Aims. The aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) following isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), with those following ACLR and concomitant meniscal resection or repair. Methods. We reviewed prospectively collected data from the UK National Ligament Registry for patients who underwent primary ACLR between January 2013 and December 2022. Patients were categorized into five groups: isolated ACLR, ACLR with medial meniscus (MM) repair, ACLR with MM resection, ACLR with lateral meniscus (LM) repair, and ACLR with LM resection. Linear regression analysis, with isolated ACLR as the reference, was performed after adjusting for confounders. Results. From 14,895 ACLR patients, 4,400 had two- or five-year Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS) available. At two years postoperatively, the MM repair group demonstrated inferior scores in KOOS pain (β = −3.63, p < 0.001), symptoms (β = − 4.88, p < 0.001), ADL (β = − 2.43, p = 0.002), sport and recreation (β = − 5.23, p < 0.001), quality of life (QoL) (β = − 5.73, p < 0.001), and International Knee Documentation Committee (β = − 4.1, p < 0.001) compared with the isolated ACLR group. The LM repair group was associated with worse KOOS sports and recreation scores at two years (β = − 4.264, p < 0.001). At five years, PROMs were comparable between the groups. At five years, PROMs were comparable between the groups. Participants undergoing ACLR surgery within 12 weeks from index injury demonstrated superior PROMs at two and five years. Conclusion. Our study showed that MM repair, and to a lesser extent LM repairs in combination with ACLR, were associated with inferior patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) compared to isolated ACLR at two years postoperatively, while meniscal resection groups exhibited comparable outcomes. However, by five years postoperation, no significant differences in PROMs were evident. Further longer-term, cross-sectional studies are warranted to investigate the outcomes of ACLR and concomitant meniscal surgery

Introduction. Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are one of the most common knee injuries amongst elite athletes and usually require an ACL reconstruction (ACLR) to enable return to sport. Secondary surgery can result in a longer rehabilitation period and often a. significant time away from sport which can have implications to the athlete including contract obligations and sponsorship. Advances in ACLR techniques and meniscal repair techniques as well as an awareness of meniscal root lesions, ramp lesions and lateral extraarticular procedures (LEAPs) during ACL surgery has improved outcomes. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the rates of secondary surgery following the introduction of a systematic arthroscopic evaluation of the knee, improved meniscal repair techniques and the addition of a concomitant LEAP This systematic approach was introduced after October 2012 (10/2012). Methods. Professional athletes who underwent primary ACLR with a minimum follow-up of 2 years were identified from the (blinded for review). Those who had undergone major concomitant procedures such as multi-ligament reconstruction or osteotomy were excluded. Analysis of the database and review of medical records identified athletes who had underwent secondary surgery procedures. Results. A total of 342 athletes with a mean follow-up of 100.2 +/− 51.9 months (range, 24–215 months) were analysed. 130 athletes underwent surgery before 10/2012 and 212 athletes underwent surgery after 10/2012. Overall, 74 patients (21.6%) underwent secondary surgery. 39 patients (30.0% including 13.1% for graft rupture) before 10/2012 and 35 patients (16.5% including 6.6% for graft rupture) after 10/2012. A multivariate analysis was performed using the Cox model and demonstrated that athletes undergoing ACLR before10/2012 were at almost 2-fold risk of secondary surgery (hazard ratio (HR), 1.768(1.103;2.836), p=0.0256) when compared with those undergoing ACLR after 10/2012. (Figure 1). Conclusion. Professional athletes undergoing ACLR with a systematic arthroscopic evaluation with the use of advanced meniscal repair techniques and the combination with a LEAP result in a significantly lower rate of secondary surgery. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly

