Search

Purpose: Despite increasing interest in utilizing quadriceps tendon (QT) grafts in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), data on the optimal quadriceps graft thickness are limited. The purpose of this study was to characterize the mechanical properties for the quadriceps tendon, comparing full-thickness (FT) QT grafts with and without bone to a partial-thickness (PT) QT graft, and comparing the three QT grafts to four-stranded semitendinosus (4-SST) and bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) grafts and one experimental graft, the two-stranded rectus femoris (RF). Methods: Forty-eight (n = 48) young cadaveric grafts (mean age 32 ± 6 years) were utilized for testing with N = 8 specimens in each of the following groups; (1) FT QT with bone, (2) FT QT without bone, (3) PT QT without bone, (4) BTB, (5) RF, and (6) 4-SST. Each specimen was harvested and rigidly fixed in custom clamps to a dynamic tensile testing machine for biomechanical evaluation. Graft ultimate load and stiffness were recorded. Independent groups one-factor ANOVAs and Tukey’s pairwise comparisons were performed for statistical analyses. Results: FT QT with bone and 4-SST grafts demonstrated similar ultimate loads to BTB grafts (both n.s), whereas PT QT demonstrate statistically significantly lower ultimate loads to BTB grafts (n.s) and 4-SST grafts (n.s). Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were observed between the ultimate loads of FT QT vs. PT QT grafts without bone (n.s) or between FT QT with vs. without bone (n.s). FT QT grafts with bone did not demonstrate statistically significantly greater ultimate loads than PT QT grafts without bone (n.s). The RF graft demonstrated statistically significantly lower ultimate loads to BTB grafts (p < 0.005) and 4-SST grafts (p < 0.014). Conclusions: Full thickness QT grafts with bone had similar material properties to BTB and a 4-SST grafts, while Partial thickness QT graft without bone had significantly lower material properties than BTB and 4-SST, in a biomechanical setting.

Objectives To evaluate the self-reported incidence of sleep disturbances, defined as ≤7 hours of sleep per 24-hour period, in patients undergoing arthroscopic-assisted knee surgery. Methods Patients who underwent arthroscopic knee surgery over the course of a 4-month period were prospectively included. Patients were excluded if a history of insomnia or other sleep altering medical history was reported. Self-reported sleep metrics included average number of hours of sleep per night, average number of awakenings during sleep per night, perceived quality of sleep, average pain level during sleep and number of hours of physical activity/therapy per week. Data were collected at weeks 1, 3, and 6 postoperatively. Joint circumference was measured on postoperative day 1 and served as an indicator of a knee effusion. Paired t-tests were used to compare preoperative to postoperative hours of sleep. Simple and multiple linear regression were used to evaluate relationships between surgical variables and postoperative sleep metrics. Results There were 123 patients who underwent arthroscopic knee surgery during the prospective enrolment period; 83 patients were included in the final analysis. The overall incidence of preoperative sleep disturbances was 20% (n=17). The overall incidence of self-reported postoperative sleep disturbances was 99%, 96% and 90% at weeks 1, 3 and 6, respectively. The average number of hours slept was significantly reduced at 1, 3 and 6 weeks postoperatively compared with the preinjury state (p 0.05). Conclusion Sleep disturbances were commonly reported in patients following arthroscopic knee surgery without correction of sleep metrics by 6 weeks postoperatively. The majority of sleep disturbances in this cohort correlated with an increased knee effusion. A multidisciplinary team approach is recommended to counsel patients regarding the potential for and problems with acute sleep disturbances following arthroscopic knee surgery. Level of evidence: 3.

Surgery performed in low-volume centres has been associated with longer operating time, longer hospital stays, lower functional outcomes, and higher rates of revision surgery, complications and mortality. This has been reported consistently in the arthroplasty literature, but there is a paucity of data regarding the relationship between surgical volume and outcome following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The purpose was to compare ACL reconstruction failure rates between hospitals performing different annual surgical volumes. All patients from the Norwegian Knee Ligament Register having primary autograft ACL reconstruction between 2004 and 2016 were included. Hospital volume was divided into quintiles based on the number of ACL reconstructions performed annually, defined arbitrarily as: 1–12 (V1), 13–24 (V2), 25–49 (V3), 50–99 (V4) and ≥ 100 (V5) annual procedures. Kaplan–Meier estimated survival curves and survival percentages were calculated with revision ACL reconstruction as the end point. Secondary outcome measures included (1) mean change in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Quality of Life (QoL) and Sport subsections from pre-operative to 5-year follow-up and (2) subjective failure defined as KOOS QoL

Background Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries can be treated with or without ACL reconstruction (ACLR), and more high-quality studies evaluating outcomes after the different treatment courses are needed. The purpose of the present study was to describe and compare 5-year clinical, functional, and physical activity outcomes for patients who followed our decision-making and treatment algorithm and chose (1) early ACLR with preoperative and postoperative rehabilitation, (2) delayed ACLR with preoperative and postoperative rehabilitation, or (3) progressive rehabilitation alone. Early ACLR was defined as that performed ≤6 months after the preoperative rehabilitation program, and late ACLR was defined as that performed >6 months after the preoperative rehabilitation program. Methods We included 276 patients from a prospective cohort study. The patients had been active in jumping, pivoting, and cutting sports before the injury and sustained a unilateral ACL injury without substantial concomitant knee injuries. The patients chose their treatment through a shared decision-making process. At 5 years, we assessed the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC-SKF), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Marx Activity Rating Scale, sports participation, quadriceps muscle strength, single-legged hop performance, and new ipsilateral and contralateral knee injuries. Results The 5-year follow-up rate was 80%. At 5 years, 64% of the patients had undergone early ACLR, 11% had undergone delayed ACLR, and 25% had had progressive rehabilitation alone. Understandably, the choices that participants made differed by age, concomitant injuries, symptoms, and predominantly level-I versus level-II preinjury activity level. There were no significant differences in any clinical, functional, or physical activity outcomes among the treatment groups. Across treatment groups, 95% to 100% of patients were still active in some kind of sports and 65% to 88% had IKDC-SKF and KOOS scores above the threshold for a patient acceptable symptom state. Conclusions Patients with ACL injury who were active in jumping, pivoting, and cutting sports prior to injury; who had no substantial concomitant knee injuries; and who followed our decision-making and treatment algorithm had good 5-year knee function and high sport participation rates. Three of 4 patients had undergone ACLR within 5 years. There were no significant differences in any outcomes among patients treated with early ACLR, delayed ACLR, or progressive rehabilitation alone. Level of evidence Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The posteromedial and posterolateral corner structures contribute significantly to knee stability. The posterior oblique ligament is a primary restraint to internal rotation and a secondary restraint to valgus. The superficial fibres of the medial collateral ligament are the primary valgus restraint and also provide secondary internal and external rotation stability. The deep fibres of the medial collateral provide additional restraint to internal and external rotation as well as valgus. The posteromedial capsule provides a secondary restraint to valgus and posterior translation. The lateral (fibular) collateral ligament is the primary varus stabiliser. The popliteus tendon complex is a primary restraint to external rotation. The popliteofibular ligament is a secondary restraint to external rotation and varus. Many physical examination manoeuvres have been described to assess these structures. Manoeuvres assessing the posterolateral structures include the varus stress test, dial test, the posterolateral drawer, the external rotation recurvatum test, heel height test and the reverse pivot shift. Examination manoeuvres that assess the posteromedial structures include the valgus stress test, dial test, anterolateral drawer test and anteromedial drawer test. Proper application of physical examination manoeuvres in conjunction with other diagnostic modalities will allow providers to develop appropriate treatment plans.

