Search

Background: The hamstring tendon is frequently used to reconstruct the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), but there is a lack of consensus on the optimal method of fixation. Registry studies have shown that the type of femoral fixation device can influence the risk of revision ACL reconstruction (ACLR), but it is unclear whether the type of tibial fixation has an effect. In New Zealand, over 95% of hamstring tendon grafts are fixed with an adjustable loop suspensory device on the femoral side, with variable usage between suspensory and interference devices, with or without a sheath, on the tibial side. Purpose: To investigate the association between the type of tibial fixation device and the risk of revision ACLR. Study Design: Cohort Study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Prospective data recorded in the New Zealand ACL Registry were analyzed. Only primary ACLRs performed with a hamstring tendon autograft fixed with a suspensory device on the femoral side were included. A Cox regression survival analysis with adjustment for patient factors was performed to analyze the effects of the type of tibial fixation device, the number of graft strands, and graft diameter on the risk of revision. Results: A total of 6145 primary ACLRs performed between 2014 and 2019 were analyzed. A total of 59.6% of hamstring tendon autografts were fixed with a suspensory device on the tibial side (n = 3662), 17.6% with an interference screw with a sheath (n = 1079), and 22.8% with an interference screw without a sheath (n = 1404). When compared with suspensory devices, a higher revision risk was observed when using an interference screw with a sheath (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.05; P =.009) and without a sheath (adjusted HR, 1.81; P =.044). The number of graft strands and a graft diameter of ≥8 mm were associated with the rate of revision on the univariate analysis; however, after adjusting for confounding variables on the multivariate analysis, they did not significantly influence the risk of revision. Conclusion: In this study of hamstring tendon autografts fixed with an adjustable loop suspensory device on the femoral side during primary ACLR, the use of an interference screw, with or without a sheath, on the tibial side resulted in a higher revision rate when compared with a suspensory device. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, a bone–patellar tendon–bone (BTB) autograft is associated with lower ipsilateral failure rates. BTB autografts are associated with a higher rate of contralateral ACL injuries, which some clinicians view as a marker of success of the BTB autograft. However, there is a lack of evidence on whether BTB autografts improve the rate of return to activity and sport. Purpose: To compare the rate of return to preinjury activity levels in high-activity patients after ACL reconstruction with BTB autograft or hamstring tendon autograft. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: In a high-activity cohort of patients recorded between 2014 and 2018 in the New Zealand ACL Registry, prospectively collected data on preinjury and postoperative Marx activity scores were analyzed. The proportion of patients who returned to their preinjury activity levels at 1- and 2-year follow-up was compared between graft types. Results: Overall, 11.3% (208/1844) of patients returned to their preinjury activity levels at 1-year follow-up, and 15.5% (184/1190) returned at 2-year follow-up. At 1-year follow-up, 17.2% of patients with a BTB autograft returned to their preinjury activity levels compared with 9.3% of patients with a hamstring tendon autograft (adjusted odds ratio, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.16-2.17]; P =.004). At 2-year follow-up, 23.3% of patients with a BTB autograft had returned to their preinjury activity levels compared with 13.3% of patients with a hamstring tendon autograft (adjusted odds ratio, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.14-2.34]; P =.008). Male sex and younger age were associated with a higher rate of return to activity at both follow-up time points. Conclusion: The use of BTB autografts increased the odds of returning to preinjury activity levels at early follow-up. A higher rate of return to activity is a possible explanation for the higher rate of contralateral ACL injuries with the use of BTB autografts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the benefit of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) in adults with a meniscal tear and knee pain in three defined populations (taking account of the comparison intervention): (A) all patients (any type of meniscal tear with or without radiographic osteoarthritis); (B) patients with any type of meniscal tear in a non-osteoarthritic knee; and (C) patients with an unstable meniscal tear in a non-osteoarthritic knee.Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Datasources: A search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov and ISRCTN was performed, unlimited by language or publication date (inception to 18 October 2018).Eligibilitycriteria: Randomised controlled trials performed in adults with meniscal tears, comparing APM versus (1) non-surgical intervention; (2) pharmacological intervention; (3) surgical intervention; and (4) no intervention.Results: Ten trials were identified: seven compared with non-surgery, one pharmacological and two surgical. Findings were limited by small sample size, small number of trials and cross-over of participants to APM from comparator interventions. In group A (all patients) receiving APM versus non-surgical intervention (physiotherapy), at 6-12 months, there was a small mean improvement in knee pain (standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.22 [95% CI 0.03 to 0.40]; five trials, 943 patients; I2 48%; Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation [GRADE]: low), knee-specific quality of life (SMD 0.43 [95% CI 0.10 to 0.75]; three trials, 350 patients; I2 56%; GRADE: low) and knee function (SMD 0.18 [95% CI 0.04 to 0.33]; six trials, 1050 patients; I2 27%; GRADE: low). When the analysis was restricted to people without osteoarthritis (group B), there was a small to moderate improvement in knee pain (SMD 0.35 [95% CI 0.04 to 0.66]; three trials, 402 patients; I2 58%; GRADE: very low), knee-specific quality of life (SMD 0.59 [95% CI 0.11 to 1.07]; two trials, 244 patients; I2 71%; GRADE: low) and knee function (SMD 0.30 [95% CI 0.06 to 0.53]; four trials, 507 patients; I2 44%; GRADE: very low). There was no improvement in knee pain, function or quality of life in patients receiving APM compared with placebo surgery at 6-12 months in group A or B (pain: SMD 0.08 [95% CI -0.24 to 0.41]; one trial, 146 patients; GRADE: low; function: SMD -0.08 [95% CI -0.41 to 0.24]; one trial, 146 patients; GRADE: high; quality of life: SMD 0.05 [95% CI -0.27 to 0.38]; one trial; 146 patients; GRADE: high). No trials were identified for people in group C.Conclusion: Performing APM in all patients with knee pain and a meniscal tear is not appropriate, and surgical treatment should not be considered the first-line intervention. There may, however, be a small-to-moderate benefit from APM compared with physiotherapy for patients without osteoarthritis. No trial has been limited to patients failing non-operative treatment or patients with an unstable meniscal tear in a non-arthritic joint; research is needed to establish the value of APM in this population.Protocol Registration Number: PROSPERO CRD42017056844. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The patellar tendon is often considered the "gold standard" graft for reducing the risk of graft rupture after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, its use may also be associated with an increased risk of injury to the contralateral ACL. Purpose: To clarify the association between graft choice and the risk of revision and contralateral ACL reconstruction. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Prospective data captured by the New Zealand ACL Registry between April 2014 and December 2018 were reviewed. All primary ACL reconstructions performed using either a hamstring tendon or patellar tendon autograft were included. Cox regression survival analysis adjusting for patient factors was performed to compare the risk of revision and contralateral ACL reconstruction between the hamstring tendon graft and the patellar tendon graft. Results: A total of 7155 primary ACL reconstructions were reviewed, of which 5563 (77.7%) were performed using a hamstring tendon graft and 1592 (22.3%) were performed using a patellar tendon graft. Patients with a hamstring tendon graft had a revision rate of 2.7% compared with 1.3% in patients with a patellar tendon graft (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.51; 95% CI, 1.55-4.06; P <.001). The patellar tendon graft was associated with an increased risk of contralateral ACL reconstruction compared with the hamstring tendon graft (adjusted HR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.15-3.16; P =.012). The number needed to treat (NNT) with a patellar tendon graft to prevent 1 revision was 73.6. However, the NNT with a hamstring tendon graft to prevent 1 contralateral reconstruction was 116.3. Conclusion: Use of a patellar tendon graft reduced the risk of graft rupture but was associated with an increased risk of injury to the contralateral ACL. Adequate rehabilitation and informed decision making on return to activity and injury prevention measures may be important in preventing subsequent injury to the healthy knee. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]