1 / 28

ACL Reconstruction

ACL Reconstruction. M Prud’homme-Foster Academic Half Day March 1 st , 2012. Outline. Background Diagnosis Operative v. Non-Operative Surgical techniques Anatomy Anatomic double-bundle Complications Rehabilitation Outcomes. Background:Burden of Disease.

teal
Download Presentation

ACL Reconstruction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. ACL Reconstruction M Prud’homme-Foster Academic Half Day March 1st , 2012

  2. Outline • Background • Diagnosis • Operative v. Non-Operative • Surgical techniques • Anatomy • Anatomic double-bundle • Complications • Rehabilitation • Outcomes

  3. Background:Burden of Disease • 6 per 1000 patients per year • 80 000 to 250 000 ACL injuries per year USA • 100 000-200 000 ACL reconstruction in USA per year • Cost: $12,000-20,000 • $1-3 Billion dollars

  4. Background: Epidemiology • Risk group 16-39 yoa • Females 4 times the rate of males • Noncontact ACL: two to eightfold increase in females • Contralateral rupture same as re-rupture of ACLR: 6%

  5. Diagnosis • History • Often noncontact, pivoting or landing • Swelling (hemarthrosis) • Unstable +/- difficulty WB • P/E • Difficult in acute: muscle spasms, effusion, meniscal pathology

  6. Diagnosis • Lachman Test • 20-30° flexion • Estimate anterior displacement: normal, marginal or soft • Pivot shift Test • Relocation @ 20-40°: 0(absent), 1+(pivot glide), 2+(pivot shift), 3+(momemtary locking) • Anterior Drawer Test • 90° flexion

  7. Diagnosis • Plain radiography: • r/o abnormalities associated • Segond fracture: lateral capsular ligament • Posterior to Gerdy’stubercule, supero-anterior to fibular head • Avulsion of insertion, joint space narrowing • MRI • 95% accuracy • Bony abnormalities

  8. Diagnosis • Instrumented Ligament Testing • Side to side diff: <3 mm normal, >3mm pathalogic • EUA with arthroscopy

  9. Operative v Non-Operative • No evidence suggesting that systematic treatment of ACL • Knee stability improved by surgery or by neuromuscular rehabilitation • Risks of OA remains high

  10. Operative v Non-Operative • ACL screening can identify copers • Similar percentage of copers and noncopers return to sporting activity • Screening algorithm: KOS-Sport, Global Knee Function Rating, hop tests, Quadriceps index

  11. Operative v Non-Operative • Excellent outcomes reported in appropriately selected patients, motivated, symptomatic • 50 years and older?

  12. Surgical Treatment: options • Patellar tendon, iliotibial tract, hamstring tendons • Autologous v. allograft • Single-, double-, triple-bundle • Anatomic • Two-, Three portal • Transtibial

  13. Surgical Treatment: historical • 1980s: isometric tensioning • Transtibial • Focus on reducing anterior translation • Today’s focus • Anatomical replication • Decrease rotatory instability (pivot) Pivot shift correlated with clinical outcomes

  14. AMM bundle is the primary stabilizer to • tibial anterior drawer through wide range of motion • AML bundle is the secondary stabilizer in deep flexion angles • PL bundle is the crucial stabilizer to hyperextension • as well as tibial anterior drawer at full extension

  15. Complications

  16. Sport specific comparative date sparse • Outcomes often mix sports • Differ in level of sport • Return to sport most common outcome reported • Not standardized • Conclusion: Return to cutting and pivoting sports less likely than

More Related