Letters to the editor

Please send your letter or proposal to the editors at kssta@esska.org.

ONLY those letters deemed to have scientific impact will be requested to be submitted via the Editorial Manager. These will be officially published online and in print along with the responses.

Others will be treated as communication or exchange between authors and only be published online on the KSSTA website with the title of the article in question, the query and the response. These will not appear in the print issues and will have no DOIs.

Isolated Type II SLAP Tears Undergo Reoperation More Frequently

DeFazio MW, Özkan S, Wagner ER, Warner JJP, Chen NC. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2021 Jan 2

Query Letter to the Editor

A.J.R. Leenen, PT, MScNorman E. D’hondt, PT, MScMichel P.J. van den Bekerom, MD, PhD

Dear Editor,

We have read the paper “Isolated type II SLAP tears undergo reoperation more frequently” by DeFazio, M. W., Özkan, S.,et al. published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy(2021) with great interest[3].

We appreciated the authors’ effort to identify risk factors associated with type II superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP)repair and reoperation after SLAP repair. However, we have some concerns about the interpretation of the study outcomes and the clinical implications based on how a type II SLAP (re)tear had been established. We therefore encourage the readers to consider the study outcome in light of the following remarks.

1.Interpretation of study outcomes. Based on their multivariable logistic regression model, the authors conclude that “surgeons and patients should take the factors smoking, knotless suture anchors, and having an isolated SLAP repair into account to lower the possibility of unplanned reoperations”. However, the presented model-fits expressed in pseudo-R-squared values for 1) the unplanned reoperation model (0.029), and 2) the failed SLAP repair model (0.074) are very low. Therefore, the outcomes of this model must be interpreted with caution. Besides, only associations between the previous factors and a SLAPII repair failure were established, rather than cause-effect relationship[1]. Thus, although these factors might be of some predictive value for SLAP-II repair failure, they have to be subjected to further investigation (e.g. a prospective controlled study design) to provide clinicians and patients with such significant recommendations.

2.Establishment of type II SLAP (re)tear. We are aware that diagnosing a symptomatic SLAP-lesions can be challenging [5]In general, diagnostic 28modalities used to establish suspicion of a SLAP-lesion vary from 1) history taking [5], to 2) positive clinical provocative SLAP-lesion tests [6,7], 3) SLAP-lesions ruled in by negative results of provocative clinical tests to determine other pathologies than SLAP-tears [5], and4) confirmation by an MR arthrogram [8].However, these diagnostic modalities do not fully confirm the presence of a SLAP tear, nor do they indicate if the SLAP tear is symptomatic or asymptomatic. For example, a type II SLAP-lesion might even be noticed by accident diagnosed during an arthroscopy addressing other pathologies than a SLAP-lesion [2, 4]. Nevertheless, although diagnostic uncertainty is inevitable, the authors do not provide the readers with any information on1) the modalities used to establish a symptomatic SLAP-lesion diagnosis, and 2) criteria to determine whether or not the initial SLAPII repair was indicated. Furthermore, by defining a SLAPII repair failure as “a reoperation that addressed pathology to the biceps and labral complex to include revision SLAP repair or a biceps tenodesis or tenotomy procedure” [3],only the curative procedures are addressed, rather than the reasons to perform a second surgical procedure. Lack of such information leaves the readers uncertain about the specific population to which the assumed risk factors apply and hampers clinical decision making.

REFERENCES

  1. Arnold KF, Davies V, Kamps M de, Tennant PWG, Mbotwa J, Gilthorpe MS (2020) Reflections on modern methods: generalized linear models for prognosis and intervention—theory, practice and implications for machine learning. Int J Epidemiol 49:dyaa049
  2. Bhatnagar A, Bhonsle S, Mehta S (2016) Correlation between MRI and Arthroscopy in Diagnosis of Shoulder Pathology. J Clin Diagnostic Res 10:RC18-21
  3. DeFazio MW, Özkan S, Wagner ER, Warner JJP, Chen NC (2021) Isolated type II SLAP tears undergo reoperation more frequently. Knee Surg Sports Traumatology Arthrosc 1–9
  4. Dougherty MC, Kulenkamp JE, Boyajian H, Koh JL, Lee MJ, Shi LL (2019) Not All SLAPs Are Created Equal: A Comparison of Patients with Planned and Incidental SLAP Repair Procedures. Adv Orthop 2019:1–6
  5. Familiari F, Huri G, Simonetta R, McFarland EG (2019) SLAP lesions: current controversies. Efort Open Rev 4:25–32
  6. Hegedus EJ, Goode A, Campbell S, Morin A, Tamaddoni M, Moorman CT, Cook C (2008) Physical examination tests of the shoulder: a systematic review with meta-analysis of individual tests. Brit J Sport Med 42:80
  7. Hegedus EJ, Goode AP, Cook CE, Michener L, Myer CA, Myer DM, Wright AA (2012) Which physical examination tests provide clinicians with the most value when examining the shoulder? Update of a systematic review with meta-analysis of individual tests. Brit J Sport Med 46:964

Response from authors:

Thank you for your thoughtful comments and your interest regarding our paper. We agree that the definition of retear is difficult to establish. We chose re operation as a metric because it is an unambiguous event that can be well defined. It is important to recognize that we are describing what was done by surgeons and studying these events. We are not trying to establish when a re tear occurs. Again, thank you for your interest in our study.

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the use of adductor canal block can achieve similar pain control as femoral nerve block

Min, H., Ouyang, Y. & Chen, G. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 28, 2675–2686 (2020)

Query Letter to the Editor

Dongdong Yu, Li Jiang, Xiaoyu Wang, Jianli Li

Dear Editor,

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is widely accepted as the treatment of first choice for individuals with unstable function due to ligament deficiency. In order to complete this procedure safely and maintain high patient satisfaction, adequate postoperative pain control must be provided. Inadequate early pain management may hinder mobilization and recovery, and ultimately may affect patient satisfaction and long-term outcomes. To alleviate this problem, multimodal analgesia, such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, periarticular anesthetic injections, opioids, and peripheral nerve blocks, have been used to manage postoperative pain [3]. However, the challenge of pain control after ACLR is to provide adequate analgesia while maintaining motor function.

Femoral nerve block (FNB) is known as the gold standard to reduce opiate consumption and decrease postoperative pain scores in ACLR [1]. Unfortunately, it tends to result in motor blockade of the quadriceps muscle and potentially delay postoperative mobilization, as well as increase the risk of falls. Recently, adductor canal block (ACB) has emerged as an alternative to FNB, with the advantage of sparing the motor nerve supply to most of the quadriceps muscle and may lead to a reduction in falls after surgery [2, 5].

With great interest, we read the article by Min et al published in August, 2020 in the Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. The authors performed a meta-analysis and concluded that ACB is recommended as an attractive alternative to FNB as the peripheral nerve block of choice for ACLR [4]. At the outset, we would like to congratulate the authors for writing an informative article with novelty. Nevertheless, we have several suggestions and queries that we would like to communicate with the authors.

Firstly, four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and SCOPUS databases) were systematically searched by the authors. It would make the outcomes more convincing by obtaining more literature if the authors searched other databases, like BIOSIS previews, clinicaltrials.gov, and NLM Gateway. Secondly, the manual search protocols should also be included in this meta-analysis. Essential literature will be ignored if the manual search protocol is incomplete, and unpublished data such as gray literature should be included. Thirdly, why did the authors use the standardised mean difference as summary statistic rather than mean difference for continuous outcomes? Could the authors give a reasonable explanation? Fourthly, the authors used an inverse variance (IV) random effects model to pool the data in this review. In our opinion, studies should be combined by using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model, which considers both within- and between-study variations. Fifthly, for the ten outcomes addressed in this current review, while they can sometimes be necessary, can make the review unfocused, unmanageable for users, and are prone to selective outcome reporting bias. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews, recommend no more than seven outcomes. Thus, it would be better to select only core or critical sets of outcomes of most relevance to the review question, and to form a “summary of findings” table or other summary versions. Finally, different types of anaesthesia may compromise the reliability of meta-analysis; as a result, the researchers should carry out subgroup analysis or sensitivity analysis based on the above-mentioned risk factors.

We respectfully appreciate that Min et al provided us with an important meta-analysis which can provide a guide for clinical decision-making. However, more studies with large sample size and good scientific design should be carried out to clarify this issue. We would welcome some comments by the authors as this would help to further support the findings of this important clinical trial.

References

  1. Borys M, Domagała M, Wencław K, Jarczyńska-Domagała J, Czuczwar M (2019) Continuous femoral nerve block is more effective than continuous adductor canal block for treating pain after total knee arthroplasty: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. Medicine (Baltimore) 98(39):e17358.
  2. Edwards MD, Bethea JP, Hunnicutt JL, Slone HS, Woolf SK (2020) Effect of Adductor Canal Block Versus Femoral Nerve Block on Quadriceps Strength, Function, and Postoperative Pain After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Level 1 Studies. Am J Sports Med 48(9):2305-2313.
  3. Li D, Alqwbani M, Wang Q, Yang Z, Liao R, Kang P (2020) Ultrasound-guided adductor canal block combined with lateral femoral cutaneous nerve block for post-operative analgesia following total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled study. Int Orthop.
  4. Min H, Ouyang Y, Chen G (2020) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the use of adductor canal block can achieve similar pain control as femoral nerve block. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 28(8):2675-2686.
  5. Zhang Z, Wang Y, Liu Y (2019) Effectiveness of continuous adductor canal block versus continuous femoral nerve block in patients with total knee arthroplasty: A PRISMA guided systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 98(48):e18056.

