Search

Background: Limited biomechanical data exist for dual small plate fixation of midshaft clavicle fractures, and no prior study has concurrently compared dual small plating to larger superior or anteroinferior single plate and screw constructs. Purpose: To biomechanically compare dual small orthogonal plating, superior plating, and anteroinferior plating of midshaft clavicle fractures by use of a cadaveric model. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: The study used 18 cadaveric clavicle specimens (9 pairs total), and 3 plating techniques were studied: anteroinferior, superior, and dual. The dual plating technique used smaller diameter plates and screws (1.6-mm thickness) than the other, single plate techniques (3.3-mm thickness). Each of the 9 clavicle pairs was randomly assigned a combination of 2 plating techniques, and randomization was used to determine which techniques were used for the right and left specimens. Clavicles were plated and then osteotomized to create an inferior butterfly fracture model, which was then fixed with a single interfragmentary screw. Clavicle specimens were then potted for mechanical testing. Initial bending, axial, and torsional stiffness of each construct was determined through use of a randomized nondestructive cyclic testing protocol followed by load to failure. Results: No significant differences were found in cyclical axial ( P = .667) or torsional ( P = .526) stiffness between plating groups. Anteroinferior plating demonstrated significantly higher cyclical bending stiffness than superior plating ( P = .005). No significant difference was found in bending stiffness between dual plating and either anteroinferior ( P = .129) or superior plating ( P = .067). No significant difference was noted in load to failure among plating methods ( P = .353). Conclusion: Dual plating with a smaller plate-screw construct is biomechanically similar to superior and anteroinferior single plate fixation that uses larger plate-screw constructs. No significant differences were found between dual plating and either superior or anteroinferior single plating in axial, bending, or torsional stiffness or in bending load to failure. Dual small plating is a viable option for fixing midshaft clavicle fractures and may be a useful low-profile technique that avoids a larger and more prominent plate-screw construct. Clinical Relevance: Plate prominence and hardware irritation are commonly reported complaints and reasons for revision surgery after plate fixation of midshaft clavicle fractures. Dual small plate fixation has been used to improve cosmetic acceptability, minimize hardware irritation, and decrease reoperation rate. Biomechanically, dual small plate fixation performed similarly to larger single plate fixation in this cadaveric model of butterfly fracture.

Background:Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and bone marrow concentrate (BMC) are orthobiologic therapies with numerous growth factors and other bioactive molecules. Before the clinical utility of PRP and BMC is optimized as a combined therapy or monotherapy, an improved understanding of the components and respective concentrations is necessary.Purpose:To prospectively measure and compare anabolic, anti-inflammatory, and proinflammatory growth factors, cytokines, and chemokines in bone marrow aspirate (BMA), BMC, whole blood, leukocyte-poor PRP (LP-PRP), and leukocyte-rich PRP (LR-PRP) from samples collected and processed concurrently on the same day from patients presenting for elective knee surgery.Study Design:Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:Patients presenting for elective knee surgery were prospectively enrolled over a 3-week period. Whole blood from peripheral venous draw and BMA from the posterior iliac crest were immediately processed via centrifugation and manual extraction methods to prepare LR-PRP, LP-PRP, and BMC samples, respectively. BMA, BMC, whole blood, LR-PRP, and LP-PRP samples were immediately assayed and analyzed to measure protein concentrations.Results:BMC had a significantly higher interleukin 1 receptor antagonist (IL-1Ra) concentration than all other preparations (all P < .0009). LR-PRP also had a significantly higher IL-1Ra concentration than LP-PRP ( P = .0006). There were no significant differences in IL-1Ra concentration based on age, sex, body mass index, or chronicity of injury in all preparations. LR-PRP had significantly higher concentrations of platelet-derived growth factor AA (PDGF-AA) and PDGF-AB/BB than all other preparations (all P < .0006). LR-PRP also had significantly higher concentrations of matrix metalloproteinase 1 (MMP-1) and soluble CD40 ligand than all other preparations (all P < .004). LP-PRP had significantly higher concentrations of MMPs, namely MMP-2, MMP-3, and MMP-12, than all other preparations (all P < .007).Conclusion:BMC is a clinically relevant source of anti-inflammatory biologic therapy that may be more effective in treating osteoarthritis and for use as an intra-articular biologic source for augmented healing in the postsurgical inflammatory and healing phases, owing to its significantly higher concentration of IL-1Ra as compared with LR-PRP and LP-PRP. Additionally, LR-PRP had a significantly higher concentration of IL-1Ra than LP-PRP. In cases where increased vascularity and healing are desired for pathological or injured tissues, including muscle and tendon, LR-PRP may be optimal given its higher overall concentrations of PDGF, TGF-β, EGF, VEGF, and soluble CD40 ligand.

