Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis is a common entity and increasing in prevalence. Limited evidence is available regarding patient reported outcomes comparing primary vs revision surgery for those undergoing lumbar decompression, with or without fusion. Evidence available suggest a lower rate of improvement in the revision group. The aim of this study was to assess patient reported outcomes in patients undergoing revision decompression, with or without fusion, when compared to primary surgery.

Patient data was collected from the Canadian Spine Outcomes Research Network (CSORN) database. Patients undergoing lumbar decompression without or without fusion were included. Patients under 18, undergoing discectomy, greater than two level decompressions, concomitant cervical or thoracic spine surgery were excluded. Demographic data, smoking status, narcotic use, number of comorbidities as well as individual comorbidities were included in our propensity scores. Patients undergoing primary vs revision decompression were matched in a four:one ratio according to their scores, whilst a separate matched cohort was created for those undergoing primary vs revision decompression and fusion. Continuous data was compared using a two-tailed t-test, whilst categorical variables were assessed using chi-square test.

A total of 555 patients were included, with 444 primary patients matched to 111 revision surgery patients, of which 373 (67%) did not have fusion. Patients undergoing primary decompression with fusion compared to revision patients were more likely to answer yes to “feel better after surgery” (87.8% vs 73.8%, p=0.023), “undergo surgery again” (90.1% vs 76.2%, P=0.021) and “improvement in mental health” (47.7% vs 28.6%, p=0.03) at six months. There was no difference in either of these outcomes at 12 or 24 months. There was no difference between the groups ODI, EQ-5D, SF 12 scores at any time point. Patients undergoing primary vs revision decompression alone showed no difference in PROMs at any time point.

In a matched cohort, there appears to be no difference in improvement in PROMS between patients undergoing primary vs revision decompression, with or without fusion, at two year follow-up. This would suggest similar outcomes can be obtained in revision cases.

Introduction

Contemporary total knee systems accommodate for differential sizing between femoral and tibial components to allow surgeons to control soft tissue balancing and optimize rotation. One method some manufacturers use to allow differential sizing involves maintaining coronal articular congruency with a single radius of curvature throughout sizes while clipping the medial-lateral width, called a single coronal geometry system. Registry data show a 20% higher revision rate when the tibial component is smaller than the femur (downsizing) in the DePuy PFC system, a single coronal system, possibly from increased stresses from edge loading or varying articular congruency. We examined a different single coronal geometry knee system, Smith & Nephew Genesis II, to determine if edge loading is present in downsized tibial components by measuring area and location of deviation of the polyethylene articular surface damage.

The posterior drawer is a commonly used test to diagnose an isolated PCL injury and combined PCL and PLC injury. Our aim was to analyse the effect of tibial internal and external rotation during the posterior drawer in isolated PCL and combined PCL and PLC deficient cadaver knee.

Ten fresh frozen and overnight-thawed cadaver knees with an average age of 76 years and without any signs of previous knee injury were used. A custom made wooden rig with electromagnetic tracking system was used to measure the knee kinematics. Each knee was tested with posterior and anterior drawer forces of 80N and posterior drawer with simultaneous external or internal rotational torque of 5Nm. Each knee was tested in intact condition, after PCL resection and after PLC (lateral collateral ligament and popliteus tendon) resection. Intact condition of each knees served as its own control. One-tailed paired student's t test with Bonferroni correction was used.

The posterior tibial displacement in a PCL deficient knee when a simultaneous external rotation torque was applied during posterior drawer at 90° flexion was not significantly different from the posterior tibial displacement with 80N posterior drawer in intact knee (p=0.22). In a PCL deficient knee posterior tibial displacement with simultaneous internal rotation torque and posterior drawer at 90° flexion was not significantly different from tibial displacement with isolated posterior drawer. In PCL and PLC deficient knee at extension with simultaneous internal rotational torque and posterior drawer force the posterior tibial displacement was not significantly different from an isolated PCL deficient condition (p=0.54).

We conclude that posterior drawer in an isolated PCL deficient knee could result in negative test if tibia is held in external rotation. During a recurvatum test for PCL and PLC deficient knee, tibial internal rotation in extension results in reduced posterior laxity.

