Introduction. Approximately 2,000 Skeletal transcutaneous osseointegration (STOI) procedures have been performed worldwide as of 2020, more than half of which have been performed by the Osseointegration Group of Australia using a press-fit technique with either ILP or OPL implant designs. Despite the consistently demonstrated clinical benefits, concerns regarding potential complications following STOI have slowed its widespread adoption. As more patients are followed for a longer period of time, longitudinal studies have confirmed complication rates are very acceptable, similar to those of total ankle and total elbow replacements. One of the major risk category is implant removal. The primary goal of this study was to investigate the complications and technical issues associated with transtibial osseointegration implant removal due to any cause. The focus here will be on the press-fit ILP and OPL implants, including the indications for removal and patient outcomes following removal. Materials & Methods. A review of our osseointegration registry between November 2010 and March 2022 was performed. Inclusion criteria were patients who have undergone removal of a transtibial osseointegration implant due to any cause. Selected patients either had a follow-up of at least two years or had their index osseointegration surgery at least two years prior to when the study was performed. Patients who have had osseointegration at other anatomic levels, and patients who underwent simultaneous total knee replacement with transtibial osseointegration were excluded from the registry search. Results. There were a total of 148 transtibial osseointegration procedures performed during the study period, with 97 (65.5%) performed in males and 51 (34.5%) performed in females. The average age at first stage osseointegration procedure is 50.4 years (range 16.8–87.9, SD 14.1). In the study cohort of 22 cases requiring implant removals, 12 (54.5%) were male and 10 (45.5%) were female. The average age at first stage osseointegration procedure in this cohort is 51.3 (range 37.4–82.6, SD 10.7) and average BMI 30.3 (range 21.9–40.9, SD 5.8). Although men comprised the majority of removals, women had a greater relative risk (Fisher exact test p=0.032). The average duration from time of STOI to removal was 2.6 years (range 0.1–6.8, SD 1.9) within this 11.5 year follow-up period. The most frequent indication was infection (54.6%, n=12) followed equally by pain (13.6%, n=3), aseptic loosening (13.6%, n=3) and implant fracture (13.6%, n=3), and lastly failure to integrate (4.6%, n=1). Conclusions. Of the 22 removals, 12 were reimplanted at the same anatomical level (10 were reimplanted within 6 months, 1 within 12 months, and 1 within 24 months). 11 of these cases currently wear their prosthetic legs for more than 13 hours daily. 1 case was recently reimplanted and still completing their loading program. Of the patients who were not reimplanted at the same anatomical level, 1 required proximal amputation with transfemoral osseointegration. 3 patients converted to traditional socket prostheses (TSP) due to pain, and 1 underwent proximal amputation and converted to TSP due to infection. 3 cases are currently awaiting transtibial osseointegration reimplantation, and 1 patient was deceased. 1 patient was lost to follow-up

Introduction. Osseointegration is a potential treatment option for transfemoral amputees experiencing socket related problems. Till this date, there is little data assessing the feasibility and advantages of osseointegration in individuals with transtibial amputations. Materials and Methods. We prospectively followed 91 patients undergoing transtibial osseointegration from 2014–2018 who either 1) reported pain or mobility dissatisfaction with socket prosthesis; 2) had an intact limb with incapacitating pain, complex deformity, or profound distal weakness or 3) were recent amputees preferring osseointegration. Adverse events were monitored including infection, periprosthetic fracture, implant breakage, aseptic loosening, revision surgery/additional amputation and death. Functional outcomes were measured using the Questionnaire of persons with a Trans-femoral amputation (Q-TFA) and mobility was assessed using Six Minute Walk Test (6MWT) and Time Up and Go (TUG). Results. Following osseointegration surgery, there was a significant increase in the Q-TFA global score, the 6MWT and the K-levels during follow-up. At one year following Osseointegration surgery, all patients were pain-free, the 11 patients who were wheelchair-bound prior to surgery were ambulatory, and the other 27 patient unable to walk prior to surgery, demonstrated improved mobility. There were 7 cases of implant removals due to pain and loosening and 10 cases of revisions within an average of 1.8 years, of which 1 was aseptic loosening, 6 due to infection, 1 failure to integrate and 2 implant fractures. No periprosthetic bone fractures occurred. Conclusions. Transtibial osseointegration results in improved functional outcomes after amputation. Complications are manageable and should decrease with surgical and implant improvements