Acromioclavicular (AC) joint injuries are a common cause of shoulder pain, particularly among young athletes participating in contact sports. Injuries to the AC joint most commonly occur from direct impact at the acromion and are classified as types I to VI. Although most AC joint injuries can be treated nonoperatively, types IV to VI are best treated with surgery, with type III being controversial and most surgeons recommending an initial trial of nonoperative treatment. Although numerous surgical techniques have been described, no gold standard technique has been established. Biomechanical testing suggests that anatomic reconstruction of both the AC and coracoclavicular ligaments results in a superior surgical construct. The objective of this Technical Note is to describe our preferred technique for the primary treatment of AC joint instability in the acute and chronic setting. Using 2 free tendon grafts in combination with a cortical button suspensory device combines the advantages of a nonrigid biologic and anatomic AC and coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction while benefiting from the strength of a cortical suspensory device in resisting displacement of the AC joint. © 2018 Arthroscopy Association of North America

Anterior shoulder instability often results from avulsion of the anterior inferior glenohumeral ligament (aIGHL) off its insertion on the glenoid, yielding a Bankart lesion. Although less common, avulsion of the ligament attachment to the humerus results in a humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament (HAGL) lesion. Combined Bankart and HAGL lesions, also termed the “floating aIGHL,” create a complex pathology that is not detailed significantly in the literature. We believe a mini-open approach is a viable and reproducible procedure for treatment because it allows for protection of the axillary nerve and other neurovascular structures while providing optimal exposure to both the humeral insertion site of the distal aIGHL and the Bankart lesion, ensuring anatomic restoration. The purpose of this Technical Note is to describe our preferred technique to surgically treat the floating aIGHL, consisting of an anterior HAGL and concomitant Bankart lesion repair through a mini-open approach.

To assess patient history, physical examination findings, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and 3-dimensional computed tomographic (3D CT) measurements of those with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft failure compared with primary ACL tear patients to better discern risk factors for ACL graft failure.We performed a retrospective review comparing patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction (ACLR) with a primary ACLR group with minimum 1-year follow-up. Preoperative history, examination, and imaging data were collected and compared. Measurements were made on MRI, plain radiographs, and 3D CT. Inclusion criteria were patients who underwent primary ACLR by a single surgeon at a single center with minimum 1-year follow-up or ACL graft failure with revision ACLR performed by the same surgeon.A total of 109 primary ACLR patients, mean age 33.7 years (range 15 to 71), enrolled between July 2016 and July 2018 and 90 revision ACLR patients, mean age 32.9 years (range 16 to 65), were included. The revision ACLR group had increased Beighton score (4 versus 0; P.001) and greater side-to-side differences in quadricep circumference (2 versus 0 cm; P.001) compared with the primary ACLR group. A family history of ACL tear was significantly more likely in the revision group (47.8% versus 16.5%; P.001). The revision group exhibited significantly increased lateral posterior tibial slope (7.9° versus 6.2°), anterolateral tibial subluxation (7.1 versus 4.9 mm), and anteromedial tibia subluxation (2.7 versus 0.5 mm; all P.005). In the revision group, femoral tunnel malposition occurred in 66.7% in the deep-shallow position and 33.3% in the high-low position. The rate of tibial tunnel malposition was 9.7% from medial to lateral and 54.2% from anterior to posterior. Fifty-six patients (77.8%) had tunnel malposition in ≥2 positions. Allograft tissue was used for the index ACLR in 28% in the revision group compared with 14.7% in the primary group.Beighton score, quadriceps circumference side-to-side difference, family history of ACL tear, lateral posterior tibial slope, anterolateral tibial subluxation, and anteromedial tibia subluxation were all significantly different between primary and revision ACLR groups. In addition, there was a high rate of tunnel malposition in the revision ACLR group.

