Explore the vast range of titles available.

ACL injury in skeletally immature patients remains a debatable topic in terms of its management, surgical choices and rehabilitation. The treatment preferences vary across the globe. Children are not little adults in terms of their physiology and anatomy. Hence, contemporary treatment inferred from the adult population does not give the same outcomes in pediatric patients. An in-depth study of specific challenges and difficulties is warranted to optimize the treatment strategies to cater to this group of patients. There is a paucity of literature giving long-term follow-up of ACLR in skeletally immature patients and no standardized guidelines are present for managing this group of patients. The authors have tried to summarize the current concepts for managing ACL injuries in skeletally immature patients through this article. Multiple lacunae and controversies exist in the knowledge regarding the optimum treatment of pediatric patients with ACL injuries who are comparatively more prone to ACL tears than their adult counterparts. Identifying the best mode of management of ACL tears in these skeletally immature patients is necessary. Level of evidence: Level IV.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to identify the causes of failure of previous medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFL-R), and to furthermore report the surgical techniques available for MPFL revision surgery. Methods Four databases [PubMed, Ovid (MEDLINE), Cochrane Database, and EMBASE] were searched until September 29, 2020 for human studies pertaining to revision MPFL. Two reviewers screened the literature independently and in duplicate. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria, or the CAse REport guidelines (CARE), where appropriate. Results Fourteen studies (one level II, one level III, two level IV, ten level V) were identified. This search resulted in a total of 76 patients with a mean age (range) of 22 (14–39) years. The patients were 75% female with a mean (range) time to revision of 24.1 (1–60) months and mean (range) follow-up of 36.2 (2–48) months. The most common indication for revision surgery was malpositioning of the femoral tunnel (38.1%), unaddressed trochlear dysplasia (18.4%), patellar fracture (11.8%). Femoral tunnel malposition was typically treated via revision MPFL-R with quadriceps tendon or semitendinosus autograft and may retain the primary graft if fixation points were altered. Unaddressed trochlear dysplasia was treated with deepening trochleoplasty with or without revision MPFL-R, and patella fracture according to the nature of the fracture pattern and bone quality. Though generally, outcomes in the revision scenario across all indications were inferior to those post-primary procedure, overall, revision patients demonstrated positive improvements in pain and instability symptoms. Transverse patella fractures treated with debridement and filling with demineralized bone matrix if required with further fixation according to the fracture pattern. Conclusion The most common causes of MPFL failure in literature published to date, in order of decreasing frequency, are: malposition of the femoral tunnel, unaddressed trochlear dysplasia, and patellar fracture. Although surgical techniques of revision MPFL-R to manage these failures were varied, promising outcomes have been reported to date. Larger prospective comparative studies would be useful to clarify optimal surgical management of MPFL-R failure at long-term follow-up. Level of evidence IV.

Purpose To systematically review the literature for radiographic prevalence of osteoarthritis (OA) at a minimum of 10 years following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) with anatomic vs. non-anatomic techniques. It was hypothesized that the incidence of OA at long-term follow-up would be lower following anatomic compared to non-anatomic ACLR. Methods A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, for studies reporting OA prevalence by radiographic classification scales at a minimum of 10 years following ACLR with autograft. Studies were categorized as anatomic if they met or exceeded a score of 8 according the Anatomic ACL Reconstruction Scoring Checklist (AARSC), while those with a score less than 8 were categorized as non-anatomic/non-specified. Secondary outcomes included graft failure and measures of knee stability (KT-1000, Pivot Shift) and functional outcomes [Lysholm, Tegner, subjective and objective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores]. OA prevalence on all radiographic scales was recorded and adapted to a normalized scale. Results Twenty-six studies were included, of which 5 achieved a score of 8 on the AARSC. Using a normalized OA classification scale, 87 of 375 patients (23.2%) had diagnosed OA at a mean follow-up of 15.3 years after anatomic ACLR and 744 of 1696 patients (43.9%) had OA at mean follow-up of 15.9 years after non-anatomic/non-specified ACLR. The AARSC scores were 9.2 ± 1.3 for anatomic ACLR and 5.1 ± 1.1 for non-anatomic/non-specified ACLR. Secondary outcomes were relatively similar between techniques but inconsistently reported. Conclusions This study showed that anatomic ACLR, defined as an AARSC score ≥ 8, was associated with lower OA prevalence at long-term follow-up. Additional studies reporting long-term outcomes following anatomic ACLR are needed, as high-level studies of anatomic ACLR are lacking. The AARSC is a valuable resource in performing and evaluating anatomic ACLR. Anatomic ACLR, as defined by the AARSC, may reduce the long-term risk of post-traumatic OA following ACL injury to a greater extent than non-anatomic ACLR. Level of evidence IV.

