Background: With sports specialization and level of competition on the rise, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in athletes under the age of 20 has increased significantly in recent years. Reports have demonstrated that the revision ACLR rate is higher and return to sport (RTS) rate is lower in this population. Purpose: To evaluate the 2-year clinical outcomes of 3 cohorts of primary ACLR in pediatric and adolescent athletes under the age of 20 based on skeletal age with a focus on RTS and the incidence of second surgery. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: This is a prospective evaluation of 324 athletes younger than 20 years of age who underwent ACLR with minimum 2-year follow-up. The surgical technique was selected predicated on skeletal age, which includes the all-epiphyseal technique with hamstring autograft in the youngest cohort in elementary and middle school (group 1), the partial transphyseal and complete transphyseal with hamstring autograft performed for athletes in the middle cohort (group 2), and bone-tendon-bone autograft in the skeletally mature high school athletes (group 3). Results: The mean chronological age of the entire cohort was 15 years (range, 8-19 years) with 55% males. The 3 cohorts included 49 patients (15%) in group 1 (mean age, 12 years), 66 (20%) in group 2 (mean age, 14.3 years), and 209 (65%) in group 3 (mean age, 16.2 years). Group 2 athletes had a significantly higher revision ACLR rate (20%) compared with group 1 (6%; P = .039) and group 3 (6%; P = .001). Similarly, group 2 athletes had significantly lower RTS rates (85%) compared with group 1 (100%) and group 3 (94%). Conclusion: The rate of revision ACLR was significantly higher and the RTS rates significantly lower in group 2 compared with groups 1 and 3. This age-related risk profile may be used to counsel athletes and parents preoperatively regarding the expectations of surgery with respect to revision ACLR and RTS rates.

No abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) printing is an exciting form of manufacturing technology that has transformed the way we can treat various medical pathologies. Also known as additive manufacturing, 3D printing fuses materials together in a layer-by-layer fashion to construct a final 3D product. This technology allows flexibility in the design process and enables efficient production of both off-the-shelf and personalized medical products that accommodate patient needs better than traditional manufacturing processes. In the field of orthopaedic surgery, 3D printing implants and instrumentation can be used to address a variety of pathologies that would otherwise be challenging to manage with products made from traditional subtractive manufacturing. Furthermore, 3D bioprinting has significantly impacted bone and cartilage restoration procedures and has the potential to completely transform how we treat patients with debilitating musculoskeletal injuries. Although costs can be high, as technology advances, the economics of 3D printing will improve, especially as the benefits of this technology have clearly been demonstrated in both orthopaedic surgery and medicine as a whole. This review outlines the basics of 3D printing technology and its current applications in orthopaedic surgery and ends with a brief summary of 3D bioprinting and its potential future impact.

Background Three dimensional printing has greatly advanced over the past decade and has made an impact in several industries. Within the field of orthopaedic surgery, this technology has vastly improved education and advanced patient care by providing innovating tools to complex clinical problems. Anatomic models are frequently used for physician education and preoperative planning, and custom instrumentation can assist in complex surgical cases. Foot and ankle reconstruction is often complicated by multiplanar deformity and bone loss. 3D printing technology offers solutions to these complex cases with customized implants that conform to anatomy and patient specific instrumentation that enables precise deformity correction. Case presentation The authors present four cases of complex lower extremity reconstruction involving segmental bone loss and deformity – failed total ankle arthroplasty, talus avascular necrosis, ballistic trauma, and nonunion of a tibial osteotomy. Traditional operative management is challenging in these cases and there are high complication rates. Each case presents a unique clinical scenario for which 3D printing technology allows for innovative solutions. Conclusions 3D printing is becoming more widespread within orthopaedic surgery. This technology provides surgeons with tools to better tackle some of the more challenging clinical cases especially within the field of foot and ankle surgery.