To report the incidence of posterior medial meniscocapsular junction (PMCJ) separation in patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and to evaluate its biomechanical effect on the ACL.Three hundred thirty-seven consecutive patients undergoing isolated primary ACL reconstruction were retrospectively analyzed for PMCJ lesion. Forty-four patients were identified with PMCJ lesion and studied. Eight cadaver knees underwent biomechanical testing to determine anterior tibial displacement and anteromedial bundle ACL strain in the intact, PMCJ lesion, and PMCJ repair states at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of flexion. Mixed-effects linear regression with Bonferroni correction was used for statistical analysis.PMCJ tear incidence with ACL disruption was 13.1%. Specimen with PMCJ tears had statistically increased anterior tibial translation at 30° (1.2 mm; P0.01) and statistically increased ACL strain at 30° (24%; P0.01) and 90° (50%; P0.01). With PMCJ repair, translation reduced (P0.05) by 12%, 18%, and 10% at 0°, 30°, and 90° of flexion, respectively. PMCJ repair reduced (P0.05) ACL strain by 40%, 39%, 43%, and 31% at 0°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of flexion, respectively.A PMCJ lesion was observed in 13% of ACL injuries. This injury contributes to increased ACL strain, and PMCJ repair markedly reduces ACL strain to preinjury levels.

Rotator cuff tears are among the most common causes of pain and disability in the upper extremity. Despite significant advances in repair techniques and instrumentation, retear rates after surgery remain high. Numerous avenues of structural and biological augmentation have been explored to increase healing potential and achieve successful outcomes particularly in patients with massive cuff tears and those undergoing revision surgery. The purpose of this article is to present and discuss various techniques currently published that are designed to augment this process through variable methodologies. A common methodology is the use of graft tissue to “load share” with the repair or facilitate placement of pluripotential stem cell or growth factors at the site of needed healing or both. Although this field remains in development, this article attempts to explain the concepts currently employed and summarize the current Food and Drug Administration–approved options.

Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is a condition in which subtle deformities of the femoral head and acetabulum (hip socket) result in pathological abutment during hip motion. FAI is a common cause of hip pain and can lead to acetabular cartilage damage and osteoarthritis. For some patients with FAI, surgical intervention is indicated, and it can improve quality of life and potentially delay the onset of osteoarthritis. For other patients, however, surgery is contraindicated because significant cartilage damage has already occurred. Unfortunately, current imaging modalities (X-rays and conventional MRI) are subjective and lack the sensitivity to distinguish these two groups reliably. In this paper, we describe the pairing of T2* mapping data (an investigational, objective MRI sequence) and a spatial proportional odds model for surgically obtained ordinal outcomes (Beck's scale of cartilage damage). Each hip in the study is assigned its own spatial dependence parameter, and a Dirichlet process prior distribution permits clustering of said parameters. Using the fitted model, we produce a six-color, patient-specific predictive map of the entire acetabular cartilage. Such maps will facilitate patient education and clinical decision making., final draft, peerReviewed

