Total knee arthroplasty in valgus knee deformities continues to be a challenge for a surgeon. Approximately 10% of patients who undergo total knee arthroplasty have a valgus deformity. While performing total knee arthroplasty in a severe valgus knee, one should aware with the technical aspects of surgical exposure, bone cuts of the distal femur and proximal tibia, medial and lateral ligament balancing, flexion and extension gap balancing, creating an appropriate tibiofemoral joint line, balancing the patellofemoral joint, preserving peroneal nerve function, and selection of the implant regarding constraint. Restoration of neutral mechanical axis and correct ligament balance are important factors for stability and longevity of the prosthesis and for good functional outcome. Thus, our review aims to provide step by step comprehensive knowledge about different surgical techniques for the correction of severe valgus deformity in total knee arthroplasty.

Purpose The purpose of this systematic review is to describe the complications and downsides of robotic systems in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods A comprehensive search according to the PRISMA guidelines was performed across PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, and Google Scholar from inception until December 2021. All articles of any study design directly reporting on complications and downsides of the robotic system in TKA were considered for inclusion. Risk of bias assessment was performed for all included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias and MINORS score. Results A total of 21 studies were included, consisting of 4 randomized controlled trials, 7 prospective studies and 10 retrospective studies. Complications of the robotic system were pin-hole fracture, pin-related infection, iatrogenic soft tissue and bony injury, and excessive blood loss. While, downsides were longer operative duration, higher intraoperative cost, learning curve and aborting a robotic TKA due to different reasons. Iatrogenic injuries were more common in the active robotic system and abortion of the robotic TKA was reported only with active robotic TKA. Conclusion Robotic TKA is associated with certain advantages and disadvantages. Therefore, surgeons need to be familiar with the system to use it effectively. Widespread adoption of the robotic system should always be evidence-based. Level of evidence IV.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the differences in the patient-reported functional outcomes, and graft failure in revision ACL reconstruction using quadriceps tendon (QT), Hamstring tendon (HT) and bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autografts. Methods Between 2010 and 2020, 97 patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction (40 patients received a QT, 26 an HT and 31 a BPTB graft) met the inclusion criteria. Pre-injury and at 2-year postoperatively patients were evaluated for patient-reported functional outcomes; Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity level and VAS (visual analogue scale) for pain; and graft failure. Patient-reported outcomes and graft failure were compared between the QT, HT and BPTB groups. The patients with graft failure were not included for outcome analysis at 2-years of follow-up. Results All three revision groups with QT, HT and BPTB autograft did not differ significantly in terms of age, sex, time from injury to surgery, concomitant injuries and single-stage or double-stage procedures (n.s.). No significant difference was found in the pre-injury patient-reported outcome; Lysholm knee score, Tegner activity and VAS for pain (n.s.) between the three groups. At the 2-year follow-up functional outcomes improved in all three groups and all the patients returned to pre-injury activity level; however, no significant difference was found in functional outcomes at the 2-year follow-up between the three groups (n.s.). Graft failure occurred in 4 (10%), 5 (19%) and 3 (10%) patients of QT, HT and BPTB groups, respectively. However, the rate of failure did not differ significantly between groups. Conclusion All three autografts (QT, HT and BPTB) demonstrated satisfactory patient-reported outcomes in revision ACL reconstruction. Compared with QT and BPTB grafts, HT graft showed a higher tendency for failure rates. With the increasing incidence of revision ACL reconstruction, surgeons should be aware of all the available graft options. The findings of this study will assist the surgeons in the graft selection for revision ACL reconstruction. Level of evidence Level III.

Purpose This study aimed to systematically evaluate the clinical, functional, and radiological outcomes, complications, and rate of return to sports among patients with RAMP lesion of the medial meniscus encountered during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Methods A systematic review was conducted based on the PRISMA guidelines. Two independent reviewers searched the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases using the terms “ACL” or “anterior cruciate ligament,” and “RAMP lesion.” The outcome measures extracted from the studies were the Short Form-12 (SF-12) in its mental and physical component (MCS and PCS), Lysholm score, Subjective IKDC, Marx Score, WOMAC Score, Tegner, Radiological changes, complications, failures and/or revision surgery, and rate of return to sports. Results The cohort of patients consisted of 1,243 participants with a mean age of 28.6 ± 2.6. The mean postoperative follow-up was 40.9 ± 6.3 months. A total of 1145 (92.1%) RAMP lesions were repaired with concomitant ACL reconstruction, while only 98 (7.9%) lesions were left untreated (or treated with abrasion only). The Lysholm score was used in 6 studies (in one only at final follow-up), with a significant improvement in all the studies (Lysholmpre 60.03 ± 6.12; Lysholmpost 89.9 ± 5.0). Eight studies out of nine reported Subjective IKDC score, and a significant improvement was noted in all cases (IKDCpre 56.2 ± 5.8. IKDCpost 84.9 ± 3.7). Of 18 (1.4%) complications reported, 15 (1.2%) were related to RAMP/ACL surgery, and of the remaining three (0.2%) two (0.2%) were hematomas and one (0.1%) a contralateral ACL lesion. Of the 106 (8.5%) revision surgeries required, 5 (0.4%) were in non-treated lesions [two (0.2%) ACL re-ruptures and three (0.2%) medial meniscus re-injury]. In treated patients, the revision occurred for the following reasons: 75 (6.0%) meniscectomy, 14 (1.1%) meniscal suture revisions, 11 (0.9%) ACL failures and one (0.1%) arthrolysis. Conclusions It is not yet clear if, in all cases of ACL reconstruction in which a medial meniscal RAMP lesion is encountered, the lesion needs to undergo surgical repair. Accordingly, it is recommended that in the repair of all unstable medial meniscal RAMP lesions during an ACL reconstruction in cases associated with a stable RAMP lesion, the surgeon may decide on repair based on the patient profile. Level of evidence Level IV.