Pierluigi Cuomo

Comparison Between Single-and Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction A Prospective, Randomized, Single-Blinded Clinical Trial

Background Double-bundle ACL reconstruction popularity is increasing with the aim to reproduce native ACL anatomy and improve ACL reconstruction outcome. However, to date, only a few randomized clinical studies have been published. Purpose The aim of this study was to prospectively compare the clinical results of single- and double-bundle ACL reconstruction. Study Design Randomized controlled clinical trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods Seventy patients with a chronic unilateral ACL rupture who underwent arthroscopically assisted ACL reconstruction using a hamstring graft were randomized to receive a single- (SB) or double-bundle (DB) reconstruction. Both groups were comparable with regard to preoperative data. A double-incision surgical technique was adopted in both groups. The graft was fixed by looping the hamstring tendons around a bony (DB) or a metallic (SB) bridge on the tibial side and with interference screws reinforced with a staple on the femur. The same rehabilitation protocol was adopted. Outcome assessment was performed by a blinded, independent observer using the visual analog scale (VAS) score, the new International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) form, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and KT-1000 arthrometer evaluation. Results All the patients reached a minimum follow-up of 2 years. No differences between the 2 groups were observed in terms of KOOS and IKDC subjective score. A statistically significant difference in favor of the DB group was found with the VAS (P < .03). The objective IKDC final scores showed statistically significantly more “normal knees” in the DB group than in the SB group (P = .03). There was 1 stability failure in the DB group and 3 in the SB group. The KT-1000 arthrometer data showed a statistically significant decrease in the average anterior tibial translation in the DB group (1.2 mm DB vs 2.1 mm SB; P < .03). The incidence of a residual pivot-shift glide was 14% in DB and 26% in SB (P = .08). Conclusion In the 2-year minimum follow-up, DB ACL reconstructions showed better VAS, anterior knee laxity, and final objective IKDC scores than SB. However, longer follow-up and accurate instrumented in vivo rotational stability assessment are needed.

Rotational Position of Femoral and Tibial Components in TKA Using the Femoral Transepicondylar Axis

Proper femoral and tibial component rotational positioning in TKA is critical for outcomes. Several rotational landmarks are frequently used with different advantages and limitations. We wondered whether coronal axes in the tibia and femur based on the transepicondylar axis in the femur would correlate with anteroposterior deformity. We obtained computed tomography scans of 100 patients with arthritis before they underwent TKA. We measured the posterior condylar angle on the femoral side and the angle between Akagi’s line and perpendicular to the projection of the femoral transepicondylar axis on the tibial side. On the femoral side, we found a linear relationship between the posterior condylar angle and coronal deformity with valgus knees having a larger angle than varus knees, ie, gradual external rotation increased with increased coronal deformity from varus to valgus. On the tibial side, the angle between Akagi’s line and the perpendicular line to the femoral transepicondylar axis was on average approximately 0°, but we observed substantial interindividual variability without any relationship to gender or deformity. A preoperative computed tomography scan was a useful, simple, and relatively inexpensive tool to identify relevant anatomy and to adjust rotational positioning. We do not, however, recommend routine use because on the femoral side, we found a relationship between rotational landmarks and coronal deformity.

Femoral attachment of the anterior cruciate ligament

Endoscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is one of the most popular orthopaedic procedures. Correct tunnel positioning is a prerequisite to success. Current surgical techniques are unable to duplicate the complex anatomy and function of the native ACL. Surgery mainly aims at restoring anteroposterior laxity. The ACL is not isometric and only a few fibers are nearly isometric over the full range of motion. However, a nearly isometric behaviour of the ACL graft is desirable. Isometry is mainly influenced by femoral attachment; thus the femoral tunnel position has a greater effect than the tibial on graft length changes. The purpose of this article is to describe the anatomy of the femoral ACL insertion and to discuss the surgical techniques used to replicate it.

Modular Endoprostheses for Nonneoplastic Conditions: Midterm Complications and Survival

The use of modular endoprostheses is a viable option to manage both tumor resection and severe bone loss due to nonneoplastic conditions such as fracture sequelae, failed osteoarticular grafts, arthroplasty revisions, and periprosthetic fractures. We sought to investigate both midterm complications and failures occurred in 87 patients who underwent a megaprosthetic reconstruction in a nonneoplastic setting. After a mean follow-up of 58 (1–167) months, overall failure-free survival was 91.5% at 1 year, 80% at 2 years, 71.6% at 5 years, and 69.1% at 5 and 10 years. There was no significant difference in the survival rate according to the diagnosis at the index procedure (p = 0.921), nor to the reconstruction site (p = 0.402). The use of megaprostheses in a postneoplastic setting did not affect survival rate in comparison with endoprosthetic reconstruction of pure nonneoplastic conditions (p = 0.851). Perimegaprosthetic infection was the leading complication, occurring in 10 (11.5%) patients and implying a megaprosthetic revision in all but one case. Physicians should consider these results when discussing with patients desired outcomes of endoprosthetic reconstructions of a nonneoplastic disease.

