Category: Sports Medicine Review

Sports medicine orthopedic exam prep review questions and answers …

Understanding the Neer and Gerber Classifications for Subscapularis Tears

High-Yield Summary

The Neer classification stratifies subscapularis tears by partial versus full-thickness involvement and tendon retraction, guiding repair urgency and technique.
The Gerber classification focuses on tear size and tendon quality, correlating directly with functional impairment and prognosis.
Accurate diagnosis requires high-resolution MRI with specific attention to the lesser tuberosity and subscapularis footprint; ultrasound is operator-dependent but useful intraoperatively.
Surgical decision-making hinges on tear chronicity, fatty infiltrationand tendon retraction, with early repair favored for acute full-thickness tears.
Mastery of repair technique demands meticulous tendon mobilization, footprint preparationand secure fixation to optimize healing and restore internal rotation strength.

Clinical Fundamentals

The subscapularis is the largest and strongest rotator cuff muscleoriginating from the anterior scapula and inserting on the lesser tuberosity of the humerus. It functions primarily as an internal rotator and anterior stabilizer of the glenohumeral joint. Biomechanically, it counters anterior translation forces and balances the posterior cuff, making its integrity critical for shoulder stability and function.

Subscapularis tears often occur in conjunction with supraspinatus tears but can present in isolation, especially in traumatic settings. Epidemiologically, partial-thickness tears predominate in degenerative cases, while full-thickness tears with tendon retraction are more common after trauma or chronic overload. Fatty infiltration and muscle atrophy progress rapidly after tendon detachment, influencing reparability and outcomes.

Classification & Diagnosis

Classification	Criteria	Clinical Relevance	Diagnostic Pearls	Common Pitfalls
Neer Classification	– Grade I: Partial tear <25% thickness – Grade II: Partial tear 25-75% thickness – Grade III: Full-thickness tear with minimal retraction – Grade IV: Full-thickness tear with significant retraction	Guides urgency and repair technique; Grade III/IV usually require surgery	MRI axial and sagittal oblique views best show tendon integrity and retraction Fatty infiltration graded by Goutallier system	Partial tears may be missed on standard MRI sequences; dynamic ultrasound can help Retraction underestimated without sagittal imaging
Gerber Classification	– Type 1: Partial upper third tear – Type 2: Complete upper third tear – Type 3: Complete upper two-thirds tear – Type 4: Complete tear of entire tendon	Correlates with functional deficit and prognosis; larger tears have worse outcomes	Use MRI to assess tear size and muscle quality Look for subscapularis muscle belly atrophy	Overestimation of tear size if edema or inflammation present Failure to assess fatty infiltration leads to poor surgical planning

Diagnostic pearls include the importance of the “comma sign” on MRI, representing the superior glenohumeral ligament and coracohumeral ligament complex, which helps identify subscapularis tears. Clinical examination maneuvers such as the lift-off test and belly-press test have variable sensitivity depending on tear size and chronicity.

Decision-Making Algorithm

Criteria	Non-Operative Management	Operative Management
Tear Type	Partial-thickness tears <50% thickness without significant symptoms or functional deficit	Full-thickness tears, especially with >50% thickness involvement or tendon retraction
Chronicity	Chronic tears with minimal symptoms and low functional demand	Acute or subacute tears with functional impairment or instability
Fatty Infiltration	Goutallier grade 0-1 may be observed if asymptomatic	Grade ?2 typically requires repair or tendon transfer consideration
Patient Factors	Low-demand patients, significant comorbiditiesor contraindications to surgery	Active patients with internal rotation weakness, painor instability
Imaging Findings	Intact footprint, minimal retraction	Retraction >1 cm, tendon discontinuity, muscle atrophy

Surgical approach selection depends on tear size and tissue quality. Arthroscopic repair is preferred for partial and small full-thickness tears, while open or mini-open techniques may be necessary for large retracted tears. Implant choice favors suture anchors with knotless or knotted configurations tailored to tendon thickness and footprint size.

Surgical Mastery & Pearls

Exposure and Mobilization

Begin with thorough arthroscopic evaluation of the rotator interval and subscapularis footprint. Release adhesions and scar tissue carefully to mobilize the tendon without causing further damage. Identify the “comma sign” to delineate the superior border of the subscapularis.

Footprint Preparation

Decorticate the lesser tuberosity to bleeding bone to enhance tendon healing. Avoid excessive bone removal that may weaken fixation.

Tendon Repair

Use multiple suture anchors spaced to cover the entire footprint. Pass sutures through robust tendon tissue, avoiding frayed edges. Consider double-row repair in large tears to maximize contact area.

Intraoperative Red Flags

Excessive tendon tension after mobilization suggests chronic retraction and may require interval slides or partial repair.
Poor tendon quality or fatty infiltration may necessitate augmentation or alternative procedures.
Failure to restore the subscapularis footprint risks persistent weakness and anterior instability.

Closure and Postoperative Protocol

Confirm stable repair with dynamic arthroscopic testing. Postoperative immobilization in internal rotation is critical for 4-6 weeks, followed by gradual range of motion and strengthening.

Evidence-Based Synthesis

Recent literature underscores the importance of early repair for full-thickness subscapularis tears to prevent irreversible muscle atrophy and fatty infiltration. Studies comparing arthroscopic versus open repair show equivalent functional outcomes but favor arthroscopy for reduced morbidity and faster recovery. The Neer and Gerber classifications remain the most validated systems for guiding treatment, though some controversy exists regarding the threshold for surgical intervention in partial tears.

Emerging evidence suggests that fatty infiltration grade is a stronger predictor of repair failure than tear size alone, prompting a shift toward earlier surgical intervention. However, randomized controlled trials directly comparing non-operative and operative management in partial tears are lacking, leaving some clinical equipoise.

Biomechanical studies validate double-row repair constructs for restoring footprint contact pressure, but clinical superiority over single-row remains debated. The integration of biologic augmentation is an evolving area, with preliminary data showing promise in enhancing tendon healing in chronic tears.

Master Class Pro-Tip

When repairing subscapularis tears, prioritize restoring the anatomic footprint with a tension-free repair. Use the “comma sign” as a reliable intraoperative landmark to avoid misidentification of the tendon edge. In chronic retracted tears, perform interval slides judiciously to gain length without compromising neurovascular structures. Finally, tailor anchor placement to the individual’s lesser tuberosity morphology-this precision distinguishes a technically competent repair from a durable, functionally restorative reconstruction.

August 19, 2026/0 Comments/by OrthoNet AI

Sports Medicine Review

Management of Pectoralis Major Tendon Ruptures in Powerlifters

High-Yield Summary

Pectoralis major tendon ruptures in powerlifters typically occur during eccentric overload, most commonly at the tendon insertion on the humerus. Early surgical repair within 3 weeks yields superior functional outcomes and strength restoration.
Diagnosis hinges on clinical exam-loss of anterior axillary fold, weakness in adduction and internal rotation-and is confirmed with MRI to assess tear location, retractionand tissue quality.
Surgical repair is indicated for complete tears in active powerlifters; chronic tears may require graft augmentation due to tendon retraction and scarring.
The deltopectoral approach with transosseous or suture anchor fixation to the humeral footprint is the gold standard; implant choice depends on bone quality and surgeon preference.
Postoperative rehabilitation balances protection with progressive loading; return to competitive lifting typically occurs by 6-9 months.

