METHOD: Patient records from a single surgery centre were searched for all patients presenting with late fracture complication following arthroscopically assisted acromioclavicular stabilization. Medical reports including the operative notes and pre- and post-operative X-rays were reviewed. A telephone interview was conducted with each patient to access the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder score.
RESULTS: A total of four patients presented with late fracture complication following arthroscopic-assisted ACJ stabilization surgery. All patients were males and presented following trauma at a median duration of 19.5 months after the index surgery. Fracture morphology differed between patients; the treatment was conservative in three patients, while one patient underwent osteosynthesis.
CONCLUSION: Traumatic peri-implant fractures can occur, even 2 years after arthroscopically assisted ACJ reconstruction. This needs to be considered when planning for surgical intervention in acute ACJ disruption, especially in a high-risk population.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, Level IV.
METHODS: Group I (N=12) underwent ORIF. Group II (N=15) underwent APSF. Anthropometric data, pre and post-operative stay, complications and duration off work were recorded in this retrospective case cohort study. Radiographs were analyzed for Bohler's, Gissane's angle and Sanders' classification. AOFAS Hindfoot and SF 36 scores were collected at final follow-up.
RESULTS: Anthropometric data, Bohler's and Gissane's angles, AOFAS and SF 36 scores were not significantly different. Pre-operative duration was 12.3 days in ORIF and 6.9 days in APSF. Post-operative duration was 7.3 days vs 3.8 days. Duration off work was 6.2 months vs 2.9 months.
CONCLUSION: The APSF group was able to have surgery earlier, go home faster, and return to work earlier. This study was not powered to demonstrate a difference in wound complication rates.
METHODS: 63 patients who underwent remnant-preserving single-bundle PCL reconstruction between 2011 and 2018 with a minimum 2-year follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into two groups according to the femoral tunnel position: group A (33 patients with anatomical femoral tunnel) and group H (30 patients with high femoral tunnels). The femoral tunnel was positioned at the center (group A) or upper margin (group H) of the remnant anterolateral bundle. The position of the femoral tunnel was evaluated using the grid method on three-dimensional computed tomography. Clinical and radiological outcomes and failure rates were compared between the groups at the 2-year follow-up.
RESULTS: The position of the femoral tunnel was significantly high in group H than in group A (87.4% ± 4.2% versus 76.1% ± 3.7%, p