Citations

Purpose To (1) assess clinical outcomes of revision multiligament knee injury (MLKI) reconstruction at a minimum of 2 years' follow‐up and (2) present a standardized treatment algorithm used in treating revision MLKI patients. Methods A retrospective review of our institution's MLKI database was performed to identify all patients who underwent revision MLKI reconstructions (≥2 ligaments reconstructed) after implementation of a standardized treatment algorithm in 2000 and had a minimum of 2 years' follow‐up. Patient demographic information, injury description (mechanism of injury, neurovascular status, knee dislocation grade, associated chondral or meniscal injury), surgical technique (repair vs reconstruction, staged vs nonstaged, concomitant procedures), mechanism of failure, knee stability, and range of motion, as well as International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm scores, were obtained. Results We assessed 23 patients (8 female and 15 male patients), with an average age of 26.7 ± 11.5 years at primary surgery and 30.8 ± 11.0 years at revision surgery. The mean follow‐up period was 7.5 ± 5.3 years. Of the 23 patients, 10 (43.4%) underwent staged revision procedures: isolated bone grafting in 3, osteotomy in 4, hardware removal with osteochondral allograft in 1, hardware removal with bone grafting in 1, and meniscus repair for a locked knee in 1. The average International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm scores were 74.5 ± 22.3 and 79.4 ± 20.2, respectively. High‐energy injury and increasing age at revision surgery were the only risk factors found to be associated with significantly worse outcomes ( P < .05). Conclusions Patients with recurrent instability after MLKI reconstruction present with many concomitant pathologies, including limb malalignment, bone tunnel widening, retained hardware, meniscal incompetence, and cartilage defects. Revision MLKI reconstruction can provide these patients with modest functional outcomes when a standardized treatment algorithm is used focusing on identification and treatment of the concomitant pathology, often in a staged manner. Level of Evidence Level IV, case series.

Background: The success of hip surgery in treating acetabular retroversion depends on the severity of the structural deformity and on selecting the correct patient for open or arthroscopic procedures. Purpose: To compare a group of patients with retroverted hips treated successfully with hip arthroscopy with a group of patients with retroverted hips that failed arthroscopic surgery, with special emphasis on (1) patient characteristics, (2) perioperative radiographic parameters, (3) intraoperative findings and concomitant procedures, and (4) patient sex. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the charts of 47 adult patients (47 hips) with acetabular retroversion who had undergone hip arthroscopy. Retroversion was based on the presence of an ischial spine sign in addition to either a crossover or posterior wall sign on a well-positioned anteroposterior pelvic radiograph. A total of 24 hips (50%) (16 females, 8 males; mean patient age, 31 years) had failed arthroscopy, defined as modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) <80 or need for subsequent procedure. Twenty-three hips (8 females, 15 males; mean patient age, 29 years) were considered successful, defined as having no subsequent procedures and an mHHS >80 at the time of most recent follow-up. Perioperative variables, radiographic characteristics, and intraoperative findings were compared between the groups, in addition to a subgroup analysis based on sex. Results: The mean follow-up for successful hips was 30 months (SD, 11 months), with a mean mHHS of 95. In the failure group, 6 patients required subsequent procedures (4 anteverting periacetabular osteotomies and 2 total hip arthroplasties). The mean overall time to failure was 21 months, and the mean time to a second procedure was 24 months (total hip arthroplasty, 29.5 months; periacetabular osteotomy, 21.2 months); 18 hips failed on the basis of a low mHHS (mean, 65; range, 27-79) at last follow-up. Factors significantly different between the success and failure groups included patient sex, with males being more likely than females to have a successful outcome ( P < .02), as well as undergoing femoral osteoplasty ( P < .02). Intraoperative variables that were associated with worse outcome included isolated labral debridement ( P < .002). In a subgroup analysis, males were more likely than their female counterparts to have a successful outcome with both isolated cam and combined cam-pincer resection ( P < .05). Level of crossover correction on postoperative radiographs had no correlation with outcome. Conclusion: Acetabular retroversion remains a challenging pathoanatomy to treat arthroscopically. If hip arthroscopy is to be considered in select cases, we recommend labral preservation when possible. Male patients with correction of cam deformities did well, while females with significant retroversion appeared to be at greater risk for failure of arthroscopic treatment.