Clinical Fundamentals

Anatomy: The pectoralis major is a large, fan-shaped muscle with two heads-clavicular and sternocostal-that converge into a bilaminar tendon inserting on the lateral lip of the bicipital groove of the humerus. The sternocostal head inserts posterior to the clavicular head, creating a layered footprint critical for anatomic repair.

Biomechanics: The muscle functions primarily in shoulder adduction, internal rotationand flexion. Powerlifters generate maximal eccentric load during the lowering phase of the bench press, placing extreme tensile stress on the tendon insertion.

Epidemiology: Ruptures predominantly affect males aged 20-40 engaged in high-load activities. Powerlifters are at increased risk due to repetitive eccentric overload and supraphysiologic forces. Most tears occur at the tendon-bone junction, with fewer musculotendinous junction injuries.

Classification & Diagnosis

Classification System	Description	Clinical Relevance
Tietjen Classification	Partial vs. complete; location: muscle belly, musculotendinous junction, tendon insertion	Guides surgical indication; complete tears at insertion require repair
ElMaraghy & Devereaux	Acute (<3 weeks) vs. chronic (>3 weeks); degree of retraction and tissue quality	Timing impacts repair strategy and prognosis
MRI Grading	Grade 1 (strain), Grade 2 (partial tear), Grade 3 (complete tear)	Confirms diagnosis, assesses tear extent and retraction

Diagnostic Pearls:

Palpation of a defect below the anterior axillary fold and asymmetry during resisted adduction/internal rotation are key clinical signs.

MRI should be performed with the arm in slight abduction and external rotation to optimize visualization of the tendon footprint.

Beware of partial tears that may mimic strains; MRI differentiation is critical to avoid missed surgical indications.

Decision-Making Algorithm

Criteria	Non-Operative Management	Operative Management
Tear Type	Partial tears with intact tendon continuity	Complete tears, especially at tendon insertion
Patient Activity Level	Low-demand patients or those unwilling to undergo surgery	Active powerlifters or athletes requiring maximal strength
Time from Injury	Chronic tears with minimal functional deficit	Acute tears (<3 weeks) for optimal tendon mobilization
Tissue Quality	Good tendon integrity	Poor tissue quality may require graft augmentation

Rationale:
Non-operative treatment is reserved for partial tears or low-demand patients due to risk of persistent weakness and deformity. Early surgical repair restores the anatomic footprint and optimizes biomechanical function. Chronic tears pose challenges with tendon retraction and scarring, often necessitating allograft or autograft augmentation to bridge the defect.

Surgical approach and implant choice depend on bone quality and surgeon familiarity. Suture anchors provide strong fixation with less bone disruption, while transosseous tunnels remain a reliable option in dense bone.

Surgical Mastery & Pearls

Stepwise Surgical Technique:

Patient Positioning: Supine with the arm abducted 30° and externally rotated to expose the deltopectoral interval.

Approach: Standard deltopectoral incision; identify and protect cephalic vein.

Tendon Identification: Mobilize retracted tendon; release adhesions to improve excursion.

Footprint Preparation: Decorticate lateral bicipital groove to bleeding bone to enhance healing.

Fixation:

Place 3-4 suture anchors loaded with high-strength sutures at the anatomic footprint.

Use Krackow or locking whipstitch on the tendon edge for secure grasp.

Tie sutures with the arm positioned in 30° abduction and internal rotation to avoid overtensioning.

Closure: Layered closure with attention to hemostasis and minimizing dead space.

Intraoperative Red Flags:

Excessive tendon retraction (>5 cm) may preclude primary repair and require graft augmentation.

Poor tendon tissue quality mandates careful suture technique to avoid pullout.

Avoid overtensioning the repair to prevent stiffness and compromised blood flow.

Technical Tips:

Use intraoperative fluoroscopy or ultrasound to confirm anchor placement if anatomy is distorted.

Consider biologic augmentation (e.g., platelet-rich plasma) in chronic repairs to enhance healing.

Meticulous soft tissue handling reduces postoperative adhesions and improves range of motion.

Evidence-Based Synthesis

Landmark studies consistently demonstrate superior functional outcomes and strength restoration with early surgical repair compared to non-operative management in complete pectoralis major ruptures. A meta-analysis by ElMaraghy et al. (2012) showed that repairs performed within 3 weeks resulted in near-normal isokinetic strength and patient satisfaction.

Recent literature emphasizes the importance of anatomic footprint restoration using suture anchors, which provide biomechanically superior fixation compared to transosseous tunnels in cadaveric models. However, clinical outcomes between fixation methods remain comparable, allowing surgeon preference to guide implant choice.

Chronic tears present a challenge; emerging evidence supports the use of allograft augmentation to bridge tendon gaps, with studies reporting improved functional scores and return to sport rates. Nonetheless, graft incorporation and long-term durability require further investigation.

Controversy persists regarding the role of biologic adjuncts and optimal rehabilitation protocols, with ongoing trials evaluating accelerated loading versus traditional immobilization.

Master Class Pro-Tip

Mastery in pectoralis major tendon repair hinges on restoring the native layered anatomy of the tendon insertion. During repair, carefully orient the clavicular and sternocostal heads in their anatomic planes to recreate the natural twist of the tendon. This nuanced step optimizes biomechanical efficiency and reduces the risk of repair failure. Additionally, intraoperative assessment of tension with the arm positioned in functional postures prevents overtightening, which can compromise postoperative range of motion and patient satisfaction.

August 5, 2026/0 Comments/by OrthoNet AI

Sports Medicine Review

Surgical Management of Chronic Peroneal Tendon Subluxation

High-Yield Summary

Chronic peroneal tendon subluxation results from superior peroneal retinaculum (SPR) injury or anatomical predisposition, causing lateral ankle pain and instability.
Diagnosis hinges on dynamic clinical examination and imaging, with MRI and ultrasound critical for assessing tendon integrity and retinacular status.
Surgical management is indicated for symptomatic chronic subluxation refractory to conservative care or with tendon pathology.
The preferred surgical approach involves SPR repair or reconstruction combined with groove deepening to restore tendon stability.
Meticulous soft tissue handling and intraoperative assessment of tendon excursion prevent recurrence and optimize functional outcomes.

Clinical Fundamentals

Anatomy:
The peroneal tendons (peroneus longus and brevis) course posterior to the lateral malleolus within a fibro-osseous tunnel formed by the fibula and the superior peroneal retinaculum (SPR). The SPR acts as a primary restraint preventing anterior subluxation of the tendons during ankle motion.

Biomechanics:
Peroneal tendons stabilize the lateral ankle and subtalar joint, facilitating eversion and plantarflexion. Disruption of the SPR or a shallow fibular groove alters tendon tracking, leading to subluxation or dislocation during dorsiflexion and eversion.

Epidemiology:
Chronic peroneal tendon subluxation is uncommon but underdiagnosed, often seen in athletes and individuals with repetitive ankle trauma or anatomical variants such as a flat or convex fibular groove.

Classification & Diagnosis

Classification System	Description	Management Implication
Eckert and Davis Classification	Type I: SPR avulsion with periosteal flap; Type II: SPR avulsion with fibrocartilaginous ridge; Type III: Bony avulsion of fibula	Type I/II often managed with SPR repair; Type III may require bony fixation or groove deepening
Oden’s Classification	Focuses on fibular groove morphology: concave, flat, convex	Convex or flat grooves necessitate groove deepening procedures

Diagnostic Pearls:

Dynamic ultrasound during active ankle dorsiflexion and eversion is highly sensitive for detecting tendon subluxation.

