首页 > 最新文献

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy最新文献

英文 中文
From milestone to momentum: Thank you for powering KSSTA's present and future 从里程碑到动力:感谢您为KSSTA的现在和未来提供动力。
IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2026-01-13 DOI: 10.1002/ksa.70273
Michael T. Hirschmann, Elmar Herbst, Giuseppe Milano, Volker Musahl
<p>As we end one amazing year and start another, let me start with the simplest and most honest words: thank you. <i>Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy</i> (<i>KSSTA</i>) depends on your judgment, fairness and determination. Every carefully thought-out criticism, every well-thought-out editorial decision and every disciplined revision by our authors has made the message we send to the orthopaedic and sports-medicine community clearer. You have worked nights and weekends to make science clearer, fairer and more useful in the operating room and at the bedside. In a very real way, the work you see in the journal today is the result of that work.</p><p>There was progress and responsibility in 2025. Our Impact Factor went up from 3.3 to 5.0, which is a clear sign that what we publish is reliable, citable and useful in the clinic. There were more than 2400 submissions, which is about a quarter more than the year before.</p><p>With growth comes responsibility: our pages are limited, our standards must be equal and our choices should help manuscripts get to their best destination. We raised the bar for acceptance not to make the gate smaller, but to make the path clearer. Methodologically strong work that does not have immediate clinical translation is increasingly finding its natural home in the <i>Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics</i> (<i>JEO</i>), where new ideas can grow.</p><p>At <i>KSSTA</i>, we made our clinical focus more specific, cut down on the time it took to make a first decision, made author guidance clearer and reached out to more people so that the best science got to the doctors who needed it.</p><p>This trait—preferring clarity over noise and relevance over rhetoric—runs through the year's most important articles.</p><p>We confirmed the strength of the scientific community in ‘Collaboration is our most powerful resistance in an increasingly fragmented world: Science is the light that reveals the unity beneath our differences’ [<span>3</span>].</p><p>We also turned the spotlight on ourselves with ‘Reporting bias in orthopaedic science—Are we telling the whole story?’ [<span>1</span>] calls for openness, pre-registration and the same respect for negative results.</p><p>We asked ourselves, ‘Is orthopaedics entering the age of generative AI?’ [<span>7</span>] provided a measured guide to applications, limits and safeguards, while ‘Artificial intelligence agents in orthopaedics: Concepts, capabilities, and the road ahead’ [<span>8</span>] expanded that perspective by translating rapidly evolving concepts into practical implications for research and care.</p><p>Our clinical discussion remained candid and multifaceted in ‘Do we require a robot in total knee arthroplasty?’ Yes! No! Not sure!—‘A well-balanced point of view’ [<span>4</span>], while “Restoring the native knee or designing the “optimal prosthetic”: Alignment, phenotypes, and AI-powered personalization in total knee arthroplasty’ [<span>5</span>] delineated the trajec
在精彩的一年即将结束、新的一年即将开始之际,请允许我用最简单、最诚实的话来开头:谢谢大家。膝关节外科,运动创伤学,关节镜检查(KSSTA)取决于你的判断,公平和决心。每一个经过深思熟虑的批评,每一个经过深思熟虑的编辑决定,以及我们的作者每一次有纪律的修订,都使我们向骨科和运动医学界发出的信息更加清晰。你们夜以继日地工作,使科学在手术室和床边更清晰、更公平、更有用。实际上,你们今天在杂志上看到的成果就是那项工作的成果。2025年有进步,也有责任。我们的影响因子从3.3上升到5.0,这是一个明显的迹象,表明我们发表的文章是可靠的,可引用的,在临床上是有用的。参赛作品超过2400份,比前一年增加了约四分之一。随着增长而来的是责任:我们的页数是有限的,我们的标准必须是平等的,我们的选择应该帮助手稿到达最好的目的地。我们提高接受门槛,不是为了让大门变小,而是为了让道路更清晰。方法学上较强的工作,没有立即的临床转化,越来越多地在《实验骨科杂志》(JEO)上找到了自己的自然家园,在那里,新的想法可以成长。在KSSTA,我们使我们的临床重点更加具体,减少了做出第一个决定所需的时间,使作者指导更清晰,并接触到更多的人,以便最好的科学能够提供给需要它的医生。这种倾向于清晰而非噪音和相关性而非修辞的特质贯穿了今年最重要的文章。我们在“合作是我们在日益分裂的世界中最强大的抵抗力:科学是揭示我们差异之下的统一之光”这一口号中证实了科学界的力量。我们还以“骨科科学的报道偏见”为主题,将焦点转向了我们自己——我们在讲述整个故事吗?[1]呼吁公开、预注册,并对负面结果给予同样的尊重。我们问自己,‘整形外科是否进入了生成式人工智能时代?[7]为应用、限制和保障提供了衡量指南,而“骨科人工智能代理:概念、能力和未来之路”[8]通过将快速发展的概念转化为研究和护理的实际意义,扩展了这一视角。我们的临床讨论仍然是坦率和多方面的,“我们是否需要机器人进行全膝关节置换术?”“是的!不!不确定!-“一个平衡的观点”[4],而“修复天然膝关节或设计“最佳假体”:全膝关节置换术中的对齐、表型和人工智能个性化”[5]描述了从表型和对齐策略到真正个性化的关节置换术的轨迹。我们还在“骨科的虚拟世界”bbb中研究了培训和护理患者的新方法。《防止骨科医生职业倦怠:研究投入的力量》提醒我们,保持好奇心和共同努力既是保护因素,也是进步的动力。我们的社区工作在“保持性别平等的势头:来自ESSKA妇女倡议的经验教训”中继续进行。所有这些文章一起构成了一个弧线:证据是彻底的、清晰的、着眼于未来的,并且毫无歉意地集中在对患者重要的选择上。当我试图解释日记的工作原理时,我仍然会想到罗马拱门。单靠一块坚固的石头是撑不住拱门的;它需要许多石头配合在一起。作者将数据、方法和结论分成不同的块,每个块都有自己的分量。审稿人从各个角度进行研究,直到主张和证据完美地结合在一起。编辑通过确保完整性和临床相关性彼此一致来设置基石,从而使跨度保持强大。去掉任何一部分,结构就会变弱。但当所有部件一起工作时,它可以年复一年地承受惊人的重量。KSSTA就是那个拱门:不是一个声音的纪念碑,而是一个由于许多人的努力而永存的形状。我们的指南针在进入2026年时保持稳定。我们将继续支持那些揭示病人护理的研究,而不仅仅是报告,设计使用正确的比较者和足够的随访来看到真正重要的和国际作者,同时为每个人保持一个临床标准。我们将通过教授新审稿人,帮助有经验的审稿人,以及认可在编辑部之外经常被忽视的优秀作品,来投资于同行评议的艺术。无论是在个人层面还是在专业层面,我们都很感激。您把一个好年份变成了更好的一年,您以优雅、耐心和为患者做最好的事情的强烈奉献精神做到了这一点。 让我们在新的一年里保持这种势头,一块石头一块石头,把基石牢牢地放在那里。这样,我们共同建造的拱门将永远代表着可靠性、相关性和关怀。最后,我们要向我们的审稿人表示衷心的感谢——非常感谢你们为提高KSSTA发表的文章的科学质量所做的惊人工作。带着感激和希望,感谢所有KSSTA评审。
{"title":"From milestone to momentum: Thank you for powering KSSTA's present and future","authors":"Michael T. Hirschmann,&nbsp;Elmar Herbst,&nbsp;Giuseppe Milano,&nbsp;Volker Musahl","doi":"10.1002/ksa.70273","DOIUrl":"10.1002/ksa.70273","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;As we end one amazing year and start another, let me start with the simplest and most honest words: thank you. &lt;i&gt;Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy&lt;/i&gt; (&lt;i&gt;KSSTA&lt;/i&gt;) depends on your judgment, fairness and determination. Every carefully thought-out criticism, every well-thought-out editorial decision and every disciplined revision by our authors has made the message we send to the orthopaedic and sports-medicine community clearer. You have worked nights and weekends to make science clearer, fairer and more useful in the operating room and at the bedside. In a very real way, the work you see in the journal today is the result of that work.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;There was progress and responsibility in 2025. Our Impact Factor went up from 3.3 to 5.0, which is a clear sign that what we publish is reliable, citable and useful in the clinic. There were more than 2400 submissions, which is about a quarter more than the year before.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;With growth comes responsibility: our pages are limited, our standards must be equal and our choices should help manuscripts get to their best destination. We raised the bar for acceptance not to make the gate smaller, but to make the path clearer. Methodologically strong work that does not have immediate clinical translation is increasingly finding its natural home in the &lt;i&gt;Journal of Experimental Orthopaedics&lt;/i&gt; (&lt;i&gt;JEO&lt;/i&gt;), where new ideas can grow.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;At &lt;i&gt;KSSTA&lt;/i&gt;, we made our clinical focus more specific, cut down on the time it took to make a first decision, made author guidance clearer and reached out to more people so that the best science got to the doctors who needed it.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;This trait—preferring clarity over noise and relevance over rhetoric—runs through the year's most important articles.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;We confirmed the strength of the scientific community in ‘Collaboration is our most powerful resistance in an increasingly fragmented world: Science is the light that reveals the unity beneath our differences’ [&lt;span&gt;3&lt;/span&gt;].&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;We also turned the spotlight on ourselves with ‘Reporting bias in orthopaedic science—Are we telling the whole story?’ [&lt;span&gt;1&lt;/span&gt;] calls for openness, pre-registration and the same respect for negative results.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;We asked ourselves, ‘Is orthopaedics entering the age of generative AI?’ [&lt;span&gt;7&lt;/span&gt;] provided a measured guide to applications, limits and safeguards, while ‘Artificial intelligence agents in orthopaedics: Concepts, capabilities, and the road ahead’ [&lt;span&gt;8&lt;/span&gt;] expanded that perspective by translating rapidly evolving concepts into practical implications for research and care.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Our clinical discussion remained candid and multifaceted in ‘Do we require a robot in total knee arthroplasty?’ Yes! No! Not sure!—‘A well-balanced point of view’ [&lt;span&gt;4&lt;/span&gt;], while “Restoring the native knee or designing the “optimal prosthetic”: Alignment, phenotypes, and AI-powered personalization in total knee arthroplasty’ [&lt;span&gt;5&lt;/span&gt;] delineated the trajec","PeriodicalId":17880,"journal":{"name":"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy","volume":"34 2","pages":"387-394"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2026-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://esskajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ksa.70273","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145961216","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Mid- to long-term outcomes of capsular management in hip arthroscopy for FAIS: A multilevel meta-analysis 髋关节镜治疗FAIS的中长期结果:一项多水平荟萃分析。
IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2025-12-31 DOI: 10.1002/ksa.70259
Nikolai Ramadanov, Maximilian Voss, Robert Hable, Robert Prill, Roland Becker, Ingo J. Banke