Purpose External validation of machine learning predictive models is achieved through evaluation of model performance on different groups of patients than were used for algorithm development. This important step is uncommonly performed, inhibiting clinical translation of newly developed models. Machine learning analysis of the Norwegian Knee Ligament Register (NKLR) recently led to the development of a tool capable of estimating the risk of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision (https://swastvedt.shinyapps.io/calculator_rev/). The purpose of this study was to determine the external validity of the NKLR model by assessing algorithm performance when applied to patients from the Danish Knee Ligament Registry (DKLR). Methods The primary outcome measure of the NKLR model was probability of revision ACL reconstruction within 1, 2, and/or 5 years. For external validation, all DKLR patients with complete data for the five variables required for NKLR prediction were included. The five variables included graft choice, femur fixation device, KOOS QOL score at surgery, years from injury to surgery, and age at surgery. Predicted revision probabilities were calculated for all DKLR patients. The model performance was assessed using the same metrics as the NKLR study: concordance and calibration. Results In total, 10,922 DKLR patients were included for analysis. Average follow-up time or time-to-revision was 8.4 (± 4.3) years and overall revision rate was 6.9%. Surgical technique trends (i.e., graft choice and fixation devices) and injury characteristics (i.e., concomitant meniscus and cartilage pathology) were dissimilar between registries. The model produced similar concordance when applied to the DKLR population compared to the original NKLR test data (DKLR: 0.68; NKLR: 0.68–0.69). Calibration was poorer for the DKLR population at one and five years post primary surgery but similar to the NKLR at two years. Conclusion The NKLR machine learning algorithm demonstrated similar performance when applied to patients from the DKLR, suggesting that it is valid for application outside of the initial patient population. This represents the first machine learning model for predicting revision ACL reconstruction that has been externally validated. Clinicians can use this in-clinic calculator to estimate revision risk at a patient specific level when discussing outcome expectations pre-operatively. While encouraging, it should be noted that the performance of the model on patients undergoing ACL reconstruction outside of Scandinavia remains unknown. Level of evidence III.

Summary Objective To evaluate progression of individual radiographic features 5 years following exercise therapy or arthroscopic partial meniscectomy as treatment for degenerative meniscal tear. Design Randomized controlled trial including 140 adults, aged 35–60 years, with a magnetic resonance image verified degenerative meniscal tear, and 96% without definite radiographic knee osteoarthritis. Participants were randomized to either 12-weeks of supervised exercise therapy or arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. The primary outcome was between-group difference in progression of tibiofemoral joint space narrowing and marginal osteophytes at 5 years, assessed semi-quantitatively by the OARSI atlas. Secondary outcomes included incidence of radiographic knee osteoarthritis and symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, medial tibiofemoral fixed joint space width (quantitatively assessed), and patient-reported outcome measures. Statistical analyses were performed using a full analysis set. Per protocol and as treated analysis were also performed. Results The risk ratios (95% CI) for progression of semi-quantitatively assessed joint space narrowing and medial and lateral osteophytes for the surgery group were 0.89 (0.55–1.44), 1.15 (0.79–1.68) and 0.77 (0.42–1.42), respectively, compared to the exercise therapy group. In secondary outcomes (full-set analysis) no statistically significant between-group differences were found. Conclusion The study was inconclusive with respect to potential differences in progression of individual radiographic features after surgical and non-surgical treatment for degenerative meniscal tear. Further, we found no strong evidence in support of differences in development of incident radiographic knee osteoarthritis or patient-reported outcomes between exercise therapy and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. Trial registration www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01002794).

ObjectiveTo investigate the risk of new meniscal tears after treatment for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury, in children and adults with and without ACL reconstruction.DesignPrognosis systematic review (PROSPERO registration number CRD42016036788).MethodsWe searched Embase, Ovid Medline, Cochrane, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro and Google Scholar from inception to 3rd May 2018. Eligible articles included patients with ACL injury (diagnosis confirmed by MRI and/or diagnostic arthroscopy), reported the number of meniscal tears at the time of ACL injury diagnosis/start of treatment and reported the number of new meniscal tears that subsequently occurred. Articles with fewer than 20 patients at follow-up, and articles limited to ACL revision surgery or multi-ligament knee injuries were excluded. Two independent reviewers screened articles, assessed eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We judged the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group methodology.ResultsOf 75 studies included in the systematic review, 54 studies with 9624 patients and 501 new meniscal tears were appropriate for quantitative analysis. Heterogeneity precluded data pooling. The risk of new meniscal tears was 0%–21% when follow-up was ConclusionNew meniscal tears occurred in 0%–52% of patients between 4 months and 20 years (mean 4.9±4.4 years) following treatment for ACL injury. The certainty of evidence was too low to guide surgical treatment decisions. This review cannot conclude that the incidence of new meniscal tears is lower if ACL injury is treated with surgery compared with treatment with rehabilitation only.

Multiligament knee injuries (MLKIs) constitute a complex and challenging entity because of the diagnosis, associated injuries, reconstruction procedure itself and rehabilitation program after surgery. A high level of suspicion and a thorough and systematic clinical and radiographic examination are required to identify all injured structures. Concomitant meniscal, chondral, and nerve injuries are common in MLKIs, necessitating a detailed evaluation and plan of treatment. Stress radiographs are valuable in evaluating patients preoperatively, especially in the chronic phase where magnetic resonance imaging often may be inconclusive. The literature supports surgical management of MLKI because nonoperative treatment is associated with poor functional outcomes. Reconstruction of the torn ligaments is recommended because repair of ligaments has higher failure rates. Reconstruction of all injured ligaments in one stage is advocated when possible to restore joint kinematics, achieve early mobilisation and avoid joint stiffness. Furthermore, treating all injured structures in one stage minimises the risk of overloading the reconstructed ligaments. The surgical procedure can be long and technically challenging; therefore good preoperative planning is essential to optimise the outcomes. Early intervention should be performed when indicated because dissection and identification of structures are easier and it has been reported to lead to superior outcomes compared with surgery in the chronic phase; however, an increased risk of joint stiffness especially in medial injuries has been reported. Early functional rehabilitation is crucial to avoid joint stiffness and optimise functional outcomes after surgery. There are other technical aspects that require consideration, including graft choice, tunnel position and orientation to avoid tunnel convergence, and graft tensioning order. More research is needed to understand and improve the treatment of these complex and challenging injuries.

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is considered a risk factor for osteoarthritis. The primary aim of the present study was to investigate the cumulative risk of, and risk factors associated with, a subsequent knee arthroplasty after an ACL reconstruction at up to 15 years of follow-up. The secondary aim was to compare the relative risk of knee arthroplasty after ACL reconstruction compared with that in the general population. Methods: Data were analyzed by combining data from 2 national registries, the Norwegian Knee Ligament Register and the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. The cumulative risk of knee arthroplasty after undergoing ACL reconstruction was calculated as 1 minus the corresponding Kaplan-Meier estimate, and possible risk factors for knee arthroplasty after ACL reconstruction were assessed in a Cox regression model with hazard ratios (HRs) as estimated effect measurements. The relative risk of knee arthroplasty for patients managed with ACL reconstruction as compared with that in the general population was calculated in stratified age groups. Results: From the study population of 27,122 knees, 115 knees underwent knee arthroplasty. We found a 1.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.9 to 1.4) cumulative risk of knee arthroplasty 15 years after ACL reconstruction. Deep cartilage injury, ICRS (International Cartilage Repair Society) grade 3 to 4 (HR, 4.8; 95% CI, 3.1 to 7.6), revision of the ACL (HR, 3.9; 95% CI, 2.2 to 7.1), and a 2-year postoperative KOOS Sport/Recreation subscore of

