Adjustable-Loop Cortical Suspensory Fixation Results in Greater Tibial Tunnel Widening Compared to Interference Screw Fixation in Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

All-soft tissue quadriceps tendon autograft and bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft demonstrate no significant ACL tunnel widening: An MRI comparison

PURPOSE

This study sought to quantify the tunnel widening associated with quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and compare it to bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autografts.

METHODS

A retrospective review of each ACLR performed at a single academic institution from 2011 to 2021 were reviewed. Subjects with repeat ipsilateral knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies performed after ACLR were included. Two reviewers independently measured the maximum diameter of the femoral and tibial tunnels 1 cm from the aperture. Tunnel widening was calculated as the difference between the initial drilled diameter and the measured diameters.

RESULTS

Seventy-five patients (38 BTB and 37 QT autografts) were identified including 42 females and 33 males. With respect to graft type (QT vs. BTB), there was no statistically significant difference in median patient age (19.0 (16.0-31.5) years vs. 20.0 (16.8-30.0) years respectively; p = n.s.) or median time to MRI (12.0 [9.0-19.5] months vs. 13.0 [7.0-43.3] months respectively, p = n.s.). Mean tunnel diameter changes or widening was statistically significantly greater for QT autografts than BTB autografts at the tibial tunnel: (0.4 [±0.6] mm] vs. -0.4 [±1.1 mm; p < 0.001). Similarly, the mean tunnel diameter change was also significantly greater at the femoral tunnel for QT compared to BTB. (0.2 [±0.6] mm vs. -0.4 [±0.8] mm; p < 0.001) However, no patients with QT grafts demonstrated tibial or femoral tunnel diameters >12 mm.

CONCLUSION

Although QT autografts had a statistically significant greater amount of tunnel widening compared to BTB autografts; the mean tibial and femoral net widening of 0.4 mm and 0.2 mm, respectively, does not meet previously reported clinically significant values. Thus, the tunnel widening presented in this study is unlikely to affect clinical outcomes and should not preclude the use of either graft.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III (Retrospective comparative study).

Transversal calcaneal anchored Achilles tendon reconstruction with free semitendinosus tendon autograft for acute rupture of Achilles tendon: clinical evaluation

Achilles tendon reconstruction is an effective method of repairing Achilles tendon rupture defects. We introduce a new approach for Achilles tendon reconstruction using transversal calcaneal anchored autogenous semitendinosus tendon graft. The study aimed to evaluate the clinical role of this new Achilles tendon reconstruction. We retrospectively enrolled patients who underwent Achilles tendon reconstruction using transversal calcaneal anchored autogenous semitendinosus tendon graft for acute Achilles tendon rupture defects from 2016 to 2021. The clinical and radiological results were assessed at the preoperative and the final postoperative follow-up with Visual Analog Score (VAS) scores, American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores and Achilles tendon Total Rupture Scores (ATRS). Besides, at the last postoperative follow-up, the difference in ankle range of motion between the two side of the patients and the incidence of postoperative complications were recorded. Results revealed patients had significantly lower VAS and higher AOFAS and ATRS (P < 0.01). Compared to the healthy ankle, the operative ankle showed significant deficits in ankle range of motion (P < 0.01). Additionally, radiological results showed no noticeable signs of tunnel enlargement in the calcaneus and no patient had re-rupture. Transversal calcaneal anchored Achilles tendon reconstruction with free semitendinosus tendon autograft is an effective treatment option for patients with acute Achilles tendon rupture with large defects and have high postoperative exercise demands.

Suture Anchor Technique for Bridge Enhanced Anterior Cruciate Ligament Restoration

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are common in the athletic population. ACL repair with bridge enhancement is an emerging technology with promising clinical outcomes in patients with a proximal to midsubstance ACL tears. Currently, there are a variety of fixation methods described for isolated ACL repair, including suspensory and anchor techniques. This Technical Note describes a bridge enhanced ACL restoration procedure technique, using suture anchors for the femoral fixation. Advantages of this technique include more rigid fixation and avoiding need for accessory over-the-top incision. Additionally, the surgical workflow is more similar to an ACL reconstruction with intra-articular screw fixation, which may be more readily adopted by some surgeons.

Editorial Commentary: Quadriceps Tendon Anterior Cruciate Ligament Graft Shows Advantages and Disadvantages

A quadriceps tendon autograft is becoming an increasingly popular graft option for both primary and revision ACL reconstruction. The biomechanical properties of a QT autograft are favorable compared to a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) or a doubled hamstring (HS) autograft. A QT autograft is associated with less donor site morbidity, such as anterior knee pain and difficulty with kneeling, than a BPTB autograft, and short-term studies have shown comparable clinical results when compared to a BPTB or a HS autograft. However, if harvested with a bone block, a QT autograft carries a higher risk of patellar fracture than a BPTB autograft. Other potential disadvantages include persistent quadriceps weakness, and registry data have shown a higher revision rate compared to a BPTB or HS ACL reconstruction, which is thought to be due to a high learning curve, leading to higher revision rates in low volume centers. Finally, a graft-fixation construct with good time 0 biomechanical characteristics may only be successful in the long term if the graft heals effectively. Time will tell.