Purpose

To compare mid- to long-term outcomes of the three major capsular management strategies—capsule preserved (CP), capsule repaired (CR) and capsule unrepaired (CU)—following hip arthroscopy (HAS) for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

Methods

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Epistemonikos for studies published up to 31 May 2025. Studies were eligible if they reported ≥2-year outcomes after HAS with clearly described capsular techniques. Outcomes included the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score—Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) and Sports Subscale (HOS-SSS) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain. Multilevel meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models with Hartung–Knapp adjustment. Failure-related outcomes (complications, reoperations, total hip arthroplasty [THA] conversions) were inconsistently reported across studies and could only be summarised descriptively.

Results

Seven studies with a total of 948 patients were included. Pooled mean mHHS was 81.14 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 77.72–84.56), with CP: 84.90, CR: 80.66 and CU: 80.25 (p = 0.67). HOS-ADL pooled mean was 87.94 (95% CI: 84.79–91.09), with CP: 89.30, CR: 87.36, CU: 88.31 (p = 0.90). HOS-SSS pooled mean was 78.59 (95% CI: 72.69–84.48), with CP: 75.70, CR: 78.89, CU: 80.22 (p = 0.84). VAS pooled mean was 2.42 (95% CI: 2.08–2.77), with CP: 2.46, CR: 2.27, CU: 2.76 (p = 0.51). No statistically significant subgroup differences were detected. CR showed the highest cumulative numbers of reoperations and THA conversions, whereas CP and CU demonstrated lower but heterogeneous event counts.

Conclusion

CP, CR and CU demonstrated comparable mid- to long-term patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) outcomes following HAS for FAIS. Failure-related events varied descriptively across techniques, but inconsistent reporting prevented comparative survivorship assessment.

Level of Evidence

Level II, systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis of predominantly Level III studies, with additional contributions from Level I and II studies.

