Temperature Change When Drilling Near the Distal Femoral Physis in a Skeletally Immature Ovine Model

Anatomic all-epiphyseal ACL reconstruction with "inside-out" femoral tunnel placement in immature patients yields high return to sport rates and functional outcome scores a minimum of 24 months after reconstruction

PURPOSE

To understand if anatomic physeal-sparing ACL reconstruction in the immature host preserves range of motion, permits a return to sports, and avoids limb length discrepancy and accelerated intra-articular degeneration with a cross-sectional radiographic, physical examination and patient-reported outcomes analysis.

METHODS

A cross-sectional recall study included 38 patients aged 7-15 who underwent all-epiphyseal ACL reconstruction with hamstring allograft performed by a single surgeon at a large academic medical center. All-epiphyseal reconstructions were performed using a modified Anderson physeal-sparing technique, with the femoral tunnel placed using an "inside-out" technique. Assessments consisted of a physical exam, long leg cassette radiographs, KT-1000 measurements, subjective patient metrics, and magnetic resonance imaging.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight (56.7%) of 66 eligible patients returned for in-person clinical and radiographic exams. Patients were 11.4 ± 1.8 years at the time of surgery. Five patients were females (13.2%). Mean follow-up was 5.5 ± 2.4 years. ACL re-injuries occurred in four patients (10.5%), all of whom underwent revision reconstructions. Thirty-three of the remaining 34 (97.1%) patients returned to sports following their reconstruction, and 24 (70.6%) returned to their baseline level of competition. Mean limb length discrepancy (LLD) was 0.2 ± 1.4 cm. Nine patients had an LLD of > 1 cm (26.5%), which occurred at an equivalent age as those with < 1 cm LLD (10.8 ± 2.0 vs. 11.7 ± 1.7, n.s.). Pre-operative Marx scores (13.1 ± 3.5) were not significantly different from post-operative values (12.3 ± 5.1, n.s.). Patients who required ACL revisions had significantly lower Marx scores than those with intact primary grafts (8.3 ± 7.1 vs. 13.4 ± 4.5, p = 0.047). Cohort mean International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score was 89.7 ± 12.7.

CONCLUSION

Anatomic all-epiphyseal anatomic ACL reconstruction appears to be useful in patients with significant projected remaining growth, with good return-to-sport outcomes and minimal risk of clinically significant physeal complications. However, given the limited patient recall possible in the present study, further large sample size, high-quality works are necessary to validate our findings.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

Physeal-sparing posteromedial portal approach reduced distance between guide pin and neurovascular structures

PURPOSE

To compare a femoral physeal sparing anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction technique utilizing a posteromedial portal to traditional transphyseal techniques with regards to anatomic tunnel positioning and proximity to important neurovascular structures.

METHODS

Eight cadaveric knees were obtained for the study. Femoral tunnel guide pins were placed utilizing four different techniques: accessory anterior medial portal, posteromedial portal, trans-tibial, and figure-4 methods. The knees were then dissected and the following measurements taken: distance of each pin to the saphenous and peroneal nerve, popliteus tendon, neurovascular bundle, femoral ACL footprint and articular cartilage, and the angle of the guide pin entering the lateral femoral condyle. Fluoroscopic imaging was taken to determine the disruption of the physeal scar.

RESULTS

Posteromedial portal guide pin was significantly closer to the neurovascular bundle, popliteal tendon and saphenous nerve when compared to the other 3 techniques, but was further from the peroneal nerve. It also had the smallest distance from the anatomic footprint of the ACL, and the largest angle to the lateral femoral condyle. The posteromedial portal guide pin had similar distance from the articular cartilage as the accessory anterior medial portal and figure-4 guide pin, with the trans-tibial guide pin being the farthest. The posteromedial portal guide pin failed to disrupt the physeal scar in all specimens, while the other three techniques consistently violated the physeal scar.

CONCLUSION

The posteromedial portal technique offers an appropriate method for anatomic ACL reconstruction while protecting the distal femoral physis from injury. Care needs to be taken with this technique as it comes in closer proximity to some of the important neurovascular structures. This study indicates that posteromedial portal technique is a less technically challenging approach for physeal-sparing ACL repair with special attention required for the protection of neurovascular bundle from potential injury.