Response from the authors:

We appreciate the comments by Yu et al. regarding our article entitled “Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the use of adductor canal block can achieve similar pain control as femoral nerve block” published in 2020 in the Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc [1]. Some flaws in our article initiated this discussion.

We acknowledge that we only searched four electronic databases in the literature search. Additional searches of other databases, including BIOSIS Preview, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the NLM Gateway, were not able to find any new articles. Furthermore, the reference lists of the included studies were also checked for additional studies that were not identified with the database search. In the results section, we used the standardised mean difference as summary statistic rather than mean difference for continuous outcomes. Effect sizes expressed as standardised mean differences are a useful method to compare the effect of an intervention across studies when different measures (such as pain scores) are used.

In our study, sensitivity analysis was used to explain the heterogeneity among the included studies. Among the outcomes with high heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis showed that excluding any one single study did not change the statistical results. Therefore, we believe that the inverse variance (IV) random effects model is also suitable for our study. Many of the outcomes for pain scores and opioid consumption were subgroup analyses, so the outcomes in our study were not actually more than seven. Moreover, all outcomes were separately listed in the form of charts in the article. Finally, spinal anaesthesia was only used in the study of Seangleulur et al., and the statistical results did not change when it was excluded [2].

Finally, we would like to thank the commentators for their questions regarding our article. This gave us the chance to revisit our article and demonstrates the need for large multi-center randomized controlled trials.

References

  1. Min H, Ouyang Y, Chen G (2020) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the use of adductor canal block can achieve similar pain control as femoral nerve block. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 28(8):2675
  2. Seangleulur A, Manuwong S, Chernchujit B, Worathongchai S, Sorin T (2019) Comparison of post-operative analgesia between adductor canal block and femoral nerve block after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomized controlled trial. J Med Assoc Thai 102(3):335–342.

The deep lateral femoral notch sign: a reliable diagnostic tool in identifying a concomitant anterior cruciate and anterolateral ligament injury

Dimitriou, D., Reimond, M., Foesel, A. et al. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29, 1968–1976 (2021).

Query Letter to the Editor

Konrad Malinowski, Michał Ebisz, Paweł Skowronek, Robert F LaPrade, Marcin Mostowy

Dear Editor,

With great interest we have read the paper: “The deep lateral femoral notch sign: a reliable diagnostic tool in identifying a concomitant anterior cruciate and anterolateral ligament injury” by Dimitriou D., Reimond M., et al. published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (2021) [3].

We acknowledge the authors’ efforts to confirm the efficacy of deep lateral femoral notch sign (DLFNS) for the diagnosis of anterolateral ligament (ALL) injury.

Nevertheless, we would like to raise a concern.

As stated in the study by Dimitriou et al., “An ACL rupture was confirmed clinically by a positive Lachman and anterior drawer test [7, 12], whereas an ALL rupture was confirmed clinically with a positive pivot-shift test” [3].

We are concerned about how this paper oversimplifies the concept of rotatory instability. Without referencing any studies, the authors deemed a positive pivot-shift test to be a sign of an ALL rupture. To our knowledge there is no study “equalizing” a positive pivot shift with a clinical confirmation of ALL injury. The main source of positive pivot-shift is an ACL injury itself [1, 14, 19]. In their classic study, Parsons et al. evaluated the contribution of different structures to an  internal rotation moment, describing knee rotational stability [14]. In 25 degrees of knee flexion, the ACL percentage contribution was 30%, 95%CI 21-38%; while at  the same knee flexion angle, the ALL percentage contribution to internal rotation moment was 18%, 95%CI 12-23% [14]. This biomechanical claim is also supported by the recent meta-analysis by Mouarbes et al., who reported that an ACL reconstruction with a quadriceps tendon autograft and no additional anterolateral procedures resulted in a negative (grade 0) pivot shift in 84.8% of cases (95% CI, 82.4% – 87.1%) and in a negative or trace pivot-shift (grade 0 or 1) in 97.0% of cases (95% CI, 95.9% – 98.1%) [11]. Therefore, while an ALL injury obviously plays a role in rotatory instability and may increase the grade of pivot-shift test, we would like to emphasize that the main source of positive pivot-shift is an ACL injury.

In addition, there are numerous studies pointing out pathologies or osseous morphology other than an ALL injury that increase the risk of pivot-shift presence or grade, such as meniscal injuries [7, 8, 12, 13, 18], Kaplan fibers injuries [4, 5], tibial slope [16, 18] or distal femoral morphology [15, 17]. Recent publication by Jacquet et al. presented the results of a group of 266 patients who all had a high-grade pivot shift preoperatively and underwent ACL reconstruction with or without additional anterolateral procedure. Their data proved that “repairing a pre-existing meniscal lesion was more effective than performing LET to decrease the presence of a high-grade pivot-shift at follow-up” [8]. To add up, Dimitriou et al. assessed rotatory instability in patients with a positive DLFNS. Multiple studies have reported the presence of a DLFNS to be associated with an increased risk of LM injuries, especially lateral meniscus posterior root tears [2, 6, 10], and the role of the LM in rotatory stability of the knee is well established [7, 13, 18]. It is also not known whether deep impaction fractures of the lateral femoral condyle (LFC) do not cause a “bony” instability, similarly to the Hill-Sachs lesion in the shoulder [6, 9].

One should not  assume a  positive pivot-shift equates to a concomitant ALL injury, because an  isolated ACL injury can cause a positive pivot-shift by itself. It is also inconclusive whether an ALL injury is really the most important concomitant “enhancer” of rotatory instability. In light of current evidence, an increased pivot shift grade is the result of an interplay between  knee anatomy and complex injury morphology rather than being straightforwardly caused by a single ligament tear. We believe that the abovementioned clarifications will be of value, especially for young surgeons with less experience in the evaluation of injured knee. While simplifying the concepts concerning knee instability allows for an easier understanding of the topic, we believe that solely equalizing a positive pivot-shift with a presumed concomitant clinical confirmation of ALL injury is oversimplification.

  1. Barrera CM, Arizpe A, Wodicka R, Lesniak BP, Baraga MG, Kaplan L, Jose J (2018) Anterolateral ligament injuries on magnetic resonance imaging and pivot-shift testing for rotational laxity. J Clin Orthop Trauma 9:312–316
  2. Bernholt DL, DePhillipo NN, Crawford MD, Aman ZS, Grantham WJ, LaPrade RF (2020) Incidence of Displaced Posterolateral Tibial Plateau and Lateral Femoral Condyle Impaction Fractures in the Setting of Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tear. Am J Sports Med 48:545–553
  3. Dimitriou D, Reimond M, Foesel A, Baumgaertner B, Zou D, Tsai TY, Helmy N (2020) The deep lateral femoral notch sign: a reliable diagnostic tool in identifying a concomitant anterior cruciate and anterolateral ligament injury. Knee Surgery, Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 29:1968–1976
  4. Geeslin AG, Chahla J, Moatshe G, Muckenhirn KJ, Kruckeberg BM, Brady AW, Coggins A, Dornan GJ, Getgood AM, Godin JA, LaPrade RF (2018) Anterolateral Knee Extra-articular Stabilizers: A Robotic Sectioning Study of the Anterolateral Ligament and Distal Iliotibial Band Kaplan Fibers. Am J Sports Med 46:1352–1361
  5. Geeslin AG, Moatshe G, Chahla J, Kruckeberg BM, Muckenhirn KJ, Dornan GJ, Coggins A, Brady AW, Getgood AM, Godin JA, LaPrade RF (2018) Anterolateral Knee Extra-articular Stabilizers: A Robotic Study Comparing Anterolateral Ligament Reconstruction and Modified Lemaire Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis. Am J Sports Med 46:607–616
  6. Herbst E, Hoser C, Tecklenburg K, Filipovic M, Dallapozza C, Herbort M, Fink C (2015) The lateral femoral notch sign following ACL injury: frequency, morphology and relation to meniscal injury and sports activity. Knee Surgery, Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 23:2250–2258
  7. Hoshino Y, Hiroshima Y, Miyaji N, Nagai K, Araki D, Kanzaki N, Kakutani K, Matsushita T, Kuroda R (2020) Unrepaired lateral meniscus tears lead to remaining pivot-shift in ACL-reconstructed knees. Knee Surgery, Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 28:3504–3510
  8. Jacquet C, Pioger C, Seil R, Khakha R, Parratte S, Steltzlen C, Argenson JN, Pujol N, Ollivier M (2021) Incidence and Risk Factors for Residual High-Grade Pivot Shift After ACL Reconstruction With or Without a Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis. Orthop J Sport Med 9:doi: 10.1177/23259671211003590
  9. Kanakamedala AC, Burnham JM, Pfeiffer TR, Herbst E, Kowalczuk M, Popchak A, Irrgang J, Fu FH, Musahl V (2018) Lateral femoral notch depth is not associated with increased rotatory instability in ACL-injured knees: a quantitative pivot shift analysis. Knee Surgery, Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 26:1399–1405
  10. Kim SH, Seo J-H, Kim D-A, Lee J-W, Kim K-I, Lee SH (2021) Steep posterior lateral tibial slope, bone contusion on lateral compartments and combined medial collateral ligament injury are associated with the increased risk of lateral meniscal tear. Knee Surgery, Sport Traumatol Arthrosc doi: 10.1007/s00167-021-06504-z
  11. Mouarbes D, Menetrey J, Marot V, Courtot L, Berard E, Cavaignac E (2019) Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Outcomes for Quadriceps Tendon Autograft Versus Bone–Patellar Tendon–Bone and Hamstring-Tendon Autografts. Am J Sports Med 47:3531–3540
  12. Mouton C, Magosch A, Pape D, Hoffmann A, Nührenbörger C, Seil R (2020) Ramp lesions of the medial meniscus are associated with a higher grade of dynamic rotatory laxity in ACL-injured patients in comparison to patients with an isolated injury. Knee surgery, Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 28:1023–1028
  13. Musahl V, Citak M, O’Loughlin PF, Choi D, Bedi A, Pearle AD (2010) The effect of medial versus lateral meniscectomy on the stability of the anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee. Am J Sports Med 38:1591–1597
  14. Parsons EM, Gee AO, Spiekerman C, Cavanagh PR (2015) The biomechanical function of the anterolateral ligament of the knee. Am J Sports Med 43:669–674
  15. Pfeiffer TR, Burnham JM, Kanakamedala AC, Hughes JD, Zlotnicki J, Popchak A, Debski RE, Musahl V (2019) Distal femur morphology affects rotatory knee instability in patients with anterior cruciate ligament ruptures. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 27:1514–1519
  16. Rahnemai-Azar AA, Abebe ES, Johnson P, Labrum J, Fu FH, Irrgang JJ, Samuelsson K, Musahl V (2017) Increased lateral tibial slope predicts high-grade rotatory knee laxity pre-operatively in ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25:1170–1176
  17. Saita Y, Schoenhuber H, Thiébat G, Ravasio G, Pozzoni R, Panzeri A, Galli M, Nagao M, Takazawa Y, Ikeda H, Kaneko K (2019) Knee hyperextension and a small lateral condyle are associated with greater quantified antero-lateral rotatory instability in the patients with a complete anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture. Knee surgery, Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 27:868–874
  18. Song G, Zhang H, Wang Q, Zhang J, Li Y, Feng H (2016) Risk Factors Associated With Grade 3 Pivot Shift After Acute Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries. Am J Sports Med United States 44:362–369
  19. Tanaka M, Vyas D, Moloney G, Bedi A, Pearle AD, Musahl V (2012) What does it take to have a high-grade pivot shift? Knee Surgery, Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 20:737–742