目的:比较股骨髋臼撞击综合征(FAIS)髋关节镜(HAS)术后三种主要的胶囊处理策略——保留胶囊(CP)、修复胶囊(CR)和未修复胶囊(CU)的中长期疗效。方法:系统检索PubMed、Embase、CENTRAL和Epistemonikos中截至2025年5月31日发表的研究。如果研究报告了具有明确描述的荚膜技术的HAS术后≥2年的结果,则该研究是合格的。结果包括改良Harris髋关节评分(mHHS)、髋关节结局评分-日常生活活动(HOS-ADL)、运动亚量表(HOS-SSS)和疼痛视觉模拟量表(VAS)。采用Hartung-Knapp调整的随机效应模型进行多水平meta分析。失败相关的结果(并发症、再手术、全髋关节置换术[THA]转换)在研究中报道不一致,只能描述性地总结。结果:纳入7项研究,共948例患者。合并平均mHHS为81.14(95%可信区间[CI]: 77.72 ~ 84.56), CP: 84.90, CR: 80.66, CU: 80.25 (p = 0.67)。HOS-ADL合并平均值为87.94 (95% CI: 84.79 ~ 91.09), CP: 89.30, CR: 87.36, CU: 88.31 (p = 0.90)。HOS-SSS合并平均值为78.59 (95% CI: 72.69 ~ 84.48), CP: 75.70, CR: 78.89, CU: 80.22 (p = 0.84)。VAS合并平均值为2.42 (95% CI: 2.08-2.77), CP: 2.46, CR: 2.27, CU: 2.76 (p = 0.51)。亚组间差异无统计学意义。CR表现出最高的再手术和THA累计次数,而CP和CU表现出较低但异质性的事件计数。结论:CP、CR和CU表现出FAIS患者HAS后中长期患者报告的预后测量(PROM)结果的可比性。不同技术的失败相关事件描述各不相同,但不一致的报告妨碍了比较生存率评估。证据水平:二级,主要是三级研究的系统评价和多水平荟萃分析,还有来自一级和二级研究的额外贡献。
{"title":"Mid- to long-term outcomes of capsular management in hip arthroscopy for FAIS: A multilevel meta-analysis","authors":"Nikolai Ramadanov,&nbsp;Maximilian Voss,&nbsp;Robert Hable,&nbsp;Robert Prill,&nbsp;Roland Becker,&nbsp;Ingo J. Banke","doi":"10.1002/ksa.70259","DOIUrl":"10.1002/ksa.70259","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To compare mid- to long-term outcomes of the three major capsular management strategies—capsule preserved (CP), capsule repaired (CR) and capsule unrepaired (CU)—following hip arthroscopy (HAS) for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and Epistemonikos for studies published up to 31 May 2025. Studies were eligible if they reported ≥2-year outcomes after HAS with clearly described capsular techniques. Outcomes included the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score—Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) and Sports Subscale (HOS-SSS) and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) for pain. Multilevel meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models with Hartung–Knapp adjustment. Failure-related outcomes (complications, reoperations, total hip arthroplasty [THA] conversions) were inconsistently reported across studies and could only be summarised descriptively.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Seven studies with a total of 948 patients were included. Pooled mean mHHS was 81.14 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 77.72–84.56), with CP: 84.90, CR: 80.66 and CU: 80.25 (<i>p</i> = 0.67). HOS-ADL pooled mean was 87.94 (95% CI: 84.79–91.09), with CP: 89.30, CR: 87.36, CU: 88.31 (<i>p</i> = 0.90). HOS-SSS pooled mean was 78.59 (95% CI: 72.69–84.48), with CP: 75.70, CR: 78.89, CU: 80.22 (<i>p</i> = 0.84). VAS pooled mean was 2.42 (95% CI: 2.08–2.77), with CP: 2.46, CR: 2.27, CU: 2.76 (<i>p</i> = 0.51). No statistically significant subgroup differences were detected. CR showed the highest cumulative numbers of reoperations and THA conversions, whereas CP and CU demonstrated lower but heterogeneous event counts.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>CP, CR and CU demonstrated comparable mid- to long-term patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) outcomes following HAS for FAIS. Failure-related events varied descriptively across techniques, but inconsistent reporting prevented comparative survivorship assessment.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Level of Evidence</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Level II, systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis of predominantly Level III studies, with additional contributions from Level I and II studies.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":17880,"journal":{"name":"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy","volume":"34 2","pages":"666-683"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12850580/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145867126","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Expert-based studies benefit from formal consensus methodology and balanced expert representation: Reconsidering the role of primary ACL repair 基于专家的研究受益于正式的共识方法和平衡的专家代表:重新考虑初级ACL修复的作用。
IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2025-12-26 DOI: 10.1002/ksa.70254
Jasper Vandenrijt, Jelle P. van der List, Roy A. G. Hoogeslag, Clemens Kösters, Etienne Cavaignac, Edoardo Monaco, Christiaan H. W. Heusdens
{"title":"Expert-based studies benefit from formal consensus methodology and balanced expert representation: Reconsidering the role of primary ACL repair","authors":"Jasper Vandenrijt,&nbsp;Jelle P. van der List,&nbsp;Roy A. G. Hoogeslag,&nbsp;Clemens Kösters,&nbsp;Etienne Cavaignac,&nbsp;Edoardo Monaco,&nbsp;Christiaan H. W. Heusdens","doi":"10.1002/ksa.70254","DOIUrl":"10.1002/ksa.70254","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":17880,"journal":{"name":"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy","volume":"34 2","pages":"776-779"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145835908","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
ChatGPT models provide higher-quality but lower-readability responses than Google Gemini regarding anterior shoulder instability, with no added benefit of the orthopaedic expert plugin ChatGPT模型在前肩不稳定性方面提供了比谷歌Gemini更高质量但可读性较低的响应,没有骨科专家插件的额外好处。
IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2025-12-26 DOI: 10.1002/ksa.70255
Khaled Skaik, Sean Omoseni, Danielle Dagher, Darshil Shah, Theodorakys Marín Fermín, Piero Agostinone, Ashraf Hantouly, Moin Khan
<div> <section> <h3> Purpose</h3> <p>The purpose is to analyze and compare the quality and readability of information regarding anterior shoulder instability and shoulder stabilization surgery from three LLMs: ChatGPT 4o, ChatGPT Orthopaedic Expert (OE) and Google Gemini.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Methods</h3> <p>ChatGPT 4o, ChatGPT OE and Google Gemini were used to answer 21 commonly asked questions from patients on anterior shoulder instability. The responses were independently rated by three fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons using the validated Quality Analysis of Medical Artificial Intelligence (QAMAI) tool. Assessors were blinded to the model, and evaluations were performed twice, 3 weeks apart. Readability was measured using Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). This study adhered to TRIPOD-LLM. Statistical analysis included the Friedman test, the Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and inter-class coefficients.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Results</h3> <p>Inter-rater reliability between three surgeons was good or excellent reliability in all LLMs. ChatGPT OE and ChatGPT 4o demonstrated comparable overall performance, each achieving a median QAMAI score of 22 with interquartile ranges (IQRs) of 5.25 and 6.75, respectively, with median (IQR) domain scores for accuracy 4 (1) and 4 (1), clarity 4 (1) and 4 (1), relevance 4 (1) and 4 (1), completeness 4 (1) and 4 (1), provision of sources 1 (0) for both and usefulness 4 (1) and 4 (1), respectively. Google Gemini showed lower scores across these domains (accuracy 3 [1], clarity 3 [1], relevance 3 [1.25], completeness 3 [0.25], sources 3 [3] and usefulness 3 [1.25]), with a median QAMAI score of 19 (5.25) (<i>p</i> < 0.01 vs. each ChatGPT model). Readability was higher for Google Gemini (FRES = 36.96, FKGL = 11.92) than for ChatGPT OE (FRES = 21.90, FKGL = 14.94) and ChatGPT 4o (FRES = 24.24, FKGL = 15.11), indicating easier-to-read content (<i>p</i> < 0.01). There was no significant difference between ChatGPT 4o and OE in overall quality or readability.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Conclusions</h3> <p>ChatGPT 4o and ChatGPT OE provided statistically higher-quality responses than Google Gemini, though all models showed good-quality responses overall. However, responses generated by ChatGPT 4o and OE were more difficult to read than those generated by Google Gemini.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Level of Evidence</h3> <p>Level V, expert opinion.</p>
目的:目的是分析和比较三个llm: ChatGPT 40、ChatGPT Orthopaedic Expert (OE)和谷歌Gemini关于前路肩关节不稳定和肩关节稳定手术的信息的质量和可读性。方法:采用ChatGPT 40、ChatGPT OE和谷歌Gemini对肩关节前路不稳患者常见的21个问题进行分析。三位接受过奖学金培训的骨科医生使用经过验证的医疗人工智能质量分析(QAMAI)工具对这些回答进行了独立评分。评估者对模型不知情,评估进行两次,间隔3周。可读性采用Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES)和Flesch- kincaid Grade Level (FKGL)进行测量。本研究采用TRIPOD-LLM。统计分析包括Friedman检验、Wilcoxon符号秩检验和类间系数。结果:在所有llm中,三位外科医生之间的可靠性均为良好或极好的可靠性。ChatGPT OE和ChatGPT 40表现出可比较的整体性能,每个QAMAI得分中位数为22,四分位数范围(IQRs)分别为5.25和6.75,准确度4(1)和4(1),清晰度4(1)和4(1),相关性4(1)和4(1),完整性4(1)和4(1),提供来源1(0)和有用性4(1)和4(1)的中位数(IQR)域得分分别为4(1)和4(1)。谷歌Gemini在这些领域的得分较低(准确性3[1],清晰度3[1],相关性3[1.25],完整性3[0.25],来源3[3]和有用性3 [1.25]),QAMAI得分中位数为19 (5.25)(p结论:ChatGPT 40和ChatGPT OE提供的统计质量高于谷歌Gemini,尽管所有模型总体上都显示出良好的质量反应。然而,ChatGPT 40和OE生成的回复比谷歌Gemini生成的更难以阅读。证据等级:V级,专家意见。
{"title":"ChatGPT models provide higher-quality but lower-readability responses than Google Gemini regarding anterior shoulder instability, with no added benefit of the orthopaedic expert plugin","authors":"Khaled Skaik,&nbsp;Sean Omoseni,&nbsp;Danielle Dagher,&nbsp;Darshil Shah,&nbsp;Theodorakys Marín Fermín,&nbsp;Piero Agostinone,&nbsp;Ashraf Hantouly,&nbsp;Moin Khan","doi":"10.1002/ksa.70255","DOIUrl":"10.1002/ksa.70255","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Purpose&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;The purpose is to analyze and compare the quality and readability of information regarding anterior shoulder instability and shoulder stabilization surgery from three LLMs: ChatGPT 4o, ChatGPT Orthopaedic Expert (OE) and Google Gemini.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Methods&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;ChatGPT 4o, ChatGPT OE and Google Gemini were used to answer 21 commonly asked questions from patients on anterior shoulder instability. The responses were independently rated by three fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons using the validated Quality Analysis of Medical Artificial Intelligence (QAMAI) tool. Assessors were blinded to the model, and evaluations were performed twice, 3 weeks apart. Readability was measured using Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) and Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). This study adhered to TRIPOD-LLM. Statistical analysis included the Friedman test, the Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and inter-class coefficients.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Results&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Inter-rater reliability between three surgeons was good or excellent reliability in all LLMs. ChatGPT OE and ChatGPT 4o demonstrated comparable overall performance, each achieving a median QAMAI score of 22 with interquartile ranges (IQRs) of 5.25 and 6.75, respectively, with median (IQR) domain scores for accuracy 4 (1) and 4 (1), clarity 4 (1) and 4 (1), relevance 4 (1) and 4 (1), completeness 4 (1) and 4 (1), provision of sources 1 (0) for both and usefulness 4 (1) and 4 (1), respectively. Google Gemini showed lower scores across these domains (accuracy 3 [1], clarity 3 [1], relevance 3 [1.25], completeness 3 [0.25], sources 3 [3] and usefulness 3 [1.25]), with a median QAMAI score of 19 (5.25) (&lt;i&gt;p&lt;/i&gt; &lt; 0.01 vs. each ChatGPT model). Readability was higher for Google Gemini (FRES = 36.96, FKGL = 11.92) than for ChatGPT OE (FRES = 21.90, FKGL = 14.94) and ChatGPT 4o (FRES = 24.24, FKGL = 15.11), indicating easier-to-read content (&lt;i&gt;p&lt;/i&gt; &lt; 0.01). There was no significant difference between ChatGPT 4o and OE in overall quality or readability.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Conclusions&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;ChatGPT 4o and ChatGPT OE provided statistically higher-quality responses than Google Gemini, though all models showed good-quality responses overall. However, responses generated by ChatGPT 4o and OE were more difficult to read than those generated by Google Gemini.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Level of Evidence&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Level V, expert opinion.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 ","PeriodicalId":17880,"journal":{"name":"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy","volume":"34 2","pages":"763-775"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12850548/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145835801","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Achilles tendon ruptures in National Basketball Association players: A sequential video analysis of injury mechanisms and biomechanical patterns nba球员跟腱断裂:损伤机制和生物力学模式的连续视频分析。
IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2025-12-26 DOI: 10.1002/ksa.70249
Ogün Köyağasıoğlu, Yavuz Lima

