Search

Background: Screw and suture fixations are the most commonly used methods of fixation in treatment of anterior cruciate ligament tibial avulsion fractures. Even though a few biomechanical studies have compared the stability of the 2 fixation techniques, a clinical comparison has not yet been reported., Hypothesis: The authors hypothesized that both fixations would be identical in all studied clinical outcome measures at a minimum 2-year follow-up., Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3., Materials and Methods: Thirty-three patients treated with either screw fixation (16 patients) or suture fixation (17 patients) within 1 month of the anterior cruciate ligament tibial avulsion fracture (type II or III) without associated ligamentous injury were included. All patients were evaluated at a minimum 2-year follow-up in terms of Lysholm knee scores and return to preinjury activities. Knee stability was compared based on the Lachman test and stress radiography., Results: No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in terms of average Lysholm knee scores (91.7 in the screw group and 92.7 in the suture group, P = .413) at follow-up. All patients except 2 (1 in each group) returned to preinjury activity levels. However, flexion contractures (5 degrees to 10 degrees) were found in 3 patients in the screw group and 2 patients in the suture group without significant intergroup difference. Stabilities based on the Lachman test and instrumented stress radiography were also similar between the 2 groups at follow-up. However, 2 patients in the screw group and 1 in the suture group showed more than 5 mm laxity compared with the contralateral knee on stress radiographs., Conclusion: Both the screw and suture fixation techniques for the anterior cruciate ligament tibial avulsion fracture produced relatively good results in terms of functional outcomes and stability without any significant differences. However, some patients in both groups showed residual laxity or flexion contractures.

Background: The intent of double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is to reproduce the normal anterior cruciate ligament anatomy and improve knee joint rotational stability. However, no consensus has been reached on the advantages of this technique over the single-bundle technique., Hypothesis: We hypothesized that double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction could provide better intraoperative stability and clinical outcome than single-bundle reconstruction., Type of Study: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2., Methods: Forty patients with anterior cruciate ligament injury in one knee were recruited; 20 were allocated to a double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction group and 20 to a single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction group. Intraoperative stabilities at 30 degrees of knee flexion were compared between the 2 groups using a navigation system. Clinical outcomes including Lysholm knee scores, Tegner activity scores, Lachman and pivot-shift test results, and radiographic stabilities were also compared between the 2 groups after a minimum of 2 years of follow-up., Results: Intraoperative anterior and rotational stabilities after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the double-bundle group were significantly better than those in single-bundle group (P = .020 and P < .001, respectively). Nineteen patients (95%) in each group were available at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Clinical outcomes including Lysholm knee and Tegner activity scores were similar in the 2 groups at 2-year follow-up (P > .05). Furthermore, stability results of the Lachman and pivot-shift tests, and radiologic findings at 2-year follow-up failed to reveal any significant intergroup differences (P > .05)., Conclusion: Although double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction produces better intraoperative stabilities than single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, the 2 modalities were found to be similar in terms of clinical outcomes and postoperative stabilities after a minimum of 2 years of follow-up.

Background: Anatomic double-bundle reconstruction has been thought to better simulate the anterior cruciate ligament anatomy. It is, however, a technically challenging procedure, associated with longer operation time and higher cost., Hypothesis: Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a single femoral and tibial tunnel can closely reproduce intact knee kinematics., Study Design: Controlled laboratory study., Methods: Eight fresh-frozen human cadaveric knee specimens were tested using a robotic testing system to investigate the kinematic response of the knee joint under an anterior tibial load (130 N), simulated quadriceps load (400 N), and combined torques (5 N.m valgus and 5 N.m internal tibial torques) at 0 degrees, 15 degrees, 30 degrees, 60 degrees, and 90 degrees of flexion. Each knee was tested sequentially under 4 conditions: (1) anterior cruciate ligament intact, (2) anterior cruciate ligament deficient, (3) single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using quadrupled hamstring tendon, and (4) single-tunnel-double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the same tunnels and quadrupled hamstring tendon graft as in the single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction., Results: Single-tunnel-double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction more closely restored the intact knee kinematics than single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at low flexion angles (< or =30 degrees ) under the anterior tibial load and simulated muscle load (P < .05). However, single-tunnel-double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction overconstrained the knee joint at high flexion angles (> or =60 degrees ) under the anterior tibial load and at 0 degrees and 30 degrees of flexion under combined torques., Conclusion: This double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using a single tunnel can better restore anterior tibial translations to the intact level compared with single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction at low flexion angles, but it overconstrained the knee joint at high flexion angles., Clinical Relevance: This technique could be an alternative for both single-bundle and double-tunnel-double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions to reproduce intact knee kinematics and native anterior cruciate ligament anatomy.

