Anatomic Femoral and Tibial Tunnel Placement During Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Anteromedial Portal All-Inside and Outside-In Techniques

Tunnel malposition is one of the most common technical reasons for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction failure. Small changes in tunnel placement can result in significant differences in outcome. More anatomic placement of the tunnels can lead to greater knee stability and a more accurate reproduction of native knee kinematics. This Technical Note describes 2 tibial tunnel–independent methods to obtain anatomic femoral tunnel placement. The all-inside anteromedial portal technique requires only minimal surgical incisions but allows precise femoral tunnel placement. However, hyperflexion of the knee is required, adequate surgical assistance is necessary, and this technique may be susceptible to graft-tunnel mismatch. The outside-in technique may be more beneficial in obese patients, skeletally immature patients, or revision cases. On the downside, it does require an additional 2-cm surgical incision. This article also provides surgical pearls to fine-tune tibial tunnel placement

The Responsiveness of Patient- Reported Outcome Tools in Shoulder Surgery Is Dependent on the Underlying Pathological Condition.

BACKGROUND:: Given the high number of available patient-reported outcome (PRO) tools for patients undergoing shoulder surgery, comparative information is necessary to determine the most relevant forms to incorporate into clinical practice. PURPOSE:: To determine the utilization and responsiveness of common PRO tools in studies involving patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair or operative management of glenohumeral instability. STUDY DESIGN:: Systematic review. METHODS:: A systematic review of rotator cuff and instability studies from multiple databases was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Means and SDs of each PRO tool utilized, study sample sizes, and follow-up durations were collected. The responsiveness of each PRO tool compared with other PRO tools was determined by calculating the effect size and relative efficiency (RE). RESULTS:: After a full-text review of 238 rotator cuff articles and 110 instability articles, 81 studies and 29 studies met the criteria for final inclusion, respectively. In the rotator cuff studies, 25 different PRO tools were utilized. The most commonly utilized PRO tools were the Constant (50 studies), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain (44 studies), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES; 39 studies), University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA; 20 studies), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH; 13 studies) scores. The ASES score was found to be more responsive than all scores including the Constant (RE, 1.94), VAS for pain (RE, 1.54), UCLA (RE, 1.46), and DASH (RE, 1.35) scores. In the instability studies, 16 different PRO tools were utilized. The most commonly used PRO tools were the ASES (13 studies), Rowe (10 studies), Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI; 8 studies), VAS for pain (7 studies), UCLA (7 studies), and Constant (6 studies) scores. The Rowe score was much more responsive than both the ASES (RE, 22.84) and the Constant (RE, 33.17) scores; however, the ASES score remained more responsive than the Constant (RE, 1.93), VAS for pain (RE, 1.75), and WOSI (RE, 0.97) scores. CONCLUSION:: Despite being frequently used in the research community, the Constant score may be less clinically useful as it was less responsive. Additionally, it is a greater burden on the provider because it requires objective strength and range of motion data to be gathered by the clinician. In contrast, the ASES score was highly responsive after rotator cuff repair and requires only subjective patient input. Furthermore, separate PRO scoring methods appear to be necessary for patients undergoing rotator cuff repair and surgery for instability as the instability-specific Rowe score was much more responsive than the ASES score

Allograft Augmentation of Hamstring Autograft for Younger Patients Undergoing Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Younger patients and those with smaller hamstring autograft diameters have been shown to be at significantly greater risk of graft failure after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. To date, there is no information in the literature about the clinical success and/or cost-effectiveness of increasing graft diameter by augmenting with semitendinosus allograft tissue for younger patients. HYPOTHESIS: Hybrid hamstring grafts are a cost-effective treatment option because of a reduced rate of graft failure. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (economic and decision analysis); Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients younger than 18 years who had undergone ACL reconstruction by a single surgeon between 2010 and 2015. During this period, the operating surgeon\u27s graft selection algorithm included the use of bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autografts for the majority of patients younger than 18 years. However, hamstring autografts (hamstring) or hybrid hamstring autografts with allograft augment (hybrid) were used in skeletally immature patients and in those whom the surgeon felt might have greater difficulty with postoperative rehabilitation after BTB graft harvest. Patient demographics, graft type, graft diameter, the time the patient was cleared to return to activity, and the need for secondary surgical procedures were compared between the hamstring and hybrid groups. The clinical results were then used to assess the potential cost-effectiveness of hybrid grafts in this select group of young patients with an ACL injury or reconstruction. RESULTS: This study comprised 88 patients (hamstring group, n = 46; hybrid group, n = 42). The 2 groups did not differ in terms of age, sex, timing of return to activity, or prevalence of skeletally immature patients. Graft diameters were significantly smaller in the hamstring group (7.8 vs 9.9 mm; P \u3c .001), which corresponded with a significantly greater rate of graft failure (13 of 46 [28.3%] vs 5 of 42 [11.9%]; P = .049). As a result of the reduced revision rate, the hybrid graft demonstrated incremental cost savings of US$2765 compared with the hamstring graft, and the hybrid graft was the preferred strategy in 89% of cases. CONCLUSION: Driven by increased graft diameters and the reduced risk of revision, hybrid grafts appear to be a more cost-effective treatment option in a subset of younger patients with an ACL injury