Purpose

Achilles tendon ruptures (ATR) are severe injuries in professional basketball, yet in-game mechanisms and biomechanical patterns remain insufficiently described. The purpose of the study is to characterise biomechanical patterns and basketball-specific contexts of ATR using sequential video analysis.

Methods

A systematic search identified 27 confirmed ATR cases between 1970 and 2025 in the NBA league. Contextual factors (court location, playing situation, movement and speed) were analysed for all cases. Frame-by-frame biomechanical assessment was conducted for 17 injuries (63%) with adequate video quality, documenting trunk, hip, knee and ankle angles of the injured limb at initial contact (IC) and the injury frame (IF).

Results

All ruptures occurred during closed-chain movements, mostly with noncontact mechanisms (81.5%), during offensive play actions (85.2%), at low horizontal speeds (63%) and moderate vertical speeds (44.4%). The most frequent action was the take-off/acceleration phase of running (74%), followed by the beginning jump (14.8%) and landing (7.4%). At the IC, players were in forefoot contact, the sagittal plane orientation of the trunk was 18.2° flexed, while the hip was 12.3° extended, the knee was 42.2° flexed and the ankle was 5.6° plantar flexed on the injured side. At IF, players displayed a more flexed torso (27.5°, 9.3° change from IC; p < 0.001), a more extended hip (26.8°, 14.5° change from IC; p = 0.001), a less flexed knee (26.7°, 15.5° change from IC; p = 0.004) and a more dorsiflexed ankle (41.6°, 47.2° change from IC; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Our study described basketball-specific movement patterns among NBA players who sustained ATRs. Supported the observations of forefoot loading and rapid dorsiflexion of the ankle joint, and introduced new concepts, extension movement of lower limb elements proximal to the ankle joint and proximal elongation of the musculotendinous complex. These findings enhance understanding of basketball-specific ATR mechanisms and may inform targeted prevention strategies such as combining eccentric calf training with functional exercises focusing on lumbopelvic and knee stability, while targeting explosive forefoot contact acceleration manoeuvres.

Level of Evidence

Level IV, retrospective case series.

目的:跟腱断裂(ATR)是职业篮球运动中的一种严重损伤,但对其机制和生物力学模式的描述还不够充分。本研究的目的是利用序列视频分析来表征ATR的生物力学模式和篮球特定背景。方法:系统检索1970年至2025年间NBA联盟中27例确诊的ATR病例。对所有案例的环境因素(球场位置、比赛情况、运动和速度)进行了分析。对17例(63%)损伤进行逐帧生物力学评估,并提供足够的视频质量,记录受伤肢体在初始接触(IC)和损伤框架(IF)时躯干、髋关节、膝关节和踝关节的角度。结果:所有断裂均发生在闭合链式运动(81.5%)、进攻打法(85.2%)、低水平速度(63%)和中等垂直速度(44.4%)下。最常见的动作是跑步的起飞/加速阶段(74%),其次是开始跳跃(14.8%)和着陆(7.4%)。在IC时,运动员前脚接触,躯干矢状面方向为18.2°屈曲,髋关节为12.3°伸展,膝关节为42.2°屈曲,踝关节为5.6°足底屈曲。结论:我们的研究描述了持续atr的NBA球员的篮球特定运动模式。支持前足负荷和踝关节快速背屈的观察,并介绍了新的概念,踝关节近端下肢元素的伸展运动和肌腱肌肉复合体的近端延伸。这些发现增强了对篮球特异性ATR机制的理解,并可能为有针对性的预防策略提供信息,例如将偏心小腿训练与专注于腰骨盆和膝关节稳定性的功能练习相结合,同时针对爆发性前脚掌接触加速动作。证据级别:四级,回顾性病例系列。
{"title":"Achilles tendon ruptures in National Basketball Association players: A sequential video analysis of injury mechanisms and biomechanical patterns","authors":"Ogün Köyağasıoğlu,&nbsp;Yavuz Lima","doi":"10.1002/ksa.70249","DOIUrl":"10.1002/ksa.70249","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Achilles tendon ruptures (ATR) are severe injuries in professional basketball, yet in-game mechanisms and biomechanical patterns remain insufficiently described. The purpose of the study is to characterise biomechanical patterns and basketball-specific contexts of ATR using sequential video analysis.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A systematic search identified 27 confirmed ATR cases between 1970 and 2025 in the NBA league. Contextual factors (court location, playing situation, movement and speed) were analysed for all cases. Frame-by-frame biomechanical assessment was conducted for 17 injuries (63%) with adequate video quality, documenting trunk, hip, knee and ankle angles of the injured limb at initial contact (IC) and the injury frame (IF).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>All ruptures occurred during closed-chain movements, mostly with noncontact mechanisms (81.5%), during offensive play actions (85.2%), at low horizontal speeds (63%) and moderate vertical speeds (44.4%). The most frequent action was the take-off/acceleration phase of running (74%), followed by the beginning jump (14.8%) and landing (7.4%). At the IC, players were in forefoot contact, the sagittal plane orientation of the trunk was 18.2° flexed, while the hip was 12.3° extended, the knee was 42.2° flexed and the ankle was 5.6° plantar flexed on the injured side. At IF, players displayed a more flexed torso (27.5°, 9.3° change from IC; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), a more extended hip (26.8°, 14.5° change from IC; <i>p</i> = 0.001), a less flexed knee (26.7°, 15.5° change from IC; <i>p</i> = 0.004) and a more dorsiflexed ankle (41.6°, 47.2° change from IC; <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Our study described basketball-specific movement patterns among NBA players who sustained ATRs. Supported the observations of forefoot loading and rapid dorsiflexion of the ankle joint, and introduced new concepts, extension movement of lower limb elements proximal to the ankle joint and proximal elongation of the musculotendinous complex. These findings enhance understanding of basketball-specific ATR mechanisms and may inform targeted prevention strategies such as combining eccentric calf training with functional exercises focusing on lumbopelvic and knee stability, while targeting explosive forefoot contact acceleration manoeuvres.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Level of Evidence</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Level IV, retrospective case series.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":17880,"journal":{"name":"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy","volume":"34 2","pages":"684-697"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145835859","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Reasoning-optimised large language models reach near-expert accuracy on board-style orthopaedic exams: A multi-model comparison on 702 multiple-choice questions 推理优化的大型语言模型在板式骨科考试中达到接近专家的准确性:702个选择题的多模型比较。
IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2025-12-17 DOI: 10.1002/ksa.70222
Pedro Diniz, Takuji Yokoe, Felix C. Öttl, Hélder Pereira, Rui Henriques, Kristian Samuelsson

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy, calibration, reproducibility and operating cost of seven large language models (LLMs)—including four newer models capable of using advanced reasoning techniques to analyse complex medical information and generate accurate responses—on text-only orthopaedic multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and to quantify gains over GPT-4.

Methods

From Orthobullets, 702 unique, non-image MCQs (drawn from AAOS Self-Assessment Examinations, Self-Assessment-Based Questions and Orthopaedic In Training Examination-Based Questions banks) were extracted. Each question was submitted to the following LLMs: OpenAI o3, Anthropic Claude Sonnet 4, Claude Opus 4 (with/without ‘Extended Thinking’) and Google Gemini 2.5 Pro. Additionally, OpenAI's GPT-4, GPT-4o and the open-weight Gemma 3 27B served as comparators. The primary outcome was overall accuracy. The secondary outcomes were topic and difficulty-stratified accuracy, calibration (expected calibration error [ECE] and Brier score), reproducibility (flip rate on a retest question subset), latency, token use and cost. Statistical tests included paired McNemar, Cochran Q, ordinal logistic regression and Fleiss κ (Bonferroni-adjusted α = 0.05).

