Purpose This study aimed to identify and prevent preoperative factors that can be influenced in preoperative planning to reduce postoperative malcorrections. Methods The method used in this study was a retrospective two-centre analysis of 78 pre and postoperative fully weight-bearing radiographs of patients who underwent valgus osteotomy correction due to symptomatic medial compartment osteoarthritis. A computer software (TraumaCad®) was used to aim for an intersection point of the mechanical tibiofemoral axis (mTFA) with the tibia plateau at 55–60% (medial = 0%, lateral = 100%). Postoperative divergence ± 5% of this point was defined as over- and undercorrection. Preoperative joint geometry factors were correlated with postoperative malcorrection. Planning was conducted using the established method described by Miniaci (Group A) and with additional correction of the joint line convergence angle (JLCA) using the formula JLCA-2/2 (Group B). Additionally, in a small clinical case series, planning was conducted with JLCA correction. Statistical analysis was performed using (multiple) linear regression analysis and analysis of variance (ANOVA) with p < 0.05 considered significant. Results In 78 analysed cases, postoperative malcorrection was detected in 37.2% (5.1% undercorrection, 32.1% overcorrection). Linear regression analysis revealed preoperative body mass index (BMI, p = 0.04), JLCA (p = 0.0001), and osteotomy level divergence (p = 0.0005) as factors correlated with overcorrection. In a multiple regression analysis, JLCA and osteotomy level divergence remained significant factors. Preoperative JLCA correction reduced the planned osteotomy gap (A 9.7 ± 2.8 mm vs B 8.3 ± 2.4 mm; p > 0.05) and postoperative medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA: A 94.3 ± 2.1° vs B 92.3 ± 1.5°; p < .05) in patients with preoperative JLCA ≥ 4°. The results were validated using a virtual postoperative correction of cases with overcorrection. A case series (n = 8) with a preoperative JLCA > 4 revealed a postoperative accuracy using the JLCA correction of 3.4 ± 1.9%. Conclusion Preoperative JLCA ≥ 4° and tibial osteotomy level divergence were identified as risk factors for postoperative overcorrection. Preoperative JLCA correction using the formula JLCA-2/2 is proposed to better control ideal postoperative correction and reduce MPTA. The intraoperatively realised osteotomy level should be precisely in accordance with preoperative planning. Level of evidence III, cross-sectional study.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to systematically review multiligament knee injury (MLKI) outcome studies to determine definitions of arthrofibrosis (AF) and provide information about incidence, management as well as potential risk factors. Methods A systematic literature search was performed (PubMed and Cochrane library) following the PRISMA guidelines of operatively treated MLKI (Schenck II–IV) studies reporting the incidence of AF. Twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Injury pattern, timing of surgery, surgical technique, treatment of AF, rehabilitation programs and PROMS were inquired. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using the Coleman methodological score. Results Twenty-five studies with a total of 709 patients with a mean age of 33.6 ± 4.8 years were included and followed 47.2 ± 32.0 months. The majority of studies (22/25) used imprecise and subjective definitions of AF. A total of 86 patients were treated for AF, resulting in an overall prevalence of 12.1% (range 2.8–57.1). Higher-grade injuries (Schenck III–IV), acute treatment and ROM (range of motion) limiting rehabilitation programs were potential risk factors for AF. The time from index surgery to manipulation anesthesia (MUA) and arthroscopic lysis of adhesions (LOA) averaged at 14.3 ± 8.8 and 27.7 ± 12.8 weeks. Prior to MUA and LOA, the ROM was 51.7° ± 23.5 and 80.2° ± 17.0, resulting in a total ROM gain after intervention of 65.0° ± 19.7 and 48.0° ± 10.6, respectively; with no reports of any complication within the follow-up. The overall methodological quality of the studies was poor as measured by the Coleman score with average 56.3 ± 12.5 (range 31–84) points. Conclusions AF is a common but poorly defined complication particularly in high-grade MLKI. Early postoperative and intensified physiotherapy is important to reduce the risk of AF. MUA and LOA are very effective treatment options and result in good clinical outcome. Prospective studies with bigger study population are needed to optimize treatment algorithms of further patients after MLKI. The protocol of this systematic review has been prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021229187, January 4th, 2021).

Background: There is evidence on the clinical effectiveness of the Lemaire technique for lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) in patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), but the best fixation technique is unknown. Purpose: To compare the clinical outcomes of 2 fixation techniques after revision ACLR: (1) onlay anchor fixation, which would avoid tunnel conflict and physis injury, and (2) transosseous tightening and interference screw fixation. Pain at the area of LET fixation was also assessed. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: This was a retrospective 2-center study of patients with first-time revision ACLR and either LET with anchor fixation (aLET) with a 2.4-mm suture anchor or LET with transosseous fixation (tLET). Outcomes at minimum 12-month follow-up were assessed with the International Knee Documentation Committee score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, visual analog scale for pain at the LET fixation area, Tegner score, and anterior tibial translation (ATT). A subgroup analysis within the aLET group investigated passing the graft over or under the lateral collateral ligament (LCL). Results: In total, 52 patients were included (26 patients in each group); the mean ± SD follow-up was 13.7 ± 3.4 months. No statistically significant differences were detected between the groups with respect to patient-reported outcome scores, clinical examination, or instrumented testing (side-to-side difference in ATT at 30° of flexion; aLET, 1.5 ± 2.5 mm; tLET, 1.6 ± 1.7 mm). Clinical failure was detected in 1 patient with aLET and none with tLET. Subgroup analysis revealed a small, nonsignificant flexion deficit in knees in which the iliotibial band strand was passed under (n = 42) or over (n = 10) the LCL. No clinically relevant tenderness was detected at the area of LET fixation in any group (aLET, 0.6 ± 1.3; tLET, 0.9 ± 1.7; over the LCL, 0.2 ± 0.6; under the LCL, 0.9 ± 1.6). Conclusion: Onlay anchor fixation and transosseous fixation of the LET were equivalent with respect to outcome scores and instrumented ATT testing. Clinically, there were minor differences in passage of the LET graft over or under the LCL.