Background Several factors are associated with an increased risk of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction revision. However, the ability to accurately translate these factors into a quantifiable risk of revision at a patient-specific level has remained elusive. We sought to determine if machine learning analysis of the Norwegian Knee Ligament Register (NKLR) can identify the most important risk factors associated with subsequent revision of primary ACL reconstruction and develop a clinically meaningful calculator for predicting revision of primary ACL reconstruction. Methods Machine learning analysis was performed on the NKLR data set. The primary outcome was the probability of revision ACL reconstruction within 1, 2, and/or 5 years. Data were split randomly into training sets (75%) and test sets (25%). Four machine learning models were tested: Cox Lasso, survival random forest, generalized additive model, and gradient boosted regression. Concordance and calibration were calculated for all 4 models. Results The data set included 24,935 patients, and 4.9% underwent a revision surgical procedure during a mean follow-up (and standard deviation) of 8.1 ± 4.1 years. All 4 models were well-calibrated, with moderate concordance (0.67 to 0.69). The Cox Lasso model required only 5 variables for outcome prediction. The other models either used more variables without an appreciable improvement in accuracy or had slightly lower accuracy overall. An in-clinic calculator was developed that can estimate the risk of ACL revision (Revision Risk Calculator). This calculator can quantify risk at a patient-specific level, with a plausible range from near 0% for low-risk patients to 20% for high-risk patients at 5 years. Conclusions Machine learning analysis of a national knee ligament registry can predict the risk of ACL reconstruction revision with moderate accuracy. This algorithm supports the creation of an in-clinic calculator for point-of-care risk stratification based on the input of only 5 variables. Similar analysis using a larger or more comprehensive data set may improve the accuracy of risk prediction, and future studies incorporating patients who have experienced failure of ACL reconstruction but have not undergone subsequent revision may better predict the true risk of ACL reconstruction failure. Level of evidence Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Accurate prediction of outcome following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is challenging, and machine learning has the potential to improve our predictive capability. The purpose of this study was to determine if machine learning analysis of the Norwegian Knee Ligament Register (NKLR) can (1) identify the most important risk factors associated with subjective failure of ACL reconstruction and (2) develop a clinically meaningful calculator for predicting the probability of subjective failure following ACL reconstruction.Machine learning analysis was performed on the NKLR. All patients with 2-year follow-up data were included. The primary outcome was the probability of subjective failure 2 years following primary surgery, defined as a Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Quality of Life (QoL) subscale score of44. Data were split randomly into training (75%) and test (25%) sets. Four models intended for this type of data were tested: Lasso logistic regression, random forest, generalized additive model (GAM), and gradient boosted regression (GBM). These four models represent a range of approaches to statistical details like variable selection and model complexity. Model performance was assessed by calculating calibration and area under the curve (AUC).Of the 20,818 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 11,630 (56%) completed the 2-year follow-up KOOS QoL questionnaire. Of those with complete KOOS data, 22% reported subjective failure. The lasso logistic regression, GBM, and GAM all demonstrated AUC in the moderate range (0.67-0.68), with the GAM performing best (0.68; 95% CI 0.64-0.71). Lasso logistic regression, GBM, and the GAM were well-calibrated, while the random forest showed evidence of mis-calibration. The GAM was selected to create an in-clinic calculator to predict subjective failure risk at a patient-specific level (https://swastvedt.shinyapps.io/calculator_koosqol/).Machine learning analysis of the NKLR can predict subjective failure risk following ACL reconstruction with fair accuracy. This algorithm supports the creation of an easy-to-use in-clinic calculator for point-of-care risk stratification. Clinicians can use this calculator to estimate subjective failure risk at a patient-specific level when discussing outcome expectations preoperatively.Level-III Retrospective review of a prospective national register.

Background: Increased knowledge of the factors predicting outcome after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is needed. Purpose: To determine the effect of concomitant meniscal lesions, and the surgical management thereof, on patient-reported outcomes 5 years after ACLR. Study Design: Prospective cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A total of 15,706 patients who underwent primary unilateral ACLR between 2005 and 2008 were enrolled prospectively and evaluated longitudinally. All patients were part of the Norwegian and Swedish national knee ligament registries. Outcomes at 5-year follow-up were evaluated with the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). A multivariable linear regression model was used to assess possible effects on prognosis, as measured by KOOS, of a concomitant meniscal lesion and its associated surgical treatment. Results: At a mean follow-up of 5.1 ± 0.2 years, KOOS data were available from 8408 patients: 4774 (57%) patients with no and 3634 (43%) patients with concomitant meniscal lesions (mean patient age, 33.8 ± 10.7 years). Patients with concomitant meniscal lesions reported equal crude mean scores compared with patients without meniscal lesions in all KOOS subscales 5 years after ACLR. The mean improvement in scores from preoperative to the 5-year follow-up was greater for patients with a concomitant meniscal lesion for the KOOS Pain, Activities of Daily Living (ADL), and Sport and Recreation subscales. In the adjusted regression analyses, using patients without concomitant meniscal lesions as the reference, neither no treatment nor resection or repair of medial meniscal lesions were significantly associated with KOOS scores 5 years after ACLR. Except for the ADL subscale, in which a repaired lateral meniscal lesion was associated with better outcome, no significant associations between any of the lateral meniscal lesion treatment categories and KOOS outcome at 5-year follow-up were identified. Conclusion: Concomitant meniscal lesions at the time of ACLR conferred no negative effects on patient-reported outcomes 5 years after ACLR. The improvement in selected KOOS subscales from preoperative to the 5-year follow-up was significantly greater for patients with concomitant meniscal lesions than for patients without such lesions.

PURPOSE: The quadriceps tendon (QT) has recently gained interest as an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) autograft. There is a paucity of data from large cohort studies on failures and revision rates after ACLR using the QT graft. The purpose of the present study is to use the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Registry (DKRR) to compare revision rates, objective knee stability and subjective clinical outcomes in patients who have undergone ACLR with QT, hamstring tendon (HT), and patellar tendon (PT) as a graft for ACLR. It was hypothesized that QT autografts would result in similar objective knee stability and revision rates as HT and PT autografts.METHODS: Data on primary ACLRs in the DKRR from 2005 through 2017 were analyzed. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS), Tegner activity scale scores, sagittal knee laxity, pivot-shift tests at 1-year follow-up and revision rates at 2-year follow-up were compared for the three autograft cohorts.RESULTS: A total of 531 QT, 14,213 HT and 1835 PT ACLR were registered in the DKLR between 2005 and 2017. QT autograft was associated with statistically significant increased laxity (1.8 mm) compared to HT autograft (1.5 mm) (p CONCLUSION: Quadriceps tendon autografts for ACLR was associated with higher revision rates than HT and PT grafts. QT graft was also associated with small increased objective knee laxity and more positive pivot shift than HT and PT grafts.LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

It is important to investigate and compare graft diameters as well as graft types to identify risk factors for revision after an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. We performed the current study in order to analyze the early ACL revision rate among patients treated with hamstring tendon (HT) autografts or patellar tendon (PT) autografts of different diameters. Our hypothesis was that an increase in both HT and PT autograft diameters would reduce the risk of early ACL revision.This retrospective study was based on prospectively collected data from the national knee ligament registries of Norway and Sweden and included patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction during the period of 2004 through 2014. The primary end point was the 2-year incidence of ACL revision. The impact of graft type and diameter on the incidence of revision surgery was reported as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), estimated by using generalized linear models with a binomial distribution and log-link function.Of 58,692 patients identified, a total of 18,425 patients were included in this study. The 2-year rate of ACL revision was 2.10% (PT autografts, 2.63%; HT autografts, 2.08%; RR = 0.93 [95% CI = 0.60 to 1.45]). There was an increased risk of ACL revision among patients treated with HT autografts with a diameter of8 mm compared with larger HT autografts (RR = 1.25 [95% CI = 1.01 to 1.57]). Patients treated with HT autografts with a diameter of ≥9.0 mm or ≥10.0 mm had a reduced risk of early ACL revision compared with patients treated with PT autografts.Patients treated with larger-diameter HT autografts had a lower risk of early ACL revision compared with those treated with HT autografts of8 mm. Patients treated with HT autografts of ≥9 or ≥10 mm had a reduced risk of early ACL revision compared with patients treated with PT autografts.Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

ObjectivesThe risk of graft revision following ACL reconstruction may depend on the sport type the individuals are engaged in. The purpose of this study was to report the ACL graft revision rate in alpine skiers, football and handball players.Materials and methodsPrimary ACL reconstructions and graft revision data from 2004 to December 2016 were obtained from the Norwegian Cruciate Ligament Registry. The graft survival rates were calculated for individuals in each of the three sport types, for bone patellar tendon bone (BPTB) and hamstring tendons (HT) grafts separately, and related to age at primary operation and sex.ResultsA total of 711 grafts in 14 201 primary ACL reconstructions were revised (5.0%) after median 6 years, 3.8% in alpine skiers, 5.0% in soccer and 6.1% in handball players (pConclusionThe revision rate for ACL grafts was similar among alpine skiers, football and handball players, and the results support the use of BPTB grafts in young athletes with closed growth zones in the knee.Study designCohort study; level of evidence, 2.