Results

GPT-4 achieved 69.7% accuracy (95% CI = 66.2–72.9). All four reasoning-optimised models scored ≥14 percentage points higher (p < 3.3 × 10−15); OpenAI o3 led with 93.6% (95% CI = 91.5–95.2), which represents a 34% relative error reduction. Accuracy tended to decline with question difficulty, yet the reasoning advantage persisted in every difficulty stratum. Claude Opus 4 showed the best calibration (ECE = 0.023), while GPT-4 exhibited overconfidence (ECE = 0.215). All models except Gemma 3 27B exhibited non-zero flip rates. Median query time: 0.9 s (Gemma) to 15.9 s (Gemini 2.5 Pro). Cost: 0 to 29.9 USD per 1000 queries.

Conclusions

Reasoning-optimised LLMs now answer text-based orthopaedic exam questions with high accuracy and substantially better confidence calibration than earlier models. However, persistent stochasticity and large latency-cost disparities may limit clinical deployment.

Level of Evidence

N/A.

目的:本研究的目的是比较七种大型语言模型(llm)的准确性、校准性、可重复性和运行成本,其中包括四种能够使用高级推理技术分析复杂医学信息并产生准确反应的新模型,用于纯文本骨科多项选择题(mcq),并量化GPT-4的收益。方法:从Orthobullets中提取702个独特的非图像mcq(来自AAOS自评考试、自评题库和骨科培训考试题库)。每个问题都提交给以下llm: OpenAI o3, Anthropic Claude Sonnet 4, Claude Opus 4(带/不带“扩展思维”)和谷歌Gemini 2.5 Pro。此外,OpenAI的GPT-4、gpt - 40和开重Gemma 327b作为比较物。主要结果是总体准确性。次要结果是主题和难度分层准确性、校准(预期校准误差[ECE]和Brier评分)、再现性(重测问题子集的翻转率)、延迟、令牌使用和成本。统计检验包括配对McNemar、Cochran Q、有序逻辑回归和Fleiss κ (Bonferroni-adjusted α = 0.05)。结果:GPT-4准确率为69.7% (95% CI = 66.2-72.9)。所有四个推理优化模型得分均提高≥14个百分点(p -15);OpenAI o3以93.6% (95% CI = 91.5-95.2)领先,这代表了34%的相对误差减少。准确率随题目难度的增加而下降,但推理优势在各难度层均持续存在。Claude Opus 4的校准效果最好(ECE = 0.023),而GPT-4的校准效果较好(ECE = 0.215)。除Gemma 327b外,所有型号均显示非零翻转率。中位数查询时间:0.9 s (Gemma)到15.9 s (Gemini 2.5 Pro)。成本:每1000次查询0到29.9美元。结论:与早期模型相比,推理优化的llm现在回答基于文本的骨科考试问题具有较高的准确性和更好的置信度校准。然而,持续的随机性和巨大的潜伏期成本差异可能会限制临床应用。证据级别:无。
{"title":"Reasoning-optimised large language models reach near-expert accuracy on board-style orthopaedic exams: A multi-model comparison on 702 multiple-choice questions","authors":"Pedro Diniz,&nbsp;Takuji Yokoe,&nbsp;Felix C. Öttl,&nbsp;Hélder Pereira,&nbsp;Rui Henriques,&nbsp;Kristian Samuelsson","doi":"10.1002/ksa.70222","DOIUrl":"10.1002/ksa.70222","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy, calibration, reproducibility and operating cost of seven large language models (LLMs)—including four newer models capable of using advanced <i>reasoning</i> techniques to analyse complex medical information and generate accurate responses—on text-only orthopaedic multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and to quantify gains over GPT-4.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>From Orthobullets, 702 unique, non-image MCQs (drawn from AAOS Self-Assessment Examinations, Self-Assessment-Based Questions and Orthopaedic In Training Examination-Based Questions banks) were extracted. Each question was submitted to the following LLMs: OpenAI o3, Anthropic Claude Sonnet 4, Claude Opus 4 (with/without ‘Extended Thinking’) and Google Gemini 2.5 Pro. Additionally, OpenAI's GPT-4, GPT-4o and the open-weight Gemma 3 27B served as comparators. The primary outcome was overall accuracy. The secondary outcomes were topic and difficulty-stratified accuracy, calibration (expected calibration error [ECE] and Brier score), reproducibility (flip rate on a retest question subset), latency, token use and cost. Statistical tests included paired McNemar, Cochran <i>Q</i>, ordinal logistic regression and Fleiss <i>κ</i> (Bonferroni-adjusted <i>α</i> = 0.05).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>GPT-4 achieved 69.7% accuracy (95% CI = 66.2–72.9). All four reasoning-optimised models scored ≥14 percentage points higher (<i>p</i> &lt; 3.3 × 10<sup>−15</sup>); OpenAI o3 led with 93.6% (95% CI = 91.5–95.2), which represents a 34% relative error reduction. Accuracy tended to decline with question difficulty, yet the <i>reasoning</i> advantage persisted in every difficulty stratum. Claude Opus 4 showed the best calibration (ECE = 0.023), while GPT-4 exhibited overconfidence (ECE = 0.215). All models except Gemma 3 27B exhibited non-zero flip rates. Median query time: 0.9 s (Gemma) to 15.9 s (Gemini 2.5 Pro). Cost: 0 to 29.9 USD per 1000 queries.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Reasoning-optimised LLMs now answer text-based orthopaedic exam questions with high accuracy and substantially better confidence calibration than earlier models. However, persistent stochasticity and large latency-cost disparities may limit clinical deployment.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Level of Evidence</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>N/A.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":17880,"journal":{"name":"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy","volume":"34 2","pages":"752-762"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12850567/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145770092","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Response to Letter to the Editor: “The overlay ACI technique: Good old wine in new bottle” 回复给编辑的信:“覆盖ACI技术:新瓶装好酒”。
IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2025-12-17 DOI: 10.1002/ksa.70199
Stephan Oehme, Tobias Jung
<p>On behalf of all coauthors, we would like to sincerely thank Vishwesh D. Chudasama for their thoughtful correspondence [<span>1</span>] regarding our recently published article [<span>4</span>]. We greatly appreciate the contributions to the field of cartilage repair by Dr. Deepak Goyal and in particular, the valuable work on the overlay autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) technique. The recent technical note [<span>2</span>] is indeed a very elegant and valuable contribution to the literature, and we are grateful for the opportunity to acknowledge it here. Allow us to clarify that our manuscript was conceived and submitted as an original study rather than a technical note. The principle of the combination of autologous chondrocyte implantation with autologous bone grafting has been described in several publications in the last decades [<span>3</span>]. Our intention was not to introduce a new surgical technique or terminology. The aim of our study was to report the clinical and biomechanical outcomes of a procedure that we have routinely applied in a comparatively large cohort of patients. For this purpose, we felt it important to describe our technique in sufficient detail to allow reproducibility. In the context of the publication of a clinical outcome study, it is unfortunately not possible to include every technical note or book chapter related to the topic. Our discussion was therefore directed towards the interpretation of the clinical and biomechanical results. As the cited technical note did not provide directly comparable outcome data, it was not directly applicable for a systematic comparison, while we sincerely acknowledge its merit as a valuable technical contribution.</p><p>We fully agree that there are conceptual similarities between our approach and the overlay ACI technique. At the same time, there are also important distinctions. In our technique, we consistently use autologous corticocancellous bone plugs harvested from the proximal tibia or distal femur with the aim of providing stable osseous support and creating an optimized interface for osteochondral integration. In contrast, the overlay ACI technique bears closer resemblance to the earlier and highly valuable work of Zellner et al., which likewise used autologous iliac crest bone grafts and described the procedure as bone augmentation combined with matrix-guided autologous chondrocyte transplantation (MACT) [<span>5</span>].</p><p>Finally, we totally agree with the statement that the variability in terminology and technical details across publications has the potential to cause confusion. As we emphasized in our recent systematic review, there is considerable heterogeneity in reported approaches combining autologous bone grafting and autologous chondrocyte implantation [<span>3</span>]. We strongly support the effort to establish a unified nomenclature, which will undoubtedly improve scientific clarity, comparability of outcomes and communication within the carti
我们谨代表所有共同作者,衷心感谢Vishwesh D. Chudasama对我们最近发表的文章[4]的深思熟虑的来信[1]。我们非常感谢Deepak Goyal博士对软骨修复领域的贡献,特别是在覆盖自体软骨细胞植入(ACI)技术方面的宝贵工作。最近的技术注释[2]确实是对文献的一个非常优雅和有价值的贡献,我们很感激有机会在这里对它表示感谢。请允许我们澄清,我们的手稿是作为原始研究构思和提交的,而不是技术注释。自体软骨细胞植入与自体骨移植相结合的原理在过去几十年的几篇文章中都有描述[10]。我们的目的并不是要引进一种新的外科技术或术语。我们研究的目的是报告我们在相对较大的患者队列中常规应用的手术的临床和生物力学结果。为此目的,我们认为有必要充分详细地描述我们的技术,以保证可重复性。不幸的是,在临床结果研究发表的背景下,不可能包括与该主题相关的每个技术说明或书籍章节。因此,我们的讨论是针对临床和生物力学结果的解释。由于所引用的技术说明没有提供直接可比较的结果数据,因此不直接适用于系统比较,但我们真诚地承认其作为有价值的技术贡献的优点。我们完全同意我们的方法和覆盖ACI技术之间存在概念上的相似性。同时,也有重要的区别。在我们的技术中,我们一直使用从胫骨近端或股骨远端采集的自体皮质松质骨塞,目的是提供稳定的骨支持并为骨软骨整合创造优化的界面。相比之下,覆盖ACI技术与Zellner等人早期的高价值工作更相似,Zellner等人同样使用自体髂骨移植物,并将该过程描述为骨增强结合基质引导的自体软骨细胞移植(MACT)[5]。最后,我们完全同意不同出版物之间术语和技术细节的可变性有可能导致混淆的说法。正如我们在最近的系统综述中所强调的那样,报道的自体骨移植和自体软骨细胞植入相结合的方法存在相当大的异质性。我们强烈支持建立统一命名法的努力,这无疑将提高科学的清晰度,结果的可比性和软骨修复界的交流。我们感谢这种建设性的学术交流,这可能有助于完善和规范这一不断发展的领域的术语和技术。我们非常重视有机会参与这一重要的讨论,并感谢记者和编辑团队的参与。tj起草了回信原创文章的所有作者审阅了内容,提供了反馈,并批准了最终版本的回复。作者声明无利益冲突。作者没有什么可报告的。