Response from authors

Dear Editor,

With great interest, we have read the letter to the Editor regarding our paper: “The deep lateral femoral notch sign: a reliable diagnostic tool in identifying a concomitant anterior cruciate and anterolateral ligament injury” by Dimitriou D., et al. published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (2021).[2]

We would like to thank the authors for their invaluable input and the concern they raised.

The diagnosis of a concomitant anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) anterolateral ligament (ALL) rupture is nowadays still challenging. For the above-mentioned study, we used both MRI findings suggestive of an ALL injury The ALL was identified according to the recommendations suggested by Patel et al. (Fig. 2a). An ALL rupture was diagnosed on MRI according to Muramatsu et al.’s recommendations as warping, thinning, iso-signal changes of the ALL, or loss of continuity (Fig. 2b)” but also the clinical findings as the authors mentioned “An ACL rupture was confirmed clinically by a positive Lachman and anterior drawer test, whereas an ALL rupture was confirmed clinically with a positive pivot-shift test”. Furthermore, as mentioned in the paper “if there was a discrepancy between the clinical and MRI findings, the patients were excluded from the study”.

The authors stated that without referencing any studies, we deemed that a positive pivot-shift test is a sign of an ALL rupture, and they add up that no study “equalizing” a positive pivot shift with a clinical confirmation of an ALL injury. As far as we know, we are not aware of how a study could clinically confirm an ALL injury other than a pivot-shift test.  Nevertheless, several biomechanical studies support that an ALL-rupture in an ACL-deficient knee results in a significant increase in internal rotation and pivot shift. Specifically, Bonanzing et al.[1] in biomechanical analysis of 10 fresh-frozen knees under intact ACL, deficient ACL, and deficient ACL + ALL reported that cutting of the ACL showed no significant difference in acceleration during the manual pivot-shift test, whereas the ACL+ALL deficient knee had significantly more acceleration than the intact knee during the pivot-shift test. Another biomechanical study from Inderhaug et al.[4] investigated cadaveric knees in the following 8 conditions (1) intact knee, (2) ACL-transected, (3) combined ACL plus ALL lesion, (4) isolated ACL reconstruction, (5) ACL reconstruction combined with ALL reconstruction, (6) ACL reconstruction and a combined MacIntosh procedure, (7) ACL reconstruction and a combined Lemaire procedure deep to the LCL, and (8) ACL reconstruction and a combined Lemaire procedure superficial to the LCL under 90-N anterior drawer force, 5-N internal tibial torque, and combined 90-N anterior drawer force and 5-N internal tibial torque, across 0° to 90° of knee flexion. They concluded that isolated intra-articular ACL reconstruction leaves residual knee laxity, in terms of anterior translation and internal rotation, when a combined ACL plus anterolateral lesion is present. Furthermore, numerous studies reported a significant increase in tibial internal rotation or pivot shift after ALL resection in ACL-deficient knees [7] [10]

The authors also claim that the main source of positive pivot-shift is an ACL injury itself and reference the study by Parsons et al.[9], which states that in 25 degrees of knee flexion, the ACL percentage contribution was 30%, 95%CI 21-38%; while at the same knee flexion angle, the ALL percentage contribution to internal rotation moment was 18%, 95%CI 12-23% [14]. However, the same study states that the knee flexion angles greater than 30°, the contribution of the ALL exceeded that of the ACL[9]. For example, at 60° of knee flexion, the contribution of ALL is 44%, 95%CI 37-50%, while at the same knee flexion angle, the ACL percentage contribution to internal rotation moment was only 15%, 95% CI 10-20%  [9]. The authors, to support their thesis, reference a recent meta-analysis by Mouarbes et al. [8], who reported that an ACL reconstruction with a quadriceps tendon autograft and no additional anterolateral procedures resulted in a negative (grade 0) pivot shift in 84.8% of cases [8]. However, in the abovementioned meta-analysis, it was not mentioned whether the patients had a positive pivot-shift test preoperative. Several studies reported that the most important risk factor for residual pivot shift after ACL reconstruction was the preoperative pivot shift [5] [11].  Furthermore, the rest 15% of the patients with a residual pivot-shift complies with the percentage of patients with concomitant ACL/ALL lesion reported in our study [2].

We agree with the authors that osseous morphology increases the risk of pivot-shift presence or grade, that is why we excluded those patients from our study. As stated, Exclusion criteria were age > 40 years, history of patellofemoral instability, previous surgery or symptoms in the affected knee, posterior tibia slope > 7°, clinically excessive varus/valgus leg axis, and Segond fracture (as these patients were treated with a combined intra-articular ACL reconstruction and extra-articular tenodesis)”. The authors also cited the study from Jacquet et al. [5], to support the idea that repairing a pre-existing meniscal lesion was more effective than performing an extra-articular tenodesis (LET) to decrease the presence of a high-grade pivot-shift at follow-up. However, the same study concluded that “1 in 4 patients with high-grade pivot-shift before ACLR with or without LET was at risk of residual rotatory knee laxity at mean 44-month follow-up, regardless of the technique used” [5]. Furthermore, it should be noted that the  LET graft was fixed in 20° of knee flexion in that study[5]. A biomechanical study by Inderhaug et al.[3] concluded that in combined anterolateral procedure plus intra-articular ACL reconstruction, the knee flexion angle is important when fixing the graft. Although a modified Lemaire procedure could restore intact knee laxities when fixation was performed at 0°, 30°, or 60° of flexion, the ALL procedure could restore normal laxities only when fixation occurred in full extension. The MAKS group in a large multicenter study with 368 patients analyzed the risk factors for residual pivot-shift following a single-bundle ACL reconstruction (without ALL reconstruction or LET) and found that 15% of the patients had a residual high-grade pivot-shift [11]. The meniscus repair or meniscectomy was also not a risk factor for residual instability. Also, the ALL has attachments to the body of the lateral meniscus [6]. As reported by Van Dyck et al.[12], in patients with an ACL rupture and intact ALL, 31 % had a torn lateral meniscus as compared to 61 % with an abnormal ALL (p = 0.008). These data might suggest that a torn lateral meniscus might be a confounder to the rotational instability and not the cause for the rotational instability, as it might hide an undiagnosed ALL-rupture. The authors also state a bony instability similar to the Hill-Sachs might result in rotational instability. However, to the best of our knowledge, no biomechanical or clinical studies support this theory.

We agree with the statement of the authors that it should not be assumed that a positive pivot-shift equates to a concomitant ALL injury, but we believe that the MRI images of patients with high-grade pivot shift test should be carefully evaluated to look for associated injuries, especially at the anterolateral/posterolateral corner of the knee. Although the ACL might be the main constrain to internal rotation of the tibia or pivot-shift test (at least until 30° of flexion), in ACL deficient knees, the role of ALL or the anterolateral corner of the knee should not be ignored. As the pivot-shift test is subjective and challenging to perform in an acute injury due to pain, a DLFNS>1.8 mm could be a valuable and straightforward screening tool without extra costs to detect a concomitant injury to the lateral corner of the knee. Whether an ALL reconstruction or LET is needed, we could not address that in our study, but it should be stated that according to the literature, 15% of the patients with a high pivot-shift test preoperative demonstrate a residual rotational instability following a single-bundle ACL reconstruction without a LET [11].