Background: Few studies have examined morphological findings from preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and arthroscopic findings as prognostic factors for outcomes 1 and 2 years after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM). Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to evaluate prognostic factors of preoperative findings from MRI and arthroscopic evaluation on lower extremity performance at 1 year and patient-reported outcomes at 1 to 2 years after APM. The hypothesis was that medial compartment abnormalities would be prognostic for 1- and 2-year functional outcomes. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: This secondary analysis from the OMEX (Odense-Oslo Meniscectomy Versus Exercise) trial included 40 patients treated surgically. Regression analyses with adjustments for age, sex, and body mass index explored associations between MRI findings (tear complexity and extrusion), arthroscopic findings (tear length, cartilage injury, and amount of excised meniscal tissue), and the following: lower extremity performance tests and thigh muscle strength at 1 year and the 5 Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales at 1 and 2 years. Results: A complex meniscal tear was a significant and clinically relevant prognostic factor for worse KOOS Symptoms subscores at 2 years (mean, 14.1 points [95% CI, 6.1-22.2]). Meniscal extrusion of at least 11%, 25%, and 20% were significant and clinically relevant prognostic factors for worse KOOS Activities of Daily Living (ADL) subscores at 1 year and worse KOOS Sports and Recreation (Sports/Rec) subscores at 1 and 2 years, respectively. Tear lengths of at least 7.0 mm, 6.7 mm, and 6.5 mm were significant and clinically relevant prognostic factors for better KOOS Symptoms subscores at 1 year and better KOOS Sports/Rec subscores at 1 and 2 years, respectively. A cartilage injury in the medial compartment was a significant and clinically relevant prognostic factor for worse KOOS ADL and Quality of Life (QoL) subscores at 2 years (mean, 10.4 and 19.4 points, respectively [95% CI, 3.4-17.4 and 7.7-31.1, respectively]). More than 20% meniscal tissue excised was a significant and clinically relevant prognostic factor for worse KOOS Pain, Symptoms, ADL, and Sports/Rec subscores at 1 and 2 years (mean, 8.9-41.5 points [95% CI, 2.2-15.5 to 21.0-62.0]) and worse KOOS QoL subscores at 2 years (mean, 25.3 points [95% CI, 13.6-37.0]). Conclusion: Complex meniscal tears, larger extrusion, cartilage injuries, and larger meniscal excision were significant and clinically relevant prognostic factors for worse outcomes 1 and 2 years after APM. Registration: NCT01002794 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier)

To identify the rate of re-revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) to estimate the influence of patient-related factors on the risk of re-revision ACLR. The secondary aim of the study was to report the intra-articular findings and patient-related factors at the time of revision ACLR and to compare these with the findings in a matched controlled group of primary ACLR.Patients with primary ACLR without a subsequent need of revision and patients with a revision ACLR identified in the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry from June 2004 through September 2016 were included. Using age at operation, sex, activity at injury, and year of ACLR as covariates, a propensity score matched control group of primary ACLR patients for the revision ACLR patients was identified. For the revision ACLR patients, re-revision ACLR rates at 1, 2, 5, and 8 years were estimated with Kaplan-Meier analysis; the hazard ratio for a re-revision ACLR was estimated using a multivariable Cox regression model.The cumulative estimated proportion of patients undergoing a re-revision ACLR at 1, 2, 5, and 8 years after the original revision ACLR was 0.4%, 3.0%, 6.5%, and 9.0% respectively. There was no significant difference between the control and revision ACLR groups regarding cartilage injury (P = .72) or associated ligament injury (P = .17). Revision ACLR patients did have fewer meniscal injuries (P.001). There were no intraoperative findings or surgical techniques identified as a predictor for a higher risk of re-revision ACLR.Based on a review of a large ligament reconstruction registry,one can expect 9% of patients to undergo a re-revision ALCR at 8 years of follow up. Revision ACLR did not have an increase in cartilage injuries or associated ligament injuries and had significantly fewer meniscal injuries compared with a primary ACLR control group.Level III, retrospective comparative study.

The posterolateral corner (PLC) of the knee was regarded as the "dark side" of the knee because of limited understanding of its anatomy and biomechanics and because of poor outcomes after injuries to PLC structures. These injuries rarely occur in isolation, with 28% reported as isolated PLC injuries. Nonoperative treatment of these injuries has led to persistent instability, development of early osteoarthritis, and poor outcomes. Several techniques for reconstruction of the PLC have been described, and all are reported to improve outcomes. Biomechanically validated anatomic reconstructions are preferred because they restore native knee kinematics and improve clinical outcomes without over-constraining the knee.

Background: Increased lateral posterior tibial slope (LPTS) is associated with increased rates of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and failure of ACL reconstruction. It is unknown if ACL deficiency influences the developing proximal tibial physis and slope in skeletally immature patients through anterior tibial subluxation and abnormal force transmission. Purpose: To assess the natural history of LPTS in skeletally immature patients with an ACL-injured knee. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A total of 38 participants from a previous study on nonoperative management of ACL injury in skeletally immature patients were included. During the initial study, bilateral knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed within 1 year of enrollment and again at final follow-up. All patients were younger than 13 years at the time of enrollment, and final follow-up occurred a mean 10 years after the injury. MRI scans were retrospectively reviewed by 2 reviewers to determine bilateral LPTS for each patient and each time point. Linear mixed models were used to assess LPTS differences between knees, change over time, and association with operational status. Subgroup analyses were performed for patients who remained nonoperated throughout the study. Results: A total of 22 patients had ACL reconstruction before final follow-up and 16 remained nonoperated. In the entire study population, the mean LPTS was higher in the injured knee than in the contralateral knee at final follow-up by 2.0° ( P < .001; 95% CI, 1.3°–2.6°). The mean LPTS increased significantly in the injured knee by 0.9° ( P = .042; 95% CI, 0.03°–1.7°), while the mean LPTS decreased in the contralateral knee by 0.4° ( P = .363; 95% CI, –0.8° to 0.4°). A significant difference in LPTS was also observed in the nonoperated subgroup. No significant association was observed between LPTS and operational status. Conclusion: Lateral posterior tibial slope increased more in the ACL-injured knee than in the contralateral uninjured knee in a group of skeletally immature patients. Lateral posterior tibial slope at baseline was not associated with the need for surgical reconstruction over the study period.

Purpose Recent registry data have demonstrated a higher revision rate of quadriceps tendon (QT) graft compared with hamstring tendon (HT) and patellar tendon (PT) grafts. Clinic routines could be an important factor for revision outcomes. The purpose of this study is to use the Danish Knee Ligament Reconstruction Registry (DKRR) to compare revision rates in patients who have undergone ACLR with QT, HT and PT grafts related to individual clinic surgical routine. Methods Data on primary ACLRs entered in the DKRR from 2012 through 2019 were analysed since QT graft usage started in 2012. Revision rates for QT, HT and PT grafts were compared according to clinic activity (0-100 and > 100 procedures). Revision rates for the three autograft cohorts are presented, as well as adjusted revision hazard rates. Instrumented knee stability and pivot-shift tests were performed at a one-year follow-up. Result QT revision rate (6.4%) for low-activity clinics was higher than for high-activity clinics (2.9%) (p = 0.003). The adjusted revision hazard ratio for low-activity clinics was 2.3 (p = 0.01). QT autograft was associated with statistically significant, increased side-to-side laxity at follow-up (1.4 mm) compared with HT and PT autografts (1.0 mm) (p < 0.01), as well as an increased positive pivot-shift rate. Conclusion QT autografts for ACLR were associated with higher revision rates in clinics with lower than 100 procedures performed from 2012 to 2019. QT graft usage is not associated with a high revision rate when routinely performed. Learning curve is an important factor when introducing QT ACLR.