Introduction. Transtibial osseointegration (TFOI) for amputees has limited but clear literature identifying superior quality of life and mobility versus a socketed prosthesis. Some amputees have knee arthritis that would be relieved by a total knee replacement (TKR). No other group has reported performing a TKR in association with TTOI (TKR+TTOI). We report the outcomes of nine patients who had TKR+TTOI, followed for an average 6.5 years. Materials & Methods. Our osseointegration registry was retrospectively reviewed to identify all patients who had TTOI and who also had TKR, performed at least two years prior. Four patients had TKR first the TTOI, four patients had simultaneous TKR+TTOI, and one patient had 1 OI first then TKR. All constructs were in continuity from hinged TKR to the prosthetic limb. Outcomes were: complications prompting surgical intervention, and changes in daily prosthesis wear hours, Questionnaire for Persons with a Transfemoral Amputation (QTFA), and Short Form 36 (SF36). All patients had clinical follow-up, but two patients did not have complete survey and mobility tests at both time periods. Results. Six (67%) were male, average age 51.2±14.7 years. All primary amputations were performed to manage traumatic injury or its sequelae. No patients died. Five patients (56%) developed infection leading to eventual transfemoral amputation 36.0±15.3 months later, and 1 patient had a single debridement six years after TTOI with no additional surgery in the subsequent two years. All patients who had transfemoral amputation elected for and received transfemoral osseointegration, and no infections occurred, although one patient sustained a periprosthetic fracture which was managed with internal fixation and implant retention and walks independently. The proportion of patients who wore their prosthesis at least 8 hours daily was 5/9=56%, versus 7/9=78% (p=.620). Even after proximal level amputation, the QTFA scores improved versus prior to TKR+TTOI, although not significantly: Global (45.2±20.3 vs 66.7±27.6, p=.179), Problem (39.8±19.8 vs 21.5±16.8, p=.205), Mobility (54.8±28.1 vs 67.7±25.0, p=.356). SF36 changes were also non-significant: Mental (58.6±7.0 vs 46.1±11.0, p=.068), Physical (34.3±6.1 vs 35.2±13.7, p=.904). Conclusions. TKR+TTOI presents a high risk for eventual infection prompting subsequent transfemoral amputation. Although none of these patients died, in general, TKR infection can lead to patient mortality. Given the exceptional benefit to preserving the knee joint to preserve amputee mobility and quality of life, it would be devastating to flatly force transtibial amputees with severe degenerative knee joint pain and unable to use a socket prosthesis to choose between TTOI but a painful knee, or preemptive transfemoral amputation for transfemoral osseointegration. Therefore, TTOI for patients who also request TKR must be considered cautiously. Given that this frequency of infection does not occur in patients who have total hip replacement in association with transfemoral osseointegration, the underlying issue may not be that linked joint replacement with osseointegrated limb replacement is incompatible, but may require further consideration of biological barriers to ascending infection and/or significant changes to implant design, surgical technique, or other yet-uncertain factors

Introduction: Drilling of the femoral bone tunnel in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction may be performed in a transtibial drilling technique or via the anteromedial portal. Purpose: To determine the accuracy of the radiographic bone tunnel position using either a transtibial or anteromedial drilling technique. Materials & methods: The postoperative lateral radiographs of 100 patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were reviewed. In each patient, the femoral bone tunnel was created either through the tibial tunnel or via the anteromedial standard arthroscopy portal. The resulting position of the femoral tunnel was evaluated according to reference values reported by Aglietti (65 % of the cortical femoral A-P distance along Blumenstaat’s line), Amis (60 % of the A-P diameter of the posterior lateral femoral condyle parallel to Blumensaat’s line), and Harner (80 % of the A-P length of Blumensaat’s line). The mean deviation of the radiographic tunnel position from the referenced values was statistically evaluated. Results: Radiographic bone tunnel positions with transtibial drilling were 62.42 ± 8.36, %, 54.53 ± 8.43 %, and 75.84 ± 9.56 % according to Aglietti, Amis, and Harner, respectively. Bone tunnel positions with anteromedial drilling were 65.46 ± 5.29 %, 59.59 ± 4.18 %, and 79.93 ± 4.24 %, respectively. The mean deviation from the reference values was significantly higher when comparing transtibial to anteromedial drilling. Transtibial drilling resulted in a significantly more anterior bone tunnel position. Conclusion: Precise bone tunnel placement is a prerequisite for proper postoperative knee function and stability. The results of this study indicate that the accuracy of femoral bone tunnel placement through the anteromedial arthroscopy portal was superior to transtibial drilling. It may therefrore be concluded that drilling the femoral tunnel through the anteromedial portal is recommended when using fixation techniques not depending upon placement of a transtibial guide

