Rodilla/Knee/Knie: No hay que arrojar la toalla ante asas de cubo crónicas

Outcomes After Repair of Chronic Bucket-Handle Tears of Medial Meniscus

Alejandro Espejo Reina, José Miguel Serrano Fernández, Belén Martín Castilla, Francisco Javier Estades Rubio, Karen K. Briggs, Alejandro Espejo Baena

Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopikc & Related Surgery, Volume 30, Issue 4

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine the outcomes after repair of chronic bucket-handle medial meniscal tears by use of magnetic resonance imaging, clinical examination, and patient-reported outcomes.

Methods

A retrospective review of patients with chronic bucket-handle medial meniscal tears that had been repaired with meniscal sutures was undertaken. The following criteria for inclusion were adopted: minimum tear length of 2 cm and chronic medial meniscal tear identified at the time of arthroscopy. The tears were susceptible to dislocation with probing. Data collected included demographic, clinical, radiologic, and surgical data. Postoperative healing was assessed with the clinical criteria of Barrett et al. The International Knee Documentation Committee rating, Lysholm score, and Tegner activity level were determined, and postoperative magnetic resonance imaging was used to evaluate healing in accordance with the criteria of Henning et al.

Results

Twenty-four patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The mean time from injury to surgery was 10 months (range, 2 to 60 months). Sixteen patients underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, 1 patient underwent posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, and 6 patients underwent meniscus repair only. A median of 5 sutures (range, 3 to 6 sutures) were used for repair. Four cases (all of which had undergone meniscus repair only) required revision. Complete healing was achieved in 83% of cases according to the criteria of Barrett et al. The mean follow-up time was 48 months (range, 24 to 112 months). An International Knee Documentation Committee rating of A or B was achieved in the 20 patients who did not require revision. The median Lysholm score was 95 (range, 92 to 100). The median Tegner activity level before injury was 7, and it remained unchanged after surgery in all cases.

Conclusions

This study showed that repair of chronic bucket-handle meniscal tears can lead to good clinical outcomes and a relatively low (17%) failure rate. In addition, repairs of isolated meniscal tears had a significantly higher risk of failure than repairs performed in conjunction with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Rodilla/Knee/Knie: Hay que lavar la rodilla por artroscopia para salvar la plastia

Arthroscopic Irrigation and Debridement in the Treatment of Septic Arthritis After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Michael Saper, Kyle Stephenson, Meredith Heisey

Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery

Publication date: Available online 27 March 2014

Purpose

To systematically review the literature and characterize the success and failure rates of arthroscopic irrigation and debridement (I & D) in the treatment of septic arthritis after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions. We also aimed to identify which variables affected the failure rate.

Methods

Five databases (MEDLINE, Ovid, Medscape, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) were screened for clinical studies involving the treatment of septic arthritis after ACL reconstruction with arthroscopic I & D. A full-text review of eligible studies was conducted. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied to the searched studies. Failure of I & D was defined as the need for graft removal or revision ACL reconstructive surgery because of infection. Data from the selected studies were combined for statistical analyses to elucidate factors associated with the success or failure.

Results

We identified 11 eligible studies involving 90 patients. These studies described the results of 90 arthroscopic I & D procedures with an overall success rate of 85.6%. Repeated I & D was necessary in 34.5% of patients. Removal of the graft with or without subsequent revision ACL reconstruction was reported in 13 (14.4%) cases. Statistical analysis showed that cases involving Staphylococcus aureus (P = .053), 2 or more I & D procedures (P = .029), and allografts (P < .0001) were at greater risk of failure.

Conclusions

Arthroscopic I & D with graft retention is an effective treatment for patients with septic arthritis after ACL reconstruction. Factors affecting the failure rate may include graft choice and organism virulence.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies

Rodilla / Knee: El injerto autólogo de tendón cuadricipital mejor que el de tendón rotuliano

Is Quadriceps Tendon a Better Graft Choice than Patellar Tendon? A Prospective Randomized Study.

Lund B, Nielsen T, Faunø P, Christiansen SE, Lind M

Arthroscopy 2014 Mar 14.

Abstract

PURPOSE

The purpose of this randomized controlled study was to compare knee stability, kneeling pain, harvest site pain, sensitivity loss, and subjective clinical outcome after primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with either bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) or quadriceps tendon-bone (QTB) autografts in a noninferiority study design.

METHODS

From 2005 to 2009, a total of 51 patients were included in the present study. Inclusion criteria were isolated ACL injuries in adults. Twenty-five patients were randomized to BPTB grafts and 26 to QTB grafts. An independent examiner performed follow-up evaluations 1 and 2 years postoperatively. Anteroposterior knee laxity was measured with a KT-1000 arthrometer (MEDmetric, San Diego, CA). Anterior knee pain was assessed clinically and by knee-walking ability. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score were used for patient-evaluated outcome.

RESULTS

Anterior knee laxity was equal between the 2 groups with KT-1000 values of 1.1 ± 1.4 mm and 0.8 ± 1.7 mm standard deviation (SD) at follow-up in QTB and BPTB groups, respectively (P = .65), whereas positive pivot shift test results were seen less frequently (14% compared with 38%, respectively; P = .03). Anterior kneeling pain, evaluated by the knee walking ability test, was significantly less in the QTB group, with only 7% of patients grading knee walking as difficult or impossible compared with 34% in the BPTB group. At 1 and 2 years' follow-up, there was no difference between the 2 groups in subjective patient-evaluated outcome. The IKDC score was 75 ± 13 patients and 76 ± 16 SD at 1-year follow-up in QTB and BPTB groups, respectively (P = .78). At 2 years, 12 patients were lost to follow-up, resulting in 18 in the BPTB group and 21 in the QTB group.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the QTB graft results in less kneeling pain, graft site pain, and sensitivity loss than seen with BPTB grafts; however, similar anterior knee stability and subjective outcomes are seen. The results of this study show that QTB is a viable option for ACL reconstruction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, randomized controlled clinical trial.