Purpose To compare clinical and radiological outcomes and failure rates between anatomical and high femoral tunnels in remnant-preserving single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. Methods 63 patients who underwent remnant-preserving single-bundle PCL reconstruction between 2011 and 2018 with a minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the femoral tunnel position: group A (33 patients with anatomical femoral tunnel) and group H (30 patients with high femoral tunnels). The femoral tunnel was positioned at the center (group A) or upper margin (group H) of the remnant anterolateral bundle. The position of the femoral tunnel was evaluated using the grid method on three-dimensional computed tomography. Clinical and radiological outcomes and failure rates were compared between the groups at the 2-year follow-up. ResultsThe position of the femoral tunnel was signiicantly high in group H than in group A (87.4% ± 4.2% versus 76.1% ± 3.7%, p < 0.001). Clinical outcomes were not signiicantly diferent between the two groups in terms of the clinical scores (International Knee Documentation Committee subjective, Lysholm, and Tegner activity scores), range of motion, and posterior drawer test. Radiological outcomes also showed no intergroup diferences in the side-to-side diferences of posterior tibial translation and osteoarthritis progression. Side-to-side diference on the Telos stress radiograph was 5.2 ± 2.9 mm in group A and 5.2 ± 2.7 mm in group H (n.s.). There were four failures in group A (12.1%) and one in group H (3.3%). The diferences between the groups were not statistically signiicant. ConclusionThe clinical and radiological outcomes and failure rates of the high femoral tunnels were comparable with those of the anatomical femoral tunnels at the 2-year follow-up after remnant-preserving single-bundle PCL reconstruction. The indings of this study suggest that high femoral tunnels can be considered an alternative in remnant-preserving single-bundle PCL reconstruction. Level of evidence III.

Background: There is currently no consensus on the optimal placement of the tibial tunnel for remnant-preserving posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction using anatomic versus low tibial tunnels. We hypothesized that the outcomes of low tibial tunnel placement would be superior to those of anatomic tibial tunnel placement at the 2-year follow-up after remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the data for patients who underwent remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction between March 2011 and January 2018 with a minimum follow-up of 2 years (N = 63). On the basis of the tibial tunnel position on postoperative computed tomography, the patients were divided into those with anatomic placement (group A; n = 31) and those with low tunnel placement (group L; n = 32). Clinical scores (International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, Lysholm score, and Tegner activity level), range of motion, complications, and stability test outcomes at follow-up were compared between the 2 groups. Graft signal on 1-year follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans was compared between 22 patients in group A and 17 patients in group L. Results: There were no significant differences between groups regarding clinical scores or incidence of complications, no between-group differences in posterior drawer test results, and no side-to-side difference on Telos stress radiographs (5.2 ± 2.9 mm in group A vs 5.1 ± 2.8 mm in group L; P = .900). Postoperative 1-year follow-up magnetic resonance imaging scans showed excellent graft healing in both groups, with no significant difference between them. Conclusion: The clinical and radiologic outcomes and complication rate were comparable between anatomic tunnel placement and low tibial tunnel placement at 2-year follow-up after remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction. The findings of this study suggest that both tibial tunnel positions are clinically feasible for remnant-preserving PCL reconstruction.

Successful Latarjet procedures depend on many factors including graft union and subsequent restoration of the glenoid surface. Coracoid graft union has been studied; however, remodelling of the glenoid has not been studied extensively. We present two Latarjet cases in which coracoid screws were removed due to hardware issues, at 12 months postoperatively in one patient and at six months in another. We share our observations on the coracoid graft and the restoration of the glenoid shape. Prior to screw removal, done by a mini-open approach, we performed arthroscopic examination of the glenohumeral joint in both patients. Our arthroscopic and open findings with respect to graft union, screw prominence, and glenoid remodelling, are presented. Both cases showed good union of the coracoid graft and restoration of the native glenoid shape.

Management of shoulder dislocation can be challenging especially when glenoid bone fracture is involved. Bony Bankart lesion can be managed either through an open surgery or, of late, using arthroscopic technique. Arthroscopic bony Bankart repair is technically difficult, requiring specialized instruments to penetrate the bone fragment within the detached labrum. This case report describes an alternative way of doing an arthroscopic reattachment of an acute bony Bankart lesion using traction sutures, an accessory anteromedial portal and utilization of knotless anchors. A 44-year-old male technician was climbing a ladder when he slipped and fell directly on his left shoulder. Imaging revealed bony Bankart fracture with presence of ipsilateral greater tuberosity (GT) fracture and a Hill-Sachs lesion. In a right lateral position, arthroscopic reduction of the bony fragment was performed utilizing a Fibrewire® (Arthrex, Inc., Naples, FL, USA) suture as traction apparatus while securing the upper and lower tissue enveloping the bony Bankart fragment. An accessory portal was made lower down anteriorly to de-rotate the fragment, holding it in place while securing two Pushlock® (Arthrex, Inc.) anchors to the native glenoid. We then performed GT fixation using two cannulated screws. Check radiographs revealed acceptable reduction of the Bankart fragment. With careful case selection, arthroscopic repair of acute bony Bankart lesions is possible using special arthroscopic reduction maneuver and fixation technique with subsequent good outcome.