Evaluation of transtibial aiming of the femoral tunnel at its anatomical position in arthroscopical ACL reconstruction. 43 ACL reconstructions with hamstrings’ graft were studied. First, the femoral tunnel was drilled through the anteromedial portal at 09.30–10.00 (14.00–14.30 resp.) and then the tibial tunnel (av. anteroposterior angle: 63,5°, sagittal: 64,2°) at the same diameter with simoultaneous radiological documentation. Then, with a femoral aiming device, we tried to put a K-wire at the center of the drilled femoral tunnel. Fotographic documentation took place. In 20 cases the diameter of the tunnels was 7mm, in 11, 7,5mm, in 7, 8mm, in 3, 8,5mm and in 1, 9mm. Evaluation of all radiological and photographic material from 2 observers followed, according to the deviation of the transtibial K-wire from the center of the femoral tunnel. 38 ACL reconstructions were evaluated. It was shown that in 11 cases the transtibial K-wire was in the femoral tunnel (28,9%) (in 7 with a diameter of 7mm., in 2 with 7,5mm. and in 2 with 8mm.). The K-wire was in 23 cases (60,5%) at the perimeter or out of the femoral tunnel (in 11, with a diameter of 7mm., in 8 with 7,5mm., in 4 with 8mm., in 3 with 8,5mm. and in 1 with 9mm.). There was no correlation with the angles of the tibial tunnel or the age of the patients. Transtibial aiming of the femoral tunnel at its anatomical position is very difficult and there is no correlation of the transtibial deviation with the diameter of the tibial tunnel

Background. Recent publications have supported the anatomic placement of anterior cruciate grafts to optimise knee function. However, anatomic placement using the anteromedial portal has been shown to have a higher failure rate than traditional graft placement using the transtibial method. This is possibly due to it being more technically difficult and to the short femoral tunnel compromising fixation methods. It also requires the knee to be in hyper flexion. This position is not feasible during with a tourniquet in situ on the heavily muscled thighs of some athletes. Hypothesis: That navigation can be used to place the femoral tunnel in the anatomic position via a more medial transtibial tunnel. Methods. 25 patients underwent Navigated Anterior Cruciate reconstruction with quadruple hamstring grafts. The Orthopilot™ 3.0 ACL (BBraun Aesculap, Tuttlingen) software was used. The femoral and tibial ACL footprints were marked on the bones with a radio frequency probe and registered. The pivot shift test, anterior drawer and internal and external rotation were registered. A navigated tibial guide wire was inserted at 25° to the sagittal plane and 45° to the transverse plane exiting through the centre of the tibial footprint. The guide wire was advanced into the joint to just clear of the surface of the femoral footprint with the knee in 90° flexion. Flexion/extension of the knee was done to determine the closest position of the guide wire tip to the centre of the anatomical femoral footprint. If the tip was within 2mm of the centre of footprint, the position was accepted. If not the tibial guide wire was repositioned and the process repeated. The tibial tunnel was drilled, followed by transtibial drilling of the femoral tunnel. A screen shot was done to allow determination of the shape and area of the tunnel aperture relative to the femoral footprint using ImageJ (National Institute of Health). The graft was fixed proximally with an Arthrex ACL Tightrope® and distally with a Genesys™ interference screw. The pivot shift test, anterior drawer and internal and external rotation were repeated and recorded using the software. Results. In 22 out of 25 patients the centre of the drill hole was within 2mm of the centre of the anatomic femoral footprint. In 3 patients it was between 2 and 4 mm off centre. The femoral tunnel diameter ranged from 7.5mm to 9.5mm. In 23 knees there was more than 80 % overlap between the tunnel aperture and the anatomical footprint. In the other 2 knees there was 65% and 75% overlap respectively. The direction of the final tibial tunnel ranged from 22° to 28° from the sagittal plane and 42° to 49° from the transverse plane. The optimum knee flexion was between 76° and 94°. In all cases, the pivot shift recorded by the software was absent after graft fixation. There was a statistically significant difference between the anterior drawer, internal and external rotation before and after graft fixation (p<0.05). Conclusion. Based on our data, navigation allows reproducible transtibial anatomic placement of the quadruple hamstring ACL graft. This is possible when the position of the tibial tunnel is customised to the anatomy of the individual patient's knee