Functional Outcomes Following Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Reconstruction Using the Sironix Titanium Button and the Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Button: A Retrospective Observational Study

Background Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is most common among athletes compared to the general population. ACL reconstruction is a clinical standard for restoring joint mechanical stability and enabling sports return. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the safety and functional outcomes after arthroscopic ACL reconstruction using the Sironix titanium button and the polyetheretherketone (PEEK) button. Methods A total of 31 subjects who have undergone arthroscopic ACL reconstruction using the Sironix titanium button and PEEK button between August 2022 and January 2023 were included in the study. Demographic data, surgery details, and other baseline characteristics of the subjects were collected from the hospital records. The primary objective of the study was to assess the functional outcome using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) questionnaire. The secondary objectives were to determine the pre- and post-surgery activity levels using the Tegner Activity Score (TAS) and Lysholm score. Quality of life evaluation was done by using the Quality of Life (QoL) subscale from the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE). Device-related adverse effect information was recorded. Results The mean (SD) of the total IKDC score of 31 subjects at baseline and post-surgery was 51.4 (2.84) and 91.8 (2.59) out of 100, respectively. The mean (SD) of TAS pre-injury and post-surgery was 5.3 (1.47) and 5.4 (1.38) out of 10, respectively. The total mean (SD) value of the total Lysholm Score at baseline and post-surgery was 53.9 (3.72) and 91.4 (3.61) out of 100, respectively. The mean (SD) value of the quality of life subscale of the KOOS score was 91.2 (3.91) out of 100. The total mean (SD) value of the SANE score that had affected joint/region of interest today was 97.4 (1.78), while for the opposite side today, it was 99.5 (0.85) out of 100. There were no adverse device effects reported in this study. Conclusion Based on the score assessment, it was observed that the performance of Sironix knee implant devices, Proloop-Titanium adjustable loop button, T-Button A® Closed PEEK button, and Surestitch® All Inside Meniscal Repair Implant (Healthium Medtech Limited, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India) was effective and safe with no adverse effects. Therefore, Sironix knee implants are considered safe and effective in ACL reconstruction and meniscus repair surgery.

Beneficial Effect of Curved Dilator System for Femoral Tunnel Creation in Preventing Femoral Tunnel Widening after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Backgrounds and objectives: A prevalent concern in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is postoperative tunnel widening. We hypothesized that employing a curved dilator system (CDS) for femoral tunnel creation can reduce this widening after ACL reconstruction compared to the use of a conventional rigid reamer. Materials and Methods: A retrospective study was conducted involving 56 patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction between January 2012 and July 2013. The patients were categorized into two groups: the reamer group (n = 28) and CDS group (n = 28). All participants were followed up for a minimum of 2 years. Clinical assessment included the Lachman test and pivot-shift test, and the Lysholm score and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee scores. Radiographic evaluation covered the tunnel widening rate, represented as the ratio of the tunnel diameter 2 years after surgery to the tunnel diameter immediately after surgery, and the ratio (A/B) of femoral tunnel (A) to tibial tunnel (B) diameters at respective time points. Results: No significant disparities were found between the two groups in terms of clinical outcomes. However, the reamer group exhibited a greater femoral tunnel widening rate compared to the CDS group (reamer group vs. CDS group: 142.7 ± 22.0% vs. 128.0 ± 19.0% on the anteroposterior (AP) radiograph and 140.8 ± 14.2% vs. 122.9 ± 13.4% on the lateral radiograph; all p < 0.05). Two years post-operation, the A/B ratio rose in the reamer group (0.96 ± 0.05→1.00 ± 0.05 on the AP radiograph and 0.94 ± 0.03→1.00 ± 0.0.04 on the lateral radiograph; all p < 0.05), while it decreased in the CDS group (0.99 ± 0.02→0.96 ± 0.05 on the AP radiograph and 0.97 ± 0.03→0.93 ± 0.06 on the lateral radiograph; all p < 0.05). Conclusion: The use of CDS for femoral tunnel creation in primary ACL reconstruction provides a potential advantage by limiting tunnel widening compared to the conventional rigid-reamer approach.

Comparison of Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes According to the Presence or Absence of a Posterior Draw Force during Graft Fixation in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Background and Objectives: A reduction forced toward the posterior side during graft fixation may help to lessen anterior tibial translation after ACL reconstruction. The purpose was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes of graft fixation when a posterior draw was used and when it was not used during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgery. Materials and Methods: Of 110 patients who had undergone primary arthroscopic ACL reconstruction between January 2017 and August 2020, in all, 76 patients had been operated on without a posterior draw (non-draw group), and 34 patients had received surgery with a posterior draw (draw group). The results of the Lachman test and the pivot-shift test, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) indexes, the Lysholm scores, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective scores, and side-to-side difference (STSD) on stress radiography were compared between the two groups. Results: The postoperative WOMAC indexes, Lysholm scores, and IKDC subjective scores were similar across both groups. Postoperative STSD (2.4 ± 2.2 for the non-draw group vs. 2.0 ± 2.2 for the draw group; p = 0.319) and change in STSD (3.5 ± 3.5 for preoperative STSD vs. 4.3 ± 4.4 for postoperative STSD; p = 0.295) were not superior in the draw group. Conclusions: The take-home message is that graft fixation with a posterior draw during ACL reconstruction did not result in significantly better postoperative stability. The postoperative clinical outcomes were similar between both groups.