MRI provides detailed assessment of tendon tears, SPR integrityand groove morphology.

Common pitfall: Misdiagnosis as lateral ankle sprain delays definitive treatment.

Decision-Making Algorithm

Criteria	Non-Operative Management	Operative Management
Symptom Duration	Acute or intermittent symptoms <6 weeks	Chronic symptoms >6 weeks refractory to conservative care
Tendon Integrity	Intact tendons without tears	Tendon tears or degeneration present
SPR Status	Partial SPR injury without instability	Complete SPR rupture or persistent instability
Fibular Groove Morphology	Concave groove with stable tendons	Flat or convex groove requiring groove deepening
Functional Demand	Low-demand patients with minimal instability	High-demand athletes or patients with recurrent subluxation

Rationale:
Non-operative treatment includes immobilization and physical therapy but has high failure rates in chronic cases. Surgical repair restores the SPR barrier and groove deepening addresses anatomical predisposition, reducing recurrence risk.

Surgical Mastery & Pearls

Step-by-Step Conceptual Overview:

Patient Positioning and Exposure:

Position supine with a thigh tourniquet. Make a longitudinal incision posterior to the fibula over the peroneal tendons.

Identification and Protection of Structures:

Carefully identify the peroneal tendons and sural nerve. Retract tendons anteriorly to expose the SPR and fibular groove.

Assessment of Tendon and SPR:

Evaluate tendon integrity; debride degenerative tissue. Inspect SPR for tears or detachment.

Groove Deepening:

Using a high-speed burr, create a concave fibular groove if flat or convex. Preserve cortical bone to maintain strength.

SPR Repair or Reconstruction:

Reattach SPR to fibula with suture anchors or transosseous sutures. In cases of poor tissue quality, augment with local tissue or autograft.

Tendon Stabilization Test:

Passively move the ankle through dorsiflexion and eversion to confirm tendon stability within the groove.

Closure and Postoperative Immobilization:

Close in layers, immobilize in a short leg cast with the foot in slight eversion for 4-6 weeks.

Intraoperative Red Flags:

Excessive tendon laxity after SPR repair suggests inadequate fixation or groove depth.

Over-aggressive groove deepening risks fibular fracture or tendon attrition.

Failure to protect the sural nerve can cause postoperative neuropathy.

Evidence-Based Synthesis

Recent literature confirms that isolated SPR repair without groove deepening yields higher recurrence rates, especially in patients with flat or convex fibular grooves. A randomized controlled trial comparing SPR repair alone versus combined repair and groove deepening demonstrated superior functional scores and lower recurrence in the combined group at two-year follow-up.

Ultrasound-guided dynamic assessment has emerged as a reliable diagnostic adjunct, improving preoperative planning. However, controversy persists regarding the optimal method of SPR reconstruction-direct repair versus augmentation-due to limited high-level evidence.

Biomechanical studies underscore the importance of restoring the fibro-osseous tunnel geometry to prevent tendon subluxation, reinforcing the surgical principle of groove deepening in anatomically predisposed patients.

Master Class Pro-Tip

During groove deepening, use intraoperative fluoroscopy to confirm preservation of the fibular cortex and avoid over-resection. Employ a tensioned suture anchor repair of the SPR with the ankle held in slight eversion and dorsiflexion to replicate physiological tendon tension. This nuanced step ensures optimal retinacular tensioning, minimizing postoperative laxity and recurrence, distinguishing the master surgeon’s technique from routine repair.

July 22, 2026/0 Comments/by OrthoNet AI

Sports Medicine Review

Diagnostic Imaging and Management of Syndesmotic Ankle Sprains (High Ankle Sprains)

High-Yield Summary

Syndesmotic ankle sprains involve injury to the distal tibiofibular syndesmosis, often from external rotation or dorsiflexion forcesand require precise diagnosis to prevent chronic instability and arthritis.
Weight-bearing radiographs and advanced imaging (CT or MRI) are critical for assessing syndesmotic disruption and associated fractures; subtle diastasis may be missed on standard views.
Classification systems guiding management focus on stability and displacement: stable injuries are managed non-operatively, while unstable or displaced injuries require surgical fixation.
Surgical fixation aims to restore anatomic reduction of the syndesmosis, commonly using screw fixation or suture-button devices, with implant choice dictated by injury pattern and surgeon preference.
Intraoperative assessment of syndesmotic stability and reduction quality is paramount; malreduction is the leading cause of poor outcomes and must be avoided through fluoroscopic and direct visualization techniques.

Clinical Fundamentals

Relevant Anatomy

The distal tibiofibular syndesmosis comprises the anterior inferior tibiofibular ligament (AITFL), posterior inferior tibiofibular ligament (PITFL), interosseous ligamentand the transverse tibiofibular ligament. These structures maintain the integrity of the ankle mortise and allow minimal physiologic motion during gait.

Biomechanics

The syndesmosis stabilizes the ankle against external rotation and axial loading. Injury typically results from forced external rotation of the foot relative to the leg or hyperdorsiflexion, leading to disruption of ligamentous structures and potential diastasis of the distal tibia and fibula.

Epidemiology

Syndesmotic injuries represent approximately 10% of all ankle sprains and up to 20% in athletes. They are more common in high-impact sports and often coexist with fibular fractures (Weber B/C) or medial malleolar fractures.

Classification & Diagnosis

Classification System	Description	Clinical Impact on Management
West Point Ankle Sprain Classification	Grades I-III based on ligament involvement and stability	Guides non-operative vs. operative treatment
Lauge-Hansen Classification	Mechanism-based (e.g., supination-external rotation)	Predicts associated fractures and syndesmotic injury
Weber Classification	Fibular fracture level relative to syndesmosis (A, B, C)	Weber C often indicates syndesmotic disruption requiring fixation
Syndesmotic Injury Grading	Stable (partial ligament injury) vs. unstable (complete disruption with diastasis)	Determines surgical indication

Diagnostic Pearls

Radiographic Signs: Measure tibiofibular clear space (>6 mm on AP or mortise view) and tibiofibular overlap (<6 mm on AP) on weight-bearing views.
Stress Views: External rotation stress radiographs increase sensitivity but risk false positives.
CT Scan: Superior for detecting subtle diastasis and malreduction post-fixation.
MRI: Gold standard for soft tissue assessment; identifies ligament tears and associated cartilage injury.
Beware of false negatives on non-weight-bearing radiographs; clinical suspicion should prompt advanced imaging.

Decision-Making Algorithm

Criteria	Non-Operative Management	Operative Management
Stability	Intact or partial ligament injury without diastasis	Complete ligament disruption with diastasis or instability
Radiographic Findings	Normal tibiofibular clear space and overlap	Diastasis >2 mm, fibular fracture above syndesmosis (Weber C)
Clinical Exam	Minimal pain, no mechanical instability	Positive squeeze test, external rotation stress test, mechanical instability
Associated Injuries	Isolated ligament injury	Syndesmotic disruption with fibular or medial malleolar fractures

Surgical Approach and Implant Choice

Open Reduction and Internal Fixation (ORIF): Indicated for unstable injuries; approach via lateral or anterolateral incision.
Fixation Options:
Syndesmotic Screws: 3.5 or 4.5 mm cortical screws, tricortical or quadricortical fixation; rigid fixation but may require removal.
Suture-Button Devices: Allow physiologic motion, lower hardware removal rates, but higher cost and potential for soft tissue irritation.
Implant choice depends on surgeon experience, injury chronicityand patient factors.

