Anteromedial Portal Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Yields Similar Outcomes to Non-AMP Femoral Drilling Double-Bundle Techniques: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies

Functional and Symptomatic Improvements Based on the Femoral Tunnel Drilling Technique in Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

The current literature comparing femoral tunnel techniques often reports on short-term outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), but only a few studies have analyzed long-term outcomes. In addition, many studies have compared transtibial to anteromedial portal techniques without differentiating whether rigid or flexible reaming is used, making it difficult to infer how the techniques truly compare to one another.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to detect differences in patient-reported outcome scores in those treated with three different femoral tunnel drilling techniques.

STUDY DESIGN

This study is a prospective cohort study.

METHODS

Of 650 patients treated for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries with ACLR, 350 were 5+ years out from surgery. Of these patients, 111 completed patient-reported outcome surveys (PROs). The Kruskal-Wallis H test was used to detect differences between patients treated with either of the three femoral tunnel drilling techniques: transtibial (TT), anteromedial portal with rigid reaming (AMP-RR), or anteromedial portal with flexible reaming (AMP-FR). Bonferroni correction was applied to the p-values to reduce the risk of making a type 1 error.

RESULTS

No differences were found between the three groups in demographics or postoperative PROs. However, there was a significant change between pre-surgery and post-surgery PROs. TT, when compared to AMP-RR, had a greater increase in satisfaction and greater improvement in a patient's ability to go up and down the stairs from pre-surgery to post-surgery. AMP-FR, when compared to TT, had greater improvement of the patient's knee stiffness/swelling. AMP-FR, when compared to AMP-RR, had greater improvement in knee pain during stairs and the ability to go down the stairs. No differences in return to sport, additional procedures on the affected knee (meniscal surgeries or cyclops lesion excisions), or revision surgery rates were found.

CONCLUSION

Overall, postoperative PROs did not show statistically significant differences between the three femoral tunnel drilling techniques. Differences, however, were identified in the responses to specific questions on PRO surveys, which may have otherwise been overlooked. It is important to recognize the differences between TT, AMP-RR, and AMP-FR in the improvement of stair climbing and swelling/stiffness as these likely directly affect a patient's satisfaction from pre-ACLR to post-ACLR.

The Statistical Fragility of Hamstring Versus Patellar Tendon Autografts for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based medicine utilizes data to inform clinical decision making, despite the ability of a small number of outcome reversals to change statistical significance. P values are common measurements of statistical significance that possess inherent flaws. The inclusion of the fragility index (FI) and fragility quotient (FQ) may provide a clearer conveyance of statistical strength.

PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS

The purpose was to examine the statistical stability of studies comparing hamstring tendon and bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts in primary single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with independent tunnel drilling. We hypothesized that the findings of these studies are vulnerable to a small number of outcome event reversals, often fewer than the number of patients lost to follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

Comparative studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in 10 leading orthopaedic journals between 2000 and 2020 were analyzed. Statistical significance was defined as a P value ≤.05. FI for each outcome was determined by the number of event reversals necessary to alter significance. FQ was calculated by dividing the FI by the respective sample size.

RESULTS

Of the 1803 studies screened, 643 met initial search criteria, with 18 comparative studies ultimately included for analysis, 8 of which were RCTs. A total of 114 outcomes were examined. Overall, the mean (interquartile range) FI and FQ were 3.77 (2-4) and 0.040 (0.016-0.055), respectively. The FI was less than the number of patients lost to follow-up for 76.3% of outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Studies examining graft choice for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction may not be as statistically stable as previously thought. Comparative studies and RCTs are at substantial risk for statistical fragility, with few event reversals required to alter significance. The reversal of <4 outcome events in a treatment group can alter the statistical significance of a given result; this is commonly fewer than the number of patients lost to follow-up. Future comparative study analyses might consider including FI and FQ with P values in their statistical analysis.

Comparison between single- and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions for knee with grade 2 medial collateral ligament injury

This research discussed clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction accompanied by conservative treatment for grade 2 medial collateral ligament injury, and comparison was performed between double-bundle and single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.Clinical information was retrospectively collected for 41 cases suffering anterior cruciate ligament injuries accompanied by grade 2 medial collateral ligament injuries. Within 14 days after their injuries 22 cases received single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (SB group), while 19 were treated with double-bundle medial collateral ligament reconstruction (DB group). Physical statuses were estimated based on International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores, Lachman, pivot shift and manual valgus test, and range of motion (ROM), while side-to-side difference was estimated through KT 2000 arthometer.Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction accompanied by conservative treatment showed significantly improved anteroposterior, rotational and valgus stability, and IKDC and Lysholm scores (in comparison to pre-operative status, P < .05). Incidence of pivot shift was dramatically lower in DB group (2/19) than in SB group (7/22 and 2/22; P = .028). No substantial dissimilarity existed between DB and SB groups either in Lachman and valgus tests, KT 2000, ROM, IKDC, or Lysholm scores.Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction accompanied by conservative treatment could achieve outstanding stability and functional manifestations for cases facing anterior cruciate ligament injury accompanied by grade 2 medial collateral ligament injury. Moreover, double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is superior to single-bundle operation in treating rotational instability of the knee.Level of evidence: Retrospective comparative study, Level III.

[Progress of different methods for femoral tunnel positioning in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction]

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the progress of different methods for femoral tunnel positioning in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and provide a clinical reference for treatment of ACL rupture.

METHODS

The literature about the femoral tunnel positioning in ACL reconstruction was widely reviewed. The advantages and disadvantages and the clinical results of each method were summarized.

RESULTS

Currently in ACL reconstruction, methods for femoral tunnel positioning include transtibial technique (TT), anteromedial technique (AM), outside-in (OI), modified TT (mTT), and computer assisted surgery. There is no significant difference in the postoperative effectiveness between TT technique and AM technique. Compared with the TT technique, the OI technique has higher rotational stability of knee, but there is no significant difference in clinical results. The femoral tunnel located by mTT technique is closer to the anatomical placement than that of TT technique, but mTT technique is not effective for systematically anatomic femoral tunnel positioning, and further research is needed to prove its advantages.

CONCLUSION

Different femoral tunnel positioning methods have their own advantages and disadvantages, and there is no definite evidence that one is superior than the rest.