{"title":"Response to Letter to the Editor: “The overlay ACI technique: Good old wine in new bottle”","authors":"Stephan Oehme,&nbsp;Tobias Jung","doi":"10.1002/ksa.70199","DOIUrl":"10.1002/ksa.70199","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;On behalf of all coauthors, we would like to sincerely thank Vishwesh D. Chudasama for their thoughtful correspondence [&lt;span&gt;1&lt;/span&gt;] regarding our recently published article [&lt;span&gt;4&lt;/span&gt;]. We greatly appreciate the contributions to the field of cartilage repair by Dr. Deepak Goyal and in particular, the valuable work on the overlay autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) technique. The recent technical note [&lt;span&gt;2&lt;/span&gt;] is indeed a very elegant and valuable contribution to the literature, and we are grateful for the opportunity to acknowledge it here. Allow us to clarify that our manuscript was conceived and submitted as an original study rather than a technical note. The principle of the combination of autologous chondrocyte implantation with autologous bone grafting has been described in several publications in the last decades [&lt;span&gt;3&lt;/span&gt;]. Our intention was not to introduce a new surgical technique or terminology. The aim of our study was to report the clinical and biomechanical outcomes of a procedure that we have routinely applied in a comparatively large cohort of patients. For this purpose, we felt it important to describe our technique in sufficient detail to allow reproducibility. In the context of the publication of a clinical outcome study, it is unfortunately not possible to include every technical note or book chapter related to the topic. Our discussion was therefore directed towards the interpretation of the clinical and biomechanical results. As the cited technical note did not provide directly comparable outcome data, it was not directly applicable for a systematic comparison, while we sincerely acknowledge its merit as a valuable technical contribution.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;We fully agree that there are conceptual similarities between our approach and the overlay ACI technique. At the same time, there are also important distinctions. In our technique, we consistently use autologous corticocancellous bone plugs harvested from the proximal tibia or distal femur with the aim of providing stable osseous support and creating an optimized interface for osteochondral integration. In contrast, the overlay ACI technique bears closer resemblance to the earlier and highly valuable work of Zellner et al., which likewise used autologous iliac crest bone grafts and described the procedure as bone augmentation combined with matrix-guided autologous chondrocyte transplantation (MACT) [&lt;span&gt;5&lt;/span&gt;].&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Finally, we totally agree with the statement that the variability in terminology and technical details across publications has the potential to cause confusion. As we emphasized in our recent systematic review, there is considerable heterogeneity in reported approaches combining autologous bone grafting and autologous chondrocyte implantation [&lt;span&gt;3&lt;/span&gt;]. We strongly support the effort to establish a unified nomenclature, which will undoubtedly improve scientific clarity, comparability of outcomes and communication within the carti","PeriodicalId":17880,"journal":{"name":"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy","volume":"34 2","pages":"782-783"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://esskajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ksa.70199","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145770059","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The overlay ACI technique: Good old wine in new bottle 覆盖ACI技术:好陈酒装新瓶。
IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2025-12-17 DOI: 10.1002/ksa.70198
Vishwesh D. Chudasama
<p>The manuscript titled “Autologous bone grafting combined with spheroid-based matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation for osteochondral defects of the knee: Good clinical outcomes alongside abnormal postoperative gait patterns” by Dr. Oehme et al. [<span>6</span>] presents a valuable contribution to the treatment of osteochondral defects of the knee. The authors describe an approach wherein bone grafting addresses subchondral bone defects, followed by cartilage restoration using autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI). This technique, although infrequently detailed in the English literature, has been well-cited in the manuscript [<span>3-5</span>] and is of significant clinical relevance.</p><p>However, I would like to respectfully point out that the authors have overlooked an important aspect of previously published work. Specifically, they did not reference the established nomenclature of the 'Overlay Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (Overlay ACI) technique', which has already been described in two English-language publications by Deepak Goyal [<span>1, 2</span>].</p><p>The overlay ACI technique was first detailed in the book chapter titled 'The Illustrative Overlay Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (Overlay ACI) Technique for Repair of the Extra-Large Osteochondral Defects' in <i>The Illustrative Book of Cartilage Repair</i> [<span>2</span>]. A subsequent peer-reviewed article, “Treatment of large chondral lesions with big bony defects: the overlay autologous chondrocyte implantation technique”, further elaborated the step-by-step surgical procedure [<span>1</span>].</p><p>The approach described by Oehme et al. [<span>6</span>] closely mirrors the Overlay ACI technique in terms of surgical methodology. The primary difference lies in the choice of ACI product: the authors utilised spheroid-based ACI, whereas the overlay ACI technique uses gel-based ACI. It is important to recognise that while the commercial forms of ACI—such as spheroids, MACI and gel-based ACI—may vary across countries due to regulatory and logistical factors, the underlying biological principle of third-generation ACI remains consistent. Interestingly, the authors cite studies utilising MACI [<span>3, 4</span>] and gel-based ACI [<span>5</span>], yet omit references to the overlay ACI publications [<span>1, 2</span>], which specifically name and detail this very technique. Recognising and citing established nomenclature is critical for scientific clarity, continuity and academic integrity—especially when the procedural similarities are so apparent. Given the similarities between the described surgical approach and the previously published overlay ACI technique [<span>1, 2</span>], it would have been appropriate and academically rigorous to reference the existing nomenclature and literature.</p><p>Acknowledging prior work helps maintain scientific continuity and avoids potential misunderstandings or duplications in the evolving field of cartilage repair. A
Dr. Oehme等人发表的题为“自体骨移植联合球基基质诱导的自体软骨细胞植入治疗膝关节骨软骨缺损:良好的临床结果和术后异常步态模式”的论文对膝关节骨软骨缺损的治疗做出了宝贵的贡献。作者描述了一种方法,其中骨移植解决软骨下骨缺损,其次是软骨修复使用自体软骨细胞植入(ACI)。该技术虽然在英文文献中很少详细介绍,但在手稿中被广泛引用[3-5],具有重要的临床意义。然而,我想恭敬地指出,作者忽略了以前发表的工作的一个重要方面。具体来说,他们没有参考“覆盖自体软骨细胞植入(Overlay自体软骨细胞植入)技术”的既定命名法,该技术已经由Deepak Goyal在两篇英文出版物中描述[1,2]。覆盖ACI技术首次详细介绍在《软骨修复手册》中题为“用于修复特大骨软骨缺损的说明性覆盖自体软骨细胞植入(覆盖ACI)技术”的一章中。随后一篇同行评议的文章《大软骨病变伴大骨缺损的治疗:覆盖自体软骨细胞植入技术》进一步详细阐述了手术步骤[1]。Oehme等人所描述的方法在手术方法上与Overlay ACI技术非常相似。主要区别在于ACI产品的选择:作者使用球状ACI,而覆盖ACI技术使用凝胶型ACI。重要的是要认识到,尽管由于监管和物流因素,ACI的商业形式(如球状ACI、MACI和凝胶型ACI)可能因国家而异,但第三代ACI的潜在生物学原理是一致的。有趣的是,作者引用了利用MACI[3,4]和基于凝胶的ACI[5]的研究,但忽略了覆盖ACI出版物[1,2],这些出版物专门命名和详细介绍了这种技术。承认和引用已确立的命名法对科学的清晰性、连续性和学术完整性至关重要——尤其是当程序上的相似性如此明显时。鉴于所描述的手术入路与先前发表的覆盖ACI技术之间的相似性[1,2],参考现有的命名法和文献将是适当的,并且在学术上是严谨的。承认先前的工作有助于保持科学的连续性,避免在软骨修复的不断发展的领域潜在的误解或重复。一种利用骨移植和软骨缺损治疗骨缺损的技术,在骨移植顶部放置ACI,被称为覆盖ACI技术。作者是这篇文章的唯一贡献者。作者声明无利益冲突。
{"title":"The overlay ACI technique: Good old wine in new bottle","authors":"Vishwesh D. Chudasama","doi":"10.1002/ksa.70198","DOIUrl":"10.1002/ksa.70198","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;The manuscript titled “Autologous bone grafting combined with spheroid-based matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation for osteochondral defects of the knee: Good clinical outcomes alongside abnormal postoperative gait patterns” by Dr. Oehme et al. [&lt;span&gt;6&lt;/span&gt;] presents a valuable contribution to the treatment of osteochondral defects of the knee. The authors describe an approach wherein bone grafting addresses subchondral bone defects, followed by cartilage restoration using autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI). This technique, although infrequently detailed in the English literature, has been well-cited in the manuscript [&lt;span&gt;3-5&lt;/span&gt;] and is of significant clinical relevance.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;However, I would like to respectfully point out that the authors have overlooked an important aspect of previously published work. Specifically, they did not reference the established nomenclature of the 'Overlay Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (Overlay ACI) technique', which has already been described in two English-language publications by Deepak Goyal [&lt;span&gt;1, 2&lt;/span&gt;].&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The overlay ACI technique was first detailed in the book chapter titled 'The Illustrative Overlay Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (Overlay ACI) Technique for Repair of the Extra-Large Osteochondral Defects' in &lt;i&gt;The Illustrative Book of Cartilage Repair&lt;/i&gt; [&lt;span&gt;2&lt;/span&gt;]. A subsequent peer-reviewed article, “Treatment of large chondral lesions with big bony defects: the overlay autologous chondrocyte implantation technique”, further elaborated the step-by-step surgical procedure [&lt;span&gt;1&lt;/span&gt;].