Background: The clock-face method to identify the femoral posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) attachment has poor accuracy and reproducibility. Measurements of clinically relevant anatomic structures would provide more useful surgical guidance. The purpose of the present study was to describe the attachments of the anterolateral and posteromedial bundles of the PCL relative to relevant landmarks to assist with arthroscopic anatomic PCL reconstructions. Methods: Dissections were performed on twenty nonpaired fresh-frozen cadaveric knees. Results: The distal articular cartilage margin of the intercondylar notch had a consistent shape conforming to the attachments of the anterolateral and posteromedial bundles. The mean distance (and standard deviation) between the femoral centers of the anterolateral and posteromedial bundles was 12.1 ± 1.3 mm. The distal margins of the anterolateral and posteromedial bundles were a mean of 1.5 ± 0.8 mm and 5.8 ± 1.7 mm proximal to the notch articular cartilage, respectively. On the tibia, the lateral plateau articular cartilage, the medial meniscus attachment, and an osseous ridge (‘‘bundle ridge’’) separating the anterolateral and posteromedial bundles were important arthroscopic landmarks. The mean distance between the tibial centers of the anterolateral and posteromedial bundles was 8.9 ± 1.2 mm. Conclusions: The pertinent landmarks identified during arthroscopic PCL reconstruction consistently marked the borders of the attachments of the anterolateral and posteromedial bundles. To guide femoral tunnel placement, the centers of both bundles should be triangulated relative to the reported landmarks. Furthermore, the distal edge of the femoral anterolateral bundle should be placed adjacent to the articular cartilage, whereas the posteromedial bundle should be centered, on average, 8.6 mm proximal to the cartilage margin, just distal to the medial intercondylar ridge. On the tibia, the PCL tunnel should be placed just anterosuperior to the bundle ridge, with use of the lateral articular cartilage and medial meniscus attachment to guide placement. Clinical Relevance: The results of the present study can assist with more anatomic tunnel placement during single and double-bundle PCL reconstructions. The results also suggest that two reconstruction tunnels are needed to reconstruct the broad femoral attachment, whereas one reconstruction tunnel should be investigated further for the compact tibial attachment.

Background: Currently in double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions, the range of knee flexion angles that surgeons use for anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL) bundle graft fixation spans from 0° to 90° for both bundle grafts. Despite the recent popularity of this procedure, no consensus exists on an optimal set of AM and PL graft fixation angles. Hypothesis: Graft fixation angles that simulate the native tensioning relationship of the AM and PL bundles will produce kinematic results similar to the intact knee, while graft fixation angles that do not simulate this relationship will under- or overconstrain the knee. Study design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Twelve cadaveric knees were biomechanically tested in the intact state, ACL-sectioned state, and a randomized order of 7 double-bundle ACL reconstructed states at multiple graft fixation angle combinations. For each test state, data were collected for 88 N anterior tibial loads, 10 N·m valgus torques, 5 N·m internal rotation torques, and 2 simulated pivot shift loads consisting of a 5 N·m internal rotation torque coupled with either a 10 N·m valgus torque or an 88 N anterior tibial load at 0°, 20°, 30°, 60°, and 90° of knee flexion. Results: The AM and PL graft fixation angle combinations of 0°/0° (AM graft fixation angle/PL graft fixation angle), 60°/0°, 45°/15°, and 75°/15° restored normal laxity to the reconstructed knee in all of the biomechanical tests. The 30°/30°, 60°/60°, and 90°/90° graft fixation angle combinations significantly restricted knee laxity compared with the intact state in various biomechanical tests. Conclusion: We found that as long as the PL bundle graft was fixed between 0° and 15°, the AM graft could be fixed up to 75° without restricting knee laxity. However, fixation of the PL graft at 30° of knee flexion and above significantly overconstrained the knee. Clinical Relevance: This study provides a range of angles that can be used in double-bundle ACL reconstructions to restore normal knee stability without causing overconstraint.