ObjectiveWe compared long-term follow-up from surgical versus non-surgical treatment of ACL rupture regarding radiographic knee osteoarthritis (OA), secondary surgery, laxity and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesEmbase, MEDLINE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library databases.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesStudies directly comparing the minimally invasive surgical (arthroscopy or miniarthrotomy) and non-surgical treatment of ACL rupture with at least 10 years of follow-up in adult patients were included.ResultsFive studies met the eligibility criteria. A meta-analysis revealed a higher risk of radiographic knee OA and a lower risk of secondary meniscal surgery for patients in the surgical group. The risk of graft rupture/secondary ACL revision and secondary ACL reconstruction was equal in the surgical and non-surgical groups. Knee laxity was lower among patients in the surgical group in four studies. No difference was found in the PROMs (ie, International Knee Documentation Committee, Tegner, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome, and Lysholm scores).ConclusionThe risk of radiographic knee OA was higher, but the risk of secondary meniscal injury was lower 10 years after surgical treatment of ACL rupture. The risk of graft rupture/secondary ACL revision or secondary reconstruction was unrelated to treatment type. The degree of knee laxity was reduced after surgical treatment in comparison with non-surgical treatment, while PROMs were similar. However, due to the methodological challenges highlighted in this systematic review, these findings must be interpreted with caution.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019119468

Treatment strategies for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries continue to evolve. Evidence supporting best practice guidelines for the management of ACL injury is to a large extent based on studies with low-level evidence. An international consensus group of experts was convened to collaboratively advance toward consensus opinions regarding the best available evidence on operative vs. non-operative treatment for ACL injury. The purpose of this study is to report the consensus statements on operative vs. non-operative treatment of ACL injuries developed at the ACL Consensus Meeting Panther Symposium 2019. Sixty-six international experts on the management of ACL injuries, representing 18 countries, were convened and participated in a process based on the Delphi method of achieving consensus. Proposed consensus statements were drafted by the Scientific Organizing Committee and Session Chairs for the three working groups. Panel participants reviewed preliminary statements prior to the meeting and provided the initial agreement and comments on the statement via an online survey. During the meeting, discussion and debate occurred for each statement, after which a final vote was then held. Eighty percent agreement was defined a-priori as consensus. A total of 11 of 13 statements on operative v. non-operative treatment of ACL injury reached the consensus during the Symposium. Nine statements achieved unanimous support, two reached strong consensus, one did not achieve consensus, and one was removed due to redundancy in the information provided. In highly active patients engaged in jumping, cutting, and pivoting sports, early anatomic ACL reconstruction is recommended due to the high risk of secondary meniscus and cartilage injuries with delayed surgery, although a period of progressive rehabilitation to resolve impairments and improve neuromuscular function is recommended. For patients who seek to return to straight plane activities, non-operative treatment with structured, progressive rehabilitation is an acceptable treatment option. However, with persistent functional instability, or when episodes of giving way occur, anatomic ACL reconstruction is indicated. The consensus statements derived from international leaders in the field will assist clinicians in deciding between operative and non-operative treatments with patients after an ACL injury.Level of evidence V.

Multiligament knee injuries (MLKI) are complex and challenging to treat. The posteromedial corner (PMC) structures are commonly torn in MLKI. A thorough and systematic evaluation is imperative to avoid a missed diagnosis and for planning treatment. With several structures injured, the treatment method (operative vs. nonoperative, repair vs. reconstruction), availability of allografts, timing of surgery, and rehabilitation are some of the factors that have to be considered in the decision-making. Persistent valgus instability because of untreated or not healed medial collateral ligament (MCL) tears will increase graft forces on the cruciate ligament grafts, thus increasing the risk of reconstruction graft failure. In recent years, there has been a growing body of literature on the anatomy and biomechanics of the medial structures that has aided in the development of biomechanically and clinically validated anatomic PMC reconstructions. Despite good healing potential of the MCL, in MLKI, surgical treatment is recommended for grade III PMC injuries to aid early rehabilitation and reduce the risk of surgical failure. Several studies have reported satisfactory outcomes after surgical treatment of MLKI involving the medial side. Early functional rehabilitation is imperative to reduce the risk of arthrofibrosis.

Objective To describe the frequency and the distribution of degenerative disc disease (DDD) detected in athletes who underwent spine MRI in the 2016 Summer Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro. Methods Data on spine MRI examinations from the 2016 Summer Olympics were retrospectively analyzed. We assessed the frequency of DDD of the cervical (Cs), thoracic (Ts), and lumbar (Ls) spine using Pfirrmann’s classification. Grade II and III were considered as mild, grade IV as moderate, and grade V as severe disc degeneration. Data were analyzed according to the location of the degenerative disc, type of sport, age-groups, and gender of the athletes. Results One hundred out of 11,274 athletes underwent 108 spine MRI’s (21 C, 6 T, and 81 L) (53% Females (F), 47% Males (M)). The frequency of DDD was 40% (42% F, 58% M) over the entire spine (28% mild, 9% moderate and 3% severe). There were 58% (12%F, 88%M) of the cervical spine discs that showed some degree of degeneration (44% mild, 13.5% moderate and 1% severe). Athletics, Boxing, and Swimming were the sports most affected by DDD in the Cs. There were 12.5% of the thoracic discs that showed some degree of degeneration, all were mild DDD and were exclusively seen in female athletes. There were 39% (53% F, 47% M) of the lumbar discs with DDD (26% mild, 9% moderate, and 4% severe). Conclusion Athletes who underwent spine MRI during the 2016 Summer Olympic Games show a high frequency of DDD of cervical and lumbar spines. Recognition of these conditions is important to develop training techniques that may minimize the development of degenerative pathology of the spine.

Femoral neck stress fracture is a rare occurrence but can arise in athletes and people who exercise, due to repeated stress on the lower extremities. Hip and groin pain and clinical findings can raise suspicion, and MRI examination is the gold standard for determining stress fracture. The injury is treated conservatively or surgically, depending on anatomical location and whether or not the fracture is stable.

Background: Focal cartilage defects (FCDs) in the knee joint has a high prevalence. A broad range of treatment options exists for symptomatic patients. Knowledge of patient compensation claims following surgical treatment of FCDs is missing. The purpose of this study is to evaluate compensation claims filed to the Scandinavian registries for patient compensation following treatment of FCDs in the knee joint from 2010 to 2015 and identify possible areas of improvement. Methods: A cross-sectional study design was used to obtain all complaints following surgical treatment of FCDs from the Scandinavian registries from 2010 to 2015. Data such as age, gender, type of treatment, type of complaint, reason of verdict and amount of compensation were collected and systematically analyzed. Results: 103 patients filed a compensation claim. 43 had received debridement (41.7%), 54 microfracture (MF) (52.4%), 3 mosaicplasty (2.9%) and 3 autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) (2.9%). Of the 103 claims, 36 were granted (35%). 21 following debridement (58.3%), 13 after MF (36.1%), 1 following mosaicplasty (2.8%) and 1 after ACI (2.8%). The most common reason for complaint was infection (22.1%), of which 89% were granted. The average compensation was €24.457 (range €209 – €458.943). Conclusion: Compensation claims following surgical treatment of knee cartilage injuries in Scandinavia are rare. Establishing nationwide cartilage registries can add further knowledge on this troublesome disease. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

The aim of this study was to compare the 30-year follow-up results after treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures with 3 different surgical procedures.A total of 150 patients with acute rupture of the ACL who were managed between 1986 and 1988 were randomized into 1 of 3 open repair methods: acute primary repair (n = 49), acute repair with a synthetic ligament augmentation device (LAD) (n = 50), or reconstruction with an autologous bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) graft with retention of the ACL remnants (n = 51). The 30-year follow-up included evaluation of clinical findings, the Tegner and Lysholm questionnaires, radiographic examination, and registration of revisions and knee arthroplasties.A total of 113 patients (75%) were available for the follow-up evaluation; 39 patients were in the primary repair group, 39 in the LAD group, and 35 in the BPTB group. Through telephone calls and investigation of patient medical records, 40 of these patients were excluded from further analyses because of revision surgery, knee arthroplasty in the involved or contralateral knee, or ACL reconstruction in the contralateral knee. One patient in the BPTB group had undergone revision ACL reconstruction compared with 12 in the primary repair group (p = 0.002) and 9 in the LAD group (p = 0.015). Seven patients had undergone knee arthroplasty in the involved knee, with no significant difference among the groups. In the remaining patients, no significant differences were found among the 3 groups with regard to range of motion, laxity, or Tegner and Lysholm scores. Radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis, defined as an Ahlbäck grade of 2 through 5, was found in 42% of the operatively treated knees, with no significant differences among the groups.In the present 30-year follow-up results of a randomized controlled study, the BPTB graft augmented with the remnants of the ruptured ligament provided superior results with regard to the number of revisions compared with both the primary repair and LAD groups. No significant differences were found with respect to range of motion, laxity, activity, function, radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis, and knee arthroplasties.Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The results of anterior cruciate ligament repair are not satisfactory. While some cohort studies reported optimistic outcomes, even using augmentation and modern rehabilitation procedures, repair of anterior cruciate ligament ruptures should not be done outside well-designed studies as the overwhelming literature is quite negative on short-term results. The steps from basic science through animal surgery to clinical studies have still not resulted in techniques for daily use.

