Introduction

The use of technology, such as navigation and robotic systems, may improve the accuracy of component positioning in total hip arthroplasty (THA) but its impact on patient reported outcomes measures (PROMs) remains unclear. This study aims to identify the association between intraoperative use of technology and patient reported outcomes measures (PROMs) in patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Controversies about the management of injuries to the soft tissue structures of the posteromedial corner of the knee and the contribution of such peripheral structures on rotational stability of the knee are of increasing interest and currently remain inadequately characterised. The posterior oblique ligament (POL) is a fibrous extension off the distal aspect of the semimembranosus that blends with and reinforces the posteromedial aspect of the joint capsule. The POL is reported to be a primary restraint to internal rotation and a secondary restraint to valgus translation and external rotation. Although its role as a static stabiliser to the medial knee has been previously described, the effect of the posterior oblique ligament (POL) injuries on tibiofemoral stability during Lachman and pivot shift examination in the setting of ACL injury is unknown.

The objective of this study was to quantify the magnitude of tibiofemoral translation during the Lachman and pivot shift tests after serial sectioning of the ACL and POL.

Eight knees were used for this study. Ligamentous constraints were sequentially sectioned in the following order: ACL first, followed by the POL. Navigated mechanised pivot shift and Lachman examinations were performed before and after each structure was sectioned, and tibiofemoral translation was recorded.

Lachman test: There was a mean 6.0 mm of lateral compartment translation in the intact knee (SD = 3.3 mm). After sectioning the ACL, translation increased to 13.8 mm (SD = 4.6; P<0.05). There was a nonsignificant 0.7 mm increase in translation after sectioning the POL (mean = 14.5 mm; SD = 3.9 P>0.05).

Mechanised pivot shift: Mean lateral compartment translation in the intact knee was −1.2 mm (SD = 3.2 mm). Sectioning the ACL caused an increase in anterior tibial translation (mean = 6.7 mm; SD = 3.0 mm; P<0.05). No significant change in translation was seen after sectioning the POL (mean = 7.0 mm, SD = 4.0 mm; P>0.05).

Sectioning the POL did not significantly alter tibiofemoral translation in the ACL deficient knee during the Lachman and pivot shift tests. This study brings into question whether injuries to the POL require reconstruction in conjunction with ACL reconstruction. More studies are needed to further characterise the role of the injured POL in knee stability and its clinical relevance in the ACL deficient and reconstructed knee.

Over the last two decades, anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions have gained popularity, while the use of extraarticular reconstructions has decreased. However, the biomechanical rationale behind the lateral extraarticular sling has not been adequately studied. By understanding its effect on knee stability, it may be possible to identify specific situations in which lateral extraarticular tenodesis may be advantageous. The primary objective of this study was to quantify the ability of a lateral extraarticular sling to restore native kinematics to the ACL deficient knee, with and without combined intraarticular anatomic ACL reconstruction. Additionally, we aimed to characterise the isometry of four possible femoral tunnel positions for the lateral extraarticular sling.

Eight fresh frozen hip-to-toe cadavers were used in this study. Navigated Lachman and mechanised pivot shift examinations were performed on ACL itact and deficient knees. Three reconstruction strategies were evaluated: Single bundle anatomic intraarticular ACL reconstruction, Lateral extraarticular sling, Combined intraarticular ACL reconstruction and lateral extraarticular sling. After all stability tests were completed, we quantified the isometry of four possible femoral tunnel positions for the lateral extraarticular sling using the Surgetics navigation system. A single tibial tunnel position was identified and digitised over Gerdy's tubercle. Four possible graft positions were identified on the lateral femoral condyle: the top of the lateral collateral ligament (LCL); the top of the septum; the ideal tunnel position, as defined by the navigation system's own algorithm; and the actual tunnel position used during testing, described in the literature as the intersection of the linear projections of the LCL and the septum over the lateral femoral condyle. For each of the four tunnel positions, the knee was cycled from 0 to 90® of flexion and fiber length was recorded at 30® intervals, therefore quantiying the magnitude of anisometry for each tunnel position.

Stability testing: Sectioning of the ACL resulted in an increase in Lachman (15mm, p = 0.01) and mechanised pivot shift examination (6.75mm, p = 0.04) in all specimens compared with the intact knee. Anatomic intraarticular ACL reconstruction restored the Lachman (6.7mm, p = 3.76) and pivot shift (−3.5mm, p = 0.85) to the intact state. With lateral extraarticular sling alone, there was a trend towards increased anterior translation with the Lachman test (9.2mm, p = 0.50). This reconstruction restored the pivot shift to the intact state. (1.25mm, p = 0.73). Combined intraarticular and extraarticular reconstruction restored the Lachman (6.2mm, p = 2.11) and pivot shift (−3.75mm, p = 0.41) to the intact state. There was no significant difference between intraarticular alone and combined intraarticular and extraarticular reconstruction. (p = 1.88)

Isometry: The ideal tunnel position calculated by the navigation system was identified over the lateral femoral condyle, beneath the mid-portion of the LCL. The anisometry for the ideal tunnel position was significantly lower (5.9mm; SD = 1.8mm; P<0.05) than the anisometry of the actual graft position (14.9mm; SD = 4mm), the top of the LCL (13.9mm; SD = 4.3mm) and the top of the septum (12mm; SD = 2.4mm).