Surgical Mastery & Pearls

Step-by-Step Conceptual Overview

Patient Positioning: Supine with a bump under the ipsilateral hip to facilitate lateral access.
Incision and Exposure: Lateral incision centered over the distal fibula; careful dissection to avoid superficial peroneal nerve.
Debridement: Remove interposed soft tissue from the syndesmosis to allow anatomic reduction.
Reduction: Use a pointed reduction clamp to restore fibular position relative to the tibia; confirm with fluoroscopy in AP, mortiseand lateral views.
Fixation:

Insert syndesmotic screw 2-4 cm above the ankle joint line, perpendicular to the tibia and fibula.
For suture-button devices, follow manufacturer’s technique ensuring proper tension without over-compression.
Intraoperative Assessment: Perform external rotation stress test under fluoroscopy to confirm stability.
Closure: Layered closure with attention to soft tissue handling.

Intraoperative Red Flags

Malreduction of the fibula in the incisura fibularis, leading to altered ankle biomechanics.
Over-tightening syndesmotic fixation causing restricted physiologic motion and hardware failure.
Failure to identify concomitant medial or posterior malleolar injuries.

Evidence-Based Synthesis

Landmark studies have established the importance of anatomic reduction in syndesmotic injuries. Early work demonstrated that malreduction correlates strongly with poor functional outcomes and post-traumatic arthritis. Recent randomized controlled trials comparing screw fixation to suture-button devices show comparable functional results, with suture-buttons offering earlier weight-bearing and fewer hardware removals. However, cost-effectiveness and long-term outcomes remain debated.

MRI-based studies have refined diagnostic accuracy, reducing unnecessary surgeries. CT imaging post-fixation has become the gold standard for confirming reduction, as fluoroscopy alone misses up to 50% of malreductions.

Controversy persists regarding the optimal number and size of syndesmotic screws, timing of hardware removaland the role of dynamic fixation in high-demand athletes. Current consensus favors individualized treatment based on injury pattern and patient activity level.

Master Class Pro-Tip

Prioritize direct visualization of the syndesmosis during reduction rather than relying solely on fluoroscopy. Use a small medial incision or arthroscopic assistance to confirm anatomic alignment of the fibula within the tibial incisura. This step reduces malreduction rates significantly and optimizes long-term joint function, distinguishing the master surgeon from the competent technician.

July 7, 2026/0 Comments/by OrthoNet AI

Sports Medicine Review

A Review of PCL Reconstruction: Single-Bundle vs. Double-Bundle Techniques

High-Yield Summary

The posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) primarily restrains posterior tibial translation; reconstruction aims to restore native knee kinematics and prevent long-term osteoarthritis.
Single-bundle (SB) reconstruction targets the anterolateral bundle, providing good posterior stability but may inadequately control rotatory laxity.
Double-bundle (DB) reconstruction attempts to replicate both anterolateral and posteromedial bundles, improving rotational control and posterior stability in select patients.
Surgical choice depends on injury chronicity, degree of laxity, patient activity leveland surgeon expertise; no universal consensus favors DB over SB in all cases.
Recent evidence suggests DB reconstruction may offer biomechanical advantages but with increased technical complexity and operative time; clinical outcomes remain comparable in most series.

Clinical Fundamentals

The PCL originates from the lateral aspect of the medial femoral condyle and inserts on the posterior tibial plateau, approximately 1 cm distal to the joint line. It consists of two functional bundles: the anterolateral bundle (ALB), taut in flexionand the posteromedial bundle (PMB), taut in extension. This dual-bundle anatomy underpins the rationale for reconstruction techniques.

Biomechanically, the PCL resists posterior tibial translation and contributes to rotational stability, particularly in deep flexion. Injury epidemiology shows isolated PCL tears are less common than combined ligament injuries, often resulting from dashboard trauma or hyperflexion mechanisms.

Understanding the native tension patterns of ALB and PMB is critical for graft placement and tensioning during reconstruction to restore physiological knee kinematics.

Classification & Diagnosis

Classification System	Description	Surgical Implication
Grade I-III PCL Injury	Grade I: <5 mm posterior translation; Grade II: 6-10 mm; Grade III: >10 mm or gross instability	Grade I-II often managed non-operatively; Grade III typically requires reconstruction
Fanelli & Larson Classification	Type I: Isolated PCL injury; Type II: PCL + posterolateral corner; Type III: Multiligamentous injury	Guides need for combined ligament reconstruction
MRI Findings	Partial vs. complete tear; graft integrity post-op	MRI is gold standard for diagnosis but beware of false negatives in acute setting due to edema

Diagnostic pearls include the posterior drawer test at 90° flexion and the quadriceps active test. Stress radiographs quantify posterior translation and help differentiate between partial and complete tears. Pitfalls include misdiagnosing chronic PCL deficiency as meniscal pathology or overlooking combined ligament injuries.

Decision-Making Algorithm

Non-operative management is indicated for Grade I and some Grade II injuries, especially in low-demand patients or acute settings with minimal laxity. Rehabilitation focuses on quadriceps strengthening to compensate for PCL deficiency.

Operative reconstruction is favored in:

Grade III injuries with >10 mm posterior translation
Symptomatic chronic PCL deficiency with functional instability
Multiligamentous knee injuries requiring combined reconstruction

Choice between SB and DB reconstruction hinges on:

SB Reconstruction: Preferred for isolated PCL tears with moderate laxity, simpler technique, shorter operative time.
DB Reconstruction: Considered for high-demand athletes, chronic injuries with residual rotational instabilityor cases with combined posteromedial bundle deficiency.

Graft selection (autograft vs. allograft), fixation methodand tunnel placement are tailored to restore native bundle anatomy and tension patterns.

Surgical Mastery & Pearls

Single-Bundle Reconstruction

Patient positioning and arthroscopic evaluation confirm PCL tear extent.
Femoral tunnel is placed at the ALB footprint, identified arthroscopically or via fluoroscopy.
Tibial tunnel is drilled with care to avoid neurovascular injury; use of a tibial guide and fluoroscopy is mandatory.
Graft (typically hamstring or Achilles allograft) is passed and fixed with interference screws or suspensory devices.
Tension graft at 90° flexion to replicate ALB tension pattern.

Double-Bundle Reconstruction

Femoral tunnels are created for both ALB and PMB footprints, requiring precise anatomic localization.
Two tibial tunnels are drilled, ensuring adequate bone bridge to prevent tunnel convergence.
Separate grafts or a split graft are tensioned at different knee flexion angles: ALB at 90°, PMB near extension.
Fixation must maintain independent tensioning to replicate native biomechanics.

Intraoperative Red Flags

Tunnel convergence leading to graft failure
Posterior neurovascular injury during tibial tunnel drilling
Over-tensioning causing limited flexion or graft rupture
Inadequate visualization of PMB footprint in DB technique

Technical tips include using fluoroscopic guidance for tibial tunnel placement, employing a posteromedial portal for better visualizationand staged tensioning of graft bundles in DB reconstruction.

Evidence-Based Synthesis

Biomechanical studies consistently demonstrate DB reconstruction restores posterior translation and rotational stability closer to native PCL function than SB techniques. However, clinical trials and meta-analyses reveal mixed results regarding functional outcomes, patient-reported scoresand complication rates.

A 2022 systematic review found no significant difference in Lysholm or IKDC scores between SB and DB groups at mid-term follow-up, despite improved posterior stability in DB reconstructions. Conversely, DB techniques showed higher operative times and technical demands, with a slightly increased risk of tunnel-related complications.