Background:The double-bundle reconstruction technique was developed to resemble the properties of the native anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) more closely than the conventional single-bundle technique. The clinical benefit of the operative procedure is controversial, and there is a need for studies with a focus on patient-reported outcomes (PROs).Study Design:Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.Hypothesis:Anatomic double-bundle ACL reconstruction would be superior to anatomic single-bundle reconstruction regarding the change in the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Quality of Life (QoL) subscore from baseline to 2-year follow-up.Methods:According to sample size calculations, 120 patients aged 18 to 40 years with a primary ACL injury of their knee were randomized to the anatomic double-bundle or anatomic single-bundle reconstruction groups. Patients with posterior cruciate ligament, posterolateral corner, or lateral collateral ligament injuries or with established osteoarthritis were excluded. Patients with residual laxity from a coexistent medial collateral ligament injury were excluded. Data were registered at baseline, 1 year, and 2 years. In 24 patients, postoperative 3-dimensional computed tomography was performed to verify the positioning of the bundles. The outcome measures were the change in KOOS subscores and the International Knee Documentation Committee 2000 subjective score, pivot-shift test result, Lachman test finding, KT-1000 arthrometer measurement, activity level, return-to-sports rate, and osteoarthritic changes on radiographs. A linear mixed model was used for the analysis of all the PROs, including the primary outcome.Results:The change in the KOOS QoL subscore from baseline to 2-year follow-up was not different between the double- and single-bundle groups (mean change, 29.2 points vs 28.7 points, respectively; –0.5-point difference; 95% CI, –8.4 to 7.4 points; P = .91). Neither were there any differences between the 2 groups in the remaining PROs, knee laxity measurements, or activity levels of the patients. Radiological signs of osteoarthritis were found in 2 patients. Eleven patients had a graft rupture: 8 in the single-bundle group and 3 in the double-bundle group ( P = .16). Three-dimensional computed tomography of the knees verified the positioning of the anteromedial bundle, posterolateral bundle, and single-bundle grafts to be within acceptable limits.Conclusion:There was no difference in the KOOS QoL subscore, the remaining PROs, knee laxity measurements, or activity levels comparing the double- and single-bundle ACL reconstruction techniques. The number of bundles does not seem to influence clinical and subjective outcomes, as long as the tunnels are adequately positioned.Registration:NCT01033188 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

IOC In October 2017, the International Olympic Committee hosted an international expert group of physiotherapists and orthopaedic surgeons who specialise in treating and researching paediatric ACL injuries. Representatives from the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine, European Paediatric Orthopaedic Society, European Society for Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery & Arthroscopy, International Society of Arthroscopy Knee Surgery and Orthopaedic Sports Medicine, Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America and Sociedad Latinoamericana de Artroscopia, Rodilla y Deporte attended. Physiotherapists and orthopaedic surgeons with clinical and research experience in the field, and an ethics expert with substantial experience in the area of sports injuries also participated. Injury management is challenging in the current landscape of clinical uncertainty and limited scientific knowledge. Injury management decisions also occur against the backdrop of the complexity of shared decision-making with children and the potential long-term ramifications of the injury. This consensus statement addresses six fundamental clinical questions regarding the prevention, diagnosis and management of paediatric ACL injuries. The aim of this consensus statement is to provide a comprehensive, evidence-informed summary to support the clinician, and help children with ACL injury and their parents/ guardians make the best possible decisions. Linkoping Univ, Div Physiotherapy, Linkoping, Sweden La Trobe Univ, Sch Allied Hlth, Melbourne, Vic 3086, Australia Oslo Univ Hosp, Div Orthopaed Surg, Oslo, Norway Norwegian Sch Sport Sci, OSTRC, Oslo, Norway Univ Oslo, Inst Clin Med, Oslo, Norway Norwegian Sch Sport Sci, Dept Sports Med, Oslo, Norway Tennessee Orthopaed Alliance, Nashville, TN USA Hop Femme Mere Enfant, Dept Pediat Orthopaed Surg, Lyon, France Univ Fed Sao Paulo, Orthoped Dept, Sao Paulo, Brazil Karolinska Inst, Stockholm Sports Trauma Res Ctr, Stockholm, Sweden Childrens Hosp Philadelphia, Dept Orthopaed, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA Epworth Healthcare, OrthoSport Victoria Res Unit, Melbourne, Vic, Australia La Trobe Univ, Coll Sci Hlth & Engn, Melbourne, Vic, Australia Univ Gothenburg, Dept Orthopaed, Sahlgrenska Acad, Gothenburg, Sweden Boston Childrens Hosp, Div Sports Med, Boston, MA USA Harvard Med Sch, Boston, MA USA Steadman Philippon Res Inst, Vail, CO USA Steadman Clin, Vail, CO USA Swansea Univ, Coll Engn, Swansea, W Glam, Wales Santa Monica Orthopaed & Sports Med Grp, Los Angeles, CA USA Micheli Ctr Sports Injury Prevent, Waltham, MA USA Univ Calgary, Sports Med Ctr, Calgary, AB, Canada Univ Chicago, Dept Orthopaed & Rehabil Med, Chicago, IL 60637 USA North Sydney Orthopaed & Sports Med Ctr, Sydney, NSW, Australia Ctr Hosp Luxembourg, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Luxembourg, Luxembourg Luxembourg Inst Hlth, Sports Med Res Lab, Luxembourg, Luxembourg Ruprecht Karls Univ Heidelberg, Inst Anat & Cell Biol, Heidelberg, Germany ATOS Klin, HKF Int Ctr Hip Knee Foot Surg & Sports Traumat, Heidelberg, Germany FIFA Med Ctr Excellence Veloc Phys Therapy, Los Angeles, CA USA Int Olymp Comm, Med & Sci Dept, Lausanne, Switzerland Univ Calgary, Fac Kinesiol, Sport Injury Prevent Res Ctr, Calgary, AB, Canada Univ Ghent, Fac Med & Hlth Sci, Dept Rehabil Sci & Physiotherapy, Ghent, Belgium Univ Fed Sao Paulo, Orthoped Dept, Sao Paulo, Brazil Web of Science

[Graphic][1] The over-riding goal of a physician is to optimise the outcome for each individual patient. However, our ability to manipulate the end result at the individual level is limited by our inability to accurately predict the expected outcome of a given clinical scenario. In the age of big data, machine learning can make our predictive capability both easier and more accurate using existing registries and databases which hold the potential to dramatically change decision-making and to optimise individual outcome. The purpose of this editorial was to explore the possible uses of machine learning in sports medicine using existing knee ligament registries as an example. Machine learning is a subset branch of artificial intelligence that uses data to make informed decisions/models without explicit programming (figure 1). Deep learning is a further subset of machine learning that uses neural networks to do the same task. Typically, once the data are acquired, significant time is spent preparing and formatting the data to be analysed, which includes removing or imputing variables which have too many missing values, standardising data for analysis and running standard statistical tests to assess relationships, such as collinearity (figure 1). Thereafter, the data are usually split into training, validation and testing data. The training data are most … [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif

Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is one of the most common surgical procedures in orthopaedic sports medicine. Despite this, graft selection remains controversial with various regional, institutional, and individual preferences and trends. The traditional autograft options for reconstruction have been hamstring tendon and bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autografts. Recently, quadriceps tendon (QT) autografts have garnered significant interest and appear promising because of their biomechanical properties and stability on clinical outcomes, and have less donor site morbidity compared with BTB. In this review, recent developments in QT autograft research are discussed and future directions which may clarify the appropriate role of quadriceps grafts in ACL reconstruction are explored.

