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.

This multi-centre single-blind randomised control trial compared outcomes in patients with acute displaced mid-shaft clavicle fractures treated either by primary open reduction and plate fixation (ORPF), or non-operative treatment (NT).

Two-hundred patients were randomised to receive either ORPF or NT. Functional assessment was conducted up to one-year using DASH, SF-12 and Constant scores (CS). Union was evaluated using radiographs and CT.

Rate of non-union was significantly reduced after ORPF (1 following ORPF, 16 following NT, odds ratio=0.07, 95% CI=0.01–0.50, p=0.0006). 7 patients had delayed-union after NT. Group allocation to ORPF was independently predictive of development of non-union. DASH and CS were significantly better in the ORPF group 3-months post-surgery, but not at one-year (mean DASH = 6.2 after NT versus 3.7 after ORPF, p=0.09; mean CS = 86.1 after NT versus 90.7 after ORPF, p=0.05). Group allocation was not predictive of one-year outcome. Non-union was the only factor independently predictive of one-year functional outcome. There were no significant differences in time off work or subjective scores. Five patients underwent revision for complications after ORPF. 10 patients underwent metalwork removal. Treatment cost was significantly greater after ORPF (p=0.001). ORPF reduces rate of non-union compared with NT and is associated with better early functional outcomes. Improved outcomes are not sustained at one-year. Differences in functional outcome appear to be mediated by prevention of non-union from ORPF. ORPF is more expensive and associated with implant-related complications not seen with NT. Our results do not support routine primary ORPF for displaced mid-shaft clavicle fractures.