Emerging data suggest patient selection is paramount: DB reconstruction may benefit young, high-demand athletes or those with combined posteromedial bundle deficiency, while SB reconstruction suffices for most isolated PCL tears.

Controversies persist regarding optimal graft tensioning protocols and long-term osteoarthritis prevention. Ongoing randomized controlled trials aim to clarify these issues.

Master Class Pro-Tip

Mastery in PCL reconstruction lies in individualized anatomic tunnel placement and dynamic intraoperative assessment of graft tension. Employ intraoperative fluoroscopy combined with arthroscopic visualization to confirm precise femoral and tibial tunnel positioning, avoiding tunnel convergence and neurovascular injury. In double-bundle reconstruction, independently tension each bundle at its native functional flexion angle to restore complex knee kinematics. This nuanced approach separates a competent surgeon from a master, optimizing stability while preserving range of motion and graft longevity.

June 23, 2026/0 Comments/by OrthoNet AI

Sports Medicine Review

Current Concepts in the Management of Adductor Strain and Athletic Pubalgia

High-Yield Summary

Adductor strain and athletic pubalgia often coexist in athletes presenting with groin pain; precise differentiation guides management.
Key anatomic structures include the adductor longus origin at the pubic body and the rectus abdominis-adductor aponeurotic complex; injury here dictates surgical approach.
Non-operative management is first-line for isolated adductor strains; surgical intervention is reserved for refractory cases or confirmed athletic pubalgia with aponeurotic disruption.
Surgical repair targets the rectus abdominis-adductor aponeurosis or adductor tendon reattachment, with minimally invasive techniques gaining traction.
Recent evidence supports early diagnosis with MRI and tailored rehabilitation protocols to optimize return-to-play timelines and reduce recurrence.

Clinical Fundamentals

The adductor muscle group, primarily the adductor longus, originates from the pubic body and inserts along the femoral shaft, functioning to stabilize the pelvis during dynamic lower extremity movements. The rectus abdominis shares a common aponeurotic insertion with the adductor longus at the pubic symphysis, forming the rectus abdominis-adductor aponeurotic complex (RAAC). This complex is critical in force transmission during kicking and cutting maneuvers.

Biomechanically, eccentric loading during rapid hip extension and abduction predisposes the adductor longus tendon and RAAC to microtrauma and partial tears. Epidemiologically, adductor strains are prevalent in sports requiring sudden directional changes, with a higher incidence in male athletes aged 20-35. Athletic pubalgia, often termed “sports hernia,” involves chronic groin pain due to RAAC disruption without true herniation, frequently coexisting with adductor pathology.

Classification & Diagnosis

Classification System	Description	Clinical Relevance
Robinson Classification	Grades adductor strains I-III based on MRI findings: edema, partial, complete tears	Guides non-operative vs. surgical treatment
Hölmich Criteria for Athletic Pubalgia	Clinical diagnosis based on groin pain >6 weeks, tenderness at RAAC, and exclusion of hip pathology	Identifies candidates for surgical repair
MRI-Based Classification	Differentiates isolated adductor tendon tears, RAAC tears, and combined injuries	Directs surgical approach and prognosis

Diagnostic pearls include the necessity of high-resolution MRI with dedicated pubic symphysis sequences to detect subtle aponeurotic disruptions. Common pitfalls involve misdiagnosing adductor tendinopathy as hip joint pathology or overlooking concomitant RAAC injury, which delays appropriate treatment.

Decision-Making Algorithm

Non-operative management is indicated for:

Grade I and II adductor strains without RAAC involvement.
Acute injuries with minimal functional deficit.
Patients responding to structured physical therapy emphasizing eccentric strengthening and core stabilization.

Operative management is reserved for:

Persistent groin pain >6 weeks despite optimized conservative care.
MRI-confirmed RAAC disruption or complete adductor tendon avulsion.
High-level athletes requiring expedited return to sport.

Surgical approach selection depends on injury location:

RAAC repair via open or minimally invasive techniques for aponeurotic tears.
Adductor tendon reattachment using suture anchors or transosseous fixation for avulsions.
Combined repairs when both structures are involved.

Implant choice favors bioabsorbable anchors to minimize hardware complications and facilitate early mobilization.

Surgical Mastery & Pearls

Conceptual surgical steps for RAAC repair:

Patient positioning supine with slight Trendelenburg to optimize pubic exposure.
A transverse or Pfannenstiel incision centered over the pubic symphysis.
Identification and careful dissection of the RAAC and adductor longus origin.
Debridement of scar tissue and mobilization of torn edges.
Reapproximation of the aponeurotic complex using nonabsorbable sutures in a tension-free manner.
Reinforcement with suture anchors placed in the pubic body if tendon avulsion is present.
Layered closure with attention to preserving neurovascular structures, particularly the ilioinguinal nerve.

Intraoperative red flags include excessive bleeding from the corona mortis vessel and inadvertent injury to the spermatic cord or femoral neurovascular bundle. Technical tips emphasize meticulous soft tissue handling and avoidance of overtensioning repairs to prevent postoperative stiffness.

Evidence-Based Synthesis

Landmark studies have shifted the paradigm from prolonged conservative treatment to earlier surgical intervention in cases of confirmed RAAC disruption. Randomized trials demonstrate superior pain relief and faster return to play with surgical repair compared to extended rehabilitation alone. Recent meta-analyses underscore the importance of MRI in stratifying patients and tailoring treatment.

Controversy persists regarding the optimal surgical technique, with emerging data favoring minimally invasive approaches for reduced morbidity but lacking long-term outcome equivalence. Rehabilitation protocols incorporating core strengthening and neuromuscular control have been validated to reduce recurrence rates.

Current consensus advocates a multidisciplinary approach integrating precise imaging, individualized rehabilitation, and timely surgical intervention for refractory cases.

Master Class Pro-Tip

Mastery in managing adductor strain and athletic pubalgia hinges on recognizing the subtle interplay between the RAAC and adductor tendon pathology. Intraoperative assessment should include dynamic testing of the repair under gentle traction to confirm restoration of pelvic stability. Employing a layered closure that respects the native anatomy and preserves proprioceptive fibers optimizes functional recovery and minimizes chronic groin pain syndromes.

June 9, 2026/0 Comments/by OrthoNet AI

Sports Medicine Review

Understanding the Outerbridge Classification of Articular Cartilage Lesions

High-Yield Summary

The Outerbridge classification grades articular cartilage lesions from I to IV based on severity, guiding treatment from conservative management to surgical intervention.
Accurate assessment of cartilage integrity is critical for prognosis and surgical planning, as cartilage lesions rarely heal spontaneously.
Grade I and II lesions often respond to non-operative or minimally invasive procedures; Grades III and IV typically require surgical repair or restoration techniques.
Arthroscopic evaluation remains the gold standard for diagnosis, with MRI providing adjunctive but sometimes limited sensitivity.
Surgical decision-making hinges on lesion depth, size, patient factors, and joint biomechanics to optimize functional outcomes.

Clinical Fundamentals

Articular cartilage is a specialized avascular tissue covering joint surfaces, composed primarily of chondrocytes embedded in a matrix of collagen type II and proteoglycans. Its biomechanical role is to provide a low-friction, load-distributing surface that withstands compressive and shear forces. Cartilage has limited intrinsic healing capacity due to lack of blood supply and low cellularity.

