Superior Postoperative Stability and Functional Outcomes With Anteromedial Versus Transtibial Technique of Single-Bundle Autologous Hamstring Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis of Prospective Randomized Controlled Trials

Transtibial versus anteromedial transportal femoral tunnel in single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials

The purpose of this study was to systematically review and meta-analyze randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the comparative clinical and functional outcomes, postoperative complications, and radiological outcomes of single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) performed using the transtibial (TT) approach or anteromedial (AM) technique. A systematic review of the literature was performed according to Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines. RCTs comparing TT and AM techniques were considered only. The quality of the studies was defined using the GRADE system, and the risk of bias was assessed with the RoB 2 tool. The primary endpoint was to systematically review and meta-analyze the clinical outcomes, residual laxity and failure rate of both AM and TT techniques. In the current meta-analysis 13 RCTs involving 989 patients who underwent arthroscopic single-bundle ACLR (486 TT and 503 AM) were included. Patients undergoing AM technique resulted in higher objective-IKDC (p < 0.001) and Lysholm scores (p = 0.002), despite a lower incidence of pathological anterior tibial translation (p < 0.001) and positive pivot-shift test (p < 0.001). No differences were detected in IKDC subjective score (p = 0.26), Tegner activity scale (p = 0.18) and graft failure (p = 0.07). ACL reconstruction through AM portal technique provides better clinical outcomes and lower incidence of residual rotational and anteroposterior laxity in comparison with the TT technique. No statistically significant difference in subjective outcomes and graft failure was reported.

Arthroscopy Journal: Reflections on 2023 and Auld Lang Syne

Auld lang syne; times long past. We were unsuspecting of the coming pandemic. Things changed. COVID-19 impacted each of us, our families, our patients, our medical practices, and our daily lives. The year 2020 was one of cancellation and loss; 2021 and 2022 were years of adaptation, caution, and continued loss. Finally, 2023 began a time of recovery; while COVID-19 is still with us, the pandemic has been declared ended, and we emerge with gratitude. We slowly removed our masks and rediscovered the vitality of meeting face-to-face. And throughout, Arthroscopy has continued to develop, including new journals; special issues on rehabilitation, biologics, and diversity as they relate to musculoskeletal care; collaboration with the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery, Maintenance of Certification, Web-Based Longitudinal Assessment Pathway; Arthroscopy Techniques; Infographics; Visual Abstracts; and Podcasts. At year end, we extend special thanks to editors whose terms have expired, our team and leaders, our reviewers, our authors and readers, and our patients who offer us their trust and an opportunity to serve.

Editorial Commentary: Anteromedial Portal Drilling of the ACL Femoral Socket Avoids Transtibial Constraint Results in Anatomic Reconstruction and Superior Outcomes

Femoral and tibial tunnel locations for ACL grafts should be predicated on anatomy. Regarding femoral ACL socket or tunnel creation, multiple techniques have been debated. Network meta-analysis shows that the anteromedial portal (AMP) technique results in better anteroposterior and rotational stability than does the "standard" constrained, transtibial technique based on side-to-side differences in laxity and pivot-shift tests, as well as IKDC objective scores. The AMP provides a direct shot at the anatomic ACL origin on the femur. It avoids the osseous constraint of the reamer that hampers transtibial approaches. It avoids the extra incision required by the outside-in technique and the accompanying graft obliquity. Despite the need for knee hyperflexion and the potential for shorter femoral sockets, the AMP technique should be easily reproducible for an accomplished ACL surgeon to reproduce the patient's anatomy.

Transtibial Versus Anteromedial Portal Technique for Femoral Tunnel Drilling in Primary Single-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Meta-analysis of Level 1 and 2 Evidence of Clinical, Revision, and Radiological Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Although numerous clinical studies have compared transtibial (TT) and anteromedial portal (AMP) drilling of femoral tunnels during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), there is no high-quality, evidence-based consensus regarding which technique affords the best outcome.

HYPOTHESIS

There would be no difference between the TT and AMP techniques in terms of knee stability, patient-reported outcomes, incidence of revision, and radiological results.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS

The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched from inception to February 1, 2021. Level 1 and 2 clinical trials that compared TT and AM techniques were included. Data were meta-analyzed for the outcome measures of knee stability, patient-reported functional outcomes, incidence of revision, and radiological results. Dichotomous variables were presented as odds ratios (ORs), and continuous variables were presented as mean differences (MDs) and standard mean differences (SMDs).

