Search

Background: Femoral nerve block (FNB) is a popular technique for reducing postoperative pain in patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), but it is also linked to a number of adverse effects, such as quadriceps weakness, antalgic ambulation, and increased fall risk. Adductor canal block (ACB) has been offered as a motor nerve-sparing alternative to FNB., Purpose: To evaluate available literature that compares the effects of ACB and FNB on functional outcomes after arthroscopic ACLR., Study Design: Systematic review., Methods: Following the 2009 PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a search of PubMed (Ovid), CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases was conducted. Search terms were designed to capture studies comparing the effects of ACB and FNB in patients undergoing arthroscopic ACLR. Data were evaluated regarding study and patient characteristics, functional measures, opioid consumption, pain scores, and complications., Results: Eight randomized controlled trials (N = 655 patients) comparing the efficacy of ACB versus FNB in arthroscopic ACLR were included. The heterogeneity of outcome measures precluded meta-analysis. Seven studies reported functional measures, which included isokinetic strength, straight-leg raise, and other various measures. Follow-up periods varied between 1 hour and 6 months. In 3 trials, ACB was found to preserve quadriceps strength as measured using straight-leg raise for the first 12 to 24 hours after surgery, while 3 other trials found no difference between the groups. No differences were reported in isokinetic strength at 6 months. In other functional measures, ACB either outperformed or was equivalent to FNB. The majority of studies reporting opioid consumption, pain scores, and complications found no differences between the blocks., Conclusion: This systematic review suggests that when compared with FNB, ACB preserves quadriceps function in the early postoperative period after ACLR while providing a similar level of analgesia. Limitations of this study include the use of various functional measures and limited long-term follow-up. More research evaluating long-term functional outcomes with standardized measures is needed to draw adequate conclusions regarding the effects of ACB and FNB on function after ACLR.

Background: Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) is an expensive treatment option for focal cartilage defects, and commercial funding of research is associated with a study reaching a positive conclusion. The purpose of this analysis is to compare outcomes (and levels of evidence) between published ACI outcome studies that were commercially funded and studies that were not commercially funded., Hypothesis: Commercially funded ACI literature could be commercially biased., Study Design: Comparative meta-analysis., Methods: MEDLINE was searched for human, knee, ACI, nonmembrane, English language, and clinical outcome studies. Studies were evaluated with regard to funding status (commercially funded or not commercially funded), outcomes, and levels of evidence. Outcomes and levels of evidence were evaluated and compared for commercially funded studies versus those that were not commercially funded., Results: Twenty-three studies were included; 16 (70%) were commercially funded. Pooled clinical outcome measures data were not significantly different (Lysholm, Modified Cincinnati, patient-reported Cincinnati, Tegner, pain Visual Analog Scale) when comparing commercially funded studies with those that were not commercially funded. However, distribution of levels of evidence was significantly lower (P = .045) for commercially funded studies., Conclusion: Reassuringly, commercial funding of ACI studies did not result in a difference in published clinical outcomes versus those that were not commercially funded. However, the lower levels of evidence of commercially funded studies suggests that commercially funded ACI studies may be of less value to surgeons desiring to practice evidence-based medicine, and, in the future, commercial entities funding medical research could selectively fund studies of the highest levels of evidence.