Search

Purpose: To determine whether there was a relationship between sleep position and symptomatic partial- and full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Methods: A consecutive series of patients that met the inclusion/exclusion criteria (n = 58) were in seen in clinic between July 2019 and December 2019. All of these individuals had a significant partial-thickness (> 50%) or full-thickness rotator cuff tear determined by either ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, or both. All patients in this series either had an insidious onset of shoulder pain or their symptoms were related to the basic wear and tear of daily activities. Traumatic rotator cuff tears (those associated with a significant traumatic event such as shoulder instability, motor vehicle accidents, sports related injuries, etc.) were excluded. Previous shoulder surgery, recurrent rotator cuff tears, and worker’s compensation cases also were excluded from this series. As part of the history-taking process, the patients were asked what was their preferred sleeping position—side sleeper, back sleeper, or stomach sleeper. A χ2 test was conducted to determine the relationship between rotator cuff pathology and sleep position. Results: Of the 58 subjects, 52 of the patients were side sleepers, 4 were stomach sleepers, 1 was a back sleeper, and 1 preferred all 3 positions. Statistical analysis, using the χ2 test (P < .0001), demonstrated that rotator cuff tears were most often seen in side sleepers. Conclusions: In our study, there appeared to be a relationship between the preference of being a side sleeper and the presence of a rotator cuff tear. Level of Evidence: Level IV, prognostic case series.

Purpose: To compare functional outcomes and failure rates between medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstructions with and without lateral retinacular release (LRR) at minimum 1-year follow up. Methods: A retrospective review identified consecutive patients from 2013 to 2019 at a single center who met all of the following inclusion criteria: at least 1 confirmed patellar dislocation, patellar tilt (evidenced by tight retinaculum on operative examination or patellar tilt on radiographs), underwent either MPFL reconstruction alone or combined with LRR, had available preoperative documentation and imaging, and were at least 1 year out of surgery. Patients were excluded if they had previous surgery to the ipsilateral limb or had any concomitant procedure performed. Demographics and preoperative imaging were evaluated. Failure rates and functional outcome scores were obtained including Kujala, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, International Knee Documentation Committee, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores. Clinical failure was defined as revision MPFL reconstruction on the affected knee or at least 1 instance of postoperative patellar dislocation. Results: A total of 18 patients underwent isolated MPFL reconstruction (mean follow-up = 29.3 ± 8.3 months, range = 15.1-42.8 months), and 31 underwent MPFL reconstruction combined with LRR (mean follow up = 36.0 ± 11.3 months, range = 14.0-51.9 months). At final follow-up, there were no statistical differences between the isolated MPFL and MPFL combined with LRR cohorts for any of the functional outcome scores (P > .05 for all). At the time of final follow-up, no patients who underwent isolated MPFL and 19.3% (n = 6) or patients undergoing MPFL combined with LRR experienced clinical failure (P = .073), as defined by subsequent patellar dislocation or revision MPFL reconstruction. Of these, 2 patients underwent revision MPFL reconstructions with distal tubercle transfer for borderline abnormal TT:TG (i.e., >15 mm). Conclusions: MPFL reconstruction surgery combined with LRR failed to demonstrate significantly different functional outcome scores and failure rates compared with isolated MPFL reconstruction at minimum 1-year follow up. In addition, there were no differences in rates of achieving MCID between both groups Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Purpose: To evaluate clinical outcomes of the contralateral, nonoperative limb in patients undergoing contralateral hamstring (HS) autograft harvest compared with patients undergoing ipsilateral HS autograft harvest alone. Methods: This study included 96 patients who underwent isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using 4-stranded HS autograft (n = 85) or 4-stranded HS autograft augmented with contralateral HS (n = 13) due to inclusion of ipsilateral graft diameter