Introduction. It has been contentious whether an anatomic double-bundle technique for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR)is superior to that of a single-bundle technique. It has been hypothesized in the literature that the double-bundle technique could provide function closer to that of the anatomical knee joint. The purpose of this study was to compare the long-term clinical outcomes after single-bundle ACLR versus double-bundle ACLR. We hypothesized that the double-bundle technique would not be superior to the single-bundle technique. Methods. A retrospective, non-randomized, matched-paired comparative study was performed. Patients undergoing primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, using either a double-bundle or single-bundle technique, between 2003 and 2008 were included and matched 1:1. Matching included age, sex, BMI, time from injury to surgery, side of injury and type of sport. Patients who underwent revision procedures, multiligament reconstruction or other ACLR techniques were excluded. Patients were subsequently followed up, noting occurrence of graft rupture and any other complications. Results. A total of 1377 ACLRs were performed during the study period. Seven hundred and fifty-six patients were excluded, leaving 396patients to be included in the matching (198 matched pairs). Mean follow-up time was 176.7 +/− 7.7 months (range, 166–211 months). Overall, 40 patients (10.1%) suffered from a graft rupture which consisted of 22 patients (11.1%) in the single-bundle group and 18patients (9.1%) in the double-bundle group. A multivariate analysis was performed using the Cox model and demonstrated that graft failure had no significant association with the surgical technique (hazard ratio (HR), 0.857(0.457;1.609), p=0.6313). (Figure 1) Five patients (2.5%) in the single-bundle group and 7 patients (3.5%) in the double-bundle group underwent secondary surgery for cyclops syndrome(p=0.5637). Three patients (1.5%) in the single-bundle group and 2 patients (1.0%) in the double-bundle group underwent arthrolysis(p=0.6547). Seven patients (3.5%) in the single-bundle group underwent secondary meniscectomy compared to 6 patients (3.0%) in the double-bundle group (p=0.7630). Conclusion. Double-bundle ACLR is not superior to single-bundle ACLR at long-term follow up. Therefore, orthopaedic surgeons do not need to use a double-bundle technique when performing ACL reconstruction. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft failure from rupture, attenuation, or malposition may cause recurrent subjective instability and objective laxity, and occurs in 3% to 22% of ACL reconstruction (ACLr) procedures. Revision ACLr is often indicated to restore knee stability, improve knee function, and facilitate return to cutting and pivoting activities. Prior to reconstruction, a thorough clinical and diagnostic evaluation is required to identify factors that may have predisposed an individual to recurrent ACL injury, appreciate concurrent intra-articular pathology, and select the optimal graft for revision reconstruction. Single-stage revision can be successful, although a staged approach may be used when optimal tunnel placement is not possible due to the position and/or widening of previous tunnels. Revision ACLr often involves concomitant procedures such as meniscal/chondral treatment, lateral extra-articular augmentation, and/or osteotomy. Although revision ACLr reliably restores knee stability and function, clinical outcomes and reoperation rates are worse than for primary ACLr. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):474–480

Most previous studies investigating autograft options (quadriceps, hamstring, bone-patella-tendon-bone) in primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction are confounded by concomitant knee injuries. This study aims to investigate the differences in patient reported outcome measures and revision rates for quadriceps tendon in comparison with hamstring tendon and bone-patella-tendon-bone autografts. We use a cohort of patients who have had primary ACL reconstruction without concomitant knee injuries.

All patients from the New Zealand ACL Registry who underwent a primary arthroscopic ACL reconstruction with minimum 2 year follow-up were considered for the study. Patients who had associated ipsilateral knee injuries, previous knee surgery, or open procedures were excluded. The primary outcome was Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and MARX scores at 2 years post-surgery. Secondary outcomes were all-cause revision and time to revision with a total follow-up period of 8 years (time since inception of the registry).

2581 patients were included in the study; 1917 hamstring tendon, 557 bone-patella-tendon-bone, and 107 quadriceps tendon. At 2 years, no significant difference in MARX scores were found between the three groups (2y mean score; 7.36 hamstring, 7.85 bone-patella-tendon-bone, 8.05 quadriceps, P = 0.195). Further, no significant difference in KOOS scores were found between the three groups; with the exception of hamstring performing better than bone-patella-tendon-bone in the KOOS sports and recreation sub-score (2y mean score; 79.2 hamstring, 73.9 bone-patella-tendon-bone, P < 0.001). Similar revision rates were reported between all autograft groups (mean revision rate per 100 component years; 1.05 hamstring, 0.80 bone-patella-tendon-bone, 1.68 quadriceps, P = 0.083). Autograft revision rates were independent of age and gender variables.