Purpose With further understanding of the function and the importance of the hip labrum, greater attention has been paid to preserve and repair the damaged labrum. Hip labrum reconstruction has been described to optimize hip preservation when the labrum is deficient. This systematic review aimed to explore and identify the reported indications and outcomes in patients who undergo labral reconstruction of the hip joint. Methods The electronic databases EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed were searched for all available dates up to July 2013. Further hand search of the reference sections of the included studies was done. Two reviewers searched, screened, and evaluated the included studies for data quality using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) Scale. Data were also abstracted in duplicate, and agreement and descriptive statistics are presented. Results There were 5 eligible studies (3 case series, 1 prospective cohort, and 1 retrospective chart review) with a total of 128 patients, and an average 11/16 quality on the MINORS score included in this review. All patients were diagnosed with femoroacetabular impingement and underwent labral reconstruction. Ninety-four patients were assessed at follow-up (73.4 % survivorship) between a reported mean range of 10 and 49 months. There was variability between the studies with regard to the graft types utilized (ilio-tibial band, Gracilis tendon, Ligamentum teres), surgical approaches [open (18.7 %) vs. arthroscopic (81.3 %)], and the reported outcome measures. Overall, improvement was observed in the patient-reported outcomes and functional scores (mHHS, HOS, UCLA, NASH, and SF-12). The failure rate or conversion to THA rate in all available patients was 20 %. The most common indication for labrum reconstruction was a young, active patient with minimal arthritis and non-salvageable or deficient labrum. Other indications included instability, pain, and hypotrophic dysfunctional labrum. Conclusion Based on the current available evidence, hip labrum reconstruction is a new technique that shows short-term improvement in patient-reported outcomes and functional scores post-operatively. The main indication for reconstruction was a deficient labrum due to previous surgical excision or irreparable tears in young patients with no significant arthritis. Long-term follow-up results with higher quality studies are still lacking based on this review. Level of evidence II.

Purpose In single-stage ACL–PCL reconstruction, there is uncertainty regarding the order of graft tensioning and fixation, as well as the optimal knee flexion angle(s) for graft fixation. A systematic review of clinical studies of single-stage combined ACL–PCL reconstruction was performed to determine whether a particular fixation sequence and/or knee flexion angle is associated with superior outcomes. Methods A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. All levels of evidence were included. All outcome measures were extracted, including physical examination values, radiographic measurements, and objective and subjective outcomes. Results Of the 19 included studies, 17 tensioned and fixed the PCL before the ACL. Only four studies reported the methods/forces used for graft tensioning. Across studies, the ACL was fixed at variable knee flexion angles, from full extension to 70°. Conversely, 3 studies fixed the PCL at a knee flexion angle < 45°, while the remaining 16 studies fixed the PCL at a flexion angle > 70°. Patient-reported outcomes were qualitatively similar between groups. Conclusions This systematic review found considerable variability in graft tension, fixation sequence, and knee flexion angle at the time of fixation, with insufficient evidence to support specific surgical practices. Most commonly, the PCL is fixed before the ACL graft, with fixation occurring at a knee flexion angle between 70° and 90° and near full extension, respectively. The methodology for quantifying the forces applied for graft tensioning is rarely described. Given this clinical equipoise, future studies should consistently report these surgical details. Furthermore, prospective, randomized studies on the treatment of multiligament knee injuries are needed to improve outcomes in patients. Level of evidence IV.

