Purpose of Review Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is one of the most common orthopedic procedures performed, accounting for over 200,000 cases annually. Despite the high prevalence, there is still much debate as to the optimal graft choice. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the current literature and discuss the reported outcomes for the most common graft choices. Recent Findings The most common autografts being used include bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB), hamstring tendon (HT), and quadriceps tendon (QT). Hamstring tendon might have a slightly higher re-tear rate when compared with BPTB (2.84 versus 2.80). However, BPTB has a higher rate of anterior knee and kneeling pain in the short-and mid-term follow-up. This has not been shown to be the case in long-term follow-up. Allograft is a viable option for revisions and primaries in patients greater than 35 years old; however, re-tear rate increases significantly in younger patients. Summary ACL reconstruction graft choice is a highly studied and yet still exceedingly debated topic. Most large studies report either no significant difference or a small difference in failure rate and outcome scores between the different autograft choices. Allografts have been demonstrated to have an increased risk of failure in younger athletes and should be reserved for revision cases and those aged 35 years and older. Graft choice should ultimately be decided upon based on surgeon comfort and experience and individual patient characteristics.

Purpose: To determine the accuracy of fluoroscopy-guided suture anchor placement for arthroscopic acetabular labral repair in cadaveric hip specimens. Methods: Two sports medicine fellowshipetrained surgeons performed arthroscopic hip surgery on 6 cadaveric specimens each. Suture anchors were placed at the 11-, 12-, 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-o'clock positions of the acetabulum in each specimen using a previously described fluoroscopically guided technique. Gross dissection and thin-cut computed tomography scans were performed to assess for accuracy. The insertion angle between the subchondral bone and the drill bit immediately prior to suture anchor insertion was measured, and fluoroscopic visualization of the subchondral bone at each clock-face position was qualitatively graded as good, fair, or poor by 2 independent reviewers. Results: Overall, 90.3% of attempts (65 of 72) were entirely intraosseous, 5.5% (4 of 72) perforated the articular cartilage, and 4.2% (3 of 72) perforated the far cortex, rates that are comparable with those in previous cadaveric studies. There was no statistically significant difference in accuracy between the surgeons (P ¼ .42) or between the various clockface positions (P ¼ .63). Neither the insertion angle (P ¼ .26) nor visualization of the subchondral bone (P ¼ .35) was significantly correlated with accuracy by gross dissection. Conclusions: In a cadaveric hip arthroscopy model, fluoroscopy-guided suture anchor placement yields excellent accuracy rates, similar to noneimage-guided techniques. Clinical Relevance: Intra-articular suture anchor placement and intrapelvic suture anchor placement are known complications of arthroscopic acetabular labral repair. Fluoroscopically guided suture anchor placement can be a useful tool for hip arthroscopy surgeons performing acetabular labral repair and reconstruction, potentially reducing the risk of these complications.