Quadriceps tendon is a comparable autograft choice to the status quo for primary ACL reconstruction without concomitant knee injury. Further research is required to quantify the long-term outcomes for quadriceps tendon use.

While pre-soaking grafts in vancomycin has demonstrated to be effective in observational studies for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) infection prevention, the economic benefit of the technique is uncertain. The primary aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of vancomycin pre-soaking during primary ACLR to prevent post-operative joint infections. The secondary aims of the study were to establish the breakeven cost-effectiveness threshold of the technique. A Markov model was used to determine cost effectiveness and the incremental cost effectiveness ratio of additional vancomycin pre-soaking compared to intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis alone. A repeated meta-analysis of nine cohort studies (Level III evidence) was completed to determine the odds ratio of infection with vancomycin pre-soaking compared to intravenous antibiotics alone. Estimated costs and transitional probabilities for further surgery were obtained from the literature. Breakeven threshold analysis was performed. The vancomycin soaking technique provides an expected cost saving of $600AUD per patient. There was an improvement in the quality-adjusted life years of 0.007 compared to intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis alone (4.297 versus 4.290). If the infection rate is below 0.023% with intravenous antibiotics alone or the additional intervention cost more than $1000AUD, the vancomycin wrap would no longer be cost-effective. For $30AUD, the vancomycin soaking technique provides a $600AUD cost saving by both reducing the risk of ACLR related infection and economic burden of infection. Treating septic arthritis represents a mean cost per patient of 6 times compared to that of the primary surgery. There has been no previous cost-effectiveness study of the vancomycin wrap technique. The vancomycin pre-soaking technique is a highly cost-effective method to prevent post-operative septic arthritis following primary ACLR

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare the preinjury functional scores with the postinjury preoperative score and postoperative outcome scores following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgery (ACLR). Methods. We performed a prospective study on patients who underwent primary ACLR by a single surgeon at a single centre between October 2010 and January 2018. Preoperative preinjury scores were collected at time of first assessment after the index injury. Preoperative (pre- and post-injury), one-year, and two-year postoperative functional outcomes were assessed by using the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Lysholm Knee Score, and Tegner Activity Scale. Results. We enrolled 308 males and 263 females of mean age 27 years (19 to 46). The mean preinjury and preoperative post-injury Lysholm Knee Scores were 94 (73 to 100) and 63 (25 to 85), respectively, while the respective mean scores at one and two years postoperatively were 84 (71 to 100) and 89 (71 to 100; p < 0.001). The mean Tegner preinjury and preoperative post-injury scores were 7 (3 to 9) and 3 (0 to 6), respectively, while the respective mean scores at one and two years postoperatively were 6 (1 to 8) and 6 (1 to 9) (p < 0.001). The mean KOOS scores at preinjury versus two years postoperatively were: symptoms (96 vs 84); pain (94 vs 87); activities of daily living (97 vs 91), sports and recreation function (84 vs 71), and quality of life (82 vs 69), respectively (p < 0.001). Conclusion. Functional scores improved following ACLR surgery at two years in comparison to preoperative post-injury scores. However, at two-year follow-up, the majority of patients failed to achieve their preinjury scores. The evaluation of ACLR outcomes needs to consider the preinjury scores rather than the immediate preoperative score that is usually collected. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(1):46–52

