(iii) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction – evolution and current concepts

Latin American formal consensus on the appropriate indications of extra-articular lateral procedures in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

OBJECTIVES

To create a practice guideline for the appropriate indications of an extra-articular procedure in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

METHODS

The formal consensus method described by the Haute Autorité de Santé was used. The Latin American Society of Arthroscopy, Articular Replacement, and Sports Injuries (SLARD) recruited three groups of experts on ACLR. Initially, the steering group, consisting of eight surgeons, performed a systematic review of the literature and elaborated on 192 scenarios for primary ACLR. The rating group, composed of 23 surgeons, rated each scenario in two rounds, with an in-between in-person meeting for discussion. Median scores and agreement levels were estimated to classify each scenario as inappropriate, uncertain or appropriate for adding anterolateral reconstruction. Finally, the lecture group, consisting of 10 surgeons, revised each stage of the method, results and interpretation.

RESULTS

Of the scenarios, 11.97% were rated as appropriate for adding an extra-articular lateral procedure, 7.81% as inappropriate and 80.21% as uncertain. The key recommendations for the addition of extra-articular lateral techniques were as follows: it is appropriate when the patient is under 25 years of age, has high-grade physical examination findings, practises a pivoting sport and has hyperlaxity; meanwhile, it is inappropriate when the patient has low-grade physical examination findings, has normal laxity and does not practise a pivoting sport.

CONCLUSIONS

The appropriate indications of extra-articular lateral procedures in primary ACLR were determined on the basis of the best available evidence and expert opinion following a formal consensus method.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

V.

Early cost estimating model for new bioabsorbable orthopedic implant candidates: A theoretical study

An early health technology assessment (HTA) study was performed to assess the need for developing a new bioabsorbable implant for the treatment of specific orthopedic injuries. The Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction (ACLR) procedure was selected based on the need and potential impact of bioabsorbable implants in the treatment of ACL injuries. The economic model considers the possible health events after an ACLR (failures and other complications such as stiffness and pain). A decision tree approach was used, and several sensitivity analyses were performed using a Monte Carlo simulation. A cost estimating model was applied comparatively for currently available metal and bioabsorbable implants against a potential new bioabsorbable implant with improved performance. A reduction in stiffness and pain symptoms were considered as targets for these new implants performance, with reduced inflammation resulting from the use of materials with appropriate biological and mechanical properties. The current study estimates that, under the assumptions made, the introduction of a new bioabsorbable implant in ACLR surgeries may generate yearly cost savings. The model estimates positive cost-benefits of the new implant when it reduces the probability of failure by more than 30%, or reduces at least 14% the probability of complications of an inflammatory nature. The development of a new bioabsorbable orthopedic implant for ACLR is encouraged by this study identifying the need for new bioabsorbable implants with improved biological and mechanical performance. The results of this early HTA have made it possible to anticipate design needs and objectives for the research and development of new orthopedic bioabsorbable implants.

Mid-bundle positioning of the femoral socket increases graft rupture in anatomic single bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions are superior to non-anatomic graft placements with regard to controlling rotational laxity. Different techniques of anatomic single-bundle reconstruction exist. The femoral tunnel may be placed in a mid-bundle position (MB) or within the anteromedial bundle footprint (AM) with no definitive consensus as to the preferred position. Our institution, reflecting trends in surgical practice, has experience with both techniques.

METHODS

Interrogation of our prospectively maintained database yielded all primary ACL reconstructions performed using the anatomic TransLateral single-bundle all-inside technique. A two year minimum follow-up was set. The failure rate of the MB and AM cohorts was compared as a primary outcome. Patient-reported outcomes across cohorts at several time-points were analysed as a secondary outcome.

RESULTS

Two hundred and seventy-nine primary ACL reconstructions were identified at a median follow-up of 49 months. MB positioning was utilised in 113 cases (40.5%) and AM positioning in 166 (59.5%). There were significantly more failures in the MB cohort (p = 0.029). Logistic regression revealed mid-bundle femoral positioning was associated with greater than fourfold increase in graft failure (odds ratio 4.14, p = 0.039).

CONCLUSION

Data from this case series suggests that amongst anatomic single-bundle ACL reconstructions, grafts with a mid-bundle femoral tunnel are more than four times more likely to fail versus those with a femoral tunnel placed four millimetres deeper within the anteromedial bundle footprint.

The Anatomic Centers of the Femoral and Tibial Insertions of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament: A Systematic Review of Imaging and Cadaveric Studies Reporting Normal Center Locations

BACKGROUND

The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is regularly reconstructed if knee joint function is impaired. Anatomic graft tunnel placement, often assessed with varying measurement methods, in the femur and tibia is considered important for an optimal clinical outcome. A consensus on the exact location of the femoral and tibial footprint centers is lacking.

PURPOSE

To systematically review the literature regarding anatomic centers of the femoral and tibial ACL footprints and assess the mean, median, and percentiles of normal centers.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in the PubMed/Medline database in November 2015. Search terms were the following: "ACL" and "insertion anatomy" or "anatomic footprint" or "radiographic landmarks" or "quadrant methods" or "tunnel placement" or "cadaveric femoral" or "cadaveric tibial." English-language articles that reported the location of the ACL footprint according to the Bernard and Hertel grid in the femur and the Stäubli and Rauschning method in the tibia were included. Weighted means, weighted medians, and weighted 5th and 95th percentiles were calculated.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 1393 articles. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 16 studies with measurements on cadaveric specimens or a healthy population were reviewed. The weighted mean of the femoral insertion center based on measurements in 218 knees was 29% in the deep-shallow (DS) direction and 35% in the high-low (HL) direction. The weighted median was 26% for DS and 34% for HL. The weighted 5th and 95th percentiles for DS were 24% and 37%, respectively, and for HL were 28% and 43%, respectively. The weighted mean of the tibial insertion center in the anterior-posterior direction based on measurements in 300 knees was 42%, and the weighted median was 44%; the 5th and 95th percentiles were 39% and 46%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Our results show slight differences between the weighted means and medians in the femoral and tibial insertion centers. We recommend the use of the 5th and 95th percentiles when considering postoperative placement to be "in or out of the anatomic range."

Surgical Adjustment of the Guide Pin to Perform a Correct Tibial Tunnel in Anatomical Anterior Cruciate Ligament Single-Bundle Reconstruction

Anatomical positioning of the graft in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is important to restore normal knee kinematics and prevent early joint degeneration. Inadequate position of a first attempt to place the guide pin within the center of the tibial footprint may occur. Therefore, its adjustment is important to achieve the anatomical positioning of the graft within the tibial footprint. When the guide pin exits eccentrically in an inadequate position, it is possible to correct it to the center of the footprint. A small tunnel with a 4.5-mm reamer is made and the guide pin is shifted to the center of the footprint. The center of the tunnel can be corrected until 50% and in all direction in relation to the initial drilled tunnel, without additional associated morbidity. Once the correct position of the center is achieved, the guide pin is fixed in the femoral notch roof to guarantee the accurate correction of the axis, without toggling of the guide pin inside the tunnel and metal dusting. The final tunnel is then drilled with the same size of the graft. With this technique it is possible to adjust an eccentrically misplaced guide pin to the center of the footprint without additional morbidity.