Background: Studies have reported methods for radiographically delineating medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) femoral tunnel position on a true lateral knee radiograph. However, obtaining a true lateral fluoroscopic radiograph intraoperatively can be challenging, rendering radiographic methods for tunnel positioning potentially inaccurate. Purpose: To quantify the magnitude of MPFL femoral tunnel malposition that occurs on true lateral and aberrant lateral knee radiographs when using a previously reported radiographic technique for MPFL femoral tunnel localization. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: Ten fresh-frozen cadaveric knees were dissected to expose the MPFL femoral insertion and surrounding medial knee anatomy. True lateral and aberrant lateral knee radiographs at 2.5°, 5°, and 10° off-axis were obtained with a standard mini C-arm in 4 orientations: anterior to posterior, posterior to anterior, caudal, and cephalad. A previously reported radiographic method for MPFL femoral localization was performed on all radiographs and compared in reference to the anatomic MPFL attachment center. Results: The radiographic point, as previously described, was a mean distance of 4.1 mm from the anatomic MPFL attachment on a true lateral knee radiograph. The distance between the anatomic MPFL attachment center and the radiographic point significantly increased on aberrant lateral knee radiographs with as little as 5° of rotational error in 3 of 4 orientations of rotation when a standard mini C-arm was used. This corresponded to a malposition of 7.5, 9.2, and 8.1 mm on 5°-aberrant radiographs in the anterior-posterior, posterior-anterior, and cephalad orientations, respectively ( P < .005). In the same 3 orientations of rotation, MPFL tunnel malposition on the femur exceeded 5 mm on 2.5° aberrant radiographs. Conclusion: The commonly utilized radiographic point, as previously described for MPFL femoral tunnel placement, results in inaccurate tunnel localization on a true lateral radiograph, and this inaccuracy is perpetuated with aberrant radiography. Aberrant lateral knee imaging of as little as 5° off-axis from true lateral has a significant effect on placement of a commonly used radiographic point relative to the anatomic MPFL femoral attachment center and results in nonanatomic MPFL tunnel placement. Clinical Relevance: This study demonstrates that radiographic localization of the MPFL femoral tunnel results in inaccurate tunnel placement on a true lateral radiograph, particularly when there is deviation from a true lateral fluoroscopic image, which can be difficult to obtain intraoperatively. Assessing anatomy directly intraoperatively, rather than relying solely on radiographs, may help avoid MPFL tunnel malposition.

Purpose To conduct a systematic review of the literature in relation to 3 considerations in determining treatment options for patients with acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocations: (1) operative versus nonoperative management, (2) early versus delayed surgical intervention, and (3) anatomic versus nonanatomic techniques. Methods The PubMed database was searched in October 2011 using the single term acromioclavicular and the following search limits: any date, humans, English , and all adult (19+). Studies were included if they compared operative with nonoperative treatment, early with delayed surgical intervention, or anatomic with nonanatomic surgical techniques. Exclusion criteria consisted of the following: Level V evidence, laboratory studies, radiographic studies, biomechanical studies, fractures or revisions, meta-analyses, and studies reporting preliminary results. Results This query resulted in 821 citations. Of these, 617 were excluded based on the title of the study. The abstracts and articles were reviewed, which resulted in the final group of 20 studies that consisted of 14 comparing operative with nonoperative treatment, 4 comparing early with delayed surgical intervention, and 2 comparing anatomic with nonanatomic surgical techniques. The lack of higher level evidence prompted review of previously excluded studies in an effort to explore patterns of publication related to operative treatment of the AC joint. This review identified 120 studies describing 162 techniques for operative reconstruction of the AC joint. Conclusions There is a lack of evidence to support treatment options for patients with AC joint dislocations. Although there is a general consensus for nonoperative treatment of Rockwood type I and II lesions, initial nonsurgical treatment of type III lesions, and operative intervention for Rockwood type IV to VI lesions, further research is needed to determine if differences exist regarding early versus delayed surgical intervention and anatomic versus nonanatomic surgical techniques in the treatment of patients with AC joint dislocations. Level of Evidence Level III, systematic review of Level II and Level III studies and one case series.