Abstract. Introduction. The use of MCL “pie-crusting” (selective release of the superficial MCL) to improve arthroscopic access to the posteromedial compartment of the knee for isolated meniscal surgery has been demonstrated. However, there are concerns that MCL pie-crusting with concomitant ACL reconstruction (ACLR) might affect knee stability and outcomes postoperatively. The aim of this study was to compare the functional outcomes between patients who underwent MCL pie-crusting at ACLR with those that did not. Methods. We performed a retrospective review of prospectively collected data from on the National Ligament Registry. 55 patients (33 male and 22 female) who had MCL pie-crusting(PC group) to address a meniscal lesion at the time of ACLR were compared with 65 patients (38 male and 27 female) who underwent isolated primary ACLR. All procedures were performed by a single surgeon at a tertiary centre between October 2013 and March 2019. Results. The mean Follow up was 4.2 years(range 2- 7 years). The mean EQ 5D- VAS scores were 82 and 81 in the PC group and ACLR only group respectively. The mean IKDC scores were 81 and 85 in the PC group and ACLR only group respectively. The mean KOOS scores in the PC group and ACLR only group were: Symptoms (81,87); Pain (89,92); ADLs (94,96), sports and recreation function (81,83), QoL (75,78) respectively. The differences in the scores were not statistically significant. Conclusions. This study demonstrates that pie-crusting of the MCL at the time of ACLR does not significantly affect the functional outcomes

Aims

There is limited information on outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction (rACLR) in soccer (association football) athletes, particularly on return to sport and the rate of additional knee surgery. The purpose of this study was to report return to soccer after rACLR, and to test the hypothesis that patient sex and graft choice are associated with return to play and the likelihood of future knee surgery in soccer players undergoing rACLR.

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

The purpose of this study was to compare intra-operative, clinical, functional, and patient-reported outcomes following revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R) with a matched cohort of primary isolated ACL-R. A secondary purpose was to compare patient-reported outcomes within revision ACL-R based on intra-operative cartilage pathology.

Between January 2010 and August 2017, 396 patients underwent revision ACL-R, and were matched to primary isolated ACL-R patients using sex, age, body mass index (BMI), and Beighton score. Intra-operative assessments including meniscal and chondral pathology, and graft diameter were recorded. Lachman and pivot shift tests were completed independently on each patient at two-years post-operative by a physiotherapist and orthopaedic surgeon. A battery of functional tests was assssed including single-leg Bosu balance, and four single-leg hop tests. The Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Quality of Life Questionnaire (ACL-QOL) was completed pre-operatively and two-years post-operatively.

Descriptive statistics including means (M) and standard deviations (SD), and as appropriate paired t-tests were used to compare between-groups demographics, the degree and frequency of meniscal and chondral pathology, graft diameter, rate of post-operative ACL graft laxity, the surgical failure rate, and ACL-QOL scores. Comparative assessment of operative to non-operative limb performance on the functional tests was used to assess limb symmetry indices (LSI).

Revision ACL-R patients were 52.3% male, mean age 30.7 years (SD=10.2), mean BMI 25.3 kg/m2 (SD=3.79), and mean Beighton score 3.52 (SD=2.51). In the revision group, meniscal (83%) and chondral pathology (57.5%) was significantly more frequent than in the primary group (68.2% and 32.1%) respectively, (p < 0 .05). Mean graft diameter (mm) in the revision ACL-R group for hamstring (M=7.89, SD=0.99), allograft (M=8.42, SD=0.82), and patellar or quadriceps tendon (M=9.56, SD=0.69) was larger than in the primary ACL-R group (M=7.54, SD=0.76, M=8.06, SD=0.55, M=9, SD=1) respectively. The presence of combined positive Lachman and pivot shift tests was significantly more frequent in the revision (21.5%) than primary group (4.89%), (p < 0 .05). Surgical failure rate was higher in the revision (10.3%) than primary group (5.9%).

