Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 6 of 6
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 104-B, Issue 5 | Pages 529 - 531
1 May 2022
Rajput V Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 103-B, Issue 9 | Pages 1439 - 1441
1 Sep 2021
Robinson JR Haddad FS


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 100-B, Issue 3 | Pages 285 - 293
1 Mar 2018
Nakamae A Adachi N Deie M Ishikawa M Nakasa T Ikuta Y Ochi M

Aims. To investigate the risk factors for progression of articular cartilage damage after anatomical anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Patients and Methods. A total of 174 patients who underwent second-look arthroscopic evaluation after anatomical ACL reconstruction were enrolled in this study. The graded condition of the articular cartilage at the time of ACL reconstruction was compared with that at second-look arthroscopy. Age, gender, body mass index (BMI), ACL reconstruction technique, meniscal conditions, and other variables were assessed by regression analysis as risk factors for progression of damage to the articular cartilage. Results. In the medial compartment, multivariable logistic regression analysis indicated that partial medial meniscectomy (odds ratio (OR) 6.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.11 to 22.04, p = 0.001), pivot-shift test grade at the final follow-up (OR 3.53, CI 1.39 to 8.96, p = 0.008), BMI (OR 1.15, CI 1.03 to 1.28, p = 0.015) and medial meniscal repair (OR 3.19, CI 1.24 to 8.21, p = 0.016) were significant risk factors for progression of cartilage damage. In the lateral compartment, partial lateral meniscectomy (OR 10.94, CI 4.14 to 28.92, p < 0.001) and side-to-side differences in anterior knee laxity at follow-up (OR 0.63, p = 0.001) were significant risk factors. Conclusion. Partial meniscectomy was found to be strongly associated with the progression of articular cartilage damage despite r anatomical ACL reconstruction. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:285–93


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 3 | Pages 324 - 328
1 Mar 2015
Boddu CK Arif SK Hussain MM Sankaranarayanan S Hameed S Sujir PR

Graft-tunnel mismatch of the bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) graft is a major concern during anatomical anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction if the femoral tunnel is positioned using a far medial portal technique, as the femoral tunnel tends to be shorter compared with that positioned using a transtibial portal technique. This study describes an accurate method of calculating the ideal length of bone plugs of a BPTB graft required to avoid graft–tunnel mismatch during anatomical ACL reconstruction using a far medial portal technique of femoral tunnel positioning. Based on data obtained intra-operatively from 60 anatomical ACL reconstruction procedures, we calculated the length of bone plugs required in the BPTB graft to avoid graft–tunnel mismatch. When this was prevented in all the 60 cases, we found that the mean length of femoral bone plug that remained in contact with the interference screw within the femoral tunnel was 14 mm (12 to 22) and the mean length of tibial bone plug that remained in contact with the interference screw within the tibial tunnel was 23 mm (18 to 28). These results were used to validate theoretical formulae developed to predict the required length of bone plugs in BPTB graft during anatomical ACL reconstruction using a far medial portal technique. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:324–8


Bone & Joint 360
Vol. 2, Issue 5 | Pages 19 - 21
1 Oct 2013

The October 2013 Knee Roundup360 looks at: Make it easy, release the MCL; Do patients remember clinical information in day surgery?; Osteoarthritis and arthroscopy?; How best to double your bundles; When to operate for infection; Cementless unicompartment knee replacement?; Tibial tubercle-trochlear groove confusion; Tarts, cherries and osteoarthritis


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 91-B, Issue 10 | Pages 1310 - 1315
1 Oct 2009
Ibrahim SAR Hamido F Al Misfer AK Mahgoob A Ghafar SA Alhran H

A total of 218 patients with unilateral anterior cruciate ligament deficiency were randomly assigned to one of four groups. In group A an anatomical double bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction was performed; group B were treated by a single bundle using an Endobutton for femoral fixation; in group C by a single bundle using RigidFix cross pins for femoral fixation; and in group D by a single bundle using a bioabsorbable TransFix II screw for femoral fixation. For tibial fixation a bioabsorbable Intrafix interference screw was used for all the groups and the graft was fashioned from the semitendinosus and gracilis tendons in all patients. In all, 18 patients were lost to follow-up. The remaining 200 were subjected to a clinical evaluation, with assessment of the anterior drawer, Lachman’s and the pivot-shift tests, and KT-1000 arthrometer measurement. They also completed the International Knee Documentation Committee, Lysholm knee and Tegner activity scores.

At a mean of 29 months (25 to 38) follow-up there were no significant differences concerning time between injury and range of movement and Lysholm knee scores among the four groups. However, the double bundle method showed significantly better results for the pivot-shift test (p = 0.002). The KT 1000 measurements showed a mean difference between the reconstructed knee and the patients’ normal knee of 1.4 mm in the double bundle group and 2.4 mm in the single bundle group; which was statistically significant. The Lachman and anterior drawer tests also showed superior results for the double bundle method. The International Knee Documentation Committee scale showed no significant difference among the groups (p < 0.001).

On clinical evaluation the double bundle group showed less laxity than the single bundle groups. However, regardless of the technique, all knees were improved by anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction compared with their pre-operative status.