The Hamstring ACL: Success and Understnding How and Why! Orthopedic - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

the hamstring acl success and understnding how and why
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

The Hamstring ACL: Success and Understnding How and Why! Orthopedic - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The Hamstring ACL: Success and Understnding How and Why! Orthopedic Summit 2017 Mark E. Steiner, MD New England Baptist Hospital Boston Disclosures Royalties Stryker Fellowship Support Arthre Don Joy Mitek Smith & Nephew


slide-1
SLIDE 1

The Hamstring ACL: Success and Understnding How and Why! Orthopedic Summit 2017 Mark E. Steiner, MD New England Baptist Hospital Boston

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Disclosures

  • Royalties

Stryker

  • Fellowship Support

Arthre Don Joy Mitek Smith & Nephew Con Med

  • Research Support

Don Joy Stryker

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Good and Bad of Hamstring Grafts

  • Easy access
  • Doubled G + ST

> 4000 N strength > 700 N/mm stiffness

  • hamstring strength
  • Minimal donor site morbidity
  • Sensory nerve injury
  • Incomplete graft harvest
  • Hemorrhage
  • hamstring weakness

Good Bad

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Patinent Perspective on Graft Options

  • Internet Information
  • Good in HS & College athletes
  • Offer all Options
  • Hamstring Graft concerns:

Retears Muscle weakness Infection Small Graft Anxiety Poor fixation

Revisions Years

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Retears Scandinavian Registries

  • 60,000 ACL reconstructions (85% hamstring grafts)

Revisions Hamstrings 2.7 % PT 2.3 %

Gifstad AJSM ’14 Rahr AJSM ’13

Surgical Technique ? Patient Selection?

“Ham grafts increased the risk of revision compared with PT”

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Allografts in Athletes ?

  • MARS group 2014 1205 Revisions, mean age 26
  • 1. “an autograft decreased risk rerupture”
  • 2. “No differences between soft tissue and B-T-B grafts”
  • MOON group 2801 ACL all ages
  • 1. Allograft in young athletes increased risk for graft tear
  • 2. No differences between soft tissue and B-T-B grafts
  • Daruwalla 184 Division I College football players

Autograft was associated with a greater RTP

slide-7
SLIDE 7

HSS ACL Graft Registry 2009 - 2013

  • PT auto

47%

  • Ham auto

30%

  • Allograft

23%

  • No Allograft in < 18 y.o.
  • Overall revision 5.1%
  • Failure: No association with graft type (BTB vs Ham)
slide-8
SLIDE 8

Kaiser San Diego <18y.o. KSST 2016

  • PT auto

10 %

  • Ham auto

73 %

  • Allograft

17 %

  • Revision PT

5.5%

  • Revision Ham

7.5%

  • Revision Allograft 13.2%
slide-9
SLIDE 9

Infection Ham vs PT (> 7000 cases)

  • Ham .6 %

(20 in 3257 cases)

Maletis AJSM ’13

PT .06% ( 2 in 2965 cases)

  • Ham 2 in 118

Katz Arth’08

PT 0 in 52 Katz Arthroscopy ’08

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Graft Irrigation May Prevent Infections

No Hamstring irrigation 1.7% infection (1095 cases) Vancomycine Hamstring irrigation 0% infection (2034 cases)

Phegan ‘16 Perez ‘16

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Graft Size and Graft Strength

  • Graft size related to height, weight and sex
  • 4 strand grafts < 8 mm increased failures

Spragg ’16 Magnussen ’11 Mariscalco ’13

  • ? Tensioning vs Size

Hamner ‘99 7 mm Hamner ‘99

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Hamstring Tensioning Equal on All Limbs

  • Manual tension

2831 N

  • Equally tension

4590 N = PT Hamner JBJS ‘99

NO YES

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Making Hamstring Grafts Larger 5 vs 4 strands

  • Add allograft to make 9 mm Ham = poor results

Burrus ’15, McCarty ‘17 ?

  • Make 5 strand graft =

good results Lee ’14

Lavery ‘14

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Interference Screw Fixation with Osteoporotic Bone

Domnick J Arth ‘17

  • Low Fixation Strength with osteoporotic

bone

  • Consider BTB graft with older patients
  • Consider staple or sutures to a post
slide-15
SLIDE 15

Hamstring Weakness with hamstring ACL ? Related to Pain or Regeneration

  • Normal flexion torque @ 2yr

Karlson ‘94

  • All tendons regenerated = Normal

Flexion and Int Rot Strength

Ahlen ‘12

  • 11% No Tendon regeneration

Less Strength & Agility

Choi ‘12

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Set Up and Incision

  • Done in 90° flexion
  • Vertical Incision near tibial tubercle
slide-17
SLIDE 17

Graft Preparation

  • Circumferential Ligate
  • Equal tensioning sutures
slide-18
SLIDE 18

Locating an “Anatomic” Femoral Tunnel

  • Remnants
  • Clock face
  • Ridges
  • Measurements 
slide-19
SLIDE 19

Measurements in 90° flexion

Height and Depth Guidelines for Anatomic Femoral Tunnels in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Cadaveric Study

  • A. David Davis, M.D. J. Arthroscopy 2016
slide-20
SLIDE 20

Measurements to the ACL Center at 90° flexion

  • 8.5 mm up lateral wall
  • 1.5 mm deep to the low point
slide-21
SLIDE 21

Radiographic Grid Validation of Measurements

  • ACL height ≈ Prior Measurements
  • ACL depth: ? Slightly shallow to Prior Measurements

Prior measurements

slide-22
SLIDE 22

AM Aimer at Height of ACL → Point close to ACL center

  • 7 mm offset aimer
  • Elevated 8.5 mm
slide-23
SLIDE 23

View Pilot Hole from Medial Portal Medial Portal View Lateral Portal View

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Aimer Placed Through AM Portal Pin Positioned in Starter Hole

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Guidepin Placement

  • Pin Exits in safe zone on lateral thigh
slide-26
SLIDE 26

Advance Flexible Reamer Over Pin

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Tunnel low at 90° = Tunnel posterior at 20°

V

90° extended

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Tibial Tunnel Placed Relative to Notch

  • Normal ACL “bundles” into the notch
  • ACL graft is a cylinder
slide-29
SLIDE 29

Tibial Tunnel Placed Medial

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Passage of the Graft

  • One suture tensions all 4 limbs equally
slide-31
SLIDE 31

Interference Screw Fixation with Rigid Screwdriver no hyperflexion place pin first to prevent graft / screw wrapping

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Tibial Fixation

  • Equally Tension
  • Knee in full extension
  • Fixation with IS = or 1 mm larger than tunnel
slide-33
SLIDE 33

Tibial Tunnel Placed Medial

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Graft Placement > Graft Type = Stable Knee

V

90° extended

8.5 mm

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Hamstring Graft for Whom

  • Patient requests
  • Pain and motion concerns
  • recreational athletes
  • Senior athletes who don’t want an allograft