 

  1. Bonanzinga T, Signorelli C, Grassi A, Lopomo N, Bragonzoni L, Zaffagnini S, et al. (2017) Kinematics of ACL and anterolateral ligament. Part I: Combined lesion. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 25:1055-1061
  2. Dimitriou D, Reimond M, Foesel A, Baumgaertner B, Zou D, Tsai T-Y, et al. (2020) The deep lateral femoral notch sign: a reliable diagnostic tool in identifying a concomitant anterior cruciate and anterolateral ligament injury. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 1-9
  3. Inderhaug E, Stephen JM, Williams A, Amis AA (2017) Anterolateral tenodesis or anterolateral ligament complex reconstruction: effect of flexion angle at graft fixation when combined with ACL reconstruction. The American journal of sports medicine 45:3089-3097
  4. Inderhaug E, Stephen JM, Williams A, Amis AA (2017) Biomechanical comparison of anterolateral procedures combined with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. The American journal of sports medicine 45:347-354
  5. Jacquet C, Pioger C, Seil R, Khakha R, Parratte S, Steltzlen C, et al. (2021) Incidence and Risk Factors for Residual High-Grade Pivot Shift After ACL Reconstruction With or Without a Lateral Extra-articular Tenodesis. Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine 9:23259671211003590
  6. Lintin L, Chowdhury R, Yoong P, Chung SL, Mansour R, Teh J, et al. (2020) The anterolateral ligament in acute knee trauma: patterns of injury on MR imaging. Skeletal Radiology 49:1765-1772
  7. Monaco E, Ferretti A, Labianca L, Maestri B, Speranza A, Kelly M, et al. (2012) Navigated knee kinematics after cutting of the ACL and its secondary restraint. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 20:870-877
  8. Mouarbes D, Menetrey J, Marot V, Courtot L, Berard E, Cavaignac E (2019) Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of outcomes for quadriceps tendon autograft versus bone–patellar tendon–bone and hamstring-tendon autografts. The American journal of sports medicine 47:3531-3540
  9. Parsons EM, Gee AO, Spiekerman C, Cavanagh PR (2015) The biomechanical function of the anterolateral ligament of the knee. The American journal of sports medicine 43:669-674
  10. Ruiz N, Filippi GJ, Gagnière B, Bowen M, Robert HE (2016) The comparative role of the anterior cruciate ligament and anterolateral structures in controlling passive internal rotation of the knee: a biomechanical study. Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic & Related Surgery 32:1053-1062
  11. Ueki H, Nakagawa Y, Ohara T, Watanabe T, Horie M, Katagiri H, et al. (2018) Risk factors for residual pivot shift after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: data from the MAKS group. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 26:3724-3730
  12. Van Dyck P, Clockaerts S, Vanhoenacker FM, Lambrecht V, Wouters K, De Smet E, et al. (2016) Anterolateral ligament abnormalities in patients with acute anterior cruciate ligament rupture are associated with lateral meniscal and osseous injuries. European radiology 26:3383-3391

 

Posterior tibial slope: the fingerprint of the tibial bone

Winkler, P.W., Godshaw, B.M., Karlsson, J. et al.  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29, 1687–1689 (2021)

Query Letter to the Editor

Stanley E. Kim, Antonio Pozzi, Daniel D. Lewis, Selena Tinga, Stephen C. Jones, Scott A. Banks

Dear  editor,

With great interest we read the editorial entitled ‘Posterior tibial slope: the fingerprint of the tibial bone’[1]. The authors suggest the posterior tibial slope (PTS) has only recently become an important consideration when evaluating patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, and they succinctly assessed landmark studies supporting the concept that an increased PTS can be detrimental to the ACL. The authors also encouraged further research on the topic since much remains unknown about sagittal alignment-altering high tibial osteotomies.

We were compelled to respond to this editorial because as veterinary surgeons we have been performing PTS-altering procedures to address ACL injuries for decades. The canine ACL is prone to degeneration, and ACL rupture is the most common indication for orthopedic surgery in dogs. Our group, consisting of veterinary clinician-scientists and biomechanical engineers, is one of many in the veterinary orthopedic community with a strong interest in the biomechanics of PTS-altering procedures. From our perspective, the omission of an acknowledgement of work beyond human studies in the editorial was striking, and we thought it would be a good opportunity to bring awareness of influential studies in dogs to the authors and broad readership of this journal.

The PTS of dogs is relatively steep at approximately 30 degrees; consequently, anterior tibial subluxation with ACL deficiency is much more pronounced than what is observed in humans [2], and ACL grafts routinely fail. In 1984, small animal surgeon Barclay Slocum (who was, probably not coincidentally, son of renowned orthopedic surgeon Donald Slocum) first proposed ‘leveling’ the tibial slope, without performing an ACL graft, as a primary method to eliminate subluxation in ACL-deficient knees [3]. After several iterations, Slocum developed the tibial plateau leveling osteotomy (TPLO) [4], and the concept proved so successful that TPLO is now widely regarded as the gold-standard treatment option for ACL rupture in dogs.

As such, our research community is well versed in PTS biomechanics, and we share many concerns and questions raised in the editorial. Veterinary research groups have investigated effects of PTS-decreasing osteotomies on several important knee-related structures including the posterior cruciate ligament [5], collateral ligaments [6], menisci [7], and articular cartilage [8]. Our group has a particular interest in in-vivo knee kinematics, and in a recently published fluoroscopic study of ACL deficient client-owned dogs [9], we were able to provide some insight into the changes in sagittal translations and axial rotations induced by TPLO. In other clinical reports, TPLO appeared to halt progression of ACL degeneration [10], but the procedure has also been associated with unique complications such as severe cartilage wear [10], posterior cruciate ligament rupture [10], patellar tendinitis [11], and patellar fracture [11].

The mechanism of ACL rupture may also share similar degenerative features between species, as it was recently hypothesized that repetitive sub-maximal loading of human knees causes ACL fatigue failure [12], as is purported to occur in dogs. Spontaneous disease models in companion animals are well established for exploring a variety of human conditions [13], and a One Health approach could be particularly fruitful for investigating ACL rupture as it relates to PTS in both species.

We have highlighted only a fraction of the substantial literature pertaining to PTS-decreasing osteotomies in dogs. Research groups primarily interested in veterinary-related issues will routinely comb through relevant human-centric investigations for translatable knowledge. As the human orthopedic research community grapples with the relevance of PTS and ACL rupture, we would suggest that perusing the veterinary orthopedic literature may also be enlightening.

References

  1. Winkler PW, Godshaw BM, Karlsson J, Getgood AMJ, Musahl V (2021) Posterior tibial slope: the fingerprint of the tibial bone. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 29(6):1687-1689.
  2. Tinga S, Kim SE, Banks SA, Jones SC, Park BH, Pozzi A, Lewis DD (2018) Femorotibial kinematics in dogs with cranial cruciate ligament insufficiency: a three-dimensional in-vivo fluoroscopic analysis during walking. BMC Vet Res. 14(1):85.
  3. Slocum B, Devine T (1984) Cranial tibial wedge osteotomy: a technique for eliminating cranial tibial thrust in cranial cruciate ligament repair. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 184:564-569.
  4. Slocum B, Slocum TD (1994) Tibial plateau leveling osteotomy for repair of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in the canine. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract. 23(4):777-95.
  5. Warzee CC, Dejardin LM, Arnoczky SP, Petty RL (2001) Effect of tibial plateau leveling on cranial and caudal tibial thrusts in canine cranial cruciate–deficient stifles: An in vitro experimental study. Vet Surg. 30:278-286.
  6. Shimada M, Takagi T, Kanno N, Yamakawa S, Fujie H, Ichinohe T, Suzuki S, Harada Y, Hara Y (2020) Biomechanical Effects of Tibial Plateau Levelling Osteotomy on Joint Instability in Normal Canine Stifles: An In Vitro Study. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 33(5):301-307.
  7. Pozzi A, Kowaleski MP, Apelt D, Meadows C, Andrews CM, Johnson KA (2006) Effect of medial meniscal release on tibial translation after tibial plateau leveling osteotomy. Vet Surg. 35(5):486-94.
  8. Kim SE, Pozzi A, Banks SA, Conrad BP, Lewis DD (2009) Effect of tibial plateau leveling osteotomy on femorotibial contact mechanics and stifle kinematics. Vet Surg. 38(1):23-32.
  9. Tinga S, Kim SE, Banks SA, Jones SC, Park BH, Burtch M, Pozzi A, Lewis DD (2020) Femorotibial kinematics in dogs treated with tibial plateau leveling osteotomy for cranial cruciate ligament insufficiency: An in vivo fluoroscopic analysis during walking. Vet Surg. 49(1):187-199.
  10. Hulse D, Beale B, Kerwin S (2010) Second look arthroscopic findings after tibial plateau leveling osteotomy. Vet Surg. 39(3):350-4.
  11. Carey K, Aiken SW, DiResta GR, Herr LG, Monette S (2005) Radiographic and clinical changes of the patellar tendon after tibial plateau leveling osteotomy 94 cases (2000-2003). Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol. 18(4):235-42.
  12. Wojtys EM, Beaulieu ML, Ashton-Miller JA (2016) New perspectives on ACL injury: On the role of repetitive sub-maximal knee loading in causing ACL fatigue failure. J Orthop Res. 34(12):2059-2068.
  13. Kol A, Arzi B, Athanasiou KA, Farmer DL, Nolta JA, Rebhun RB, Chen X, Griffiths LG, Verstraete FJ, Murphy CJ, Borjesson DL (2015) Companion animals: Translational scientist’s new best friends. Sci Transl Med. 7(308):308ps21.

