrent in 47 [RPD group]) and 66 age and sex-matched controls were analyzed with the use of computed tomography (CT). The tibial tubercle-posterior cruciate ligament (TT-PCL) distance, TT-PCL ratio, and tibial tubercle lateralization (TTL) in the SPD and RPD groups were compared with those in the control group. Cutoff values to warrant 10 mm of transfer were based on either the minimum or -2SD (2 standard deviations below the mean) value in the control group, and the prevalences of patients in the RPD group with measurements above these cutoff values were calculated. The area under the curve (AUC) in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to assess the effectiveness of the measurements as predictors of RPD. Results The mean TT-PCL distance, TT-PCL ratio, and TTL were all significantly greater in the RPD group than in the control group. The numbers of patients in the RPD group who satisfied the cutoff criteria when they were based on the minimum TT-PCL distance, TT-PCL ratio, and TTL in the control group were 11 (23%), 7 (15%), and 6 (13%), respectively. When the cutoff values were based on the -2SD values in the control group, the numbers of patients were 8 (17%), 6 (13%), and 0, respectively. The AUC of the ROC curve for TT-PCL distance, TT-PCL ratio, and TTL was 0.66, 0.72, and 0.72, respectively. Conclusions The extent of TTL in the RPD group was not substantial, and the percentages of patients for whom 10 mm of medial transfer was indicated were small. Level of evidence Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background The acetabular fossa is thought to be located in the center of the acetabulum, and acetabular reaming in total hip arthroplasty is conventionally performed in the center of the fossa. However, the actual location of the fossa and the influence that hypoplasia or deformity may have on the position of the fossa are unknown. We hypothesized that the fossa is located in the center of the acetabulum, regardless of hypoplasia or deformity. Methods Fifty patients with normal hips (normal hip group), 50 patients with dysplasia who underwent rotational acetabular osteotomy (dysplastic hip group), and 46 patients with osteoarthritis who underwent total hip arthroplasty (osteoarthritic hip group) were evaluated by computed tomography (CT) imaging. On the horizontal plane that passes through the center of the femoral head, the center line of the acetabulum was defined as the perpendicular bisector of the anterior and posterior rims of the acetabulum. The angle and distance of the center of the acetabular fossa in relation to the center line of the acetabulum were evaluated; furthermore, the center position of the fossa from the anterior margin of the acetabulum was calculated as a ratio relative to acetabular size. A 1-way analysis of variance was performed to compare measurements among the 3 groups. Results The center of the acetabular fossa was positioned anteriorly to the center line of the acetabulum in all 3 groups. The mean center angle of the acetabular fossa was 14.0° ± 3.8°, 15.2° ± 5.6°, and 14.9° ± 5.5° in the normal, dysplastic, and osteoarthritic hip groups, respectively (p = 0.33). The mean center distance of the acetabular fossa was 5.6 ± 1.8, 5.8 ± 2.3, and 6.1 ± 2.2 mm, respectively (p = 0.55). The mean center position of the acetabular fossa was 38.8% ± 3.3%, 38.5% ± 4.2%, and 38.3% ± 3.9%, respectively (p = 0.71). Conclusions The center of the acetabular fossa is positioned anteriorly to the center of the acetabulum, and the positioning is affected by neither dysplasia nor osteoarthritis. The preconception that the center of the acetabulum corresponds to the center of the acetabular fossa may risk eccentric reaming, possibly damaging the anterior wall. Level of evidence Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.