Common sites of Outerbridge-classified lesions include the femoral condyles, trochlea, and patella in the knee. Epidemiologically, cartilage lesions are prevalent in young, active populations following trauma or in older patients with degenerative joint disease. The extent and depth of cartilage damage directly influence joint biomechanics, potentially accelerating osteoarthritis if untreated.

Classification & Diagnosis

Outerbridge Grade	Description	Diagnostic Pearls	Common Pitfalls
Grade I	Softening and swelling of cartilage	May appear as subtle signal changes on MRI	Easily missed on imaging; requires arthroscopic confirmation
Grade II	Fragmentation and fissuring < 1.5 cm diameter	Arthroscopy reveals superficial cracks	Underestimating lesion size on MRI
Grade III	Fissuring > 1.5 cm, extending down to subchondral bone	Clear cartilage flap or defect on arthroscopy	Confusing with subchondral cysts on imaging
Grade IV	Exposed subchondral bone due to full-thickness cartilage loss	Visible bone exposure arthroscopically	Misclassifying large Grade III as IV without direct visualization

MRI is useful for initial assessment but has limited sensitivity for early or superficial lesions. Arthroscopy remains the definitive diagnostic tool, allowing direct visualization and probing of cartilage integrity.

Decision-Making Algorithm

Lesion Grade	Management Strategy	Rationale and Surgical Considerations
Grade I	Non-operative	Focus on activity modification, NSAIDs, physical therapy
Grade II	Conservative or arthroscopic debridement	Debridement removes unstable cartilage, promotes symptom relief
Grade III	Surgical repair or restoration	Techniques include microfracture, osteochondral autograft transfer (OAT), or autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) depending on lesion size and patient factors
Grade IV	Surgical restoration or joint preservation	Full-thickness defects require biological repair or joint replacement in advanced cases

Patient age, activity level, lesion size, and joint alignment influence treatment choice. Non-operative management is reserved for minimal symptoms and low-grade lesions. Surgical intervention aims to restore cartilage surface and prevent progression to osteoarthritis.

Surgical Mastery & Pearls

Preoperative Planning

Assess lesion size, depth, and location via MRI and diagnostic arthroscopy. Evaluate limb alignment and joint stability to address concomitant pathology.

Arthroscopic Technique

Systematically inspect all compartments. Use a probe to assess cartilage firmness and delineate lesion margins. Debride unstable cartilage flaps to stable edges.

Microfracture Procedure

Create multiple perforations in subchondral bone spaced 3-4 mm apart to stimulate marrow-derived repair. Avoid over-penetration to prevent subchondral cyst formation.

Osteochondral Autograft Transfer (OAT)

Harvest cylindrical plugs from non-weight-bearing zones. Ensure perpendicular graft placement to restore congruity. Avoid donor site morbidity by limiting graft size.

Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI)

Requires two-stage surgery: cartilage biopsy followed by cultured chondrocyte implantation under a periosteal or collagen membrane. Meticulous graft containment is critical.

Intraoperative Red Flags

Excessive bleeding from subchondral bone may indicate over-aggressive microfracture. Poor graft fit or instability predicts early failure. Unrecognized malalignment predisposes to recurrence.

Evidence-Based Synthesis

Landmark studies have established the Outerbridge classification as a reliable predictor of cartilage lesion severity and treatment outcomes. Microfracture remains a first-line surgical option for small to moderate full-thickness defects, supported by randomized trials demonstrating symptomatic improvement but with variable durability beyond 2 years.

Comparative studies show OAT provides superior hyaline cartilage restoration and better long-term function for focal lesions >2 cm², though donor site morbidity limits its use. ACI offers promise for larger lesions, with evolving evidence suggesting improved cartilage quality and durability, but cost and complexity remain barriers.

Recent meta-analyses highlight the lack of consensus on optimal surgical technique, emphasizing individualized treatment based on lesion characteristics and patient factors. Emerging biologics and scaffold technologies show potential but require further validation.

Master Class Pro-Tip

Mastery in managing Outerbridge-classified lesions demands integration of precise lesion characterization with biomechanical restoration. Always assess and correct limb alignment and joint instability before cartilage repair to prevent early failure. During microfracture, maintain a delicate balance-adequate penetration to stimulate marrow without compromising subchondral integrity. For graft-based techniques, ensure seamless congruity and stable fixation; even minor incongruities can accelerate degeneration. Finally, cultivate a nuanced understanding of patient-specific factors-age, activity, and expectations-to tailor interventions that optimize both structural and functional outcomes.

May 26, 2026/0 Comments/by OrthoNet AI

Sports Medicine Review

Surgical Approaches and Outcomes for Labral Tears of the Hip

High-Yield Summary

The acetabular labrum is critical for hip joint stability, load distribution, and fluid seal; labral tears compromise these functions and often cause mechanical symptoms and pain.
Arthroscopic labral repair is the gold standard for most tears, with labral reconstruction reserved for irreparable or degenerative cases.
Surgical approach selection hinges on tear location, morphology, and associated bony deformities such as femoroacetabular impingement (FAI).
Outcomes improve significantly with concomitant correction of underlying osseous abnormalities; isolated labral debridement yields inferior long-term results.
Recognizing intraoperative red flags such as poor tissue quality and chondral damage guides decision-making between repair, reconstruction, or salvage.

Clinical Fundamentals

The acetabular labrum is a fibrocartilaginous rim attached circumferentially to the acetabular margin, deepening the socket and enhancing joint stability through a suction seal effect. It distributes load across the hip joint and protects the articular cartilage from shear forces. The labrum’s vascular supply is limited, predominantly at the peripheral capsular side, influencing healing potential.

Biomechanically, the labrum resists distraction forces and maintains intra-articular fluid pressurization, critical for cartilage nutrition and joint lubrication. Labral tears disrupt these functions, leading to altered joint mechanics and accelerated cartilage degeneration.

Epidemiologically, labral tears are common in young, active adults, often associated with FAI or dysplasia. They present with groin pain, mechanical symptoms such as clicking or catching, and positive impingement tests. MRI arthrography remains the diagnostic standard, with high sensitivity for detecting labral pathology.

Classification & Diagnosis

Classification System	Description	Surgical Implication
Seldes Classification	Type 1: Detachment at chondrolabral junction; Type 2: Intrasubstance tear	Type 1 tears more amenable to repair; Type 2 may require reconstruction
Beck Classification	Based on tear location: anterior, posterior, or combined	Anterior tears most common; approach tailored accordingly
FAI-Associated Labral Tear	Tear location correlates with cam or pincer morphology	Addressing bony morphology essential for durable repair
MRI Arthrography Grading	Grades labral pathology from intact to complex tears	Guides surgical planning and prognosis

Diagnostic pearls include the importance of dynamic impingement tests and the use of intra-articular anesthetic injections to confirm intra-articular pain source. Common pitfalls are overreliance on MRI without clinical correlation and missing subtle tears in dysplastic hips.

Decision-Making Algorithm

Non-operative management is reserved for patients with minimal symptoms, low functional demand, or contraindications to surgery. This includes activity modification, NSAIDs, physical therapy focusing on hip stabilization, and intra-articular injections.

Operative intervention is indicated for persistent mechanical symptoms, failed conservative treatment, and imaging-confirmed labral pathology with or without FAI. The choice of surgical approach depends on:

Tear reparability: Repair preferred for viable tissue; reconstruction if irreparable or degenerative.
Associated bony pathology: Cam or pincer lesions require osteochondroplasty or rim trimming.
Patient factors: Age, activity level, and cartilage status influence prognosis and surgical aggressiveness.