Background: Quantification of the overall anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and anteromedial (AM) and posterolateral (PL) bundle centers in respect to arthroscopically pertinent bony and soft tissue landmarks has not been thoroughly assessed. Hypothesis: A standardized anatomical measurement method can quantitate the locations of the ACL and AM and PL bundle centers in reference to each other and anatomical landmarks. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: Quantification of the ACL and its bundle attachments was performed on 11 cadaveric knees using a radio frequency-tracking device. Results: The tibial ACL attachment center was 7.5 mm medial to the anterior horn of the lateral meniscus, 13.0 mm anterior to the retro-eminence ridge, and 10.5 mm posterior to the ACL ridge. The femoral ACL attachment center was 1.7 mm proximal to the bifurcate ridge and 6.1 mm posterior to the lateral intercondylar ridge. The tibial AM attachment center was 8.3 mm medial to the anteromedial aspect of the lateral meniscus anterior horn, 17.8 mm anterior to the retro-eminence ridge, and 5.6 mm posterior to the ACL ridge. The femoral AM attachment center was 4.8 mm proximal to the bifurcate ridge and 7.1 mm posterior to the lateral intercondylar ridge. The tibial PL bundle attachment center was 6.6 mm medial to the posteromedial aspect of the lateral meniscus anterior horn, 10.8 mm anteromedial to the root attachment of the lateral meniscus posterior horn, and 8.4 mm anterior to the retro-eminence ridge. The femoral PL bundle attachment center was 5.2 mm distal to the bifurcate ridge and 3.6 mm posterior to the lateral intercondylar ridge. Conclusion: The authors developed a comprehensive compilation of measurements of arthroscopically pertinent bony and soft tissue landmarks that quantitate the ACL and its individual bundle attachment centers on the tibia and femur. Clinical Relevance: These clinically relevant arthroscopic landmarks may enhance single- and double-bundle ACL reconstructions through improved tunnel placement.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to establish quantitative and qualitative radiographic landmarks for identifying the femoral and tibial attachment sites of the AM and PL bundles of the native ACL and to assess the reproducibility of identification of these landmarks using intraclass correlation coefficients. It was hypothesized that the radiographic positions of the AM and PL bundles could be defined in relation to anatomic landmarks and radiographic reference lines. Methods The femoral and tibial attachment sites of the AM and PL bundles on twelve cadaveric knees were labeled with radio-opaque markers. The positions of the AM and PL bundle attachment sites were quantified on radiographs by three independent examiners. Results On the lateral femoral view, the AM bundle was located at 21.6 ± 5.6% of the sagittal diameter of the femur drawn along Blumensaat’s line and 14.2 ± 7.7% distal to the notch roof along the maximum notch height. The PL bundle was located at 28.9 ± 4.6% of the sagittal diameter and 42.3 ± 6.0% of the notch height. The knee flexion angle at which the AM and PL bundle attachment sites were horizontally oriented was 115 ± 7.1. On the tibial AP view, the AM and PL bundles were located at 44.2 ± 3.4 and 50.1 ± 2.1%, respectively, from the medial aspect of the tibia along its coronal diameter. On the lateral view, the distances from the AM and PL bundles to the anterior tibial margin measured along the tibial sagittal diameter were 36.3 ± 3.8 and 51.0 ± 4.0%, respectively. The center of the PL bundle attachment was located almost precisely at the center of the tibial plateau in both the coronal and sagittal planes. Conclusions This study defines the radiographic locations of the femoral and tibial bundle attachment sites of the native ACL and a reliable and transferrable protocol for identifying these sites on radiographs in relation to surrounding landmarks and digitally projected reference lines. In addition, it was found that the femoral attachments of the AM and PL bundles were horizontally aligned at 115 of knee flexion and the PL bundle tibial attachment was located essentially at the center of the tibia.