No abstract

We systematically reviewed the literature to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes and retear rates of superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) using fascia lata autograft (FLA) versus human dermal allograft (HDA) in cases of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. Methods: Searches of Pub Med and Cochrane Library identified clinical studies addressing SCR using FLA and HDA. Two reviewers independently screened the titles, abstracts and full texts to extract data from eligible studies. Reported outcome measures were descriptively analyzed. Results: A total of 6 studies with 2 study groups satisfied the inclusion criteria. The number of shoulders in the HDA group was 155, and in the FLA group, the number was 140 shoulders. The mean age at time of surgery for the HDA group and the FLA group was 60.49 years and 65.8 years, respectively, and the mean follow-up was 15.2 months and 44.6 months, respectively. Active elevation improved from of 121-130 to 158-160 in the HDA group and from 74.8-133 to 130.4-146 in the FLA group. Active external rotation improved from 36-45 in the HDA group and from 13-28 to 30-43 in the FLA group. The Visual Analog Scale for pain improved from 4-6.25 to 0.38-1.7 points in the HDA group, whereas in the FLA group, it improved from 6-2.5 points. In the HDA group, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores improved from 42-52 to 77.5-86.5, whereas in the FLA group scores improved from 35-54.4 to 73.7-94.3. The acromiohumeral distance improved in both groups. The retear rate was 3.4%-55% in the HDA group and 4.5%-29% % in the FLA group. Conclusions: Arthroscopic SCR for massive, irreparable rotator cuff tears using both fascia lata allograft and human dermal allograft leads to improvement in clinical outcomes and radiologic outcomes. There is a lower retear rate in fascia lata allografts. The current literature is heterogeneous and has low levels of evidence. Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of level IV studies.

Background Femoral tunnel can be drilled through tibial tunnel (TT), or independent of it (TI) by out-in (OI) technique or by anteromedial (AM) technique. No consensus has been reached on which technique achieves more proper femoral aperture position because there have been evolving concepts in the ideal place for femoral aperture placement. This meta-analysis was performed to analyze the current literature comparing femoral aperture placement by TI versus TT techniques in ACL reconstruction. Methods We performed a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of English-language literature in PubMed, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases for articles comparing femoral aperture placement by TI versus TT techniques with aperture position assessed by direct measurement or by postoperative imaging, PXR and/or CT and/or MRI. Results We included 55 articles with study population of 2401 knees of whom 1252 underwent TI and 1149 underwent TT techniques. The relevant baseline characteristics, whenever compared, were comparable between both groups. There was nonsignificant difference between TI and TT techniques in the distance from aperture center to footprint center and both techniques were unable to accurately recreate the anatomic footprint position. TI technique significantly placed aperture at more posterior position than TT technique. TI technique significantly lowered position of placed aperture perpendicular to Blumensaat’s line (BL) than TT technique, and modifications to TT technique had significant effect on this intervention effect. Regarding sagittal plane aperture placement along both AP anatomical axis and BL, there was nonsignificant difference between both techniques. Conclusion Modifications to TT technique could overcome limitations in aperture placement perpendicular to BL. The more anterior placement of femoral aperture by TT technique might be considered, to some extent, a proper position according to recent concept of functional anatomical ACL reconstruction.

No abstract

No abstract