Seventy-three percent of revision patients completed functional testing. No significant LSI differences were demonstrated between the revision and primary ACL-R groups on any of the functional tests. No statistically significant differences were demonstrated in mean preoperative ACL-QOL scores between the revision (M=28.5/100, SD=13.5) and primary groups (M=28.5/100, SD=14.4). Mean two-year scores demonstrated statistically significant and minimally clinically important differences between the revision (M=61.1/100, SD=20.4) and primary groups (M=76.0/100, SD=18.9), (p < 0 .05). Mean two-year scores for revision patients with repair of the medial (M=59.4/100, SD=21.7) or lateral meniscus (M=59.4/100, SD=23.6), partial medial meniscectomy (M=59.7/100, SD=20), grade three or four osteoarthritis (M=55.9/100, SD=19.5), and medial femoral condyle osteoarthritis (M=59.1/100, SD=18) were lower compared with partial lateral meniscectomy (M=67.1/100, SD=19.1), grade one or two osteoarthritis (M=63.8/100, SD=18.9), and lateral femoral condyle osteoarthritis (M=62, SD=21).

Revision ACL-R patients demonstrated a greater amount of meniscal and chondral pathology at the time of surgery. Two-years post-operative these patients demonstrated higher rates of graft laxity and lower ACL-QOL scores compared with the primary ACL-R group. Higher grade and medial sided osteoarthritis was associated with inferior ACL-QOL scores in revision ACL-R.

Aims. Graft infection following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) may lead to septic arthritis requiring multiple irrigation and debridement procedures, staged revision operations, and prolonged courses of antibiotics. To our knowledge, there are no previous studies reporting on how gentamicin pre-soaking of hamstring grafts influences infection rates following ACLR. We set out to examine this in our study accordingly. Methods. This retrospective study included 2,000 patients (1,156 males and 844 females) who underwent primary ACLR with hamstring autografts between 2007 to 2017. This included 1,063 patients who received pre-soaked saline hamstring grafts for ACLR followed by 937 patients who received pre-soaked gentamicin hamstring grafts for ACLR. All operative procedures were completed by a single surgeon using a standardized surgical technique. Medical notes were reviewed and data relating to the following outcomes recorded: postoperative infection, clinical progress, causative organisms, management received, and outcomes. Results. Superficial wound infection developed in 14 patients (1.31 %) receiving pre-saline soaked hamstring grafts compared to 13 patients (1.38 %) receiving pre-gentamicin soaked hamstring grafts, and this finding was not statistically significant (p = 0.692). All superficial wound infections were treated with oral antibiotics with no further complications. There were no recorded cases of septic arthritis in patients receiving pre-gentamicin soaked grafts compared to nine patients (0.85%) receiving pre-saline soaked grafts, which was statistically significant (p = 0.004). Conclusion. Pre-soaking hamstring autographs in gentamicin does not affect superficial infection rates but does reduce deep intra-articular infection rates compared to pre-soaking hamstring grafts in saline alone. These findings suggest that pre-soaking hamstring autografts in gentamicin provides an effective surgical technique for reducing intra-articular infection rates following ACLR. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(1):66–71

Not all questions can be answered by prospective randomised controlled trials. Registries were introduced as a way of collecting information on joint replacements at a population level. They have helped to identify failing implants and the data have also been used to monitor the performance of individual surgeons. This review aims to look at some of the less well known registries that are currently being used worldwide, including those kept on knee ligaments, ankle arthroplasty, fractures and trauma.

We examined the association of graft type with the risk of early revision of primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in a community-based sample. A retrospective analysis of a cohort of 9817 ACLRs recorded in an ACLR Registry was performed. Patients were included if they underwent primary ACLR with bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft, hamstring tendon autograft or allograft tissue. Aseptic failure was the main endpoint of the study. After adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, and body mass index, allografts had a 3.02 times (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.93 to 4.72) higher risk of aseptic revision than bone–patellar tendon–bone autografts (p < 0.001). Hamstring tendon autografts had a 1.82 times (95% CI 1.10 to 3.00) higher risk of revision compared with bone–patellar tendon–bone autografts (p = 0.019). For each year increase in age, the risk of revision decreased by 7% (95% CI 5 to 9). In gender-specific analyses a 2.26 times (95% CI 1.15 to 4.44) increased risk of hamstring tendon autograft revision in females was observed compared with bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft. We conclude that allograft tissue, hamstring tendon autografts, and younger age may all increase the risk of early revision surgery after ACLR. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:623–8