Abstract Patellar tendon ruptures are rare but potentially devastating injuries. Acute repair after patellar tendon rupture affords the best opportunity for tension‐free restoration of the extensor mechanism. Biological augmentation of primary repair is believed to decrease strain across the repair site and reduce the risk of rerupture. We present a technique for primary patellar tendon repair with bidirectional fixation using transosseous tunnels, suture anchor fixation, and ipsilateral hamstring autograft augmentation in a distal patellar pole socket. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Abstract A varus‐producing distal femoral osteotomy (DFO) is an effective technique for the treatment of lateral patellar instability (LPI) in patients with concomitant moderate to severe valgus malalignment. Patellar maltracking and subluxation are corrected via neutralization of some of the laterally directed forces on the patella due to the valgus deformity. This can be accomplished with a distal femoral lateral opening‐wedge or medial closing‐wedge osteotomy and medial soft tissue stabilization. A medial closing‐wedge osteotomy offers the advantages of immediate weight bearing and a single incision in cases requiring patellofemoral soft tissue stabilization. In this article, we describe our preferred operative technique for a medial closing‐wedge DFO using a femoral locking plate and medial patellofemoral ligament imbrication for the correction of LPI. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Abstract BACKGROUND Repair of proximal hamstring avulsions requires mobilization of the sciatic nerve away from the tendon stump, which can be achieved with varying difficulty depending on the degree of scar formation and adherence. Predicting when a scarred, adherent, difficult-to-mobilize nerve will be encountered has been difficult. OBJECTIVE To identify clinical and/or radiological factors predictive of a difficult intraoperative dissection of the sciatic nerve during proximal hamstring repair. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed the medical records and preoperative magnetic resonance imaging of consecutive patients undergoing proximal hamstring repair. We compared the groups with and without a difficult sciatic nerve dissection. RESULTS The total cohort consisted of 67 patients. Factors found to increase the likelihood of a difficult sciatic nerve dissection included complete conjoint tendon avulsion, higher maximal amount of tendon retraction, higher degree of imaging abnormality in the sciatic nerve, and higher degree of circumferential relationship of hematoma to the sciatic nerve. At a threshold of 23 for the Sciatic Nerve Dissection Score, the positive and negative predictive values were 53% and 88%, respectively. For the decision tree, the positive and negative predictive values were 75% and 87%, respectively. CONCLUSION We have identified imaging factors associated with a scarred, adherent sciatic nerve that predict a difficult dissection during proximal hamstring repair. We have developed 2 novel methods—the Sciatic Nerve Dissection Score and a decision tree—that can be applied to predict the probability of a difficult sciatic nerve dissection at the time of surgical repair.

Background: The technique of hip arthroscopic surgery is advancing and becoming more commonly performed. However, most current reported results are limited to short-term follow-up, and therefore, the durability of the procedure is largely unknown. Purpose: To perform a multicenter analysis of mid-term clinical outcomes of arthroscopic hip labral repair and determine the risk factors for patient outcomes. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Prospectively collected data of primary hip arthroscopic labral repair performed at 4 high-volume centers between 2008 and 2011 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively with the visual analog scale (VAS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), and Hip Outcome Score–Sports-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS) at a minimum of 5 years’ follow-up. Factors including age, body mass index (BMI), Tönnis grade, and cartilage grade were analyzed in relation to outcome scores, and revision rates were determined. Failure was defined as subsequent ipsilateral hip surgery, including revision arthroscopic surgery and open hip surgery. Results: A total of 303 patients (101 male, 202 female) with a mean age of 32.0 years (range, 10.7-58.9 years) were followed for a mean of 5.7 years (range, 5.0-7.9 years). Patients achieved mean improvements in VAS of 3.5 points, mHHS of 20.1 points, and HOS-SSS of 29.3 points. Thirty-seven patients (12.2%) underwent revision arthroscopic surgery, and 12 (4.0%) underwent periacetabular osteotomy, resurfacing, or total hip arthroplasty during the study period. Patients with a BMI >30 kg/m 2 had a mean mHHS score 9.5 points lower and a mean HOS-SSS score 15.9 points lower than those with a BMI ≤30 kg/m 2 ( P < .01). Patients aged >35 years at surgery had a mean mHHS score 4.5 points lower and a HOS-SSS score 6.7 points lower than those aged ≤35 years ( P = .03). Patients with Tönnis grade 2 radiographs demonstrated a 12.5-point worse mHHS score ( P = .02) and a 23.0-point worse HOS-SSS score ( P < .01) when compared with patients with Tönnis grade 0. Conclusion: Patients demonstrated significant improvements in VAS, mHHS, and HOS-SSS scores after arthroscopic labral repair. However, those with Tönnis grade 2 changes preoperatively, BMI >30 kg/m 2 , and age >35 years at the time of surgery demonstrated significantly decreased mHHS and HOS-SSS scores at final follow-up.

Objective: The goal of this study was to characterize the risk of intraoperative injury to the posterior femoral cutaneous nerve and to evaluate potential risk factors for injury during surgical repair of proximal hamstring injuries. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Single tertiary referral center. Patients: The cohort consisted of all patients presenting to a single institution with a proximal hamstring avulsion injury who were managed with surgical repair between January 1, 2000 and August 1, 2016. A total of 67 patients were included in the cohort. Independent Variables: Variables assessed for their association with postoperative numbness in the distribution of the posterior femoral cutaneous nerve included age, sex, body mass index, mechanism of injury, time to surgical repair, and incision used. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome of interest was neurologic symptoms referable to the posterior femoral cutaneous nerve. Results: Postoperatively, 13 patients (19%) developed new numbness in the distribution of the posterior femoral cutaneous nerve. One patient reported neuropathic pain and paresthesias associated with the numbness. The use of a gluteal crease incision was the only predictive factor for postoperative numbness in the posterior femoral cutaneous nerve distribution (odds ratio 8.67; 95% confidence interval, 2.30-42.80; P = 0.001). Conclusions: The current study provides data that can be used in discussing the risks and benefits of surgical repair with patients and when weighing the pros and cons of using a gluteal crease versus longitudinal incision.