Does the lateral intercondylar ridge disappear in ACL deficient patients?

The aim of this study was to determine whether there is a difference in the presence of the lateral intercondylar ridge and the lateral bifurcate ridge between patients with sub-acute and chronic ACL injuries. We hypothesized that the ridges would be present less often with chronic ACL deficiency. Twenty-five patients with a chronic ACL injury were matched for age and gender to 25 patients with a sub-acute ACL injury. The lateral intercondylar ridge and lateral bifurcate ridge were scored as either present, absent, or indeterminate due to insufficient visualization by three blinded observers. The kappa for the three observers was .61 for the lateral intercondylar ridge and .58 for the lateral bifurcate ridge. The lateral intercondylar ridge was present in 88% of the sub-acute patients and 88% of the chronic patients. The lateral bifurcate ridge was present in 48% of the sub-acute and 48% of the chronic patients. This matched-pairs case–control study was unable to show a difference in the presence of the femoral bony ridges between patients with acute and chronic ACL injuries. The authors would suggest looking for the ridges as a landmark of the native ACL insertion site during ACL reconstruction in both acute and chronic ACL injuries

Factors that influence the intra-articular rupture pattern of the ACL graft following single-bundle reconstruction

The number of revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgeries performed annually continues to rise. The purpose of this study was to determine the most common rupture pattern in ACL revision cases after previous single-bundle reconstruction. The second aim was to determine the relationship between rupture pattern and patient-specific factors (age, gender, time between the initial ACL reconstruction and re-injury, and etiology/mechanism of failure) and surgical factors (graft type, tunnel angle). This was a cohort study of 60 patients that underwent revision ACL surgery after previous single-bundle ACL reconstruction. Three sports medicine-trained orthopedic surgeons reviewed the arthroscopic videos and determined the rupture pattern of the grafts. The rupture pattern was then correlated to the above-mentioned factors. The inter-observer agreement had a kappa of 0.7. The most common rupture pattern after previous single-bundle ACL reconstruction is elongation of the graft. This is different from the native ACL, which displays more proximal ruptures. With the use of autograft tissue and after a longer period of time, the rupture pattern in revision surgery is more similar to that of the native ACL. The most common rupture pattern after previous single-bundle reconstruction was elongation of the graft. Factors that influenced the rupture pattern were months between ACL reconstruction and re-injury and graft type. Cohort study, Level I

ACL graft re-rupture after double-bundle reconstruction: factors that influence the intra-articular pattern of injury

To determine the most common rupture patterns of previously reconstructed DB-ACL cases, seen at the time of revision surgery, and to determine the influence of age, gender, time between the initial ACL reconstruction and re-injury, tunnel angle and etiology of failure. Forty patients who presented for revision surgery after previous double-bundle ACL reconstruction were enrolled. Three orthopedic surgeons independently reviewed the arthroscopic videos and determined the rupture pattern of both the anteromedial and posterolateral grafts. The graft rupture pattern was then correlated with the previously mentioned factors. The most common injury pattern seen at the time of revision ACL surgery was mid-substance AM and PL bundle rupture. Factors that influenced the rupture pattern (proximal vs. mid-substance and distal rupture vs. elongated, but in continuity) were months between ACL reconstruction and re-injury (P = 0.002), the etiology of failure (traumatic vs. atraumatic) (P = 0.025) and the measured graft tunnel angle (P = 0.048). The most common pattern of graft re-rupture was mid-substance AM and mid-substance PL. As the length of time from the initial DB-ACL reconstruction to revision surgery increased, the pattern of injury more closely resembled that of the native ACL. Evaluation of patients who have undergone double-bundle ACL reconstruction, with a particular focus on graft maturity, mechanism of injury and femoral tunnel angles, and graft rupture pattern assists in preoperative planning for revision surger

Arthroscopic Double-Row Suture Anchor Repair of Acute Posterior Bony Bankart Lesion

The treatment of anterior shoulder instability is well described with various techniques, including arthroscopic double-row repair, an alternative to open stabilization procedures in high-risk groups. The surgical management of posterior instability in high-risk and athletic populations is a less-explored entity. We describe our technique for an all arthroscopic double-row suture anchor repair of a large posterior bony Bankart lesion. We prefer this technique over percutaneous cannulated screw fixation because the double-row suture technique allows for incorporation of capsular plication with bony fixation in an effort to better restore normal anatomy for capsulolabral complex. Double-row repair capsulolabral repair or fixation of the bony Bankart is performed via a suture-bridge technique. Medial row anchors are placed down the glenoid neck and shuttled around the bony fragment and labrum. The lateral-row anchor is placed at the rim of the native glenoid. This repair technique has been shown to increase the surface area for healing and more closely reconstruct the native anatomic capsulolabral complex footprint, improve force distribution, and potentially impart enhanced posterior stability to the glenohumeral joint

The REVision Using Imaging to Guide Staging and Evaluation (REVISE) in ACL Reconstruction Classification

Abstract Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) procedures are increasing in incidence and possess markedly inferior clinical outcomes (76% satisfaction) and return-to-sports (57%) rates than their primary counterparts. Given their complexity, a universal language is required to identify and communicate the technical challenges faced with revision procedures and guide treatment strategies. The proposed REV ision using I maging to guide S taging and E valuation (REVISE) ACL (anterior cruciate ligament) Classification can serve as a foundation for this universal language that is feasible and practical with acceptable inter-rater agreement. A focus group of sports medicine fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons was assembled to develop a classification to assess femoral/tibial tunnel “usability” (placement, widening, overlap) and guide the revision reconstruction strategy (one-stage vs. two-stage) post–failed ACL reconstruction. Twelve board-certified sports medicine orthopaedic surgeons independently applied the classification to the de-identified computed tomographic (CT) scan data of 10 patients, randomly selected, who failed ACL reconstruction. An interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated (with 95% confidence intervals) to assess agreement among reviewers concerning the three major classifications of the proposed system. Across surgeons, and on an individual patient basis, there was high internal validity and observed agreement on treatment strategy (one-stage vs. two-stage revision). Reliability testing of the classification using CT scan data demonstrated an ICC (95% confidence interval) of 0.92 (0.80–0.98) suggesting “substantial” agreement between the surgeons across all patients for all elements of the classification. The proposed REVISE ACL Classification, which employs CT scan analysis to both identify technical issues and guide revision ACL treatment strategy (one- or two-stage), constitutes a feasible and practical system with high internal validity, high observed agreement, and substantial inter-rater agreement. Adoption of this classification, both clinically and in research, will help provide a universal language for orthopaedic surgeons to discuss these complex clinical presentations and help standardize an approach to diagnosis and treatment to improve patient outcomes. The Level of Evidence for this study is 3