Purpose: To evaluate the differencies in graft orientation between transtibial and anteromedial portal technique using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Materials and Methods: Fifty one patients who undergoing arthroscopically ACL reconstruction underwent MRI of their reconstructed knee. Thirty patients had ACL reconstruction using the transtibial technique (group A) while in the rest 21 the anteromedial technique (group B) was used. In the femoral part graft orientation was evaluated using the femoral graft angle (FGA). The FGA was depicted at the coronal views by two axes: the anatomical axis of the femur and the axis of the femoral tunnel. In the tibial part graft orientation was evaluated using the tibial graft angle (TGA). The TGA was specified as the angle between the axis of the graft and a line parallel to the tibial plateau at the sagittal view. Results: The mean FGA for group A was 12.52° while for the group B was 27.06°. This difference was statistically significant (p< 0.001 paired t-test). The mean TGA for group A was 64.24° while for the group B was 63.11° but this was not statistically significant. Conclusions: Using the anteromedial portal technique the ACL graft is placed in a more oblique direction in comparison with the transtibial technique in the femoral part. This may have an impact in rotatory knee stability. However, there are no differencies between the two techniques in graft orientation in the tibial part

Introduction. The transtibial approach is widely used for femoral tunnel positioning in ACL reconstruction. Controversy exists over the superiority of this approach over others. Few studies reflected on the reproducibility rates of the femoral tunnel position in relation to the approach used. Methods. We reviewed AP and Lat X-ray radiographs post isolated ACL reconstruction for 180 patients for femoral tunnel position, tibial tunnel position and graft inclination angle. All patients had their operations performed by one surgeon in one hospital between March 2006 and Sep 2010. All operations were performed using one standard technique using transtibial approach for femoral tunnel positioning. Two orthopaedic fellows, with similar experiences, reviewed blinded radiographs. A second reading was done 8 weeks later. Pearson inter-observer and intra-observer correlation analyses were done using SPSS. Mean age was 29 years (range 16–54). Results. Pearson intra-observer correlation shows substantial to perfect agreement while Pearson's inter-observer correlation shows moderate to substantial agreement. Previous literature proved that optimal femoral tunnel position for the best clinical and biomechanical outcome is for the centre of the tunnel to be at 43% from the lateral end of the width of the femoral condyles on the AP view and at 86% from the anterior end of the Blumensaat's line on the lateral view. In our study 85% of the femoral tunnels were within +/− 5% of the optimal tunnel position on the AP views (43%), and more than 70% of the femoral tunnels were within +/−5% of the optimal tunnel position on the Lateral view (86%). Conclusion. Based on our results we concluded that using one standardised transtibial technique for ACL reconstruction can result in high reproducibility rates of optimal femoral tunnel position. Further studies are needed to validate our results and to study the reproducibility rates for different approaches and techniques

