Clinical evaluation and management of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is one of the most widely researched topics in orthopedic sports medicine, giving providers ample data on which to base their practices. The ACL is also the most commonly treated knee ligament. This study reports on current topics and research in clinical management of ACL injury, starting with evaluation, operative versus nonoperative management, and considerations in unique populations. Discussion of graft selection and associated procedures follows. Areas of uncertainty, rehabilitation, and prevention are the final topics before a reflection on the current state of ACL research and clinical management of ACL injury. Level of evidence V.

A trend within the orthopedic community is rejection of the belief that "one size its all." Freddie Fu, among others, strived to individualize the treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries based on the patient's anatomy. Further, during the last two decades, greater emphasis has been placed on improving the outcomes of ACL reconstruction (ACL-R). Accordingly, anatomic tunnel placement is paramount in preventing graft impingement and restoring knee kinematics. Additionally, identiication and management of concomitant knee injuries help to re-establish knee kinematics and prevent lower outcomes and registry studies continue to determine which graft yields the best outcomes. The utilization of registry studies has provided several large-scale epidemiologic studies that have bolstered outcomes data, such as avoiding allografts in pediatric populations and incorporating extra-articular stabilizing procedures in younger athletes to prevent re-rupture. In describing the anatomic and biomechanical understanding of the ACL and the resulting improvements in terms of surgical reconstruction, the purpose of this article is to illustrate how basic science advancements have directly led to improvements in clinical outcomes for ACL-injured patients. Level of evidence V.

Purpose To evaluate the efect of posterior tibial slope (PTS) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) graft failure after PCL reconstruction. Methods Patients undergoing PCL reconstruction with a minimum 2-year follow-up were included in this retrospective cohort study. A chart review was performed to collect patient-, injury-, and surgery-related data. Medial PTS was measured on preoperative lateral radiographs. Validated PROs, including the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Lysholm Score, Tegner Activity Scale, and Visual Analogue Scale for pain, were collected at inal follow-up. A correlation analysis was conducted to assess the relationship between PTS and PROs. A logistic regression model was performed to evaluate if PTS could predict PCL graft failure. Results Overall, 79 patients with a mean age of 28.6 ± 11.7 years and a mean follow-up of 5.7 ± 3.3 years were included. After a median time from injury of 4.0 months, isolated and combined PCL reconstruction was performed in 22 (28%) and 57 (72%) patients, respectively. There were no statistically signiicant diferences in PROs and PTS between patients undergoing isolated and combined PCL reconstruction (non-signiicant [n.s.]). There were no signiicant correlations between PTS and PROs (n.s.). In total, 14 (18%) patients experienced PCL graft failure after a median time of 17.5 months following PCL reconstruction. Patients with PCL graft failure were found to have statistically signiicantly lower PTS than patients without graft failure (7.0 ± 2.3° vs. 9.2 ± 3.3°, p < 0.05), while no diferences were found in PROs (n.s.). PTS was shown to be a signiicant predictor of PCL graft failure, with a 1.3-fold increase in the odds of graft failure for each one-degree reduction in PTS (p < 0.05). Conclusions This study showed that PTS does not afect PROs after PCL reconstruction, but that PTS represents a surgically modiiable predictor of PCL graft failure. Level of evidence III.