Purpose: To identify the risk of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) femoral tunnel penetration with the use of a staple for lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) graft fixation and to determine whether this varied between 2 different techniques for ACL femoral tunnel drilling. Methods: Twenty paired, fresh-frozen, cadaver knees underwent ACL reconstruction with a LET. Left and right knees were randomized to ACL reconstruction with femoral tunnel creation by use of either a rigid guide pin and reamer through the accessory anteromedial portal or by the use of a flexible guide pin and reamer through the anteromedial portal. Immediately after tunnel creation, the LET was performed and fixated with a small Richard’s staple. Fluoroscopy was used to obtain a lateral view of the knee to determine staple position, and visualization of the ACL femoral tunnel was performed with the arthroscope to investigate penetration of the staple into the femoral tunnel. The Fisher exact test was conducted to determine whether there was any difference in tunnel penetration between tunnel creation techniques. Results: The staple was noted to penetrate the ACL femoral tunnel in 8 of 20 (40%) extremities. When stratified by tunnel creation technique, the Richards staple violated 5 of 10 (50%) of the tunnels made via the rigid reaming technique compared with 3 of 10 (30%) of those created with a flexible guide pin and reamer (P = .65). Conclusions: A high incidence of femoral tunnel violation is seen with lateral extra-articular tenodesis staple fixation. Level of Evidence: Level IV, controlled laboratory study. Clinical Relevance: The risk of penetrating the ACL femoral tunnel with a staple for LET graft fixation is not well understood. Yet, the integrity of the femoral tunnel is important for the success of ACL reconstruction. Surgeons can use the information in this study to consider adjustments to operative technique, sequence, or fixation devices used when performing ACL reconstruction with concomitant LET to avoid the potential for disruption of ACL graft fixation.

Purpose: To systematically review the literature to examine current understanding of the meniscofemoral ligaments (MFLs), their function, their importance in clinical management, and known anatomical variants. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Studies were included if they reported on the biomechanical, radiographic, or arthroscopic evaluation of human MFLs, or if they reported on an anatomical variant. These were then categorized as cadaveric, radiographic, or clinical. Biomechanical, radiographic, patient-reported, and functional outcomes data were recorded. Results: Forty-seven studies were included in the qualitative analysis, and 26 of them were included in the quantitative analysis. Of these, there were 15 cadaveric, 3 arthroscopic, and 9 radiographic studies that reported on the prevalence of MFLs. Overall, when looking at all modalities, the presence of either the anterior or posterior MFL (aMFL, pMFL) has been noted to be 70.8%, with it being the aMFL 17.4% and the pMFL 40.6%. The presence of both ligaments occurs in approximately 17.6% of individuals. Eleven reported on mean MFL length and thickness. When evaluating mean length in both men and women, the aMFL has been reported between 21.6 and 28.3 mm and the pMFL length in this population is between 23.4 and 31.2 mm. Five reported on cross-sectional area. Nine additional papers report anatomical variants. Conclusions: This review shows that there continues to be a variable incidence of MFLs reported in the literature, but our understanding of their function continues to broaden. A growing number of anatomic and biomechanical studies have demonstrated the importance of the MFLs in supporting knee stability. Specifically, the MFLs serve an important role in protecting the lateral meniscus and augmenting the function of the posterior cruciate ligament. Clinical Relevance: Our findings will aid the clinician in both identifying and treating pathologies of the meniscofemoral ligaments.

Purpose: To quantify intraoperative joint space widening afforded by the outside-in, percutaneous release of the medial collateral ligament (MCL) and to evaluate its impact on medial compartment width and functional outcomes at 6-week follow-up for patients undergoing a partial medial meniscectomy without postoperative bracing. Methods: Patients with posteromedial meniscus tears and no evidence of ipsilateral knee pathology, undergoing partial medial meniscectomy, were enrolled. Intraoperatively, medial compartment width was quantified with fluoroscopy before and after the percutaneous MCL release with an 18-gauge spinal needle proximal to the joint line. At 6-week follow-up, valgus stress radiographs re-evaluated medial compartment width. International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores were completed preoperatively and at 6-week follow-up to evaluate functional outcomes. A paired sample t test performed at a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to compare these variables. Results: Forty-two patients, mean (± standard deviation) age 55.3 ± 10.7 years, were available for analysis of intraoperative medial compartment widening. Medial compartment width increased from 5.95 ± 1.32 to 11.09 ± 1.74 mm intraoperatively after MCL release. At 6-week follow-up, radiographic assessment demonstrated a mean medial compartment width of 5.85 ± .99 mm, which represented an insignificant change compared with the preoperative value (CI –0.68 to .33, P = .474). PROMIS and IKDC scores significantly improved from baseline, with increases of 6.9 ± 12.4 (CI 2.0 to 11.8, P = .008) and 11.7 ± 17.8 (CI 4.7 to 18.8, P = .002), respectively. Conclusions: Percutaneous MCL release during knee arthroscopy improves visualization and facilitates instrumentation by providing an almost 2× wider working space within the medial tibiofemoral joint. In this study, the performance of percutaneous MCL release did not result in any complications. Radiographic and clinical resolution of iatrogenic laxity was demonstrated by 6-weeks postoperatively, without the use of postoperative bracing. Level of Evidence: IV, therapeutic case series.