In the isolated acute ACL deficient knee, the addition of a lateral extraarticular sling to anatomic intraarticular ACL reconstruction provides little biomechanical advantage and is not routinely recommended. Isolated lateral extraarticular sling does control the pivot shift, and may be an option in the revision setting or in the lower demand patient with functional instability. Additionally, the location of the femoral tunnel traditionally used results in a significantly more anisometric graft than the navigation's system mathematical ideal location. However, the location of this ideal tunnel placement lies beneath mid-portion of the fibers of the LCL, which would not be clinically feasible.

Controversies about the management of injuries to the soft tissue structures of the posteromedial corner of the knee and the contribution of such peripheral structures on rotational stability of the knee are of increasing interest and currently remain inadequately characterised. The posterior oblique ligament (POL) is a fibrous extension off the distal aspect of the semimembranosus that blends with and reinforces the posteromedial aspect of the joint capsule. The POL is reported to be a primary restraint to internal rotation and a secondary restraint to valgus translation and external rotation. Although its role as a static stabiliser to the medial knee has been previously described, the effect of the posterior oblique ligament (POL) injuries on tibiofemoral stability during Lachman and pivot shift examination in the setting of ACL injury is unknown.

The objective of this study was to quantify the magnitude of tibiofemoral translation during the Lachman and pivot shift tests after serial sectioning of the ACL and POL.

Eight knees were used for this study. Ligamentous constraints were sequentially sectioned in the following order: ACL first, followed by the POL. Navigated mechanised pivot shift and Lachman examinations were performed before and after each structure was sectioned, and tibiofemoral translation was recorded.

Lachman test: There was a mean 6.0 mm of lateral compartment translation in the intact knee (SD = 3.3 mm). After sectioning the ACL, translation increased to 13.8 mm (SD = 4.6; P<0.05). There was a nonsignificant 0.7 mm increase in translation after sectioning the POL (mean = 14.5 mm; SD = 3.9 P>0.05).

Mechanised pivot shift: Mean lateral compartment translation in the intact knee was −1.2 mm (SD = 3.2 mm). Sectioning the ACL caused an increase in anterior tibial translation (mean = 6.7 mm; SD = 3.0 mm; P<0.05). No significant change in translation was seen after sectioning the POL (mean = 7.0 mm, SD = 4.0 mm; P>0.05).

Sectioning the POL did not significantly alter tibiofemoral translation in the ACL deficient knee during the Lachman and pivot shift tests. This study brings into question whether injuries to the POL require reconstruction in conjunction with ACL reconstruction. More studies are needed to further characterise the role of the injured POL in knee stability and its clinical relevance in the ACL deficient and reconstructed knee.

Unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) has good outcomes for the treatment of compartmental osteoarthritis of the knee. Mechanical alignment overcorrection is associated with early failure of the femoral and tibial components. Preoperative mechanical alignment is the most important predictor of postoperative alignment. However, most studies do not take into consideration the magnitude of preoperative deformity when reporting on mechanical alignment outcomes after UKR.

We aimed to determine the magnitude of postoperative mechanical alignment achieved based on the magnitude of preoperative alignment; and to compare the number of cases of overcorrection into valgus to historical data.

This was a radiographic review of patients who underwent robotic medial UKR by a single surgeon between 2007 and 2011. Two examiners measured pre- and postoperative mechanical alignment for all patients on long-leg radiographs. Patients were classified into three groups of preoperative mechanical alignment: mild varus (0–5®); moderate varus (5–10®); and severe varus (>10®). Patients with valgus alignment (<0®) were excluded. Linear regression was used to estimate the magnitude of postoperative alignment for each group, adjusting for age, BMI, gender, side, implant type, and polyethylene thickness.

89 patients were included. Mean preoperative alignment was 7.3® varus (95% CI = 6.6®–8®; range, 0.1–15® varus). Mean postoperative alignment was 2.8® varus (95% CI = 1.9®–3.8®; range, 1.4® valgus–9.7® varus). There was a significant difference in postoperative mechanical alignment between the three groups (Table 1) (P<0.05). Four overcorrections (4.5%) were detected, all under 1.5® valgus. This percentage of overcorrection was significantly better than previous conventional UKR reports (mean = 12.6%; P = 0.04).

The magnitude of postoperative alignment in medial UKR depends on the severity of the preoperative deformity. Reports on radiographic outcomes of UKR should be stratified by the magnitude of preoperative alignment. The risk of overcorrection is reduced when using robotic assistance compared to using the conventional manual technique.