Background: Ramp lesions are characterized by disruption of the peripheral meniscocapsular attachments of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus. Ramp repair performed at the time of ACL reconstruction has been shown to improve knee biomechanics. Hypothesis/Purpose: Primary objectives of this study were to evaluate the incidence and risk factors for ramp lesions in a large series of patients undergoing ACL reconstruction, Secondary objectives were to determine the re-operation rate for failure of ramp repair, defined by subsequent re-operations for partial medial meniscectomy Study Design: Case series Methods: All patients underwent trans-notch posteromedial compartment evaluation of the knee during ACL reconstruction. Ramp repair was performed if a lesion was detected. Potentially important risk factors were analyzed for their association with ramp lesions. A secondary analysis of all patients who underwent ramp repair and had a minimum follow-up of two years was undertaken in order to determine the secondary partial meniscectomy rate for failed ramp repair. Results: The overall incidence of ramp lesions in the study population was 23.9% (769 ramp lesions in 3214 patients). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that the presence of ramp lesions was significantly associated with the following risk factors: male gender, patients aged under 30 years, revision ACLR, chronic injuries, pre-operative side-to-side laxity >6 mm and the presence of concomitant lateral meniscus tears. The secondary meniscectomy rate was 10.8% at a mean follow up of 45.6 months (24.2-66.2). Patients who underwent ACLR + ALLR had a greater than 2-fold reduction in the risk of reoperation for failure of ramp repair as compared with patients who underwent isolated ACLR (hazard ratio, 0.457; 95%CI, 0.226-0.864; P = .021) 3 Conclusion: There is a high incidence of ramp lesions in patients undergoing ACLR. The identification of important risk factors for ramp lesions in this study in an individual patient should help raise an appropriate index of suspicion and prompt posteromedial compartment evaluation. The overall secondary partial meniscectomy rate after ramp repair is 10.8%. Anterolateral ligament reconstruction appears to confer a protective effect on the ramp repair performed at the time of ACLR and results in a significant reduction in secondary meniscectomy rates.

Combined ACLR and ALLR is associated with a significantly lower rate of failure of medial meniscal repairs when compared with those performed at the time of isolated ACLR.

This study provides evidence that the implant alignment with computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty, as measured with radiography and computed tomography, is significantly improved compared with that associated with conventional surgery with intramedullary or extramedullary guides. This finding adds to the body of evidence showing an improved radiographic outcome with computer-assisted surgery compared with that following conventional total knee arthroplasty.

This scoping review demonstrated moderate-quality evidence for the efficacy of cryotherapy and physical exercises in improving quadriceps activation failure after ACL injury and reconstruction. These therapeutic modalities are therefore recommended in the management of AMI.

II.

II.

Purpose Kinematic alignment technique for TKA aims to restore the individual knee anatomy and ligament tension, to restore native knee kinematics. The aim of this study was to compare parameters of kinematics during gait (knee lexion-extension, adduction-abduction, internal-external tibial rotation and walking speed) of TKA patients operated by either kinematic alignment or mechanical alignment technique with a group of healthy controls. The hypothesis was that the kinematic parameters of kinematically aligned TKAs would more closely resemble that of healthy controls than mechanically aligned TKAs. Methods This was a retrospective case-control study. Eighteen kinematically aligned TKAs were matched by gender, age, operating surgeon and prosthesis to 18 mechanically aligned TKAs. Post-operative 3D knee kinematics analysis, performed with an optoelectronic knee assessment device (KneeKG®), was compared between mechanical alignment TKA patients, kinematic alignment TKA patients and healthy controls. Radiographic measures and clinical scores were also compared between the two TKA groups. ResultsThe kinematic alignment group showed no signiicant knee kinematic diferences compared to healthy knees in sagittal plane range of motion, maximum lexion, abduction-adduction curves or knee external tibial rotation. Conversely, the mechanical alignment group displayed several signiicant knee kinematic diferences to the healthy group: less sagittal plane range of motion (49.1° vs. 54.0°, p = 0.020), decreased maximum lexion (52.3° vs. 57.5°, p = 0.002), increased adduction angle (2.0-7.5° vs. − 2.8-3.0°, p < 0.05), and increased external tibial rotation (by a mean of 2.3 ± 0.7°, p < 0.001). The post-operative KOOS score was signiicantly higher in the kinematic alignment group compared to the mechanical alignment group (74.2 vs. 60.7, p = 0.034). Conclusions The knee kinematics of patients with kinematically aligned TKAs more closely resembled that of normal healthy controls than that of patients with mechanically aligned TKAs. This may be the result of a better restoration of the individual's knee anatomy and ligament tension. A return to normal gait parameters post-TKA will lead to improved clinical outcomes and greater patient satisfaction. Level of evidence III.

Introduction: After a better understanding of normal knee anatomy and physiology, the Kinematic Alignment (KA) technique was introduced to improve clinical outcomes of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The goal of the KA technique is to restore the pre-arthritic constitutional lower limb alignment of the patient. There is, however, a large range of normal knee anatomy. Unusual anatomies may be biomechanically inferior and affect TKA biomechanics and wear patterns. In 2011, the leading author proposed the restricted kinematic alignment (rKA) protocol, setting boundaries to KA for patients with an outlier or atypical knee anatomy.Material and Equipment: rKA aims to reproduce the constitutional knee anatomy of the patient within a safe range. Its fundamentals are based on sound comprehension of lower limb anatomy variation. There are five principles describing rKA: (1) Combined lower limb coronal orientation should be ± 3° of neutral; (2) Joint line orientation coronal alignment should be within ± 5° of neutral; (3) Natural knee's soft tissues tension/ laxities should be preserved/restored; (4) Femoral anatomy preservation is prioritized; (5) The unloaded/most intact knee compartment should be resurfaced and used as the pivot point when anatomical adjustment is required. An algorithm was developed to facilitate the decision-making.Methods: Since ~50% of patients will require anatomic modification to fit within rKA boundaries, rKA is ideally performed with patient-specific instrumentation (PSI), intra-operative computer navigation or robotic assistance. rKA surgical technique is presented in a stepwise manner, following the five principles in the algorithm.Results: rKA produced excellent mid-term clinical results in cemented or cementless TKA. Gait analysis showed that rKA TKA patients had gait patterns that were very close to a non-operated control group, and these kinematics differences translated into significantly better postoperative patient-reported scores than mechanical alignment (MA) TKA cases.Discussion: Aiming to improve the results of MA TKA, rKA protocol offers a satisfactory compromise that recreates patients' anatomy in most cases, omitting the need for extensive corrections and soft tissue releases that are often required with MA. Moreover, it precludes the reproduction of extreme anatomies seen with KA.