No abstract

BackgroundCompared with standard anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, it is controversial whether anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with remnant preservation can lead to better clinical outcomes. We conducted a systematic study and meta-analysis to assess the differences in clinical efficacy between the two.MethodWe searched for clinical randomized controlled studies and cohort studies included in the Cochrane library, PubMed, and Embase from March 2012 to March 2022 in English. The included studies were ACLR with or without remant preservation, and the data were extracted and the quality of the included studies was assessed by two authors, respectively. Revman 5.4 was used for statistical analysis and conclusions were presented.ResultTen articles containing a total of 777 patients were finally included. There was no significant difference in postoperative Lachman test [OR = 1.66, 95%CI (0.79, 3.49), P = 0.18 > 0.05], Tegner score [SMD = −0.13, 95%CI (−0.47, 0.22), P = 0.46 > 0.05], synovial coverage rate by second-look arthroscopy [OR = 1.55, 95%CI (0.66, 3.65), P = 0.32 > 0.05], the rate of cyclops lesion [OR = 3.92, 95%CI (0.53, 29.29), P = 0.18 > 0.05], joint range of motion [SMD = 0.27, 95%CI (−0.13, 0.68), P = 0.19 > 0.05] and re-injury rate [OR = 0.57, 95%CI (0.18, 1.74), P = 0.32 > 0.05] between the two groups. There were statistically significant differences in postoperative Lysholm score [SMD = 0.98, 95% CI (0.32, 1.64), P = 0.004 < 0.05], International Knee Documantation Committee grade (IKDC grade) [OR = 2.19, 95%CI (1.03, 4.65), P = 0.04 < 0.05], Pivot shift test [OR = 1.71, 95%CI (1.06, 2.77), P = 0.03 < 0.05], KT1000/2000 arthrometer side-to-side difference [SMD = −0.22, 95%CI (−0.42, −0.03), P = 0.02 < 0.05], operation time [SMD = 11.69, 95%CI (8.85, 14.54), P = 0.00001 < 0.05] and degree of tibial tunnel enlargement [SMD = −0.66, 95%CI (−1.08, −0.23), P = 0.002 < 0.05].ConclusionThis meta-analysis concluded that remnant preservation significantly had better results in terms of patient functional score (Lysholm, IKDC), knee stability (Pivot shift test, postoperative side-to-side anterior laxity) and tibial tunnel enlargement. In terms of complications (incidence of Cyclops lesions, range of motion, re-injury rate), no significant differences were seen between the two groups. Although many studies concluded that remnant preservation could bring better synovial coverage, this meta-analysis indicated that there is insufficient evidence to support it, possibly due to different remnant preservation procedures.The potential risks associated with longer operation times are also worth considering.

Objective: To investigate the clinical and radiographic short-term results of arthroscopic treatment for posterior labrum tears with an attached bony fragment after traumatic posterior hip dislocation.Methods: Between July 2014 and May 2019, a consecutive series of nine patients diagnosed with a posterior labrum tear with an attached bony fragment after traumatic posterior hip dislocation were treated by hip arthroscopic techniques. The patients had been injured in traffic accidents (n = 6) or high falls (n = 3). All patients were provided primary treatment at the emergency department of our institution, and then were transferred to our department for arthroscopy. Demographic data (e.g. gender, age, etc), intraoperative findings, the preoperative and postoperative multiple clinical scores and radiological results were subsequently assessed. Visual analogue scale for pain (VAS) and modified Harris hip scores (mHHSs) were measured and compared before surgery, and at the last follow-up.Results: A total of nine patients were enrolled, all of them were male, with a mean age at surgery of 32.2 AE 5.6 years (range, 22-65 years). The patients were followed-up for an average of 26.5 AE 4.1 (range, 24 to 50 years). During the arthroscopic surgery, all patients had labral tears with posterior acetabular rim fracture. All patients had loose osteochondral fragments. Five had partial or complete tears of ligamentum teres. Two patients had osteochondral damage. Two had capsular rupture. Postoperative X-ray films and three dimension computed tomography (3D-CT) showed satisfactory reduction of posterior acetabular wall fractures. The mHHS before surgery and at 1 year and 2 years after surgery were 51.8 AE 4.3, 81.8 AE 2.0 and 87.5 AE 1.9 respectively; VAS scores were 5.6 AE 0.5, 1.3 AE 0.3 and 0.7 AE 0.3 respectively. As compared with the condition before surgery, there was a significant improvement in the mHHS and VAS scores at 1 year and 2 years after surgery (P < 0.01). There was no significant improvement in the mHHS and VAS scores between 1 year and 2 years after surgery (P < 0.05). At the final follow-up, all patients had regained full range of motion (ROM) and were satisfied with the results. None of the patients showed signs of heterotopic ossification, avascular necrosis or progression of osteoarthritis of the hip joint. Conclusion:Traumatic dislocation is accompanied by a variety of intra-articular hip joint pathologies. Managing posterior acetabular rim fracture after traumatic posterior hip dislocation using arthroscopic reduction and fixation with anchors is a safe and minimally invasive option and delays the progression of traumatic osteoarthritis.

Purpose: To evaluate the degree of graft healing after “tension suspension” reconstruction of “Sherman II” anterior cruciate ligament injuries versus non-remnant preserving anatomical reconstruction and to compare the clinical outcomes of the two procedures. Method: The clinical data of 64 patients were retrospectively included. There were 31 cases in the “tension suspension” remnant-preserving reconstruction group and 33 cases in the non-remnant-preserving anatomical reconstruction group. The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, the Tegner score, and the Lysholm activity score were assessed preoperatively and at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively, respectively. The signal/noise quotient (SNQ) of the grafts was measured at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after surgery to quantitatively evaluate the maturity of the grafts after ACL reconstruction; the fractional anisotropy (FA) and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of the reconstructed ACL region of interest (ROI) were measured using DTI. Result: A total of 64 patients were included in the study. The mean SNQ values of the grafts in the 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperative remnant-preserving reconstruction (RP) groups were lower than those in the non-remnant-preserving (NRP) reconstruction group, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05). At each postoperative follow-up, the SNQ values of the tibial and femoral sides of the RP group were lower than those of the NRP group; the SNQ values of the femoral side of the grafts in both groups were higher than those of the tibial side, and the differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05). At 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively, the FA and ADC values of the grafts were lower in the RP group than in the NRP group, and the differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05); the IKDC score and Lysholm score of the RP group were higher than the NRP group, which was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Conclusion: For Sherman II ACL injury, the graft healing including ligamentization and revascularization at 2 years after the “tension suspension” remnant-preserving reconstruction was better than that of non-remnant-preserving anatomic reconstruction.