Purpose This review aims to elucidate the most commonly reported method to quantify fear of reinjury or kinesiophobia and to identify key variables that influence the degree of kinesiophobia following primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Methods A systematic search across three databases (Pubmed, Ovid (MEDLINE), and EMBASE) was conducted from database inception to August 7th, 2022. The authors adhered to the PRISMA guidelines and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Quality assessment of the included studies was conducted according to the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria. Results Twenty-six studies satisfied the inclusion criteria and resulted in 2,213 total patients with a mean age of 27.6 years and a mean follow-up time of 36.7 months post-surgery. The mean MINORS score of the included studies was 11 out of 16 for non-comparative studies and 18 out of 24 for comparative studies. Eighty-eight percent of included studies used variations of the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK) to quantify kinesiophobia and 27.0% used Anterior Cruciate Ligament Return to Sport After Injury (ACL-RSI). The results of this study shows a common association between higher kinesiophobia and poor patient-reported functional status measured using International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Scores, Activity of Daily Living (ADL), Quality of Life (QOL), and Sports/Recreation (S/R) subscales of Knee Osteoarthritis and Outcome Score (KOOS) and Lysholm scores. Postoperative symptoms and pain catastrophizing measured using the KOOS pain and symptom subscales and Pain Catastrophizing Score (PCS) also influenced the degree of kinesiophobia following ACLR. Patients with an increased injury to surgery time and being closer to the date of surgery postoperatively demonstrated higher levels of kinesiophobia. Less common variables included being a female patient, low preoperative and postoperative activity status and low self-efficacy. Conclusion The most common methods used to report kinesiophobia following primary ACLR were variations of the TSK scale followed by ACL-RSI. The most commonly reported factors influencing higher kinesiophobia in this patient population include lower patient-reported functional status, more severe postoperative symptoms such as pain, increased injury to surgery time, and being closer to the date of surgery postoperatively. Kinesiophobia following primary ACLR is a critical element affecting post-surgical outcomes, and screening should be implemented postoperatively to potentially treat in rehabilitation and recovery. Level of evidence IV.

Purpose To assess the effects of anatomical double-bundle (DB) versus single-bundle (SB) for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in skeletally mature patients with ACL injuries. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to February 7, 2022 were screened for randomized controlled trials. The Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Checklist was used to categorize studies as anatomic. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted, with pooled results being summarized using mean difference (MD). Risk of Bias (RoB) was assessed using the RoB 2.0 tool. Certainty of evidence was rated using GRADE. Results A search of 1371 unique articles yielded eight eligible trials, representing 735 patients (360 DB, 375 SB) with mean (SD) age of 28.5 (2.86) years and follow-up of 52.1 (36.2) months. Most trials had moderate to low RoB. Overall, DB was not significantly better than SB on Lysholm scores (MD = 0.52, 95% CI, − 1.80–2.85, p  = 0.66; moderate certainty) or subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores (MD = − 0.40, 95% CI, − 4.35–3.55, p  = 0.84; moderate certainty). Tegner scores were significantly higher in SB than DB in the intermediate term (MD = − 0.72, 95% CI, − 1.10 to − 0.34, p  = 0.0002; high certainty), while significantly higher in DB relative to SB in the long-term (MD = 0.52, 95% CI, 0.02–1.03, p  = 0.04; high certainty). Conclusion DB ACL reconstruction significantly improves Tegner scores relative to SB ACL reconstruction over the long-term ( t  ≥ 5 years). Intermediate term Tegner scores favour SB reconstruction. In both durations, there was no clinically significant difference based on the pre-specified minimal clinically important difference of 1.0 point. There were also no significant differences in IKDC or Lysholm scores. Surgeons should consider anatomical DB ACL reconstruction as a result of long-term improvement in patient-reported outcomes. Level of evidence I.