Arthroscopic techniques predominate due to minimal morbidity and superior visualization. Open approaches are reserved for complex deformities or revision cases.

Surgical Mastery & Pearls

Step 1: Patient Positioning and Portal Placement
Supine or lateral decubitus positioning with traction applied to distract the joint. Establish anterolateral and mid-anterior portals under fluoroscopic guidance to optimize access and minimize iatrogenic injury.

Step 2: Diagnostic Arthroscopy
Systematic inspection of the labrum, cartilage, and ligamentum teres. Identify tear morphology and assess cartilage integrity.

Step 3: Labral Management
Debride frayed edges cautiously to preserve tissue. For repair, use suture anchors placed at the chondrolabral junction, ensuring anatomic restoration of the suction seal. Avoid over-tensioning sutures to prevent labral eversion.

Step 4: Address Bony Pathology
Perform femoral osteochondroplasty for cam lesions and acetabular rim trimming for pincer impingement. Confirm correction fluoroscopically and with dynamic impingement testing.

Step 5: Labral Reconstruction
Indicated when labral tissue is nonviable. Use autograft (e.g., iliotibial band) or allograft fashioned to restore labral contour and seal. Secure graft with suture anchors, ensuring stable fixation and congruent joint surface.

Intraoperative Red Flags:

Poor labral tissue quality suggesting reconstruction over repair.

Extensive chondral damage (> Outerbridge grade 3) portends worse outcomes and may necessitate altered postoperative expectations.

Inadequate joint distraction risking iatrogenic cartilage injury.

Evidence-Based Synthesis

Landmark studies have established arthroscopic labral repair combined with correction of FAI as superior to isolated debridement or non-operative care, with improved patient-reported outcomes and delayed progression to osteoarthritis. The randomized controlled trial by Menge et al. demonstrated significantly better hip function and pain relief at two years with repair versus debridement.

Recent meta-analyses emphasize the importance of labral preservation, correlating repair with improved joint biomechanics and lower revision rates. However, controversy persists regarding the optimal graft choice and technique for reconstruction, with no definitive superiority demonstrated in comparative studies.

Emerging evidence supports early intervention before advanced chondral damage to maximize outcomes. The role of capsular management-repair versus plication-remains an evolving area, with biomechanical studies suggesting capsular repair enhances stability and reduces microinstability.

Master Class Pro-Tip

Mastery in hip labral surgery hinges on the nuanced appreciation of labral tissue quality and the dynamic interplay between labral pathology and bony morphology. A surgeon must resist the temptation to over-resect bone or overtighten repairs, as these can disrupt joint biomechanics and accelerate degeneration. Intraoperative dynamic assessment after each step-labral repair, bony resection, and capsular closure-ensures restoration of the native suction seal and joint stability, the hallmark of surgical excellence in hip preservation.

May 11, 2026/0 Comments/by OrthoNet AI

Sports Medicine Review

Comprehensive Review of Femoroacetabular Impingement (FAI): Cam, Pincer, and Combined Morphology

High-Yield Summary

Femoroacetabular Impingement (FAI) results from abnormal contact between the femoral head-neck junction and the acetabular rim, causing hip pain and early osteoarthritis.
Cam morphology involves an aspherical femoral head causing shear forces on the acetabular cartilage; pincer morphology results from acetabular overcoverage leading to labral compression.
Diagnosis relies on a combination of clinical exam, radiographic parameters (alpha angle, lateral center-edge angle), and advanced imaging (MRI arthrography) to assess cartilage and labral damage.
Surgical indications include persistent symptoms despite conservative management, mechanical symptoms, and imaging-confirmed morphology with labral or chondral injury.
Arthroscopic osteochondroplasty with labral preservation or repair is the current gold standard; surgical success depends on precise resection and restoration of hip biomechanics.

Clinical Fundamentals

Relevant Anatomy

The hip joint is a ball-and-socket synovial joint formed by the femoral head and the acetabulum. The femoral head-neck junction is normally concave, allowing smooth articulation. The acetabulum provides coverage and stability, lined by the labrum, which deepens the socket and maintains a suction seal critical for joint lubrication and stability.

Biomechanics

Normal hip motion requires clearance between the femoral neck and acetabular rim during flexion and internal rotation. Cam lesions disrupt the sphericity of the femoral head, causing shear forces that damage the acetabular cartilage. Pincer lesions increase acetabular coverage, leading to labral compression and contrecoup cartilage injury posteroinferiorly. Combined morphology exhibits features of both, compounding joint damage.

Epidemiology

FAI is prevalent in young, active adults, particularly athletes. Cam morphology is more common in males and often linked to adolescent sports activity. Pincer morphology is more frequent in middle-aged females. Early recognition is critical to prevent progression to osteoarthritis.

Classification & Diagnosis

Classification System	Description	Surgical Relevance	Diagnostic Pearls	Common Pitfalls
Cam Morphology	Alpha angle >55° on Dunn or cross-table lateral radiographs indicates asphericity of femoral head-neck junction	Guides femoral osteochondroplasty	Use Dunn lateral for best visualization; MRI to assess cartilage delamination	Overreliance on alpha angle alone; normal variants exist
Pincer Morphology	Lateral center-edge angle (LCEA) >40° or crossover sign on AP pelvis indicates acetabular overcoverage	Indicates acetabular rim trimming or reorientation	Crossover sign must be interpreted with pelvic tilt in mind	False positives due to pelvic rotation or tilt
Combined Morphology	Presence of both cam and pincer features on imaging	Requires combined femoral and acetabular correction	MRI arthrography to evaluate labral and cartilage status	Failure to identify combined lesions leads to incomplete treatment

Diagnostic pearls include the FADIR test (flexion, adduction, internal rotation) for clinical suspicion, but it lacks specificity. MRI arthrography remains the gold standard for labral and cartilage pathology assessment.

Decision-Making Algorithm

Management Pathway	Criteria	Rationale
Non-Operative	Mild symptoms, no mechanical signs, minimal imaging abnormalities, no labral/chondral damage	Physical therapy focusing on hip mobility and strengthening can reduce symptoms; avoids surgical risks
Operative	Persistent mechanical symptoms >3-6 months, positive impingement signs, imaging-confirmed cam/pincer morphology with labral or cartilage injury	Surgery aims to restore normal hip anatomy, relieve impingement, and prevent progression to osteoarthritis

Surgical approach selection depends on morphology:

Cam lesions: Arthroscopic femoral osteochondroplasty to restore head-neck offset.
Pincer lesions: Acetabular rim trimming or periacetabular osteotomy if global overcoverage.
Combined: Address both femoral and acetabular abnormalities in a single procedure.

Implant choice is minimal; fixation is rarely required except for labral repair anchors.

Surgical Mastery & Pearls

Step-by-Step Conceptual Overview

Patient Positioning: Supine or lateral decubitus with traction to distract the joint.
Portal Placement: Standard anterolateral and mid-anterior portals for optimal access.
Diagnostic Arthroscopy: Systematic evaluation of labrum, cartilage, and ligamentum teres.
Labral Management: Preserve or repair labrum using suture anchors; avoid debridement unless irreparable.
Osteochondroplasty: Use fluoroscopy and dynamic assessment to resect cam lesions precisely; avoid over-resection to prevent femoral neck fracture.
Acetabular Rim Trimming: Remove pincer overcoverage carefully; maintain labral seal and avoid excessive rim resection.
Dynamic Impingement Testing: Confirm clearance through full range of motion intraoperatively.
Closure and Postoperative Protocol: Early mobilization with protected weight-bearing and physical therapy.