The transtibial approach is widely used for femoral tunnel positioning in ACL reconstruction. Controversy exists over the superiority of this approach over others. Few studies reflected on the reproducibility rates of the femoral tunnel position in relation to the approach used. We reviewed AP and Lat X-ray radiographs post isolated ACL reconstruction for 180 patients for femoral tunnel position, tibial tunnel position and graft inclination angle. All patients had their operations performed by one surgeon in one hospital between March 2006 and Sep 2010. All operations were performed using one standard technique using transtibial approach for femoral tunnel positioning. Two orthopaedic fellows, with similar experiences, reviewed blinded radiographs. A second reading was done 8 weeks later. Pearson inter-observer, intra-observer correlation and Bland-Altman agreements plots statistical analyses were done. Mean age was 29 years (range 16–54), Pearson intra-observer correlation shows substantial to perfect agreement while Pearson's inter-observer correlation shows moderate to substantial agreement. Previous literature proved that optimal femoral tunnel position for the best clinical and biomechanical outcome is for the centre of the tunnel to be at 43% from the lateral end of the width of the femoral condyles on the AP view and at 86% from the anterior end of the Blumensaat's line on the lateral view. In our study 85% of the femoral tunnels were within +/− 5% of the optimal tunnel position on the AP views, and more than 70% of the femoral tunnels were within +/−5% of the optimal tunnel position on the Lateral view. Interobserver and intraobserver corelations show moderate to substantial agreement, Bland-Altman agreement plots show substantial agreements for interobserver and intraobserver measurements. These results were found to be statistically significant at 0.01. Based on our results we conclude that using one standardised transtibial technique for ACL reconstruction can result in high reproducibility rates of optimal femoral tunnel position. Further studies are needed to validate our results and to study the reproducibility rates for different approaches and techniques

Aim: To evaluate whether a guiding pin for a femoral tunnel could be positioned through the tibial tunnel into the center of the anatomical ACL attachment. Methods: 77 knees underwented arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with hamstrings. The femoral tunnel was drilled through an anteromedial portal at the center of the anatomic insertion at about 10.00 resp.14.00 position. Tibial tunnel (mean diameter 7.55 ± 0.54 mm) was drilled using a guide inserted at 90 degrees of knee flexion. Then, through the tibial tunnel, a 4mm offset femoral drill guide was positioned as close as possible to the femoral tunnel and a 2.5 mm guide wire was drilled. The position of the guide wire was photographed arthroscopically and the deviation was measured as the distance between the center of the femoral tunnel and the guide wire. Results: The mean deviation was 4.50 ± 1.54 mm (p = 0.00000004) In 74 knees (96.1%) the guidewire did not reach the femoral tunnel. Only in 3 knees it reached the superomedial edge of the femoral tunnel. No statistical relationship was found between deviation and tibial tunnel inclination angles or tibial tunnel diameter. Conclusions: Transtibial femoral tunnel drilling does not reach the anatomic site of the ACL insertion, even with larger tibial tunnels (for hamstring grafts up to 8.5 mm). Transtibial tunnel drilling should be replaced by drilling through the anteromedial portal at least for tunnels with diameters < 9 mm

Thirty patients with chronic lesions of the ACL underwent reconstruction of the ACL with double bundle technique. A wire at 65° was used for AM tibial tunnel and a prototype was used for the PL. For femoral tunnels, a transtibial technique was applied in fifteen patients and the outside-in technique was used in fifteen more. All patients had an MRI after three months. The tunnels position was studied with Amis’ circle method, as a proportion of the circle’s height and width. We compared the proportion of the anatomical data on fourteen cadaveric knees. In the transtibial group the AM tunnel was at 56% of the circle’s height and at 65%of the depth (mean); the PL was at 40% of the circle’s height and 54% of the depth. In the out-side group the AM tunnel was 48%of the circle’s height and at 66% of the depth; the PL one was at 32%of the circle’s height and at 61%of the depth. In corpses the AM insertion was at 50% of the circle’s height and 69% of the depth (mean). In conclusion the outside-in technique allows better anatomical positioning

