Search

Purpose: To systematically review the literature regarding the biomechanical properties of different repair techniques and fixation methods for vertically oriented meniscal tears., Methods: Human cadaveric studies evaluating the biomechanical properties of different repair techniques for vertically oriented meniscal tears were identified using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health databases. Primary outcomes included load to failure, displacement, stiffness, peak contact pressure, and contact area of repaired menisci. Repair techniques from included studies were reclassified into a total of 19 distinct all-inside (AI), inside-out (IO), or outside-in (OI) techniques., Results: Sixteen studies were included (420 total menisci). Contact pressure and area were restored to intact-state values across all 5 compressive load studies at low knee flexion angles but not at greater knee flexion angles (i.e., >60°). There were no significant differences in contact pressure or area between AI, IO, and OI techniques across all studies. Some studies demonstrated statistically significant advantages in tensile properties with IO techniques when compared with AI techniques, whereas others found AI techniques to be superior. No studies directly compared tensile properties of OI techniques with those of AI or IO techniques. Vertical mattress suture configurations resulted in significantly greater load to failure and decreased displacement compared with horizontal mattress configurations in 67% of studies comparing the 2 techniques. There was no difference in the rate of tissue failure in AI (66.97%), IO (60.38%), or OI (66.67%, χ 2  = 0.83, P = .66) techniques., Conclusions: Contact mechanics are reliably restored after repair of vertical meniscal tears at low flexion angles but inconsistently restored at greater flexion angles, regardless of technique. Vertical mattress configurations outperformed horizontal mattress configurations under tensile load. There are conflicting data regarding the comparison of tensile properties between AI and IO techniques. Ultimately, neither AI, IO, nor OI repair demonstrated superior biomechanical properties in the present literature., Clinical Relevance: Several repair techniques demonstrate favorable biomechanical properties for vertical meniscal tears under tensile and compressive loads. Neither AI, IO, nor OI repair techniques demonstrate superior biomechanical properties at this time., Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors report the following potential conflicts of interest or sources of funding: J.C. reports other from the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine, AANA, and International Society of Arthroscopy, Knee Surgery and Orthopaedic Sports Medicine; personal fees from Arthrex, Conmed Linvatec, Ossur, and Smith & Nephew, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Full ICMJE author disclosure forms are available for this article online, as supplementary material., (Copyright © 2024 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To report the mid-term outcomes of patients who underwent revision meniscal allograft transplantation (RMAT) and compare survivorship free from reoperation and failure with a matched cohort of patients who underwent primary meniscal allograft transplantation (PMAT)., Methods: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data identified patients who underwent RMAT and PMAT between 1999 and 2017. A cohort of PMAT patients matched at a ratio of 2:1 with respect to age, body mass index, sex, and concomitant procedures served as the control group. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at baseline and at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively were collected. PROMs and the achievement of clinically significant outcomes were analyzed within groups. Graft survivorship free from meniscal reoperation and failure (arthroplasty or subsequent RMAT) was compared between cohorts using log-rank testing., Results: During the study period, 22 RMATs were performed in 22 patients. Of these RMAT patients, 16 met the inclusion criteria (73% follow-up rate). The mean age of RMAT patients was 29.7 ± 9.3 years, and the mean follow-up period was 9.9 ± 4.2 years (range, 5.4-16.8 years). There were no differences between the RMAT cohort and the 32 matched PMAT patients with respect to age (P = .292), body mass index (P = .623), sex (P = .537), concomitant procedures (P ≥ .286), or baseline PROMs (P ≥ .066). The patient acceptable symptomatic state was achieved by the RMAT cohort for the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee score (70%), Lysholm score (38%), and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales (Pain [73%], Symptoms [64%], Sport [45%], Activities of Daily Living [55%], and Quality of Life [36%]). In the RMAT cohort, 5 patients (31%) underwent subsequent reoperation at a mean of 4.7 ± 2.1 years (range, 1.7-6.7 years) and 5 patients met the criteria for failure at a mean of 4.9 ± 2.9 years (range, 1.2-8.4 years). There were no significant differences in survivorship free from reoperation (P = .735) or failure (P = .170) between the RMAT and PMAT cohorts., Conclusions: At mid-term follow-up, most patients who underwent RMAT achieved the patient acceptable symptomatic state for the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee score and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales of Pain, Symptoms, and Activities of Daily Living. Additionally, there were no differences in survival free from meniscal reoperation or failure between the PMAT and RMAT cohorts., Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative cohort., (Copyright © 2023 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To investigate the current readability of online information pertaining to hip arthroscopy., Methods: The terms "hip arthroscopy" and "hip scope" were entered into the advanced search functions of Google, Yahoo!, and Bing on March 25, 2017, and results from the first 3 pages were analyzed. Results were required to be unique, accessible websites with information about hip arthroscopy conveyed primarily via analyzable text. Two reviewers applied inclusion criteria to the initial 97 results, discussing to reach consensus in cases of disagreement. Overall, 60 unique results were reviewed with 48 meeting inclusion criteria. Websites were categorized as physician-sponsored, academic, commercial, governmental and nonprofit organization (NPO), or unspecified. Readability was measured via 6 different indices: the Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL), Flesch Reading Ease (FRE), Gunning Fog Score, SMOG Index, Coleman-Liau Index (CLI), and Automated Readability Index (ARI) along with an average grade level and readability classification score., Results: Forty-eight unique websites were assessed for readability, with physician-sponsored webpages composing the majority (47.92%) followed by academic sources (35.42%). The webpages' average grade level, incorporating information from all 6 metrics, was 12.79 ± 1.98., Conclusions: The current readability of online information pertaining to hip arthroscopy is at an inappropriately high reading level compared with the sixth-grade level recommended by the American Medical Association and National Institutes of Health, thus introducing significant barriers to understanding for many patients. Online materials should be edited to reduce word and sentence length and complexity, use simpler terms, and minimize use of passive voice to facilitate patient knowledge acquisition and understanding of online information about hip arthroscopy., Clinical Relevance: This study shows that the current readability of online information on hip arthroscopy exceeds the suggested sixth-grade reading level. It also emphasizes the need for simplifying written materials and offers specific suggestions on doing so to increase accessibility of information for patients., (Copyright © 2018 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)