Response from authors:

We would like to thank Kim and colleagues for the interesting and instructive comment on our editorial “Posterior Tibial Slope: The Fingerprint of the Tibial Bone“ [9]. Surgical modification of the posterior tibial slope (PTS) to treat sagittal knee instability in dogs is a standard procedure in veterinary medicine for decades. The reported expertise of experienced veterinary surgeons and basic scientists is a valuable asset to orthopedic community. We appreciate the precious work by veterinarians and were aware that the experience of PTS-altering osteotomies (i.e., tibial plateau leveling osteotomies (TPLO)) in dogs has contributed to the development of PTS-altering osteotomies in humans [6, 7]. Given the clinical focus of Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (KSSTA), we decided for our editorial to focus on biomechanical and clinical findings developed in human knee joints.

However, we would like to share some experiences from the University of Pittsburgh to highlight our ambition for interdisciplinary collaboration. Our teacher of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery – Freddie H. Fu – has taught us many lessons about his experience dissecting knee joints of various species [3, 8]. In one study, the anatomy of the ACL was compared between human knees and knees of 6 different animal species. Similar bundle configurations, fibre orientations, and insertion sites of the ACL have been observed in the investigated species [8]. A subsequent study evaluated the lateral anatomy of the human knee and 23 different animal species, showing similar results regarding ligamentous anatomy [3]. Although not quantitatively assessed, differences in the bony morphology of the knee joints of the different species were striking [8]. The insights Freddie has gained from working with animal knees have improved our understanding of anatomy and biomechanics and have contributed to the development of state-of-the-art individualized ACL surgery [5]. In collaboration with Pittsburgh Zoo and Carnegie Natural History Museum, the complex interplay of bony morphology and knee ligaments became apparent. We have learned that it is not only the ligaments that prevent rotatory knee instability, but rather the three-dimensional bony morphology and the sophisticated interplay between bone and soft tissues. Consequently, we believe that we should pay attention to the veterinary literature in order to achieve the best possible progress.

Research efforts and many years of experience have turned TPLO in dogs into a save, standardized, and repeatable procedure in the treatment of ACL injury [4]. Although the complication rate ranges from 10-34%, only 2-4% of dogs undergoing TPLO require revision surgery [1]. Experiences in patient selection, preoperative planning, and various surgical techniques, underscore the scientific and clinical advancement of veterinary surgeons compared to orthopedic surgeons regarding PTS-altering osteotomies [2, 4]. Collaboration between orthopedic surgeons, veterinarians, and basic scientists should be encouraged in the future to further improve our understanding and treatment of sagittal and rotatory knee instability.

 REFERENCES

  1. Bergh MS, Peirone B (2012) Complications of tibial plateau levelling osteotomy in dogs. Vet Comp Orthop Traumatol 25:349-358
  2. Fujino H, Honnami M, Mochizuki M (2020) Preoperative planning for tibial plateau leveling osteotomy based on proximal tibial width. J Vet Med Sci 82:661-667
  3. Ingham SJM, de Carvalho RT, Martins CAQ, Lertwanich P, Abdalla RJ, Smolinski P, et al. (2017) Anterolateral ligament anatomy: a comparative anatomical study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25:1048-1054
  4. Nanda A, Hans EC (2019) Tibial Plateau Leveling Osteotomy for Cranial Cruciate Ligament Rupture in Canines: Patient Selection and Reported Outcomes. Vet Med (Auckl) 10:249-255
  5. Offerhaus C, Albers M, Nagai K, Arner JW, Höher J, Musahl V, et al. (2018) Individualized Anterior Cruciate Ligament Graft Matching: In Vivo Comparison of Cross-sectional Areas of Hamstring, Patellar, and Quadriceps Tendon Grafts and ACL Insertion Area. Am J Sports Med 46:2646-2652
  6. Slocum B, Devine T (1984) Cranial tibial wedge osteotomy: a technique for eliminating cranial tibial thrust in cranial cruciate ligament repair. J Am Vet Med Assoc 184:564-569
  7. Slocum B, Slocum TD (1993) Tibial plateau leveling osteotomy for repair of cranial cruciate ligament rupture in the canine. Vet Clin North Am Small Anim Pract 23:777-795
  8. Tantisricharoenkul G, Linde-Rosen M, Araujo P, Zhou J, Smolinski P, Fu FH (2014) Anterior cruciate ligament: an anatomical exploration in humans and in a selection of animal species. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:961-971
  9. Winkler PW, Godshaw BM, Karlsson J, Getgood AMJ, Musahl V (2021) Posterior tibial slope: the fingerprint of the tibial bone. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29:1687-1689

 

 

Peroneus longus tendon autograft has functional outcomes comparable to hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis

He, J., Tang, Q., Ernst, S. et al.  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29, 2869–2879 (2021)

Query Letter to the Editor

Marín Fermín T, MD; Hovsepian JM, MD; Symeonidis PD, MD, PhD; Terzidis I, BSc, MD, PhD, FEBSM; Papakostas ET, MD, FEBSM.

Dear editor,

We have read with great interest the paper “Peroneus longus tendon autograft has functional outcomes comparable to hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis” by He J, Tang Q, Ernst S, Linde M, Smolinski P, Wu S, Fu F [3], published in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (2020).

The authors have made a remarkable effort to gather all available evidence on the subject. Indeed, peroneus longus tendon (PLT) autograft offers a viable option for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, and the findings of this meta-analysis support this. Due to its length, mechanical properties, and diameter consistency, the use of PLT has led to functional outcomes comparable to hamstring tendon autograft [3, 8].

Still, as with every tendon transfer, donor-site morbidity is an area of concern. We think this has not been adequately covered in the study of He et al. [3] The authors did conduct a meta-analysis on donor-site pain or paresthesia as indicators for comparing donor-site morbidity between PLT and hamstring tendon. However, other important PLT donor site morbidity parameters, such as its impact on foot and ankle biomechanics, were not mentioned. According to previous studies where objective measurements were used, harvesting the entire PLT tendon has important implications on eversion weakness [1, 9] and rotatory moment gait alterations [5, 9]. Another potential bias in assessing donor-site morbidity lies in using non-validated and general functional scores such as AOFAS or FADI in some of the studies. This weakness needs to be taken into consideration for the conduction of any relevant meta-analysis.

A promising option to balance between PLT donor site morbidity and adequate tendon strength for an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction is to harvest half of the tendon’s diameter. We have recently published a critical review on the topic [8], in which we suggest that harvesting half of the PLT tendon [2, 7, 14, 15] or/and tenodesis to the peroneus brevis tendon [6, 10-12, 13] seem to be safer options for the technique. Still, further studies are needed to evaluate the alterations of foot and ankle after PLT harvesting, using validated objective and subjective scores, such as the PROMIS instead of the AOFAS scores [4]. Moreover, extrapolating evidence of studies referring to harvesting half the PLT tendon to draw conclusions on donor-site morbidity with the use of the whole tendon is erroneous and should be avoided.

In essence, functional outcomes after any given tendon transfer need to refer not only to the recipient but also to the donor site. In the light of the above, we feel that the important parameter of PLT donor site morbidity has not been adequately elucidated in the interesting meta-analysis of He et al. [3] We would caution against the widespread adoption of the technique until more evidence-based on high-quality studies is accumulated regarding the safety and long-term functional outcomes of the method in both the knee and the foot and ankle regions.

REFERENCES

  1. Angthong C, Chernchujit B, Apivatgaroon A, Chaijenkit K, Nualon P, Suchao-in K. The Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with the Peroneus Longus Tendon: A Biomechanical and Clinical Evaluation of the Donor Ankle Morbidity. J Med Assoc Thai. 2015 Jun;98(6):555-60.
  2. Bi M, Zhao C, Zhang S, Yao B, Hong Z, Bi Q. All-Inside Single-Bundle Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament with the Anterior Half of the Peroneus Longus Tendon Compared to the Semitendinosus Tendon: A Two-Year Follow-Up Study. J Knee Surg. 2018 Nov;31(10):1022-1030.
  3. He J, Tang Q, Ernst S, Linde MA, Smolinski P, Wu S, Fu F. Peroneus longus tendon autograft has functional outcomes comparable to hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2020 Sep 27. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-020-06279-9.
  4. Hung M, Baumhauer JF, Licari FW, Voss MW, Bounsanga J, Saltzman CL. PROMIS and FAAM Minimal Clinically Important Differences in Foot and Ankle Orthopedics. Foot Ankle Int. 2019 Jan;40(1):65-73.
  5. Karimi M, Fatoye F, Mirbod SM, Omar H, Nazem K, Barzegar MR, Hosseini A. Gait analysis of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructed subjects with a combined tendon obtained from hamstring and peroneus longus. Knee. 2013 Dec;20(6):526-31.
  6. Khajotia BL, Chauhan S, Sethia R, Chopra BL. Functional outcome of arthroscopic reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament tear using peroneus longus tendon autograft. Int J Res Orthop 2018;4:898–903.
  7. Liu CT, Lu YC, Huang CH. Half-peroneus-longus-tendon graft augmentation for unqualified hamstring tendon graft of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. J Orthop Sci. 2015 Sep;20(5):854-60.
  8. Marín Fermín T, Hovsepian JM, Symeonidis PD, Terzidis I, Papakostas ET. Insufficient evidence to support peroneus longus tendon over other autografts for primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review. J ISAKOS. 2021 May;6(3):161-169.
  9. Nazem K, Barzegar M, Hosseini A, Karimi M. Can we use peroneus longus in addition to hamstring tendons for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? Adv Biomed Res. 2014 May 19;3:115.
  10. Rhatomy S, Asikin AIZ, Wardani AE, Rukmoyo T, Lumban-Gaol I, Budhiparama NC. Peroneus longus autograft can be recommended as a superior graft to hamstring tendon in single-bundle ACL reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2019 Nov;27(11):3552-3559.
  11. Rhatomy S, Hartoko L, Setyawan R, Soekarno NR, Zainal Asikin AI, Pridianto D, Mustamsir E. Single bundle ACL reconstruction with peroneus longus tendon graft: 2-years follow-up. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2020 May;11(Suppl 3):S332-S336.
  12. Rhatomy S, Tanzil H, Setyawan R, Amanda C, Phatama KY, Andrianus J, Rukmoyo T, Kisworo B. Influence of anthropometric features on peroneus longus graft diameter in Anterior Cruciate Ligament reconstruction: A cohort study. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2019 Nov 1;48:77-80.
  13. Shi FD, Hess DE, Zuo JZ, Liu SJ, Wang XC, Zhang Y, Meng XG, Cui ZJ, Zhao SP, Li CJ, Hu WN. Peroneus Longus Tendon Autograft is a Safe and Effective Alternative for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. J Knee Surg. 2019 Aug;32(8):804-811.
  14. Trung DT, Manh SL, Thanh LN, Dinh TC, Dinh TC. Preliminary Result of Arthroscopic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using Anterior Half of Peroneus Longus Tendon Autograft. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019 Dec 20;7(24):4351-4356.
  15. Zhao J, Huangfu X. The biomechanical and clinical application of using the anterior half of the peroneus longus tendon as an autograft source. Am J Sports Med. 2012 Mar;40(3):662-71.