Background Double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has demonstrated improved biomechanical properties and moderately better objective outcomes compared with single-bundle reconstructions. This could make an impact on the rerupture rate and reduce the risk of revisions in patients undergoing double-bundle ACL reconstruction compared with patients reconstructed with a traditional single-bundle technique. The National Knee Ligament Registers in Scandinavia provide information that can be used to evaluate the revision outcome after ACL reconstructions.Questions/purposes The purposes of the study were (1) to compare the risk of revision between double-bundle and single-bundle reconstructions, reconstructed with autologous hamstring tendon grafts; (2) to compare the risk of revision between double-bundle hamstring tendon and single-bundle bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts; and (3) to compare the hazard ratios for the same two research questions after Cox regression analysis was performed.Methods Data collection of primary ACL reconstructions from the National Knee Ligament Registers in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden from July 1, 2005, to December 31, 2014, was retrospectively analyzed. A total of 60,775 patients were included in the study; 994 patients were reconstructed with double-bundle hamstring tendon grafts, 51,991 with single-bundle hamstring tendon grafts, and 7790 with single-bundle bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts. The double-bundle ACL-reconstructed patients were compared with the two other groups. The risk of revision for each research question was detected by the risk ratio, hazard ratio, and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate survival at 1, 2, and 5 years for the three different groups. Furthermore, a Cox proportional hazard regression model was applied and the hazard ratios were adjusted for country, age, sex, meniscal or chondral injury, and utilized fixation devices on the femoral and tibial sides.Results There were no differences in the crude risk of revision between the patients undergoing the double-bundle technique and the two other groups. A total of 3.7% patients were revised in the double-bundle group (37 of 994 patients) versus 3.8% in the single-bundle hamstring tendon group (1952 of 51,991; risk ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.73-1.39; p = 0.96), and 2.8% of the patients were revised in the bone-patellar tendon-bone group (219 of the 7790 bone-patellar tendon-bone patients; risk ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.54-1.06; p = 0.11). Cox regression analysis with adjustment for country, age, sex, menisci or cartilage injury, and utilized fixation device on the femoral and tibial sides, did not reveal any further difference in the risk of revision between the single-bundle hamstring tendon and double-bundle hamstring tendon groups (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.85-1.62; p = 0.33), but the adjusted hazard ratio showed a lower risk of revision in the single-bundle bone-patellar tendon-bone group compared with the double-bundle group (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.90; p = 0.01). Comparisons of the graft revision rates reported separately for each country revealed that double-bundle hamstring tendon reconstructions in Sweden had a lower hazard ratio compared with the single-bundle hamstring tendon reconstructions (hazard ratio, 1.00 versus 1.89; 95% CI, 1.09-3.29; p = 0.02). Survival at 5 years after index surgery was 96.0% for the double-bundle group, 95.4% for the single-bundle hamstring tendon group, and 97.0% for the single-bundle bone-patellar tendon-bone group.ConclusionsBased on the data from all three national registers, the risk of revision was not influenced by the reconstruction technique in terms of using single- or double-bundle hamstring tendons, although national differences in survival existed. Using bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts lowered the risk of revision compared with double-bundle hamstring tendon grafts. These findings should be considered when deciding what reconstruction technique to use in ACL-deficient knees. Future studies identifying the reasons for graft rerupture in single- and double-bundle reconstructions would be of interest to understand the findings of the present study.

Meniscal ramp lesions have been reported to be present in 9% to 17% of patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Detection at the time of arthroscopy can be accomplished based upon clinical suspicion and careful evaluation without the use of an accessory posteromedial portal. Options for surgical treatment include arthroscopic repair using an all-inside or inside-out technique. The purpose of this Technical Note is to detail our arthroscopic inside-out repair technique for meniscal ramp lesions.

Multiligament knee injuries constitute a complex and challenging entity, not only because of the diagnosis and reconstruction procedure itself, but also because of the rehabilitation programme after the index procedure. A high level of suspicion and a comprehensive clinical and radiographic examination are required to identify all injured structures. Concomitant meniscal, chondral and nerve injuries are common in multiligament injuries necessitating a detailed evaluation. Stress radiographs are valuable in evaluating patients preoperatively and postoperatively. The current literature supports surgical management of multiligament injuries, and reconstructions are recommended because repair of ligaments has higher failure rates. Reconstruction of all injured ligaments in one stage is advocated (if possible) in order to achieve early mobilisation and to avoid joint stiffness. Using biomechanically and clinically validated anatomic ligament reconstructions improves outcomes. In the setting of multiligament knee reconstructions, several technical aspects that require consideration are vital, such as the graft choice, the sequence of ligaments reconstruction, tunnel position and orientation to avoid tunnel interference and graft tensioning order. This review article discusses the use of stress radiographs in diagnosing ligament injuries and evaluating postoperative stability. Tunnel convergence and tensioning sequence are potential problems, and guidelines to address these are also discussed. Recovery after a multiligament reconstruction surgery typically requires 9 to 12 months of rehabilitation prior to returning to full activities. The purpose of this article is to review the specific principles of multiligament injuries, classification, diagnosis, treatment options and rehabilitation guidelines for addressing these complex injuries.

Long-term outcomes and the prevalence of osteoarthritis after surgical treatment of knee dislocations are lacking in the literature. The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence of knee osteoarthritis and knee function at a minimum of 10 years after knee dislocation surgery. Sixty-five patients surgically treated for knee dislocations at a single level I trauma center between May 1996 and December 2004 were evaluated at a minimum of 10 years. Patients were evaluated with radiographs for knee osteoarthritis using the Kellgren–Lawrence (KL) grading system, Tegner activity score, Lysholm score, IKDC-2000, KOOS, subjective stability on physical examination, KT-1000 arthrometer, and single-leg hop tests. Osteoarthritis was defined as KL grades 2 or greater. The median follow-up time was 12.7 years (range 10.0–18.8 years), and the median age was 46.9 years (range 26.8–76.1 years). Radiographic osteoarthritis was present in 42% (23, 14, and 5% in KL grades II, III, and IV, respectively) of the patients in the operated knee compared to 6% in the uninjured knee. Knee function was generally improved with a median Tegner activity score of 4 (range 1–8), an average Lysholm score of 84 ± 17, and an average IKDC-2000 score of 73 ± 19. Twenty-seven patients (42%) developed OA 10 years after surgical treatment of knee dislocations. Patients reported improved knee function and minimal-to-moderate pain. Age at surgery was a predictor of development of OA, with more patients >30 years at the time of surgery developing OA. Meniscal and cartilage injuries at time of surgery were not associated with development of OA. Patients being treated for knee dislocation should be counselled about the increased long-term risk of post-traumatic OA. III.

Background and purpose — The natural history of focal cartilage defects (FCDs) is still unresolved, as is the long-term cartilage quality after cartilage surgery. It has been suggested that delayed gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of cartilage (dGEMRIC) is a biomarker of early OA. We aimed to quantitatively evaluate the articular cartilage in knees with FCDs, 12 years after arthroscopic diagnosis. Patients and methods — We included 21 patients from a cohort of patients with knee pain who underwent arthroscopy in 1999. Patients with a full-thickness cartilage defect, stable knees, and at least 50% of both their menisci intact at baseline were eligible. 10 patients had cartilage repair performed at baseline (microfracture or autologous chondrocyte implantation), whereas 11 patients had either no additional surgery or simple debridement performed. Mean follow-up time was 12 (10–13) years. The morphology and biochemical features were evaluated with dGEMRIC and T2 mapping. Standing radiographs for Kellgren and Lawrence (K&L) classification of osteoarthritis (OA) were obtained. Knee function was assessed with VAS, Tegner, Lysholm, and KOOS. Results — The dGEMRIC showed varying results but, overall, no increased degeneration of the injured knees. Degenerative changes (K&L above 0) were, however, evident in 13 of the 21 knees. Interpretation — The natural history of untreated FCDs shows large dGEMRIC variations, as does the knee articular cartilage of surgically treated patients. In this study, radiographic OA changes did not correlate with cartilage quality, as assessed with dGEMRIC.