Purpose: To determine whether range of motion (ROM) varies with the location and extent of labral tear seen in patients undergoing arthroscopic anterior shoulder stabilization. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing arthroscopic anterior shoulder stabilization who were enrolled in the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network Shoulder Instability database underwent a preoperative physical examination and intraoperative examination under anesthesia in which ROM was recorded. Intraoperatively, the location and extent of the labral tear was recorded using conventional clock-face coordinates. Patients were grouped by combinations of quadrants involved in the labral tear (G1-G7): G1 = anterior only, G2 = anterior + inferior, G3 = anterior + inferior + posterior, G4 = all quadrants, G5 = superior + anterior, G6 = superior + anterior + inferior, and G7 = posterior + superior + anterior. Statistical analyses were performed with the Kruskal–Wallis rank-sum test. When P < .05, a post-hoc Dunn’s test was performed. For categorical variables, the χ2 test was performed. We performed a series of bivariate negative binomial regression models testing pairwise combinations of ROM parameters predicting the count of labral tear locations (possible: 0-5) within each quadrant. Results: A total of 467 patients were included, with 13 (2.8%) in G1, 221 (47.3%) in G2, 40 (8.6%) in G3, 51 (10.9%) in G4, 18 (3.9%) in G5, 121 (25.9%) in G6, and 3 (0.6%) in G7. Multiple statistically significant differences were noted in ROM, specifically active internal rotation at side (IRS) (P = .005), active abduction (P = .02), passive IRS (P = .02), and passive external rotation in abduction (P = .0007). Regression modeling revealed a positive correlation between passive abduction and predicted count of labral tear locations in the superior quadrant and between passive IRS and predicted count of labral tear location in the inferior quadrant. Conclusions: In patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder stabilization for anterior instability, ROM varies with location and extent of labral tear. However, the clinical relevance of such small ROM differences remains undetermined. Level of evidence: II, prospective comparative study.

Purpose: Standing radiographs are commonly used to plan angular correction in valgus tibial osteotomy for varus gonarthrosis. Most clinical studies have reported postoperative alignment as overall averages or means. The purpose of this study was to compare the preoperatively planned angle of correction measured on weight-bearing radiographs to the follow-up angle measured on weightbearing radiographs in individual patients 6 weeks after surgery and to analyze factors that could potentially affect achieving the planned degree of surgical correction. Our objective was to analyze factors potentially affecting the accuracy and ability to achieve the preoperatively planned correction angle (the target angle) in the individual patient. Methods: We studied 35 tibial osteotomies (13 Coventry closing wedge osteotomies and 22 Maquet barrel vault osteotomies) performed for varus gonarthrosis between 1981 and 2019 to determine how accurately the target angle, based on preoperative standing weight-bearing radiographs, was achieved according to the postoperative radiographs in each individual. We reviewed 35 knees in 34 patients who had complete pre- and postoperative radiographs for review. Results: Overall, only 14 of 35 (40%) of the patients were corrected to within ± 2° of the planned target angle. Valgus tibial osteotomy based on preoperative weightbearing radiographs is unpredictable in its ability to achieve the target angle on postoperative weightbearing radiographs when using either the Coventry or the Maquet surgical technique. The tendency was to undercorrect with either of the techniques. Larger (greater than 10°) preoperative varus alignment did not make it more difficult to achieve the target angle. Male or female sex and body mass index had no effect on the ability to achieve the target angle. Conclusions: Valgus tibial osteotomy planning based on preoperative weightbearing is unpredictable in its ability to achieve the target angle on postoperative weightbearing radiographs. Overall, only 40% of our patients were corrected to within ± 2° of the planned target angle. The tendency was to undercorrect, with either the Coventry or the Maquet technique. Contrary to our hypothesis, larger preoperative varus alignment (greater than 10°) did not make it more difficult to achieve the target angle. The Coventry technique was as accurate as the Maquet technique. Level of Evidence: Level IV.