Rotational instability of the knee remains an issue after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The purpose was to evaluate the subjective and objective outcomes of combined reconstruction of the ACL and anterolateral ligament (ALL) of the knee. The hypothesis was that favorable outcomes can be achieved with this surgical procedure compared with isolated anatomic reconstruction of the ACL. Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2. One hundred ten patients with a unilateral ACL injury and high-grade pivot shift were randomly assigned to undergo either combined ACL and ALL reconstruction (group A) or isolated ACL reconstruction (group B). Preoperative and postoperative evaluations of the patients were conducted by obtaining history details, recording physical examination findings, measuring knee laxity using the KT-1000 arthrometer, and using validated outcome scores for the knee. P < .05 was considered as the cut-off level of statistical significance. The Fisher exact and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to assess statistical significance. At a mean follow-up of 27 months, 53 and 50 patients in groups A and B, respectively, were available for analysis. No statistically different outcomes were found between the 2 groups except for the KT-1000 arthrometer values. The median KT-1000 arthrometer result for combined ACL and ALL reconstruction was 1.3 mm, while the median result for isolated ACL reconstruction was 1.8 mm (P < .001). None of the patients (n = 0; 0.0%) who underwent combined ACL and ALL reconstruction had anterior translation of greater than 5 mm at maximum pulling strength compared with their normal knees at final follow-up. On the other hand, 3 (6.0%) patients who underwent isolated ACL reconstruction had anterior translation of more than 5 mm. No serious complications were found in both groups. Combined ACL and ALL reconstruction was found to be effective in improving subjective and objective outcomes. Nevertheless, these findings were not significantly superior to isolated ACL reconstruction except for the instrumented knee laxity testing results. This might indicate that ALL reconstruction should not be performed routinely for patients undergoing ACL reconstruction.

Background : Choosing a medical specialty can be either a daunting and confusing experience for some medical students and junior doctors or a foregone conclusion to others. The aim of this study is...

Are medical students accepted by patients in teaching hospitals?

Anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction provides excellent results for restoring normal kinematics to the knee. Nevertheless, strong evidence supporting an ideal method for fixation of the ACL graft is lacking. Intratunnel femoral fixation of the ACL graft via a cross-pin fixation technique would provide better clinical and objective results than the extratunnel femoral fixation with cortical buttons. Randomized clinical trial; Level of evidence, 2. Seventy patients with a unilateral ACL-deficient knee were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 femoral fixation groups. Group A (35 patients) was fixed with 2 bioabsorbable Rigidfix pins, 1 cross-pin per bundle, while group B (35 patients) was secured with 1 EndoButton cortical button per bundle. All femoral tunnels were created via an anteromedial portal, and a bioabsorbable Biointrafix interference screw was used for tibial fixation for both groups. The evaluation of the patients was performed by history details, clinical examination findings, measurement of the joint laxity by KT-1000 arthrometer, and use of validated patient outcome questionnaires. Statistical analysis was carried out with Fisher exact and Mann-Whitney U tests, with P < .05 considered the cutoff level of significance. At a mean follow-up of 30 months, 34 and 32 patients of group A and B, respectively, were available for evaluation. There were no statistically significant differences between the treatment groups regarding the subjective and objective outcomes, except for KT-1000 arthrometer values. The median KT-1000 value of patients in the cross-pin fixation group was 1.30 mm, while the median value in the cortical button fixation group was 1.95 mm (P < .001). Four patients with ACL grafts that were fixed with cortical buttons demonstrated failure of stability via the instrumented knee laxity testing, while patients from the other group had no failures. Intratunnel femoral fixation of the double-bundle ACL graft from the cross-pin fixation technique provided better instrumented knee laxity results than did the extratunnel femoral fixation with cortical buttons. Future larger studies comparing these 2 techniques should be conducted to ensure the availability of stronger evidence supporting the findings of this study.

Purpose: The role of robotics in spine surgery remains controversial, especially for scoliosis correction surgery. This study aims to assess the safety and efficacy of robotic-assisted (RA) surgery specifically for scoliosis surgery by comparing RA to both navigation systems (NS) and conventional freehand techniques (CF). Methods: As per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted via an electronic search of the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). All papers comparing RA to either NS or CF for posterior spinal fusion in scoliosis were included. Fixed and random effects models of analysis were utilised based on analysis heterogeneity. Results: 10 observational studies were included in total. RA had significantly greater odds of accurate pedicle screw placement relative to both NS (OR = 2.02, CI = 1.52–2.67, p < 0.00001) and CF (OR = 3.06, CI = 1.79–5.23, p < 0.00001). The downside of RA was the significantly greater operation duration relative to NS (MD = 10.74, CI = 3.52–17.97, p = 0.004) and CF (MD = 40.27, CI = 20.90, p < 0.0001). Perioperative outcomes including estimated blood loss, radiation exposure, length of hospital stay, cobb angle correction rate, postoperative SRS score, VAS pain score, JOA score, as well as rates of neurological injury and revision surgery, were comparable between the groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: RA offers significantly greater pedicle screw placement accuracy relative to NS and CF, however, surgery can take longer. In terms of perioperative outcomes, all three techniques are comparable.