Intraoperative Red Flags

Excessive traction time (>2 hours) risks nerve injury.
Over-resection of femoral neck increases fracture risk.
Failure to address combined lesions leads to persistent symptoms.
Labral debridement without repair compromises joint stability.

Evidence-Based Synthesis

Landmark studies have established the role of arthroscopic management in improving pain and function in FAI patients. The randomized controlled trial by Griffin et al. (UK FASHIoN trial) demonstrated superior outcomes with arthroscopy compared to physiotherapy alone in symptomatic FAI with labral pathology. However, long-term data on osteoarthritis prevention remain inconclusive.

Recent meta-analyses emphasize the importance of labral preservation, correlating repair with improved joint stability and delayed degeneration. Contradictions exist regarding the extent of rim trimming in pincer lesions; some data suggest that over-resection may destabilize the joint, advocating for conservative acetabular correction.

The evolving consensus favors individualized treatment based on precise imaging and intraoperative assessment rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. Emerging techniques such as computer-assisted navigation and 3D planning show promise in optimizing resection accuracy.

Master Class Pro-Tip

Mastery in FAI surgery hinges on the surgeon’s ability to balance adequate resection with preservation of native anatomy. Employ dynamic intraoperative fluoroscopic assessment combined with direct arthroscopic visualization to tailor osteochondroplasty precisely. Avoid the temptation to aggressively resect pincer lesions without confirming labral and capsular integrity-maintaining the suction seal is paramount. Finally, anticipate and address combined morphology comprehensively in a single session to prevent revision surgery and optimize long-term joint preservation.

April 27, 2026/0 Comments/by OrthoNet AI

Sports Medicine Review

Management of Osteochondritis Dissecans (OCD) of the Capitellum

High-Yield Summary

Osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) of the capitellum primarily affects adolescent athletes, especially those engaged in repetitive valgus loading such as baseball pitchers and gymnasts.
Stable lesions with intact cartilage and no loose bodies are candidates for non-operative management; unstable lesions or those with loose bodies require surgical intervention.
Surgical options include arthroscopic debridement, microfracture, fragment fixation, or osteochondral autograft transplantation depending on lesion stability, size, and cartilage integrity.
Accurate classification using the Takahara and Baumgarten systems guides treatment and prognosis, emphasizing lesion stability and radiographic features.
Intraoperative assessment of fragment viability and subchondral bone quality is critical to optimize fixation strategy and avoid progression to osteoarthritis.

Clinical Fundamentals

The capitellum is the lateral articular surface of the distal humerus, articulating with the radial head. It endures significant compressive and shear forces during elbow flexion-extension and valgus stress, particularly in throwing athletes. The subchondral bone beneath the capitellum is vulnerable to repetitive microtrauma, leading to OCD characterized by focal subchondral bone necrosis and potential cartilage disruption.

Biomechanically, valgus overload during the late cocking and early acceleration phases of throwing generates compressive forces on the radiocapitellar joint, predisposing to OCD. The lesion typically localizes to the anterolateral capitellum, where vascular supply is relatively tenuous, contributing to ischemic vulnerability.

Epidemiologically, OCD of the capitellum affects predominantly males aged 12 to 17 years, with a higher incidence in overhead athletes. Early diagnosis and management are essential to prevent progression to loose bodies, joint incongruity, and secondary osteoarthritis.

Classification & Diagnosis

Classification System	Key Features	Clinical Relevance
Takahara Classification	Stable vs. unstable lesions based on radiographs and MRI: stable lesions show intact cartilage and no displacement; unstable lesions have fragment separation or loose bodies	Guides non-operative vs. operative management decisions
Baumgarten Arthroscopic Classification	Grades I-IV based on cartilage integrity and fragment stability observed arthroscopically	Directs surgical technique choice (debridement vs. fixation)
Radiographic Staging (Minami)	Stage 1: radiolucent area; Stage 2: fragmentation; Stage 3: loose body formation; Stage 4: osteoarthritic changes	Prognostic indicator for long-term joint health

Diagnostic pearls include the use of MRI to assess cartilage integrity and subchondral bone edema, which are not reliably seen on plain radiographs. Common pitfalls include underestimating lesion instability on radiographs alone and misdiagnosing capitellar OCD as lateral epicondylitis or Panner’s disease.

Decision-Making Algorithm

Non-operative management is reserved for stable lesions without loose bodies, intact cartilage, and minimal symptoms. This includes activity modification, immobilization, and physical therapy focused on restoring range of motion and strength. Serial imaging monitors healing.

Operative intervention is indicated for:

Unstable lesions with fragment separation or loose bodies
Failure of conservative treatment after 3-6 months
Large lesions (>1 cm diameter) or those with cartilage disruption

Surgical approach selection depends on lesion characteristics:

Arthroscopic debridement and microfracture for unstable lesions with small cartilage defects and no salvageable fragment
Fragment fixation (e.g., headless compression screws or bioabsorbable pins) when the fragment is viable and reducible
Osteochondral autograft transplantation (OATS) for large, unstable lesions with significant cartilage loss or failed prior surgery

Implant choice prioritizes low-profile fixation to minimize articular cartilage damage and facilitate early motion.

Surgical Mastery & Pearls

Begin with thorough arthroscopic evaluation to confirm lesion stability and cartilage condition. Identify fragment viability by probing for mobility and assessing subchondral bone bleeding after debridement.

For fixation:

Achieve anatomic reduction of the fragment to restore joint congruity.
Use headless compression screws countersunk below cartilage level to avoid impingement.
Confirm stable fixation intraoperatively by stressing the fragment gently.

In microfracture cases, create multiple perforations 3-4 mm apart to stimulate marrow-derived repair without compromising subchondral plate integrity.

In osteochondral grafting:

Harvest grafts from the non-weight-bearing femoral condyle or ipsilateral trochlea.
Match graft curvature meticulously to capitellar surface to restore congruity.
Secure graft flush with surrounding cartilage to prevent step-offs.

Intraoperative red flags include fragment comminution, poor bone quality, and inability to achieve stable fixation, which may necessitate conversion to grafting or salvage procedures.

Evidence-Based Synthesis

Recent literature emphasizes the prognostic value of lesion stability and cartilage integrity in determining outcomes. A 2020 multicenter cohort study demonstrated that stable lesions treated non-operatively had a 75% success rate, while unstable lesions required surgery for durable symptom relief.

Comparative trials of fixation versus microfracture reveal superior functional outcomes and lower reoperation rates with fragment fixation when the fragment is viable. However, in cases of fragment necrosis, osteochondral autograft transplantation yields better cartilage restoration and joint preservation.

Controversy persists regarding the timing of surgery and the role of biologic augmentation (e.g., platelet-rich plasma), with limited high-level evidence supporting routine use. Long-term follow-up studies highlight the risk of early osteoarthritis despite optimal management, underscoring the importance of early diagnosis and tailored treatment.

Master Class Pro-Tip

When performing fragment fixation, prioritize subchondral bone preservation by minimizing debridement and using fluoroscopic guidance to ensure screw trajectory avoids the physis and articular surface. Employ intraoperative dynamic assessment of fragment stability through gentle elbow motion before closure. This nuanced approach reduces the risk of fixation failure and accelerates rehabilitation, distinguishing the master surgeon from the competent operator.

April 13, 2026/0 Comments/by OrthoNet AI