&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The approach described by Oehme et al. [&lt;span&gt;6&lt;/span&gt;] closely mirrors the Overlay ACI technique in terms of surgical methodology. The primary difference lies in the choice of ACI product: the authors utilised spheroid-based ACI, whereas the overlay ACI technique uses gel-based ACI. It is important to recognise that while the commercial forms of ACI—such as spheroids, MACI and gel-based ACI—may vary across countries due to regulatory and logistical factors, the underlying biological principle of third-generation ACI remains consistent. Interestingly, the authors cite studies utilising MACI [&lt;span&gt;3, 4&lt;/span&gt;] and gel-based ACI [&lt;span&gt;5&lt;/span&gt;], yet omit references to the overlay ACI publications [&lt;span&gt;1, 2&lt;/span&gt;], which specifically name and detail this very technique. Recognising and citing established nomenclature is critical for scientific clarity, continuity and academic integrity—especially when the procedural similarities are so apparent. Given the similarities between the described surgical approach and the previously published overlay ACI technique [&lt;span&gt;1, 2&lt;/span&gt;], it would have been appropriate and academically rigorous to reference the existing nomenclature and literature.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Acknowledging prior work helps maintain scientific continuity and avoids potential misunderstandings or duplications in the evolving field of cartilage repair. A ","PeriodicalId":17880,"journal":{"name":"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy","volume":"34 2","pages":"780-781"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://esskajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ksa.70198","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145770374","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Reliable pain and function outcomes but limited sport performance after high tibial osteotomy for medial knee osteoarthritis in the grey zone between osteotomy and unicompartmental replacement 在截骨术和单室置换术之间的灰色地带,高胫骨截骨术治疗内侧膝骨关节炎后疼痛和功能结果可靠,但运动表现有限。
IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2025-12-08 DOI: 10.1002/ksa.70223
Tomas Pineda, Antoine Piercecchi, Christophe Jacquet, Nicolás Gaggero, Kristian Kley, Matthieu Ollivier
<div> <section> <h3> Purpose</h3> <p>To evaluate mid-term outcomes of high tibial osteotomy (HTO) in patients with medial knee osteoarthritis presenting borderline indication between osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and to identify clinical and radiographic factors associated with success in pain, function and sport.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Methods</h3> <p>Retrospective multicentre cohort of consecutive HTOs performed between 2005 and 2015 with ≥2 years of follow-up, including patients classified within the grey zone according to the AKUMA framework. Preoperative and postoperative long-leg radiographs were obtained to measure hip–knee–ankle (HKA) angle, mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA), medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) and joint line convergence angle (JLCA). Primary outcomes were Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Tegner and modified Weiss (mW) scores; secondary outcomes included satisfaction, sports relevance, symptom-free return to sport and forgotten-knee. Success thresholds were WOMAC ≥ 80, Tegner ≥5 and mW ≥6. Univariate analyses compared successes versus non-successes, and multivariable logistic regression was performed for WOMAC.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Results</h3> <p>Eighty-four patients were analysed with a mean follow-up 8.0 ± 3.2 (2.0–14.3) years. Success rates were 72.0% for WOMAC, 6.8% for Tegner and 7.5% for mW. Postoperative MPTA was higher in WOMAC successes than in non-successes. In multivariable analysis, Ahlbäck Grade 3 lowered the odds of achieving WOMAC ≥ 80 (odds ratio [OR]: 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.04–0.94). Tegner success was associated with greater LDFA and with rating sport as very important. mW success was associated with lower preoperative MPTA, lower LDFA, higher tibial extra-articular deformity (TEAD) and very high sport priority. Higher Ahlbäck and Kellgren–Lawrence (KL) grades were linked to worse satisfaction; the forgotten-knee endpoint showed no significant associations.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Conclusion</h3> <p>In medial OA knees within the AKUMA grey zone, HTO provides reliable pain relief and functional improvement, while sport success remains limited. Osteoarthritis burden reduces the probability of high pain and function-related scores, while sport-oriented outcomes depend more on coronal alignment features and the patient′s sport priority.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Level of Evidence</h3> <p>Level
目的:评价高位胫骨截骨术(HTO)治疗在截骨术和单室膝关节置换术(UKA)之间存在交界指征的膝关节内侧骨性关节炎患者的中期预后,并确定与疼痛、功能和运动成功相关的临床和影像学因素。方法:回顾性多中心队列研究2005 - 2015年间连续hto,随访≥2年,包括根据AKUMA框架划分为灰色地带的患者。术前和术后取长腿x线片测量髋关节-膝关节-踝关节(HKA)角、机械股骨外侧远端角(LDFA)、胫骨内侧近端角(MPTA)和关节线会聚角(JLCA)。主要结局为西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数(WOMAC)、Tegner和改良Weiss (mW)评分;次要结局包括满意度、运动相关性、无症状恢复运动和遗忘性膝关节。成功阈值为WOMAC≥80,Tegner≥5,mW≥6。单因素分析比较成功与不成功,并对WOMAC进行多变量逻辑回归。结果:84例患者的平均随访时间为8.0±3.2(2.0 ~ 14.3)年。WOMAC手术的成功率为72.0%,Tegner手术为6.8%,mW手术为7.5%。WOMAC手术成功的患者术后MPTA高于未成功的患者。在多变量分析中,Ahlbäck三级降低了达到WOMAC≥80的几率(优势比[OR]: 0.20, 95%可信区间[CI]: 0.04-0.94)。Tegner的成功与更大的LDFA和将运动评价为非常重要有关。mW成功与术前MPTA较低、LDFA较低、胫骨关节外畸形(TEAD)较高以及非常高的运动优先度相关。Ahlbäck和Kellgren-Lawrence (KL)分数越高,满意度越低;遗忘膝关节终点无显著相关性。结论:在AKUMA灰色地带的内侧OA膝关节中,HTO提供了可靠的疼痛缓解和功能改善,而运动成功仍然有限。骨关节炎负担降低了高疼痛和功能相关评分的可能性,而运动导向的结果更多地取决于冠状排列特征和患者的运动优先级。证据等级:四级。
{"title":"Reliable pain and function outcomes but limited sport performance after high tibial osteotomy for medial knee osteoarthritis in the grey zone between osteotomy and unicompartmental replacement","authors":"Tomas Pineda,&nbsp;Antoine Piercecchi,&nbsp;Christophe Jacquet,&nbsp;Nicolás Gaggero,&nbsp;Kristian Kley,&nbsp;Matthieu Ollivier","doi":"10.1002/ksa.70223","DOIUrl":"10.1002/ksa.70223","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Purpose&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;To evaluate mid-term outcomes of high tibial osteotomy (HTO) in patients with medial knee osteoarthritis presenting borderline indication between osteotomy and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and to identify clinical and radiographic factors associated with success in pain, function and sport.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Methods&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Retrospective multicentre cohort of consecutive HTOs performed between 2005 and 2015 with ≥2 years of follow-up, including patients classified within the grey zone according to the AKUMA framework. Preoperative and postoperative long-leg radiographs were obtained to measure hip–knee–ankle (HKA) angle, mechanical lateral distal femoral angle (LDFA), medial proximal tibial angle (MPTA) and joint line convergence angle (JLCA). Primary outcomes were Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Tegner and modified Weiss (mW) scores; secondary outcomes included satisfaction, sports relevance, symptom-free return to sport and forgotten-knee. Success thresholds were WOMAC ≥ 80, Tegner ≥5 and mW ≥6. Univariate analyses compared successes versus non-successes, and multivariable logistic regression was performed for WOMAC.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Results&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Eighty-four patients were analysed with a mean follow-up 8.0 ± 3.2 (2.0–14.3) years. Success rates were 72.0% for WOMAC, 6.8% for Tegner and 7.5% for mW. Postoperative MPTA was higher in WOMAC successes than in non-successes. In multivariable analysis, Ahlbäck Grade 3 lowered the odds of achieving WOMAC ≥ 80 (odds ratio [OR]: 0.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.04–0.94). Tegner success was associated with greater LDFA and with rating sport as very important. mW success was associated with lower preoperative MPTA, lower LDFA, higher tibial extra-articular deformity (TEAD) and very high sport priority. Higher Ahlbäck and Kellgren–Lawrence (KL) grades were linked to worse satisfaction; the forgotten-knee endpoint showed no significant associations.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Conclusion&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;In medial OA knees within the AKUMA grey zone, HTO provides reliable pain relief and functional improvement, while sport success remains limited. Osteoarthritis burden reduces the probability of high pain and function-related scores, while sport-oriented outcomes depend more on coronal alignment features and the patient′s sport priority.&lt;/p&gt;\u0000 &lt;/section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;section&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;h3&gt; Level of Evidence&lt;/h3&gt;\u0000 \u0000 &lt;p&gt;Level","PeriodicalId":17880,"journal":{"name":"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy","volume":"34 2","pages":"654-659"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12850611/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145702586","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Significant changes of the mechanical medial proximal tibial angle in dependence of internal and external rotation of the hinge axis in slope correcting infratuberositary tibial deflexion osteotomy 骨下斜矫正胫骨屈曲截骨术中机械胫骨内侧近端角依赖于铰链轴内外旋转的显著变化。
IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Pub Date : 2025-12-07 DOI: 10.1002/ksa.70219
Lukas Jud, Malte Kölle, Georgios Neopoulos, Lazaros Vlachopoulos, Sandro F. Fucentese