Introduction. Transportal technique of femoral drilling allows the femoral tunnel to be placed in anatomic location. The study was conducted to evaluate the orientation of ACL graft performed by two different techniques and compared to orientation of native ACL. Materials/Methods. 50 patients (Group A) underwent ACL reconstruction with transtibial technique using transfix on the femoral side and 30 patients (Group B) underwent ACL reconstruction with transportal technique using endobutton. We used quadrupled hamstrings graft and tibial fixation was achieved with bio-absorbable screws. All patients were evaluated with 3 Tesla MRI at 6 months post-operatively and femoral tunnel angle in coronal plane (FTA), tibial tunnel angle (TTA) in sagittal plane, graft angle in coronal plane (GA coronal), graft angle in sagittal plane (GA sagittal), and graft- Blumensaat line angle (GBLA) were measured. A control group of patients (Group C, n=50)was also included to evaluate the orientation of native ACL. Results. The femoral tunnel angle (FTA) was significantly lower in group B as compared to group A, 54.03±5.05 vs 71.6±6.02, p<0.05. The tibial tunnel angle (TTA) was similar in group A and B, 65±5.2 vs. 62.9±4.5, p>0.05. Graft angle in coronal plane (GA coronal) was significantly lower in group B when compared to group A, 62.4±5.6 vs 72.5±5.5, p<0.05, and there was no significant difference between group B and C. Similarly graft angle in sagittal plane (GA sagittal) in group B was found to be significantly lower as compared to group A and similar to group C, 51.2±4.3 vs 65.3±3.6, p<0.05. The graft-Blumensaat line angle (GBLA) was significantly lower in group B as compared to Group A, 8.6±1.4 vs 13.5±1.2, p<0.05. Conclusions. The orientation of the reconstructed ligament was found to be closer to the native ACL in transportal technique of femoral drilling

Transportal technique of femoral drilling allows the femoral tunnel to be placed in anatomic location. The study was conducted to evaluate the orientation of ACL graft performed by two different techniques and compared to orientation of native ACL. 50 patients (Group A) underwent ACL reconstruction with transtibial technique using transfix on the femoral side and 30 patients (Group B) underwent ACL reconstruction with transportal technique using endobutton. We used quadrupled hamstrings graft and tibial fixation was achieved with bioabsorbable screws. All patients were evaluated with 3 Tesla MRI at 6 months post-operatively and femoral tunnel angle in coronal plane (FTA), tibial tunnel angle (TTA) in sagittal plane, graft angle in coronal plane (GA coronal), graft angle in sagittal plane (GA sagittal), and graft-Blumensaat line angle (GBLA) were measured. A control group of patients (Group C, n=50)was also included to evaluate the orientation of native ACL. The femoral tunnel angle (FTA) was significantly lower in group B as compared to group A, 54.03±5.05 vs 71.6±6.02, p<0.05. The tibial tunnel angle (TTA) was similar in group A and B, 65±5.2 vs. 62.9±4.5, p>0.05. Graft angle in coronal plane (GA coronal) was significantly lower in group B when compared to group A, 62.4±5.6 vs 72.5±5.5, p<0.05, and there was no significant difference between group B and C. Similarly graft angle in sagittal plane (GA sagittal) in group B was found to be significantly lower as compared to group A and similar to group C, 51.2±4.3 vs 65.3±3.6, p<0.05. The graft-Blumensaat line angle (GBLA) was significantly lower in group B as compared to Group A, 8.6±1.4 vs 13.5±1.2, p<0.05. The orientation of the reconstructed ligament was found to be closer to the native ACL in transportal technique of femoral drilling

Correct femoral tunnel position in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is critical in obtaining good clinical outcomes. We aimed to delineate whether any difference exists between the anteromedial (AM) and trans-tibial (TT) portal femoral tunnel placement techniques on the primary outcome of ACLR graft rupture.

Adult patients (>18year old) who underwent primary ACLR between January 2011 – January 2018 were identified and divided based on portal technique (AM v TT). The primary outcome measure was graft rupture. Univariate analysis was used to delineate association between independent variables and outcome. Binary logistic regression was utilised to delineate odds ratios of significant variables.

473 patients were analysed. Median age at surgery was 27 years old (range 18–70). A total of 152/473, (32.1%) patients were AM group compared to 321/473 (67.9%) TT. Twenty-five patients (25/473, 5.3%) sustained graft rupture. Median time to graft rupture was 12 months (IQR 9). A higher odds for graft rupture was associated with the AM group, which trended towards significance (OR 2.03; 95% CI 0.90 – 4.56, p=0.081). Older age at time of surgery was associated with a lower odds of rupture (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 – 0.98, p=0.014).