Response from authors:

We thank Marín Fermín et al. for their interest and comments in the Letter to the Editor regarding our article “Peroneus longus tendon autograft has functional outcomes comparable to hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta‑analysis” [6]. We also thank the Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy for the opportunity to respond to this letter.

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using peroneus longus tendon (PLT) and hamstring tendon autografts were compared for functional outcomes, knee laxity, and complications in our meta-analysis [6]. No significant difference was observed between either autograft choice with regard to Lachman grade, donor site pain, or graft failure. However, PLT groups demonstrated increased IKDC subjective score and Lysholm score, and decreased AOFAS score at the last post-operative follow-up compared with pre-operative scores.

Our meta-analysis was based on all available published articles about the PLT in ACL reconstruction, thus, we can only make conclusions based on the outcome measures investigated in these articles. To illustrate, the PROMIS score was not reported in these studies, and consequently, it is not possible to conclude whether patients’ PROMIS score significantly differed or not. However, among the 76 scoring systems applied in 669 publications [11], AOFAS was the most commonly used outcome measurement tool scored by foot and ankle specialists. Indeed, PROMIS, a freely available computerized question bank, has shown capacity for allowing standardization, however, it is just one of several commonly used patient-reported outcome measurements. Objective evaluations such as isometric muscle strength of eversion and first ray plantarflexion after PLT autograft harvest were evaluated by Rhatomy et al., [9] and no significant differences were found between the donor site and the contralateral healthy site. Conversely, Angthong et al. reported significantly lower eversion torque at the harvested ankle compared to the contralateral ankle seven months post-operatively [1]. We did discuss this aspect of donor site morbidity, specifically, decreased peak eversion torque, in our meta-analysis, stating “Further investigation should be performed to evaluate the feasibility of PLT autograft in high-level athletes who require quick ankle eversion” As indicated in our meta-analysis [6], there is no established test to evaluate the function of the PLT in isolation.

We agree that harvesting half of the PLT and/or tenodesis to the peroneus brevis tendon may be a potential way of balancing donor site morbidity and providing adequate tendon strength. As demonstrated by Park et al., [8] harvesting the anterior half of the PLT resulted in no difference in mean peak torque for ankle eversion using an objective measurement in the context of lateral ankle ligament reconstruction. As described in a recent article [5] as well as other references [3, 9], tenodesis of the distal portion of the PLT to the peroneus brevis tendon partially preserves the function of PLT after harvesting. We do not recommend harvesting the full-thickness of proximal PLT autograft by leaving the distal part alone. We also acknowledge that tenodesis was not performed in all papers included in our meta-analysis. As Marín Fermín et al. mentioned, according to the previous study [1], leaving the distal part alone may lead to eversion weakness. We also reference conflicting evidence published by Nazem et al. [7], who concluded that that “Removing the PLT has no effect on gait parameters and does not lead to instability of the ankle” by using the procedure we prefer.

To ensure a thorough analysis, we examined donor site function with two subgroups in Figure 1. Interestingly, no statistically significant difference in AOFAS was identified after full-thickness PLT harvest [9, 10] (mean score decreased 0.26; 95% CI -0.80 to 1.31, n.s.), but a statistically significant drop in AOFAS was identified after anterior-half PLT harvest [2, 13–15], (mean score decreased 0.31; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.55, p = 0.01) which exceeded the minimal clinically important difference of 8.9 [4]. Based on current evidence, and as indicated by the team of Marín Fermín et al., harvesting half of the PLT tendon or tenodesis to the peroneus brevis tendon seems to be relatively safe.

Figure 1. Forest plot showing mean difference in AOFAS scores between pre-operation and post-operation.

 In conclusion, we appreciate the interest and comments of Marín Fermín et al. about our systematic review and meta-analysis and especially their concerns about donor site morbidity. We agree that further studies are needed to evaluate the alterations of foot and ankle after PLT harvesting with validated objective and subjective scores. The donor site morbidity concerns raised by these authors stems from a divergence of opinions on which autograft constitutes the minor morbidity and results in the best knee function [12]. A more detailed PLT harvesting proposal and evaluation of foot and ankle functions is needed to fully address the benefits and complications. Currently, there is a lack of high-evidence literature with long-term follow-up using PLT autograft. The influence of PLT harvest site morbidity should continue to be evaluated despite literature showing low morbidity in foot and ankle range of motion [7], strength assessment [9], and foot arch morphology [10].

References:

  1. Angthong C, Chernchujit B, Apivatgaroon A, Chaijenkit K, Nualon P, Suchao-In K (2015) The anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the peroneus longus tendon: A biomechanical and clinical evaluation of the donor ankle morbidity. J Med Assoc Thail 98:555–560
  2. Bi M, Zhao C, Zhang S, Yao B, Hong Z, Bi Q (2018) All-Inside Single-Bundle Reconstruction of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament with the Anterior Half of the Peroneus Longus Tendon Compared to the Semitendinosus Tendon: A Two-Year Follow-Up Study. J Knee Surg 31:1022–1030
  3. Bimadi MH, Phatama KY, Mustamsir E (2020) Does The Peroneus Longus Tendon Autograft Affect The Ankle Function? A Case Series. Hip Knee J 1:57–62
  4. Dawson J, Doll H, Coffey J, Jenkinson C (2007) Responsiveness and minimally important change for the Manchester-Oxford foot questionnaire (MOXFQ) compared with AOFAS and SF-36 assessments following surgery for hallux valgus. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 15:918–931
  5. He J, Byrne K, Ueki H, Kanto R, Linde MA, Smolinski P, Wu S, Fu F (2021) Low to moderate risk of nerve damage during peroneus longus tendon autograft harvest. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. Doi: 10.1007/s00167-021-06698-2
  6. He J, Tang Q, Ernst S, Linde MA, Smolinski P, Wu S, Fu F (2021) Peroneus longus tendon autograft has functional outcomes comparable to hamstring tendon autograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 29:2869-2879
  7. Nazem K, Barzegar M, Hosseini A, Karimi M (2014) Can we use peroneus longus in addition to hamstring tendons for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? Adv Biomed Res 3:115
  8. Park CH, Lee WC (2017) Donor site morbidity after lateral ankle ligament reconstruction using the anterior half of the per- oneus longus tendon autograft. Am J Sports Med 45:922–928
  9. Rhatomy S, Wicaksono FH, Soekarno NR, Setyawan R, Primasara S, Budhiparama NC (2019) Eversion and First Ray Plantarflexion Muscle Strength in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using a Peroneus Longus Tendon Graft. Orthop J Sports Med 7: 2325967119872462
  10. Shao X, Shi LL, Bluman EM, Wang S, Xu X, Chen X, Wang J (2020) Satisfactory functional and MRI outcomes at the foot and ankle following harvesting of full thickness peroneus longus tendon graft. Bone Joint J 102:205–211
  11. Safavi PS, Janney C, Jupiter D, Kunzler D, Bui R, Panchbhavi VK (2019) A Systematic Review of the Outcome Evaluation Tools for the Foot and Ankle. Foot Ankle Spec 12:461–470
  12. Sinding KS, Nielsen TG, Hvid LG, Lind M, Dalgas U (2020) Effects of Autograft Types on Muscle Strength and Functional Capacity in Patients Having Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Sports Med 50:1393–1403
  13. Trung DT, Le Manh S, Thanh LN, Dinh TC, Dinh TC (2019) Preliminary result of arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using anterior half of peroneus longus tendon autograft. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 7:4351–4356
  14. Wu C, Xie G, Jin W, Ren Z, Xue J, Yang K (2019) Arthroscopic graftlink technique reconstruction combined with suture anchor fixation for anterior cruciate ligament and medial collateral ligament injuries. Chinese J reparative Reconstr Surg 33:685–688
  15. Zhao J, Huangfu X (2012) The biomechanical and clinical application of using the anterior half of the peroneus longus tendon as an autograft source. Am J Sports Med 40:662–671

Computer-assisted surgery and patient-specific instrumentation improve the accuracy of tibial baseplate rotation in total knee arthroplasty compared to conventional instrumentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Tandogan, R.N., Kort, N.P., Ercin, E. et al. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06495-x

Query Letter to the Editor

Han Zhang, Guanhong Chen

Dear editor,

We read the published study by Reha N Tandogan and Nanne P Kort that Computer-assisted surgery and patient-specific instrumentation improve the accuracy of tibial baseplate rotation in total knee arthroplasty compared to conventional instrumentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis[1], carefully. The authors used a meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of conventional instrumentation, patient-specific instrumentation (PSI), computer-assisted surgery (CAS), or robot-assisted surgery (RAS) in terms of deviation from the planned target and the proportion of outliers from the target zone in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Although the authors’ analytical methods are scientific, we think there are some problems in his paper that need to be improved.