RESULTS

The meta-analysis included 18 clinical studies, level of evidence 1 or 2, that involved 53,888 patients. Pooled data showed that the AMP group had a lower side-to-side difference (SMD, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.06 to 0.39; P = .009), a lower incidence of pivot-shift phenomenon (OR, 3.69; 95% CI, 1.26 to 10.79; P = .02), and a higher postoperative Lysholm score (SMD, -0.26; 95% CI, -0.44 to -0.08; P = .005) than the TT group. However, no statistically significant differences were seen in other outcomes, including subjective International Knee Documentation Committee scores (SMD, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.30 to 0.09; P = .30) or grades (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.35 to 2.49; P = .89), postoperative activity level (MD, -0.14; 95% CI, -0.42 to 0.15; P = .35), and incidence of revision ACLR (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.16; P = .45). The TT technique was more likely to create longer (SMD, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.05 to 2.06; P = .04) and more oblique (SMD, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.11; P < .001) femoral tunnels than the AMP technique, and a higher height ratio of the aperture position was detected with the TT technique (SMD, -3.51; 95% CI, -5.54 to -1.49; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The AMP technique for ACLR may be more likely to produce better knee stability and improved clinical outcomes than the TT technique, but no difference was found in the incidence of revision between the 2 groups.

Anteromedial Portal Technique, but Not Outside-in Technique, Is Superior to Standard Transtibial Technique in Knee Stability and Functional Recovery After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Network Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the postoperative outcomes of 4 different femoral drilling techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

METHODS

Three databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing any 2 or more of the following femoral drilling techniques in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: standard transtibial (sTT), anteromedial portal (AMP), outside-in (OI), or modified transtibial (mTT) technique. A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed to assess postoperative stability and functional recovery in terms of the side-to-side difference (measured by arthrometry), Lachman test, pivot-shift test, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective and objective scores, Lysholm score, and Tegner score. The Fisher exact probability test and χ² test were used to compare the incidences of infection and graft rupture, respectively.

RESULTS

We included 20 randomized controlled trials involving 1,515 patients. The AMP technique showed a lower side-to-side difference (standardized mean difference, -0.33; 95% credible interval [CrI], -0.53 to -0.12), higher negative rate on the pivot-shift test (odds ratio, 2.19; 95% CrI, 1.38 to 3.44), and higher International Knee Documentation Committee objective score (odds ratio, 3.13; 95% CrI, 1.42 to 7.82) than the sTT technique. However, knee stability and functional outcomes did not differ significantly between the OI and sTT techniques. Safety outcomes of the mTT technique were unavailable. The incidence of graft rupture was 5.20% for the OI technique, 2.27% for the AMP technique, and 1.51% for the sTT technique. The OI technique had a significantly higher incidence of graft rupture than the sTT technique (χ² = 4.421, P = .035). No significant difference in the incidence of infection was found between the sTT, AMP, and OI techniques (P = .281).

CONCLUSIONS

The AMP technique, but not the OI technique, was superior to the sTT technique in knee stability and functional recovery. The OI technique had a higher incidence of graft rupture than the sTT technique. There was no significant difference between the AMP and OI techniques or between the mTT technique and any other femoral drilling technique.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, meta-analysis of Level I and II studies.

Lateral extraarticular tenodesis improves stability in non-anatomic ACL reconstructed knees: in vivo kinematic analysis

PURPOSE

To carry out an in vivo kinematic analysis to determine whether adding a lateral extraarticular tenodesis (LET) for those patients with subjective instability and objective residual laxity after a transtibial (TT) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) reduces anteroposterior and rotational laxity and to evaluate the 2-year follow-up clinical outcomes to analyze whether biomechanical changes determine clinical improvement or not.

METHODS

A total of 19 patients with residual knee instability after TT ACLR who underwent a modified Lemaire LET were prospectively evaluated for at least 2-year follow-up. Preoperative, intraoperative, and 6 and 24-month postoperative kinematic analyses were carried out using the KiRA accelerometer and KT1000 arthrometer to look for residual anterolateral rotational instability and residual anteroposterior instability. Functional outcomes were measured with the single-leg vertical jump test and the single-leg hop test. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the IKDC 2000, Lysholm, and Tegner scores.

RESULTS

A significant reduction in anterolateral rotational instability was detected with the patient under anesthesia (from 3 ± 1.2 to 1.1 ± 1.1 m/s²; p < 0.05) as well as with the patient awake (from 2.1 ± 0.8 to 0.7 ± 1.4 m/s²; p < 0.05). A significant reduction in anteroposterior instability was only present under anesthesia (from 3.4 ± 1.9 to 2.1 ± 1.1 mm; p < 0.05), while no difference was present without anesthesia (from 2.3 ± 1.1 to 1.6 ± 1 mm; n.s.). Postoperative analysis of knee laxity did not show any significant variation from the first to the last follow-up. Both the single-leg vertical jump test and single-leg hop test improved significantly at the last follow-up (both p < 0.05). The mean values of both the IKDC and Tegner scores showed an improvement (p < 0.05 and p < 0.05, respectively), whereas that was not the case with the Lysholm score (n.s.).