There is no statistically significant difference in ACLR graft rupture rates when comparing anteromedial and trans-tibial portal technique for femoral tunnel placement. There was a trend towards higher rupture rates in the anteromedial portal group.

Purpose:

Despite advances in limb reconstruction, there are still a number of young patients who require trans-tibial amputation. Amputation osteoplasty is a technique described by Ertl to enhance rehabilitation after trans-tibial amputation. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the results of the original Ertl procedure in skeletally immature patients, and to assess whether use of this procedure would result in a diminished incidence of bony overgrowth.

Arthrofibrosis is a less common complication following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and there are concerns that undergoing early surgery may be associated with arthrofibrosis. The aim of this study was to identify the patient and surgical risk factors for arthrofibrosis following primary ACL reconstruction. Primary ACL reconstructions prospectively recorded in the New Zealand ACL Registry between April 2014 and December 2019 were analyzed. The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) database was used to identify patients who underwent a subsequent reoperation with review of operation notes to identify those who had a reoperation for “arthrofibrosis” or “stiffness”. Univariate Chi-Square test and multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed to identify the risk factors for arthrofibrosis. 9617 primary ACL reconstructions were analyzed, of which 215 patients underwent a subsequent reoperation for arthrofibrosis (2.2%). A higher risk of arthrofibrosis was observed in female patients (adjusted HR = 1.67, 95% CI 1.22 – 2.27, p = 0.001), patients with a history of previous knee surgery (adjusted HR = 1.97, 95% CI 1.11 – 3.50, p = 0.021) and when a transtibial femoral tunnel drilling technique was used (adjusted HR = 1.55, 95% CI 1.06 – 2.28, p = 0.024). Patients who underwent early ACL reconstruction within 6 weeks of their injury did not have a higher risk of arthrofibrosis when compared to patients who underwent surgery more than 6 weeks after their injury (3.5% versus 2.1%, adjusted HR = 1.56, 95% CI 0.97 – 2.50, p = 0.07). Age, graft type and concomitant meniscal injury did not influence the rate of arthrofibrosis. Female sex, a history of previous knee surgery and a transtibial femoral tunnel drilling technique are risk factors for arthrofibrosis following primary ACL reconstruction

The purpose of this study is to identify the optimal amount of knee flexion required to drill the femoral tunnel in ACL reconstruction using the transtibial technique in order to ensure the correct alignment between the femoral tunnel and the interference screw. Methods: Twenty (10 × 2) fresh-frozen cadaveric knees were used. The native ACL was resected and its tibial attachment was identified. The angle of the tibial tunnel was set at 55° using an Arthrex tibial guide. The extra-articular tibial tunnel entry point was located at the anterior border of the superficial MCL. The intra-articular exit point of the guide wire was digitized with a digital camera and referenced to anatomical landmarks (the anterior border of the PCL, the lateral aspect of the medial spine and the anterior horn of the lateral meniscus). The femoral tunnels were made using the transtibial technique and a 5mm femoral guide to insert guidewires at 70, 80, and 90 degrees of knee flexion (groups a, b, c respectively). The angles of divergence between the longitudinal axis of the femoral tunnel and the interference screw (placed through an anteromedial portal at 120° of knee flexion) were then measured. Results: The degrees of divergence were: 5° ± 2° for group a, 12° ± 4 for group b, and 15° ± 3° for group c. Conclusions: Optimal femoral tunnel and interference screw alignment is achieved using the transtibial technique when the femoral tunnel is drilled with the knee in 70 degrees of flexion and the screw is inserted at 120 degrees of knee flexion. This study identifies a mathematical formula for the optimal amount of knee flexion required to drill the femoral tunnel in ACL reconstruction using the transtibial technique in order to ensure the correct alignement between the femoral tunnel and the interference screw