Allograft-prosthetic composite versus megaprosthesis in the proximal tibia—What works best?

Modular megaprosthesis (MP) and allograft-prosthetic composite (APC) are the most commonly used reconstructions for large bone defects of the proximal tibia. The primary objective of this study was to compare the two different techniques in terms of failures and functional results. A total of 42 consecutive patients with a mean age of 39.6 years (range 15-81 years) who underwent a reconstruction of the proximal tibia between 2001 and 2012 were included. Twenty-three patients were given an MP, and 19 patients received an APC. There were nine reconstruction failures after an average follow-up of 62 months: five in the MP group and four in the APC group (p=0.957). The 10-year implant survival rate was 78.8% for the MP and 93.7% for the APC (p=0.224). There were no relevant differences between the two groups in functional results. Both MP and APC are valid and satisfactory reconstructive options for massive bone defects in the proximal tibia. In high-demanding patients with no further risk factors, an APC should be considered to provide the best possible functional result for the extensor mechanism.

Modular megaprosthesis reconstruction for oncological and non-oncological resection of the elbow joint.

BACKGROUND Reconstruction of large bone defects around the elbow joint is surgically demanding due to sparse soft tissue coverage, complex biomechanics and the close proximity to neurovascular structures. Modular megaprostheses are established reconstruction tools for the elbow, but only small case series have been reported in the literature. METHODS Thirty-six patients who underwent reconstruction of the elbow joint with a modular megaprosthesis were reviewed retrospectively. In 31 patients (86.1%), elbow replacement was performed after resection of a bone tumour, whereas five non-oncological patients (13.9%) underwent surgery because of a previous failed elbow reconstruction. Functional outcome, rate of complications and oncological results were considered as primary endpoints. RESULTS The mean follow-up was 25 months. The average achieved Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) was 77.08 (range 40-95) and the average Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score was 22.9 (range 8-30). Six complications (16.7%) were observed: two radial palsies, one temporary radial nerve dysfunction, one ulnar palsy, one disassembling of the articular prosthesis component and one deep infection necessitating the only implant removal. The overall 5-year survival rate of the patients was poor (25.1%) because of rapid systemic progression of the oncological disease in patients with metastatic lesion. However, the 5-year survival rate of the implant was very satisfactory (93%). CONCLUSIONS Modular megaprosthesis is a reliable and effective reconstruction tool in large bone defects around the elbow joint. The complication rates are lower than seen in osteoarticular allografts and allograft-prosthesis composites while the functional outcome is equal. In palliative situations with metastatic disease involving the elbow, modular megaprosthesis enables rapid recovery and pain relief and preserves elbow function.

Allograft Reconstruction of the Extensor Mechanism after Resection of Soft Tissue Sarcoma

Introduction Soft tissue tumors around the knee joint still pose problems for the excision and subsequent reconstruction. Methods In the 6 included patients the soft tissue sarcoma has its base on the anterior surface of the extensor mechanism and expands towards the skin. The entire extensor apparatus (quadriceps tendon, patella, and patellar tendon) was resected and replaced by a fresh-frozen allograft. Results The mean follow-up was 6.7 years (range: 2–12.4 years). In two patients a local recurrence occurred, resulting in a 5-year local recurrence-free rate of 66.7% (95% CI: 19.5%–90.4%). Distant metastases were found in 4 patients resulting in a 5-year metastasis-free rate of 33.3% (95% CI: 4.6%–67.5%). Two patients underwent at least one revision surgery, including one patient in whom the allograft had to be removed. According to the ISOLS function score 24.7 points (range: 19–28 points) were achieved at the last follow-up. The mean active flexion of the knee joint was 82.5° (range: 25–120°) and a mean extension lag of 10° (range: 0–30°) was observed. Conclusions The replacement of the extensor mechanism by an allograft is a reasonable option, allowing wide margins and restoration of active extension in most patients. Trial Registration The presented study is listed on the ISRCTN registry with trial number ISRCTN63060594.