Purpose To assess the imaging modalities used for diagnosis, as well as the management decisions of patients with osteochondral fractures (OCF) and loose bodies following traumatic patellar dislocation. Methods According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and PubMed were searched for results from January 1, 2000, to May 18, 2021, in two subsequent searches for English language studies that presented data on traumatic patellar dislocation. Quality of selected papers was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomised Studies (MINORS) and the Risk of Bias (RoB) 2.0 protocol. Results were qualitatively synthesised, and descriptive statistics were calculated. Results Forty studies totalling 3074 patients (1407 females) were included for the analysis. The mean age was 18.9 years (range 0–69). The population included 2446 first-time dislocations. The imaging modalities used were: 71.1% MRI, 52.6% plain radiography, 12.1% CT, and 0.68% ultrasound. In the 25 studies that reported the number of OCF, a total of 38.3% of patients were found to have OCF. 43.3% of patients with a first-time dislocation, and 34.7% of patients with previous dislocations, had at least one OCF. In the included paediatric studies (maximum age ≤ 18), the presence of OCF was detected by plain radiography in 10.1% of patients, MRI in 76.6% of patients, and CT in 89.5% of patients. For management of an OCF, the surgical options include fixation for larger pieces, excision for smaller pieces, and conservative management on a case-by-case basis. Conclusions Based on the current available evidence, assessment and management of patellar dislocations and subsequent OCFs vary, with radiography and MRI as the main imaging modalities on presentation and particular benefit for MRI in the paediatric population. Findings from this study suggest the highest rate of OCF detection with MRI, and thus, surgeons should consider routinely ordering an MRI in patients with first-time patellar dislocation. Regarding management of OCFs, the main indication for fixation was large fragments, while smaller and poor-quality fragments are excised. Few studies choose conservative management of OCFs due to later requirements for surgical management. Future work should focus on large, high-quality studies, and implementation of randomised control trials to form guidelines for imaging patellar dislocations and management of OCFs. Level of evidence Level IV.

Background To summarize the statistical performance of machine learning in predicting revision, secondary knee injury, or reoperations following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), and to provide a general overview of the statistical performance of these models. Methods Three online databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE) were searched from database inception to February 6, 2024, to identify literature on the use of machine learning to predict revision, secondary knee injury (e.g. anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) or meniscus), or reoperation in ACLR. The authors adhered to the PRISMA and R-AMSTAR guidelines as well as the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Demographic data and machine learning specifics were recorded. Model performance was recorded using discrimination, area under the curve (AUC), concordance, calibration, and Brier score. Factors deemed predictive for revision, secondary injury or reoperation were also extracted. The MINORS criteria were used for methodological quality assessment. Results Nine studies comprising 125,427 patients with a mean follow-up of 5.82 (0.08–12.3) years were included in this review. Two of nine (22.2%) studies served as external validation analyses. Five (55.6%) studies reported on mean AUC (strongest model range 0.77–0.997). Four (44.4%) studies reported mean concordance (strongest model range: 0.67–0.713). Two studies reported on Brier score, calibration intercept, and calibration slope, with values ranging from 0.10 to 0.18, 0.0051–0.006, and 0.96–0.97 amongst highest performing models, respectively. Four studies reported calibration error, with all four studies demonstrating significant miscalibration at either two or five-year follow-ups amongst 10 of 14 models assessed. Conclusion Machine learning models designed to predict the risk of revision or secondary knee injury demonstrate variable discriminatory performance when evaluated with AUC or concordance metrics. Furthermore, there is variable calibration, with several models demonstrating evidence of miscalibration at two or five-year marks. The lack of external validation of existing models limits the generalizability of these findings. Future research should focus on validating current models in addition to developing new multimodal neural networks to improve accuracy and reliability.

Background: There is a rapidly growing body of literature on the topic of hip arthroscopic surgery. Purpose: To provide an overall summary of systematic reviews published on the indications, complications, techniques, outcomes, and information related to hip arthroscopic surgery. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review of all hip arthroscopic surgery–related systematic reviews published between January 2000 and May 2018 was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library. Narrative reviews and non-English articles were excluded. Results: A total of 837 articles were found, of which 85 met the inclusion criteria. Included articles were summarized and divided into 6 major categories based on the subject of the review: femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), non-FAI indications, surgical technique, outcomes, complications, and miscellaneous. Conclusion: A summary of systematic reviews on hip arthroscopic surgery can provide surgeons with a single source for the most current synopsis of the available literature. As the prevalence of orthopaedic surgeons performing hip arthroscopic surgery increases, updated evidence-based guidelines must likewise be advanced and understood to ensure optimal patient management.