Purpose. Elective ACLR is indicated for symptomatic instability of the knee. Despite being a common procedure, there are numerous surgical techniques, graft and fixation choices. Many have been directly compared in randomized trials and meta-analyses. The typical operation is arthroscopic-assisted, uses autograft tendon and screw fixation. Research in elective joint replacement surgery has demonstrated an inverse relationship between surgeon volume and revision and complication rates. How patient demographics, provider characteristics and graft/fixation choices influence ACLR revision rates has not been reported on a population level. We hypothesized that ACLR using tendon autograft and screw fixation performed by high volume surgeons will have the lowest rate of revision. In contrast, the risk of contralateral ACLR in the same cohort will be influenced only by patient factors. Method. All ACLR performed in Ontario from July 2003 to March 2008 on Ontario residents aged 14 to 60 were identified using physician billing, procedural and diagnostic codes from administrative databases. Data was accessed through the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. The main outcomes were revision and contralateral ACLR sought from inception until end of 2009. Patient factors (age, gender, income, co-morbidity), surgical choices (allograft or autograft tendon; screw, biodegradable or endobutton/staple fixation) and associated procedures (meniscal repair, collateral ligament surgery) were entered as covariates in a cox proportional hazards survivorship model. Mean cohort patient characteristics were chosen as reference groups. Surgical options and associated procedures were analyzed in a binary fashion (yes/no). Results. We identified 13,997 primary ACLR with a mean follow up of 3.2 years. The rate of revision ACLR was 1.8% (mean 1.9 years), and primary contralateral ACLR 2.0% (mean 2.0 years). In the cox model, younger age (14–19 yrs; HR 2.9, p<0.001), teaching hospital (HR 2.1, p<0.001) and the use of endobutton/staple fixation (HR 4.4, p=0.01) conferred a higher risk of revision. No effect of graft type or surgeon volume was found. Only younger age (14–19 yrs; HR 1.9, p=0.0005) and not any provider or surgical covariates conferred a significant risk of contralateral ACLR. Conclusion. Our results confirm that young age confers a higher risk of both revision and contralateral ACLR and these patients should be counseled accordingly pre-operatively. The use of endobutton or a staple for fixation was an independent risk for revision ACLR. This finding needs to be explored further in a direct fashion. Finally, we report that the mean time to revision ACLR was almost two years a fact that should impact future randomized controlled trial design and prompt re-evaluation of those already published which typically use only 1–2 years as the endpoint of data collection

It has been suggested that excessive tibial rotation during pivoting tasks is not controlled by single bundle ACL reconstruction (ACLR). This may be partly explained by graft orientation in the coronal plane. The purpose of this study was to assess tibial rotation after ACLR with an obliquely placed hamstring graft. 18 patients were evaluated. All patients had undergone a primary ACLR for an isolated ACL injury within 6 months of injury. All had a 4 strand graft, either semi-tendinosus alone (ST) or semitendinosus and gracilis (STGR) – 9 in each group, each with 2 females and 7 males. Follow-up was at least 2 years postoperatively and all patients had made a good functional recovery and returned to their pre-injury sporting activities. Evaluation consisted of IKDC 2000, instrumented laxity testing, and 3D motion analysis to record tibial rotation when subjects descended stairs and pivoted 90 degrees on landing using a similar protocol to one which has previously been reported. All patients had made an excellent recovery (mean IKDC score 100 for both groups) and there were no significant differences between the ST and STGR subjects for any of the background variables including anterior knee laxity. There were no differences in the maximal tibial rotational angle between the operated (mean: 20°, range: 10°– 27°) and non operated limb (mean: 21°, range: 6°– 42°). There was no significant difference between the graft types (ST: 20°, STGR: 21°). Females had greater tibial rotation on both the operated and non-operated sides compared to males. Contrary to previous reports, we found restoration of normal tibial rotation during the pivoting task after a single bundle ACLR. The lack of difference between the ST and STGR groups suggests that this restoration of normal tibial rotation is due to static rather than dynamic restraints. We suggest that it probably reflects the more horizontal graft orientation in the coronal plane for patients in the current study compared to that reported in previous studies

