Meta, Fabien

Abstract Shoulder arthroscopy is a popular modality for the treatment of shoulder pathology. Since its advent in the 1970s, significant advancements have been made in both technology and technique. Shoulder arthroscopy is performed in either the beach‐chair or lateral decubitus positions, and each position has its unique benefits and considerations. Beach‐chair positioning, initially described in the 1980s, has become the preferred method of positioning for most arthroscopic procedures. In this work, we describe the history of beach‐chair positioning for shoulder arthroscopy. We outline a reproducible and teachable method for consistent and comprehensive diagnostic arthroscopy in the beach‐chair position. Pearls, pitfalls, advantages, and disadvantages of diagnostic arthroscopy in this position are discussed. When properly executed, diagnostic arthroscopy in the beach‐chair position can effectively identify and characterize intra‐articular shoulder pathologies. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Abstract Acetabular labral tears are commonly diagnosed in patients with hip or groin pain, most of which occur anterosuperiorly. In some cases, operative intervention in the form of arthroscopic labral repair may be necessary to restore labral function. Posterolateral tears can be technically challenging when using traditional modified anterior portal and anterolateral (AL) portal access owing to a suboptimal drill trajectory. In this article, we describe the establishment of a posterolateral (PL) portal 1 to 2 cm posterior to the tip of the greater trochanter, mirroring the distal‐to‐proximal trajectory of the AL portal and entering the capsulotomy at the 10‐o'clock position. This method highlights that the PL portal is used for drilling and anchor placement, whereas the remaining work is performed through the AL portal. This avoids the use of any shavers or burrs in the PL portal near important neurovascular structures, including the sciatic nerve. Addressing posterolateral labral tears in the 9‐ to 11‐o'clock position using a PL portal can enhance labral fixation, thereby mitigating the risk of suboptimal repairs that can negatively impact postoperative outcomes. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Abstract The hip capsule is the primary stabilizer of the hip joint. At the time of hip arthroscopy, the capsule is disrupted to obtain intra‐articular access and proper joint visualization. With the number of patients undergoing primary and revision hip arthroscopy continuing to increase, it is not uncommon for surgeons to encounter patients with iatrogenic capsular deficiency from prior hip arthroscopy. In cases where substantial capsular defects beyond the scope of capsular repair are visualized, reconstruction may be required to obtain satisfactory closure and restore hip stability. We present a step‐by‐step workflow for efficient hip capsular reconstruction with rectus overlay while allowing for facile incorporation of other revision procedures such as labral repair and femoral osteochondroplasty. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Abstract Labral tears most commonly occur anteriorly between the 12‐ and 3‐o'clock positions, with the 12‐o'clock position denoted as superior and the 3‐o'clock position denoted as anterior. When approaching the 3‐o'clock position and beyond, suture anchor placement becomes difficult given the challenging arthroscopic trajectory and an overall thin anterior rim of cortical bone for anchor purchase, resulting in a narrow angle of safe drilling. The purpose of this technical note is to present a safe and reproducible method of suture anchor placement during acetabular labral repair approaching the 3‐ and 4‐o'clock positions, with the 12‐o'clock position representing the superior anatomic location and the 3‐o'clock position representing the anterior anatomic location regardless of hip laterality. We use an inside‐out anchor placement technique to place far medial anchors, which differs from the conventional techniques (e.g., outside‐in technique) in which anchor placement is performed along the external margin of the acetabular labrum. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Abstract Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using the quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft is an increasingly utilized technique that confers less donor site morbidity and comparable outcomes to other historically used graft options. The graft harvest and implantation process present vast variability—particularly regarding the achievement of adequate graft site visualization, consistently attaining a uniform and appropriately sized graft, and subsequent reconstruction of the ACL with the all‐soft tissue graft. The purpose of this Technical Note and video is to describe and demonstrate minimally invasive quadriceps tendon autograft harvesting using the Quadriceps Tendon Harvest Guide System (QUADTRAC), and its subsequent implantation within a single‐bundle ACL reconstruction with suspensory fixation. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Background: Multimodal pain protocols have been effective for postsurgical pain control; however, no published protocol has been effective in eliminating opioid consumption. Purpose: To compare a multimodal nonopioid pain protocol versus traditional opioid medication for postoperative pain control in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: A total of 90 patients undergoing primary ACLR were assessed for participation. We performed a prospective, randomized controlled trial in accordance with the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) 2010 statement. The study arms were a multimodal nonopioid analgesic protocol (acetaminophen, ketorolac, diazepam, gabapentin, and meloxicam) and a standard opioid regimen (hydrocodone-acetaminophen), and the primary outcome was postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores for 10 days. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported outcomes, complications, and satisfaction. The observers were blinded, and the patients were not blinded to the intervention. Results: A total of 9 patients did not meet inclusion criteria, and 19 patients declined participation. Thus, 62 patients were analyzed, with 28 patients randomized to the opioid group and 34 to the multimodal nonopioid group. Patients receiving the multimodal nonopioid pain regimen demonstrated significantly lower VAS scores compared with patients who received opioid pain medication ( P < .05). Patients were administered the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement and Information System Pain Interference Short Form, and no significant difference was found in patients’ preoperative scores (opioid group, 58.6 ± 7.9; multimodal nonopioid group, 57.5 ± 7.4; P = .385) and 1-week postoperative scores (opioid group, 66.3 ± 8.2; multimodal nonopioid group, 61.4 ± 8.8; P = .147). When we adjusted for possible confounders (age, sex, body mass index, graft type), no significant differences in pain control were found between the 2 groups. The most common adverse effects for both groups were drowsiness and constipation, with no difference between the groups. All patients in the multimodal nonopioid group reported satisfactory pain management. Conclusions: A multimodal nonopioid pain protocol provided at least equivalent pain control compared with traditional opioid analgesics in patients undergoing ACLR. Minimal side effects, which did not differ between groups, were noted, and all patients reported satisfaction with their pain management.