PurposeContralateral graft harvest in primary ACL reconstruction is relatively uncommon and the long‐term comparative of this approach relative to ipsilateral harvest has not been described. The purpose of this study was to evaluate ACL graft and contralateral rupture following ipsilateral or contralateral semitendinosus and gracilis (STG) graft harvest at follow‐up of a minimum 10 years post‐reconstruction in the treatment of a complete ACL tear. MethodsPatients from a previous randomized trial were evaluated. The primary outcome measures were ipsilateral and contralateral reinjury as well as the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) knee assessment form, the ACL Quality of Life questionnaire (ACL‐QoL) and the Tegner activity scale. Participants completed four different single‐leg hop tests and concentric knee flexion and extension strength were assessed on an isokinetic dynamometer. ResultsOf the original 100 patients, 50 patients (41.3 ± 9.5 years of age, 31 males, 19 females) reported on re‐injury at 12.6 ± 1.4 years post‐operative. Thirty‐eight patients returned for full assessment and 12 responded by mail or phone survey. There were no differences between groups for graft rupture, contralateral injury, ACL‐QoL score, IKDC categorization, or anterior tibial translation, though both groups experienced a reduction in the Tegner Activity Scale from their preinjury scores. There was no difference in knee flexor and extensor isokinetic concentric strength, or single leg hop test performance. Knee flexor strength limb symmetry index was reduced when measured in the supine relative to the seated position in both groups, indicating persistent deficits in knee flexor strength when measured in the supine position. ConclusionContralateral hamstring harvest does not put patients at an increased risk of a contralateral ACL tear and long‐term outcomes of ACL reconstruction do not differ based on the side of graft harvest. Contralateral STG harvest may provide a safe alternative surgical option for select patients. Level of evidenceLevel II.

To compare the effectiveness, in comparison to a control group (C), of module-based training (MBT) and traditional learning (TL) as a means of acquiring arthroscopic skills on an arthroscopic surgery simulator. Methods: Thirty health sciences students with no previous arthroscopy experience were recruited and randomized into 1 of 3 groups: MBT, TL, or C (1:1:1 ratio). Participants in MBT were required to independently practice on a VirtaMed ArthroS simulator (VirtaMed AG, Zurich, Switzerland) for a minimum of 2 hours per week, whereas TL received one-on-one coaching by a senior orthopaedic resident for 15 minutes per week. The control group received no training. All groups were assessed at baseline and at 4 weeks based on objective measures generated by the surgical simulator (procedure time, camera path length, meniscus cutting score, detailed visualization, safety score and total score), and subjective ratings scales (Objective Assessment of Arthroscopic Skill [OAAS] global assessment form, and Competency-Based Assessment form). Results: Participants in the MBT group trained on average 113 min/week whereas the TL group trained on average 24 min/week. Three-way repeated-measures analysis of variance showed significant group by time interactions for procedure time (P ¼ .006), camera path length (P ¼ .008), safety score (P ¼ .013), total score (P ¼ .003), OAAS form (P < .001), and Competency-Based Assessment form (P < .001). MBT group was superior to C group for procedure time (P ¼ .02), camera path length (P ¼ .003), total score (P ¼ .004), and OAAS form (P ¼ .021), but there were no significant post-hoc differences between MBT and TL groups, or TL and C groups after Bonferroni correction. Total practice time explained 37.5% of the final simulator total score variance. Conclusions: Knee arthroscopy simulation training with self-learning modules can improve skills in areas such as procedure time, camera path length, and total score in untrained participants compared with a control group. Clinical Relevance: Module-based simulation training provides additional training time and improves technical skills in naive health science students. It is hoped that this effect can be preserved and applied to junior resident developing in a busy residency program.

Blended learning using augmented reality glasses during the COVID-19 pandemic: the present and the future.