  1. Although the relevant data of CAS and RAS were extracted separately, the authors did not analyze the relevant data of CAS and RAS separately in the Meta-analysis. The authors’ method of combining the relevant data of CAS and RAS into the CAS group for Meta-analysis is not rigorous.
  2. We noted that in this study, the authors involved a total of four technologies, which were traditional instrumentation, PSI, CAS and RAS. The authors used a dual-arm meta-analysis to compare the efficacy of PSI versus conventional instrumentation and compare the efficacy of CAS versus conventional instrumentation. We think that the network meta-analysis method is more appropriate in this study. In this way, the therapeutic effects of the four therapeutic methods can be comprehensively compared, and the therapeutic effects of the four therapeutic methods can be ranked, so as to provide more effective evidence-based medicine reference for clinicians to select therapeutic methods.
  3. It is also not rigorous to use the random effects model indiscriminately in the meta-analysis. The random effect model and the fixed effect model should be selected according to the magnitude of heterogeneity. In general, the heterogeneity between studies was tested by I2 statistic with I2≥50% indicating heterogeneity and if no significant heterogeneity existed, a fixed-effects model was adopted,otherwise a random-effects model was used[2].

Admittedly, the authors’ research is scientifically rigorous. However, we believe that if the above issues are improved, the conclusions drawn from this study will be more instructive to clinical work.

REFERENCES

  1. Tandogan RN, Kort NP, Ercin E, van Rooij F, Nover L, Saffarini M, Hirschmann MT, Becker R, Dejour D; Computer-assisted surgery and patient-specific instrumentation improve the accuracy of tibial baseplate rotation in total knee arthroplasty compared to conventional instrumentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. doi: 10.1007/s00167-021-06495-x.
  2. Sun P, Bi M, Chen Z (2019). Meta-analysis should be carried out objectively and rigorously. J Clin Anesth 56:6-16. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2018.12.055.

Response from authors:

We thank Zhang and Chen (REF) for their interest in our recent meta-analysis [2] and for their detailed remarks regarding our study methodology and statistical analyses. Zhang and Chen made 3 remarks regarding:

  1. Combining the relevant data of CAS and RAS for Meta-analysis.
  2. Appropriateness of classic meta-analysis (for two-arm comparisons) versus network meta-analysis (for three-arm comparisons).
  3. Selection of random effects model versus fixed effects model depending on the magnitude of heterogeneity.

The first 2 remarks would have been relevant, had we found eligible studies on all 3 assistive technologies for total knee arthroplasty (TKA): patient-specific instrumentation (PSI), computer-assisted surgery (CAS), or robot-assisted surgery (RAS). Contrary to our expectations, we found no eligible studies that reported any outcomes of interest using RAS, which resulted in a dual-arm meta-analysis, instead of the originally intended triple-arm meta-analysis. While Zhang and Chen may have missed this subtle detail, because we did not specify it explicitly in the text of our Methods or Results sections, it is important to note that we reported this implicitly in the flow-chart, as well as explicitly in the fourth paragraph of our Discussion section, which reads “A formal search for RAS was performed, however, after initial and full-text screening, no eligible studies were found which reported on the deviation from the planned tibial rotational alignment.”

The third remark remains a matter of debate, and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic reviews [1] does not provide a universal recommendation. However, they do specify that the choice between a fixed-effects and a random-effects meta-analysis should never be made on the basis of a statistical test for heterogeneity: “Authors should recognize that there is much uncertainty in measures such as I2 and τ2 (when there are few studies). Thus, use of simple thresholds to diagnose heterogeneity should be avoided.”

We were nevertheless pleased to read the sharp advice of Zhang and Chen, which contributes to raising the quality and rigour of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the domain of orthopaedic surgery.

  1. McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, McGrath TA, Bossuyt PM, and the P-DTAG, Clifford T, Cohen JF, Deeks JJ, Gatsonis C, Hooft L, Hunt HA, Hyde CJ, Korevaar DA, Leeflang MMG, Macaskill P, Reitsma JB, Rodin R, Rutjes AWS, Salameh JP, Stevens A, Takwoingi Y, Tonelli M, Weeks L, Whiting P, Willis BH (2018) Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement. Jama 319 (4):388-396.
  2. Tandogan RN, Kort NP, Ercin E, van Rooij F, Nover L, Saffarini M, Hirschmann MT, Becker R, Dejour D (2021) Computer-assisted surgery and patient-specific instrumentation improve the accuracy of tibial baseplate rotation in total knee arthroplasty compared to conventional instrumentation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc.

Anterolateral complex injuries occur in the majority of ‘isolated’ anterior cruciate ligament ruptures

Balendra, G., Willinger, L., Pai, V. et al Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06543-6

Query Letter to the Editor

Breck Lord MA MBBS PhD FRCS, Iswadi Damasena MBBS FRACS, Brian M. Devitt MD PhD FRCS FRACS

Dear Editor,

It was with interest we read the study by Balendra et al, ‘Anterolateral complex injuries occur in the majority of ‘isolated’ anterior cruciate ligament ruptures’[1]. This study highlights the radiological diagnosis of injury to the anterolateral soft tissue envelope of the knee at the time of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture. The authors conclude that in a group of professional athletes there is a high incidence of concomitant Anterolateral complex (ALC) injuries in combination with ACL ruptures, with the Kaplan fibres being the most commonly injured structure. This study is of particular relevance considering the Kaplan fibres have gained recent attention for their role in controlling internal rotation of the knee, especially in the setting of ACL deficiency [6, 10-12, 16]. Encouragingly, this study adds to the growing body of research demonstrating the consistent radiological identification of the Kaplan fibres [1, 3, 9, 16, 20]. Furthermore, this study provides important information on the association between radiological evidence of ALC injury and the clinical assessment of anterolateral rotatory laxity with the pivot shift examination. The interpretation of this information and its relevance is critical considering that much of the research to date in this area has focused on cadaveric anatomical and biomechanical sectioning studies[6, 10]. Nonetheless, there remains a certain amount of ambiguity as to what constitutes a clinically relevant ALC injury on MRI and how high the bar should be set when diagnosing injury. This is especially pertinent as a relationship between radiological evidence of Kaplan fibre injury and increased anterolateral rotatory laxity or higher rates of ACL reconstruction failure has not been shown in any clinical series[1, 5].

In the current study, Balendra et al reported a high incidence of injury to the ALC (63%);  the majority of injuries were to Kaplan fibres (39% isolated injury and 19% combined with Anterolateral ligament (ALL) injury, while there was a very low incidence of isolated ALL injuries (2%)[1]. Interestingly, considering the reported rate of medial collateral ligament injury was also 13%, isolated ACL injury was only seen in 24% of cases, and was described as a ‘rare phenomenon’. In the opening paragraph of the discussion, the authors state that injuries to the ALC ‘especially affect the Kaplan fibres, highlighting the importance of the deep capsule-osseous layer of the iliotibial band in resisting anterolateral rotatory instability.’ Although this may seem like a logical conclusion based on previous biomechanical studies, which examined the role of the Kaplan fibres in controlling tibial translation and rotation, as far as we are aware, there are no clinical studies as yet that have demonstrated an association between Kaplan fibre injury and subjective symptoms of persistent anterolateral rotatory instability following ACL reconstruction[10]. Furthermore, as clearly demonstrated in this study and by others, no correlation has been found between radiological evidence of Kaplan Fibre injury with MRI and the clinical examination of anterolateral rotatory laxity under anaesthesia prior to primary ACL reconstruction[1, 5].

The concept of ‘anterolateral rotatory instability’ of the knee was introduced by Hughston et al in 1976[8]. Notwithstanding the perceptiveness of this theory, one of the lasting challenges has been how to make a definitive diagnosis of injury. The subjective feeling of ‘instability’ may be elicited by a good history but identifying and quantifying anterolateral rotatory laxity has proved an altogether more testing task.  Although a number of devices have been used over time to provide an objective assessment anterolateral rotatory laxity, the reliability, accuracy and feasibility of these tools in clinical practice remains questionable[7, 17, 19, 22]. As such, the pivot shift test remains the most widely used clinical examination for anterolateral rotatory laxity[14, 21]. Although this clinical test is subjective it has been shown to have a high specificity for diagnosis of ACL injury [2, 18]. Indeed, assessment of the grade of pivot shift is important as it has been found to correlate with patient outcomes following ACL reconstructive surgery, unlike measurements of anterior knee laxity, which do not[13].