Aim: To analyse the posterior and external rotational laxities in single bundle PCL (sPCL) and double bundle PCL reconstruction (dPCL) in a PCL and PLC deficient knee.

Methods: Ten fresh frozen were used. A custom made wooden rig with electromagnetic tracking was used to measured knee kinematics. Each knee was tested with posterior and anterior drawer forces of 80N and an external rotation moment of 5Nm when intact, after PCL resection, after dividing the PLC and after performing dPCL and sPCL reconstructions with a bone patellar tendon bone allograft and tibial inlay technique.

Results: The one-tailed paired Student’s t test with Bon-ferroni correction was used. There was a significant difference between the ability of the dPCL and sPCL reconstruction to correct the posterior drawer in extension (p=0.002). There was no difference between the dPCL reconstruction and the intact condition of the knee near extension (p=0.142, Fig 1). There was no significant difference between the intact condition and both sPCL (p=0.26) and dPCL (p=0.20) reconstructions in flexion in restoring posterior laxity. Neither of the reconstructions could restore the rotational laxity (Fig 3).

Conclusion: In a combined PCL and PLC deficient knee the posterior laxity can be controlled by both the sPCL as well as the dPCL reconstructions except near extension where the dPCL reconstruction was better.

Aim: To compare the ability of two different PLC reconstruction techniques to restore the kinematics of a PCL & PLC deficient knee to PCL deficient condition.

Methods: 8 fresh frozen cadaver knees were used. A custom rig with electromagnetic tracking system measured knee kinematics. Each knee was tested with posterior & anterior drawer forces of 80N, external rotation moment of 5Nm & varus moment of 5Nm when intact, after dividing PCL, PLC (lateral collateral ligament & popliteus tendon), after PLC reconstruction type1 (1PLC) & PLC reconstruction type 2 (2PLC). 1PLC was modification of Larson’s technique with semitendinosus graft. 2PLC was performed with semitendinosus graft to reconstruct the lateral collateral ligament & the pop-liteofibular ligament, gracillis used to reconstruct pop-liteus tendon.

Results: The one-tailed paired student’s t test with Bon-ferroni correction was used to analyse the data. Only in deep flexion 2PLC reconstruction was significantly better than the 1PLC reconstruction in restoring the posterior laxity to PCL deficient condition (p=0.02). (Figure1) In deep flexion 1PLC could not restore the rotational laxity to PCL deficient condition (p=0.02). In mid flexion the 2PLC was unable to restore the rotational laxity to PCL deficient condition (p=0.048) (Figure 2).

Conclusion: The 2PLC reconstruction was better than the 1PCL in controlling the posterior drawer. The 1PLC technique though not significant tended to over constrain the external & varus rotations.

Driving is an important part of a modern life style. ACL injury is the most common ligamentous injury of the knee. However, there is a paucity of information about the pre and post-operative ability of an ACL injured knee to respond to stimuli for specific situation such as braking reaction in an emergency. Does an ACL unstable knee affect braking reaction time? If it does, is there a difference between left and right injured knee? When is it safe to resume driving after an ACL reconstructive surgery? Is there any simple clinical test to assess patient’s recovery after surgery?

Braking reaction time of 73 patients who underwent arthroscopic ACL reconstruction and 25 normal controls was prospectively studied using a computer-link automobile simulator. Majority of these patients had autologous hamstring tendon graft. Every patients and controls were tested pre-operatively, and every 2 weeks after surgery up to 8 weeks. At each time point, two clinical tests namely stepping and standing test were also performed.

The pre-operative results did not differ significantly between controls, left ACL group and right ACL group for the braking reaction time and the two clinical tests. Post-operatively, it took 6 weeks for braking reaction time of the right ACL group to be equivalent to that of the controls, compared to 2 weeks for the left ACL group. There were a strong corelation between the stepping and standing test and the braking reaction time at each time point.

Conclusion: an ACL unstable knee does not affect patient’s braking reaction time. After a right ACL reconstruction, patient should delay at least 6 weeks before resuming driving. However, patient may resume driving as early as 2 weeks after a left ACL reconstruction. The stepping and standing test can be used at follow-up to assess patient’s recovery after surgery and to suggest appropriate time to resume driving.