Purpose

Tibial deflexion osteotomy (TDO) is performed to correct an increased posterior tibial slope (PTS). Unintended rotation of the osteotomy and the hinge axis (HA) orientation can result in a postoperative deviation of the mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA). This study aimed to investigate how internal and external HA rotations affect postoperative mMPTA.

Methods

Three-dimensional (3D) bone models of ten patients with increased PTS were used to simulate infratuberositary TDO with different HA orientations and closing distances. Postoperative changes in mMPTA were analysed.

Results

In total, 440 TDOs were simulated. The PTS changed by 0.9 ± 0.0° per mm of closing distance. TDO perpendicular to the coronal plane of the long-leg radiograph showed no significant change in the postoperative mMPTA. Internal and external rotation of the HA resulted in significant changes in postoperative mMPTA, with absolute changes up to 4.5° ± 0.5°.

Conclusion

A TDO oriented perpendicular to the leg's coronal plane preserves the preoperative mMPTA and therefore avoids unintended coronal correction. The mMPTA changed significantly with a rotation of the HA of only 5° and exceeded a postoperative change of ≥2° with 15° of HA rotation.

Level of Evidence

N/A.

目的:胫骨屈曲截骨术(TDO)矫正胫骨后坡(PTS)增加。截骨术和铰链轴(HA)方向的意外旋转可导致术后机械胫骨内侧近端角(mMPTA)偏离。本研究旨在探讨内部和外部HA旋转如何影响术后mMPTA。方法:采用10例PTS升高患者的三维(3D)骨模型,模拟不同HA取向和近距离的血管下TDO。分析术后mMPTA的变化。结果:共模拟了440例tdo。近距离每mm PTS变化0.9±0.0°。垂直于长腿x线冠状面的TDO显示术后mMPTA无明显变化。HA的内外旋转导致术后mMPTA发生显著变化,绝对变化可达4.5°±0.5°。结论:垂直于腿部冠状面定向的TDO保留了术前的mMPTA,因此避免了意外的冠状面矫正。mMPTA仅在HA旋转5°时发生显著变化,超过术后HA旋转15°时≥2°的变化。证据级别:无。
{"title":"Significant changes of the mechanical medial proximal tibial angle in dependence of internal and external rotation of the hinge axis in slope correcting infratuberositary tibial deflexion osteotomy","authors":"Lukas Jud,&nbsp;Malte Kölle,&nbsp;Georgios Neopoulos,&nbsp;Lazaros Vlachopoulos,&nbsp;Sandro F. Fucentese","doi":"10.1002/ksa.70219","DOIUrl":"10.1002/ksa.70219","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Tibial deflexion osteotomy (TDO) is performed to correct an increased posterior tibial slope (PTS). Unintended rotation of the osteotomy and the hinge axis (HA) orientation can result in a postoperative deviation of the mechanical medial proximal tibial angle (mMPTA). This study aimed to investigate how internal and external HA rotations affect postoperative mMPTA.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Three-dimensional (3D) bone models of ten patients with increased PTS were used to simulate infratuberositary TDO with different HA orientations and closing distances. Postoperative changes in mMPTA were analysed.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In total, 440 TDOs were simulated. The PTS changed by 0.9 ± 0.0° per mm of closing distance. TDO perpendicular to the coronal plane of the long-leg radiograph showed no significant change in the postoperative mMPTA. Internal and external rotation of the HA resulted in significant changes in postoperative mMPTA, with absolute changes up to 4.5° ± 0.5°.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A TDO oriented perpendicular to the leg's coronal plane preserves the preoperative mMPTA and therefore avoids unintended coronal correction. The mMPTA changed significantly with a rotation of the HA of only 5° and exceeded a postoperative change of ≥2° with 15° of HA rotation.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Level of Evidence</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>N/A.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":17880,"journal":{"name":"Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy","volume":"34 2","pages":"647-653"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0,"publicationDate":"2025-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12850550/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145703080","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
期刊
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1