There is significant disagreement among surgeons regarding optimal placement of the femoral tunnel for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Placement of the femoral tunnel via a transtibial approach usually will not allow consistent overlap between the tunnel and the anterior cruciate ligament footprint. This remains true in recent publications in spite of the fact that the tunnel center lay totally outside the femoral footprint. We have performed radiographic studies (Feller et al, 1993), cadaveric studies (Kaseta et al 2008) and currently postoperative studies showing that femoral tunnel creation is much more anatomic with an independent drilling technique. We have performed postoperative high resolution MRI exams of both knees using a protocol that reliably shows the anterior cruciate ligament footprint on the normal knee and the tunnel on the surgical knees. The centers are approximately 2mm. apart for independent techniques and 9mm. apart of the transtibially created tunnels. We are now using dual angle fluoroscopy and high resolution MRI mapping to evaluate the in vivo kinematics of knees following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with independent or transtibial techniques

In TKA, prosthetic femoral and tibial implants must be symmetrically placed and matched in the mechanical axis and the ligament gaps must be correctly balanced. The collateral ligaments are the key guide, as they arise from the epicondyles of the distal femur, are perpendicular to the AP axis of Whiteside, and are coincident with the transtibial axis of the proximal tibial surface. A perpendicular bisection of the transtibial axis creates the AP axis of the tibia which is coincident in space with the AP axis of Whiteside (Berger). Measured distal femoral resection targets including TEA, AP axis of Whiteside, and 3 degrees external to the posterior condylar axis works because the stout posterior cruciate ligament limits laxity in flexion, allowing for the anatomical variation of these landmarks to be accommodated. The Insall, Ranawat gap balancing methods work to balance the knee in flexion, often matching the results of a measured resection, but guaranteeing a symmetrically balanced flexion gap. Distal femoral internal rotation can result if the medial collateral is over-released, but experience has shown this not to be a problem if the gaps are well balanced. Tibial tray position must be placed coincident with the AP axis of the tibia, which also is coincident with Akagi's line (line from medial margin of patellar tendon to center of the posterior cruciate ligament). The surgeon can make a line from the AP axis of Whiteside to the anterior tibial which matches the AP tibial axis

Purpose: This prospective comparative study examined the two-year results of two femoral fixation method for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair using the four-part hamstring technique. A consecutive series of 60 patients with the same tear criteria involving the ACL alone were randomly assigned to the two treatment arms. Femoral fixation was achieved by mixed corticocancellous transfixation or by interference screw fixation. Material and methods: The series included two cohorts of 30 patients each. We excluded patients with a history of ligament or bone surgery and those with associated lesions of the peripheral ligaments. Complementary lateral reinforcement was not performed in either group. The interference screw fixation group had 20 men and 10 women, mean age 29 years (14–48), 18 right side. The blind femoral tunnel was drilled arthroscopically. The transfixation group included 19 men and 11 women, mean age 26 years (16–40), 17 right side. The blind femoral tunnel was drilled via a transtibial approach using the Rosenberg aiming procedure. In both cohorts, tibial fixation of the transplant was achieved with a resorbable polylactic screw measuring at least the diameter of the tibial tunnel. Statistical analysis of results (Statview 4.5) was based on the clinical IKDC score, thigh volume, and level of sports activity. Telos at 15 and 20 kg was used to measure laxity. Results: Mean delay to review was 24 months (22–26). The two cohorts were comparable preoperatively (laxity, sports level, meniscal or cartilage lesions). There was no statistical difference for joint amplitudes, joint instability, or level of sports activity at last follow-up. The telos differential laxity at 15 kg was statistically lower in the interference screw fixation group (mean 1.1 mm) than in the transfixation group (mean 1.4 mm) (p < 0.01). There were no complications in either group, particularly no cyclope syndrome. Radiographically, there was no statistical difference for the position of the tibial tunnel. The femoral tunnel was however different: the Aglietti index was 0.57 for transfixation and 0.62 for interference screw fixation (p < 0.01). Discussion: This prospective study demonstrated the good mid-term anatomic results after 4-part hamstring plasty of the ACL for both types of femoral fixation (transfixation or interference screw fixation). The position of the femoral tunnel appeared to be better with interference screw fixation, with a statistical correlation with better anatomic results (telos). This suggests that the transtibial femoral aiming procedure does not necessarily produce a totally satisfactory isometric alignment