In the current study, the methods used by the authors are commendable; all of the MRIs were performed within 3 weeks of injury and the clinical examination was carried out under anaesthesia by one, very experienced surgeon at a mean time of just over two-weeks following injury (16.6 ± 13.1 days (3–100)[1]. Therefore, one would assume a level of consistency in the diagnosis of anterolateral rotatory laxity in this cohort of patients. Consequently, it seems incongruous that the authors conclude that ‘clinical examination was found to be a poor tool to identify injuries to the ALC, with no association being found between high-grade pivot-shift and injuries to either the ALL or Kaplan fibres.’ This statement seems to imply that the findings of MRI evidence of injury is given a greater level of importance in the diagnosis of ALC injury compared to the clinical interpretation of anterolateral rotatory laxity by an experienced, well-trained surgeon. We suggest that the opposite is true and that MRI might be a ‘poor tool’ in identifying clinically significant ALC injuries. This is alluded to by the authors in the limitations section where they noted that ‘spread of oedema/haematoma might, by MRI criteria, imply injury to soft tissues that are, in fact, intact.’ Further, it has previously been demonstrated that while MRI may have some usefulness for predicting the grade of knee laxity in patients with symptomatic ACL injury, its value is limited[4, 15].

In summary, this study has once again emphasised that the ALC of the knee is complex by name and complex by nature. We agree with authors that ‘there is a great need to develop clear indications for adding lateral augmentation surgery to ACL reconstruction’ but we submit the need for caution in utilising MRI findings to determine the requirement for these additional procedures.

REFERENCES

  1. Balendra G, Willinger L, Pai V, Mitchell A, Lee J, Jones M, et al. (2021) Anterolateral complex injuries occur in the majority of ‘isolated’ anterior cruciate ligament ruptures. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc;10.1007/s00167-021-06543-6
  2. Benjaminse A, Gokeler A, van der Schans CP (2006) Clinical diagnosis of an anterior cruciate ligament rupture: a meta-analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 36:267-288
  3. Berthold DP, Willinger L, Muench LN, Forkel P, Schmitt A, Woertler K, et al. (2020) Visualization of Proximal and Distal Kaplan Fibers Using 3-Dimensional Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Anatomic Dissection. Am J Sports Med 48:1929-1936
  4. Chang MJ, Chang CB, Choi JY, Je MS, Kim TK (2014) Can magnetic resonance imaging findings predict the degree of knee joint laxity in patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? BMC Musculoskelet Disord 15:214
  5. Devitt BM, Al’khafaji I, Blucher N, Batty LM, Murgier J, Webster KE, et al. (2021) Association Between Radiological Evidence of Kaplan Fiber Injury, Intraoperative Findings, and Pivot-Shift Grade in the Setting of Acute Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury. Am J Sports Med 49:1262-1269
  6. Geeslin AG, Chahla J, Moatshe G, Muckenhirn KJ, Kruckeberg BM, Brady AW, et al. (2018) Anterolateral Knee Extra-articular Stabilizers: A Robotic Sectioning Study of the Anterolateral Ligament and Distal Iliotibial Band Kaplan Fibers. Am J Sports Med 46:1352-1361
  7. Grassi A, Lopomo NF, Rao AM, A.N. A, Zaffagnini S (2016) No proof for the best instrumented device to grade the pivot shift test: a systematic review. . JISAKOS 1:269–275
  8. Hughston JC, Andrews JR, Cross MJ, Moschi A (1976) Classification of knee ligament instabilities. Part II. The lateral compartment. J Bone Joint Surg Am 58:173-179
  9. Khanna M, Gupte C, Dodds A, Williams A, Walker M (2018) Magnetic resonance imaging appearances of the capsulo-osseous layer of the iliotibial band and femoral attachments of the iliotibial band in the normal and pivot-shift ACL injured knee. Skeletal Radiol;10.1007/s00256-018-3128-9
  10. Kittl C, El-Daou H, Athwal KK, Gupte CM, Weiler A, Williams A, et al. (2016) The Role of the Anterolateral Structures and the ACL in Controlling Laxity of the Intact and ACL-Deficient Knee: Response. Am J Sports Med 44:NP15-18
  11. Kittl C, Halewood C, Stephen JM, Gupte CM, Weiler A, Williams A, et al. (2015) Length change patterns in the lateral extra-articular structures of the knee and related reconstructions. Am J Sports Med 43:354-362
  12. Kittl C, Inderhaug E, Williams A, Amis AA (2018) Biomechanics of the Anterolateral Structures of the Knee. Clin Sports Med 37:21-31
  13. Lane CG, Warren R, Pearle AD (2008) The pivot shift. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16:679-688
  14. Leblanc MC, Kowalczuk M, Andruszkiewicz N, Simunovic N, Farrokhyar F, Turnbull TL, et al. (2015) Diagnostic accuracy of physical examination for anterior knee instability: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 23:2805-2813
  15. Lynch TB, Bernot JM, Oettel DJ, Byerly D, Musahl V, Chasteen J, et al. (2021) Magnetic resonance imaging does not reliably detect Kaplan fiber injury in the setting of anterior cruciate ligament tear. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc;10.1007/s00167-021-06730-5
  16. Marom N, Greditzer HGt, Roux M, Ling D, Boyle C, Pearle AD, et al. (2020) The Incidence of Kaplan Fiber Injury Associated With Acute Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tear Based on Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Am J Sports Med 48:3194-3199
  17. Napier RJ, Feller JA, Devitt BM, McClelland JA, Webster KE, Thrush CSJ, et al. (2021) Is the KiRA Device Useful in Quantifying the Pivot Shift in Anterior Cruciate Ligament-Deficient Knees? Orthop J Sports Med 9:2325967120977869
  18. Ostrowski JA (2006) Accuracy of 3 diagnostic tests for anterior cruciate ligament tears. J Athl Train 41:120-121
  19. Vaidya RV, Yoo CW, Lee J, Lee MC, Ro DH (2019) Quantitative assessment of the pivot shift test with smartphone accelerometer. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy;10.1007/s00167-019-05826-3
  20. Van Dyck P, De Smet E, Roelant E, Parizel PM, Heusdens CHW (2019) Assessment of Anterolateral Complex Injuries by Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Patients With Acute Rupture of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament. Arthroscopy 35:521-527
  21. van Eck CF, Loopik M, van den Bekerom MP, Fu FH, Kerkhoffs GM (2013) Methods to diagnose acute anterior cruciate ligament rupture: a meta-analysis of instrumented knee laxity tests. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:1989-1997
  22. Vaudreuil NJ, Rothrauff BB, de Sa D, Musahl V (2019) The Pivot Shift: Current Experimental Methodology and Clinical Utility for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Rupture and Associated Injury. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 12:41-49

Response from authors:

We are delighted that Lord et al, read our publication with interest and found our methods ‘commendable’. Most of their letter, makes statements we would not disagree with. We will only deal with issues of disagreement below.

The authors make the point that we described truly isolated ACL rupture as a ‘rare phenomenon’. Their point would seem reasonable given the results in our study, and we should have clarified our statement. However, in another publication in this journal1 we also showed a high association of MCL complex injuries associated with ACL ruptures, and in unpublished studies from our MRI analyses we have recorded high associations of meniscal / chondral lesions with ACL rupture. In that context, and not surprisingly when one considers that the lateral compartment of the knee ‘dislocates’ in the most common mechanism of ACL rupture, truly isolated ACL lesions are uncommon. This point was made in the discussion section of our article in question.

It is in the last 2 paragraphs that Lord et al make other points specifically critical of our publication. Firstly, with reference to our statement: ‘Finally, clinical examination was found to be a poor tool to identify injuries to the ALC, with no association being found between high-grade pivot shift and injuries to either ALL or KF.’ Lord et al state: This statement seems to imply that the findings of MRI evidence of injury is given a greater level of importance in the diagnosis of ALC injury compared to the clinical interpretation of anterolateral rotatory laxity by an experienced, well-trained surgeon.’ We would disagree. Our statement is simply that there was poor correlation between clinical examination, the magnitude of which reflects the degree of anterior tibial translation and anterolateral rotatory laxity, and the MRI findings. Admittedly it would have been clearer if we had written: ‘clinical examination correlated poorly with injuries to the ALC seen on MRI’. There was absolutely no intention of suggesting that MRI trumps good clinical examination- to say so would be completely wrong, and indeed we believe we never stated anything to imply that in our text. MRI demonstrates what is injured but never the degree of injury. This is evident in many aspects of soft tissue knee injury when radiological grades of injury, especially to MCL and PCL, seem not to correlate to clinical laxity findings. MRI is a wonderful tool but needs to be used with care. We would absolutely agree with Lord et al when they state: ‘MRI might be a ‘poor tool’ in identifying clinically significant ALC injuries.’ That much is correct.

We are pleased that Lord et al agree with our statement that ‘there is a great need to develop clear indications for adding lateral augmentation surgery to ACL reconstruction’.

We refute the suggestion that our article implies that MRI findings could be used ‘to determine the requirement for these additional procedures’. In support of that defence, in the discussion section, having just stated our finding that clinical examination did not correlate with MRI findings, we state: ‘It is a pity as there is a great need to develop clear indications for adding lateral augmentation surgery to ACL reconstruction—imaging or clinical tests to identify the cases needing the extra surgery would be invaluable to avoid ACL failure in cases needing LET/ ALL reconstruction, or to avoid unnecessary morbidity and complications in those who do not.’ Thus we were stating that whilst it would be helpful if MRI findings (or clinical tests), could identify patients needing additional procedures such as LET, our study findings meant that MRI findings could not be used. Therefore, we politely and respectfully refute the criticisms made by Lord et al.

REFERENCES

  1. Willinger, L., Balendra, G., Pai, V. et al. Medial meniscal ramp lesions in ACL-injured elite athletes are strongly associated with medial collateral ligament injuries and medial tibial bone bruising on MRI. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-021-06671-z