Purpose: The aims of this study were to determine: (1) the kinematic effect of subtotal medial meniscectomy on the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-deficient knee and (2) the effect of ACL reconstruction on kinematics of the knee with combined ACL deficiency and subtotal medial meniscectomy under anterior tibial and simulated quadriceps loads., Methods: Eight human cadaveric knees were sequentially tested using a robotic testing system under 4 conditions: intact, ACL deficiency, ACL deficiency with subtotal medial meniscectomy, and single-bundle ACL reconstruction using a bone-patellar tendon-bone graft. Knee kinematics were measured at 0 degrees, 15 degrees, 30 degrees, 60 degrees, and 90 degrees of flexion under an anterior tibial load of 130 N and a quadriceps muscle load of 400 N., Results: Subtotal medial meniscectomy in the ACL-deficient knee significantly increased anterior and lateral tibial translations under the anterior tibial and quadriceps loads (P < .05). These kinematic changes were larger at high flexion (>or=60 degrees) than at low flexion angles. ACL reconstruction in knees with ACL deficiency and subtotal medial meniscectomy significantly reduced the increased anterior tibial translation, but could not restore anterior translation to the intact level with differences ranging from 2.6 mm at 0 degrees to 5.5 mm at 30 degrees of flexion. ACL reconstruction did not significantly affect the medial-lateral translation and internal-external tibial rotation in the presence of subtotal meniscectomy., Conclusions: Subtotal medial meniscectomy in knees with ACL deficiency altered knee kinematics, especially at high flexion angles. ACL reconstruction significantly reduced the increased tibial translation in knees with combined ACL deficiency and subtotal medial meniscectomy, but could not restore the knee kinematics to the intact knee level., Clinical Relevance: This study suggests that meniscus is an important secondary stabilizer against anterior and lateral tibial translations and should be preserved in the setting of ACL reconstruction for restoration of optimal knee kinematics and function.

Background: Screw and suture fixations are the most commonly used methods of fixation in treatment of anterior cruciate ligament tibial avulsion fractures. Even though a few biomechanical studies have compared the stability of the 2 fixation techniques, a clinical comparison has not yet been reported. Hypothesis: The authors hypothesized that both fixations would be identical in all studied clinical outcome measures at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Materials and Methods: Thirty-three patients treated with either screw fixation (16 patients) or suture fixation (17 patients) within 1 month of the anterior cruciate ligament tibial avulsion fracture (type II or III) without associated ligamentous injury were included. All patients were evaluated at a minimum 2-year follow-up in terms of Lysholm knee scores and return to preinjury activities. Knee stability was compared based on the Lachman test and stress radiography. Results: No significant differences were found between the 2 groups in terms of average Lysholm knee scores (91.7 in the screw group and 92.7 in the suture group, P = .413) at follow-up. All patients except 2 (1 in each group) returned to preinjury activity levels. However, flexion contractures (5° to 10°) were found in 3 patients in the screw group and 2 patients in the suture group without significant intergroup difference. Stabilities based on the Lachman test and instrumented stress radiography were also similar between the 2 groups at follow-up. However, 2 patients in the screw group and 1 in the suture group showed more than 5 mm laxity compared with the contralateral knee on stress radiographs. Conclusion: Both the screw and suture fixation techniques for the anterior cruciate ligament tibial avulsion fracture produced relatively good results in terms of functional outcomes and stability without any significant differences. However, some patients in both groups showed residual laxity or flexion contractures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The intent of double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is to reproduce the normal anterior cruciate ligament anatomy and improve knee joint rotational stability. However, no consensus has been reached on the advantages of this technique over the single-bundle technique. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction could provide better intraoperative stability and clinical outcome than single-bundle reconstruction. Type of study: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Forty patients with anterior cruciate ligament injury in one knee were recruited; 20 were allocated to a double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction group and 20 to a single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction group. Intraoperative stabilities at 30° of knee flexion were compared between the 2 groups using a navigation system. Clinical outcomes including Lysholm knee scores, Tegner activity scores, Lachman and pivot-shift test results, and radiographic stabilities were also compared between the 2 groups after a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Results: Intraoperative anterior and rotational stabilities after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in the double-bundle group were significantly better than those in single-bundle group (P = .020 and P < .001, respectively). Nineteen patients (95%) in each group were available at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Clinical outcomes including Lysholm knee and Tegner activity scores were similar in the 2 groups at 2-year follow-up (P > .05). Furthermore, stability results of the Lachman and pivot-shift tests, and radiologic findings at 2-year follow-up failed to reveal any significant intergroup differences (P > .05). Conclusion: Although double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction produces better intraoperative stabilities than single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, the 2 modalities were found to be similar in terms of clinical outcomes and postoperative stabilities after a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aims of this study were to determine: (1) the kinematic effect of subtotal medial meniscectomy on the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)–deficient knee and (2) the effect of ACL reconstruction on kinematics of the knee with combined ACL deficiency and subtotal medial meniscectomy under anterior tibial and simulated quadriceps loads. Methods: Eight human cadaveric knees were sequentially tested using a robotic testing system under 4 conditions: intact, ACL deficiency, ACL deficiency with subtotal medial meniscectomy, and single-bundle ACL reconstruction using a bone–patellar tendon–bone graft. Knee kinematics were measured at 0°, 15°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of flexion under an anterior tibial load of 130 N and a quadriceps muscle load of 400 N. Results: Subtotal medial meniscectomy in the ACL-deficient knee significantly increased anterior and lateral tibial translations under the anterior tibial and quadriceps loads (P < .05). These kinematic changes were larger at high flexion (≥60°) than at low flexion angles. ACL reconstruction in knees with ACL deficiency and subtotal medial meniscectomy significantly reduced the increased anterior tibial translation, but could not restore anterior translation to the intact level with differences ranging from 2.6 mm at 0° to 5.5 mm at 30° of flexion. ACL reconstruction did not significantly affect the medial–lateral translation and internal–external tibial rotation in the presence of subtotal meniscectomy. Conclusions: Subtotal medial meniscectomy in knees with ACL deficiency altered knee kinematics, especially at high flexion angles. ACL reconstruction significantly reduced the increased tibial translation in knees with combined ACL deficiency and subtotal medial meniscectomy, but could not restore the knee kinematics to the intact knee level. Clinical Relevance: This study suggests that meniscus is an important secondary stabilizer against anterior and lateral tibial translations and should be preserved in the setting of ACL reconstruction for restoration of optimal knee kinematics and function. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]