With the increase in number of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstructions being performed, and with patients9 desire to return to high-level sports activities, the prevalence of ACL revision has been rising despite recent improvements in ACL reconstruction technique. ACL reconstruction failures can be classified into 3 general categories: recurrent instability, postoperative complications and patient comorbidities. Of these 3 categories, recurrent instability is the most common cause for revision surgery. Cases of recurrent instability can be further subdivided into 2 groups: traumatic and atraumatic. Causes of atraumatic failure include technical errors, missed associated injuries, biological factors and infection. Careful preoperative evaluation and planning, sophisticated surgical technique (including individualised graft selection, anatomical tunnel placement and secure fixation), careful evaluation and treatment of all associated injuries, and individualised rehabilitation are all essential for successful revision ACL surgery. There have been very few high-level studies in the field of revision ACL surgery; therefore, accumulating more evidence for clinical outcomes and prognostic factors to improve revision surgery procedure will be necessary. Both primary ACL injury prevention and reinjury prevention, as well as individualised anatomic primary ACL reconstruction, are critical to reduce the incidence of revision ACL surgery.

In the interesting linked article,1 authors Dr Raine Sihvonen and colleagues suggest that arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) may lead to long-term harms (by increasing the risk of knee osteoarthritis (OA)) with no clear benefits in patient-reported outcomes. This study was a carefully executed multicentre, randomised, participant-blinded and outcome assessor-blinded, placebo-surgery controlled efficacy trial in participants aged 35 to 65 years who had had knee symptoms for more than 3 months, consistent with the diagnosis of a degenerative medial meniscus tear.1 Participants had not responded to conventional conservative treatment and were free of advanced knee osteoarthritis. A degenerative meniscus tear was verified on both MRI and knee arthroscopy. Patients with an obvious traumatic onset of symptoms or a recent history of a locked knee were excluded. Participants were followed up by questionnaires at 2, 6, 12, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months. At the 24-month and 60-month follow-up, standardised clinical examinations were carried out to …

It is becoming increasingly recognized that isolated lateral collateral ligament (LCL) tears are more common than have been previously recognized and that anatomic-based LCL reconstructions have the best outcomes. Although it was believed that posterolateral corner injuries were often missed or mistreated and were given the pneumonic of "the dark side of the knee," we are getting to the point where most of these more severe injuries are being recognized, and it is the isolated LCL injuries that are still less well recognized. Failure to treat LCL tears at the same time as a cruciate ligament reconstruction is a well-known cause of both anterior cruciate ligament and posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction graft failure. Therefore, either having the required clinical experience or knowledge, or using a radiographic backup method when one is not sure about the anatomic placement, is essential to correctly perform an LCL reconstruction.

Purpose To study the incidence of acromioclavicular joint injuries in a general population. Methods All acute shoulder injuries admitted to an orthopaedic emergency department were registered prospectively, using electronic patient records and a patient-reported questionnaire. The regional area was the city of Oslo with 632,990 inhabitants. Patients with symptoms from the acromioclavicular joint without fracture were registered as a dislocation (type II–VI) if the radiologist described widening of the joint space or coracoclavicular distance on standard anteroposterior radiographs. Patients without such findings were diagnosed as sprains (type I). Results Acromioclavicular joint injuries constituted 11% of all shoulder injuries (287 of 2650). The incidence was 45 per 105 person-years (95% confidence interval [CI] 40–51). 196 (68%) were diagnosed as sprains and 91 (32%) as dislocations. Median age of all acromioclavicular joint injuries was 32 years (interquartile range 24–44), and 82% were men. Thirty percent of all acromioclavicular joint injuries were registered in men in their twenties. Sports injuries accounted for 53%, compared to 27% in other shoulder injuries [OR 3.1 (95% CI 2.4–4.0; p < 0.001)]. The most common sports associated with acromioclavicular joint injuries were football (24%), cycling (16%), martial arts (11%), alpine skiing and snowboarding (both 9%), and ice hockey (6%). Conclusion Our study suggests that in the general population, one in ten shoulder injuries involves the acromioclavicular joint and young men in sports are at highest risk. A prognostic level II cohort study.

Background: Outcomes after sports-related multiple-ligament knee reconstructions are limited. Purpose: To evaluate outcomes after single-stage surgical treatment of sports-related multiple-ligament knee injuries and to compare outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)–based and posterior cruciate ligament (PCL)–based multiple-ligament knee reconstructions. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Skeletally mature patients with at least 2 major knee ligaments torn during a sporting activity that required surgery with a minimum of 2 years’ follow-up were included. The Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and 12-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary were collected preoperatively and at a minimum of 2 years’ follow-up. Clinical data, including range of motion and knee stability, were also recorded at final follow-up. Results: A total of 276 patients with multiple-ligament knee injuries incurred during sport participation from 2010 to 2016 were identified. Of the 276 patients, 194 (70.5%) had complete follow-up at a mean 3.5 years (range, 2-8 years). There was a significant improvement in all outcome scores as compared with the preoperative scores ( P < .001 for all scores). The median (first and third quartiles) Tegner activity score improved from 1 (0, 2) preoperatively to 6 (4, 7) postoperatively. Significant improvements were from 41 (22, 57) to 90 (78, 95) and 44 (24, 60) to 3 (1, 8) for median Lysholm and WOMAC scores, respectively. There was no significant difference in postoperative outcome scores between patients treated in the acute and chronic phases. Furthermore, there was no significant difference between PCL- and ACL-based multiple-ligament knee injuries. Eighteen (9.3%) patients developed arthrofibrosis requiring reintervention surgery. Conclusion: These results demonstrated that single-stage anatomic-based knee ligament reconstructions with immediate postoperative rehabilitation in the setting of sports-related multiligament injuries yielded significantly improved outcomes irrespective of the ligament injury pattern. In addition, there was no difference in outcomes between ACL- and PCL-based injuries in the setting of sports-related multiligament injuries.

© 2018, European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery, Arthroscopy (ESSKA). Purpose: To develop a statement on the diagnosis, classification, treatment, and rehabilitation concepts of posterolateral corner (PLC) injuries of the knee using a modified Delphi technique. Methods: A working group of three individuals generated a list of statements relating to the diagnosis, classification, treatment, and rehabilitation of PLC injuries to form the basis of an initial survey for rating by an international group of experts. The PLC expert group (composed of 27 experts throughout the world) was surveyed on three occasions to establish consensus on the inclusion/exclusion of each item. In addition to rating agreement, experts were invited to propose further items for inclusion or to suggest modifications of existing items at each round. Pre-defined criteria were used to refine item lists after each survey. Statements reaching consensus in round three were included within the final consensus document. Results: Twenty-seven experts (100% response rate) completed three rounds of surveys. After three rounds, 29 items achieved consensus with over 75% agreement and less than 5% disagreement. Consensus was reached in 92% of the statements relating to diagnosis of PLC injuries, 100% relating to classification, 70% relating to treatment and in 88% of items relating to rehabilitation statements, with an overall consensus of 81%. Conclusions: This study has established a consensus statement relating to the diagnosis, classification, treatment, and rehabilitation of PLC injuries. Further research is needed to develop updated classification systems, and better understand the role of non-invasive and minimally invasive approaches along with standardized rehabilitation protocols. Level of evidence: Consensus of expert opinion, Level V.

© 2019 BY THE JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY, INCORPORATED. Background:The lack of a standardized system for describing cell therapies acts as a barrier to advancement in clinical and basic research and practice. The aim of this study was to establish an international expert consensus on strategies to improve standardization and transparency when describing cell therapies. The secondary aim was to develop a consensus among experts on the contents of a standardized tool for describing cell therapies.Methods:The need for expert consensus on strategies to improve cell therapy communication was confirmed at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons/National Institutes of Health Optimizing Clinical Use of Biologics Symposium in 2018. A working group of 6 experts convened an international consensus process involving clinicians and basic scientists using validated Delphi methodology. This iterative process was used to define statements on communication of cell therapies and develop a standardized tool for describing cell therapies.Results:Thirty-four experts completed 3 rounds survey with use of the Delphi process. After 3 rounds, 27 statements relating to existing nomenclature, solutions to improve communication, ideal characteristics of a framework, mandatory elements of a new framework, and future work to facilitate application reached consensus with >80% agreement and