ACL deficiency can have detrimental pathological effects on the menisci in the knee. A database review in Quebec over a three-year period was previously reported (Canadian Academy of Sport Medicine, Winnipeg, 2003), which examined the relationship between waiting times for ACL surgery and the requirement of a meniscal procedure. The purpose of this study is to determine if the length of time between an index injury and ACL reconstruction (ACLR) surgery correlates with the incidence of meniscal repair and meniscectomy in Alberta, and to compare the results to those of the Quebec study. Retrospective study, using procedure and billing codes to search the Alberta Health and Wellness databases for knees undergoing primary ACLR surgery between 2002–2005. Inclusion: Patients sixteen years or older at time of reconstruction. Exclusion: Revision ACLR, duplicate billing and coding, and insufficient database information. For each reconstructed knee, databases were searched for initial injury evaluation date with primary care physician, dates of meniscectomy or meniscal repair procedures, and date of ACLR. Over a three-year period, there were 3382 primary ACL reconstructions performed in Alberta, 3812 ACLR in Quebec. Of these patients, 2583 in Alberta (76%) and 1722 in Quebec (45%) required a meniscal procedure. On average, Albertans waited 1389 days from injury to ACLR compared to 422 days in Quebec. In Alberta, patients not requiring a meniscal procedure waited 1212 days, patients requiring meniscal repair waited 1143 days, and patients requiring meniscectomy waited 1519 days, compared to 251, 413 and 676 days in Quebec, respectively. Three percent of patients in Alberta had ACLR < three months after injury (114 patients), with 45% requiring meniscectomy. Overall, 61% of patients in Alberta required a meniscectomy for significant meniscal injury, compared to 48% of patients in Quebec. The proportions for each province were statistically significant. Compared to Quebec, patients in Alberta are waiting longer for ACLR, with only a small proportion of cases being treated acutely. The proportion of patients requiring surgery for significant meniscal injury is also greater in Alberta. The higher proportion of patients in Alberta requiring meniscectomy may be due to the delay in ACLR

Aim: To study the effect intra-operative image guidance has on the position of both femoral and tibial tunnel placement in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery. Methods: Prospective study of 2 consecutive series of 10 patients undergoing ACL reconstruction surgery all operated on by the same surgeon (the senior author). In the first group intra-operative image guidance in the form of a standard image intensifier was used to guide the surgeon in the positioning of the tibial and femoral tunnels. In the second group no image guidance was used. The position of the femoral and tibial tunnels were assessed on AP and lateral radiographs post operatively and recorded. The two groups were compared. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the position of the femoral tunnel position between the 2 groups (p=0.23). There was no significant difference in the position of the tibial tunnel between the 2 groups, in either the AP (p=0.37) or lateral (p=> 0.5) plane. There appears to be no benefit to using an image intensifier to aid in tunnel preparation in ACL reconstruction surgery

Introduction We performed an audit of tunnel position in primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions performed by two surgeons at a single centre. The audit cycle was opened with a retrospective review of a cohort of patients in order to establish existing surgical practice. Following this review our practice changed with the use of intra-operative image intensifier to confirm tunnel positions. The audit loop was closed with a prospective study of a second cohort of patients undergoing surgery using the new technique. Results Twenty five patients were reviewed in each group. The case-mix for the two groups were similar with regard to age, sex, side, graft selection and surgical technique. The first cohort of patients had optimal tibial tunnel placement in 56% (sagittal) and 88% (coronal) of cases. The femoral tunnel was correctly positioned in the sagittal plane in 52% of patients. The second cohort, in which an intra-operative image-intensifier was used, had optimal tunnel position for the femur in 100% of cases and for the tibia (sagittal) in 48% of patients. Conclusion In this study we have shown that the use of an image intensifier, intra-operatively, greatly improved femoral tunnel position but had no significant effect on tibial tunnel placement. We have also demonstrated that audit is effective in improving clinical practice