CONCLUSIONS

The modified Lemaire LET can improve the kinematics of a non-anatomic ACL reconstructed knee with residual subjective and objective instability. These kinematic changes were able to lead to an improvement in subjective stability as well as the function of the knee in a small cohort of recreationally active patients. At 2-year follow-up, the kinematic changes as well as the level of activity of the patients and the IKDC score show their improvement sustained.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Similar outcomes and satisfaction after transtibial versus transportal femoral drilling for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in young adult recreational athletes

PURPOSE

Controversy continues regarding whether the transtibial (TT) and transportal (TP) methods for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction provide similar or different outcomes, and the evidence on patient satisfaction is very limited. The objective of this study was to compare functional outcomes and patient satisfaction in young adult recreational athletes who underwent arthroscopic hamstring ACL reconstruction using either the TT or the TP femoral tunnel drilling method.

METHODS

A nonrandomized prospective study was designed to compare the outcomes of arthroscopic hamstring ACL reconstruction using TT or TP method. Functional outcome was assessed with the Lyshom score, and patient satisfaction with a 5-point Likert scale. Knee stability was measured with the KT-1000 arthrometer.

RESULTS

42 patients in the TT group and 41 in TP group, with age ranged 18-40 years, were compared with a mean follow-up of 42 (range 24-60) months. There were no significant differences between groups in the Lysholm score (n.s.), sport return rate (n.s.) or patient satisfaction with the surgery (n.s.). Satisfaction was only significantly associated with the Lysholm score (OR 1.3; IC 95% 1.06-1.6; p = 0.012), but not with the return to sports (n.s.) or knee anterior laxity (n.s.).

CONCLUSION

This study showed no statistical differences between the TT and the TP method in functional outcomes or patient satisfaction in young adult recreational athletes. In those patients, satisfaction with the surgery was not influenced by the return to sport activities. This study can guide surgeons in the decision-making for ACL reconstruction in recreational athletes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Minimizing the risk of graft failure after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in athletes. A narrative review of the current evidence

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear is one of the most common sport-related injuries and the request for ACL reconstructions is increasing nowadays. Unfortunately, ACL graft failures are reported in up to 34.2% in athletes, representing a traumatic and career-threatening event. It can be convenient to understand the various risk factors for ACL failure, in order to properly inform the patients about the expected outcomes and to minimize the chance of poor results. In literature, a multitude of studies have been performed on the failure risks after ACL reconstruction, but the huge amount of data may generate much confusion.The aim of this review is to resume the data collected from literature on the risk of graft failure after ACL reconstruction in athletes, focusing on the following three key points: individuate the predisposing factors to ACL reconstruction failure, analyze surgical aspects which may have significant impact on outcomes, highlight the current criteria regarding safe return to sport after ACL reconstruction.

Current and future of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques

In recent years, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has generally yielded favorable outcomes. However, ACL reconstruction has not provided satisfactory results in terms of the rate of returning to sports and prevention of osteoarthritis (OA) progression. In this paper, we outline current techniques for ACL reconstruction such as graft materials, double-bundle or single-bundle reconstruction, femoral tunnel drilling, all-inside technique, graft fixation, preservation of remnant, anterolateral ligament reconstruction, ACL repair, revision surgery, treatment for ACL injury with OA and problems, and discuss expected future trends. To enable many more orthopedic surgeons to achieve excellent ACL reconstruction outcomes with less invasive surgery, further studies aimed at improving surgical techniques are warranted. Further development of biological augmentation and robotic surgery technologies for ACL reconstruction is also required.

Editorial Commentary: Independent Femoral Tunnel Drilling Avoids Anterior Cruciate Ligament Graft Malpositioning: Advice From a Transtibial Convert

Optimal femoral anterior cruciate ligament graft placement has been extensively studied. The champions of transtibial reconstruction debate the backers of anteromedial portal and outside-in drilling. The holy grail is footprint restoration and how we best to get there. To me, creating the femur independently provides the best chance of finding that footprint by being unconstrained by the tibia. Anterior cruciate ligament surgery is challenging enough; decrease intraoperative stress and increase your likelihood of femoral footprint restoration by drilling it though the anteromedial portal.