Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy最新文献

Purpose: Patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with prior knee cartilage surgery have unclear outcomes in the literature. This study compared outcomes after TKA in patients with or without prior knee cartilage surgery, and we hypothesized there would be equivocal outcomes between groups.

Methods: A retrospective matched case-control study was conducted on patients from our institution who underwent ipsilateral cartilage procedure(s) and TKA (cases) or TKA alone (controls) from 2000 to 2022. Cartilage procedures included Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation (ACI), Osteochondral Allograft (OCA) and Microfracture (MFx). Matching was performed in 1:3 (case:control) ratio for age, sex, body mass index, Charlson Comorbidity Index, pre-TKA Kellgren-Lawrence osteoarthritis grade and follow-up for knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint replacement (KOOS-JR). Mann-Whitney U and χ² analyses were conducted, with significance being a p < 0.05. A priori power analysis required 29 patients per cohort to reach a clinically detectable difference of 11 for KOOS-JR.

Results: Forty-three cases (one ACI, eight OCA and 34 MFx) and 129 controls were included after matching, with no significant demographic differences. Cases underwent TKA after cartilage surgery at a mean of 4.6 years. No significant differences existed between cases and controls for the preoperative KOOS-JR (45.2 vs. 47.8; p = 0.353), postoperative KOOS-JR (69.8 vs. 69.9; p = 0.974) or Delta KOOS-JR (30.4 vs. 26.0; p = 0.387). No significant differences existed for 90-day readmission rates (4.7% vs. 2.3%; p = 0.600) or revision TKA rates (11.6% vs. 5.4%; p = 0.177).

Conclusion: Patients with and without prior cartilage surgery experience similar functional outcomes, readmission rates and revision rates after TKA on the same knee. Patients who are candidates for TKA with a history of cartilage surgery may be counselled that their surgical history on that knee does not convey the risk of worse functional outcomes.

Level of evidence: Level III case-control study.

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the short-term clinical efficacy of combining posterior meniscal root repair with meniscal centralization technology in the treatment of medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRTs) and notable meniscus extrusion.

Methods: In this retrospective analysis, patients aged 43-76 years with only chronic posterior root tears of the medial meniscus and notable extrusion were followed up for 12-14 months.

Inclusion criteria: (1) persistent medial knee joint pain affecting daily life, presenting with joint space tenderness; (2) showing the ineffectiveness of conservative treatment for a minimum of 3 months; conservative treatment includes non-invasive methods such as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, physical therapy and massage, but does not include intra-articular injections. (3) Kellgren-Lawrence Grades 0-II osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee joint; and (4) diagnosis of a posterior root tear of the medial meniscus with notable meniscus extrusion confirmed through knee-joint plain magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans, where coronal image revealed a meniscus body extrusion of ≥3 mm.

Exclusion criteria: (1) Kellgren-Lawrence Grades III-IV OA in the knee joint; (2) presence of knee joint infection or other structural damage to the knee joint; (3) history of previous knee joint surgery; (4) demonstrating joint instability or abnormal lower-limb alignment (varus deformity >5°); and (5) presence of severe mental illness, coagulation disorders, or other serious medical conditions. The Lysholms score, the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) knee score, the visual analogue scale (VAS) score and meniscal extrusion values were evaluated before and after surgery in 23 patients through a comparative analysis.

Results: The results of the follow-up conducted 12-14 months post-operatively indicated a significant improvement in the patients' conditions. In particular, the Lysholms scores (preoperative: 50.9 ± 10.2; 1-year post-surgery: 72.0 ± 8.4), HSS knee scores (preoperative: 45.9 ± 10.6; 1-year post-surgery: 79.1 ± 11.1) and VAS scores (preoperative: 4.0 ± 1.1; 1-year post-surgery: 0.9 ± 0.7) exhibited notable enhancements. Furthermore, compared to the preoperative values, the degree of meniscus extrusion measured by coronal MRI of the knee joint significantly improved post-operatively (preoperative: 3.7 ± 0.8 mm; 1-year post-surgery: 2.2 ± 0.6 mm). These findings all yielded a p < 0.05, signifying statistical significance.

Conclusion: In patients with chronic MMPRTs and notable extrusion, a combination of posterior meniscal root repair and centralization technology can effectively restore meniscus function and rectify the medial meniscus displacement, resulting in favourable short-term clinical outcomes.

Level of evidence: Level IV.

Purpose: The aim of this systematic review and survival analysis was to quantify the benefits of orthobiologic augmentation therapies for the treatment of avascular necrosis (AVN) of the femoral head and identify the most effective approach to delay the need for total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed on PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane on clinical studies on orthobiologic therapies used alone or as an augmentation to core decompression or other procedures to address hip AVN. A qualitative analysis of the different biological therapies applied was performed. Afterward, the results of these procedures were quantitatively analysed to document their survivorship from THA compared to treatment groups without orthobiologics. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed for all studies and then by categorising orthobiologics into treatment subgroups.

Results: A total of 106 studies were included (4505 patients). Different orthobiologic approaches have been evaluated: cell-based therapies including bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) and bone marrow mesenchymal stromal cells (BM-MSCs), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), or other bioactive molecules applied in the osteonecrotic area or as intra-arterial injections. The survival analysis at 120 months documented a higher (p < 0.0005) cumulative survivorship with orthobiologics (69.4%) compared to controls (48.5%). The superiority was shown specifically for BMAC (p < 0.0005), BM-MSCs (p < 0.0005), intra-arterial (p < 0.0005) and PRP (p = 0.011) approaches, but the direct comparison of these approaches with their controls confirmed benefits only for BMAC (p < 0.0005).

Conclusion: This systematic review and survival analysis demonstrated that orthobiologics have the potential to improve survivorship in patients affected by hip AVN. In particular, the specific analysis of different orthobiologic products supported relevant benefits for BMAC augmentation in terms of survival from the need for THA, while no clear benefits were confirmed for other orthobiologics.

Level of evidence: Level III.

Purpose: Using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC), we sought to compare the total facility costs, comprising supply and personnel costs during the episode of care for the index procedure, in patients with isolated medial compartmental knee osteoarthritis (OA) undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) versus total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 100 UKAs and 100 TKAs from 2019 to 2022. From a larger sample of 4899 TKAs and 137 UKAs, patients with isolated medial OA (Kellgren-Lawrence Grade <2 in other compartments) were radiographically identified. Demographic data included age, sex and body mass index, with comorbidities controlled using the Charlson comorbidity index. Facility costs were calculated using TDABC and standardized in cost units (CUs), a metric for comparing costs across procedures. Multiple regression analysis was used to assess the independent effect of TKA versus UKA on facility costs.

Results: TKA patients had similar operative times (TKA vs. UKA: 1.01×, p = 0.783) and supply costs (1.00×, p = 0.866), where 'x' denotes the relative cost ratio. However, TKA was associated with higher personnel costs (260.0 vs. 222.5 CUs [1.17×], p < 0.001) and total facility costs, both including (706.3 vs. 667.5 CUs [1.06×], p = 0.007) and excluding implants (353.8 vs. 312.5 CUs [1.13×], p < 0.001). Adjusted for demographics and comorbidities, TKA had increased facility costs, including (32.2 CUs, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.9-61.5, p = 0.031) and excluding implants (37.8 CUs, 95% CI: 15.2-60.3, p = 0.001).

Conclusions: TDABC analysis revealed higher total facility costs for the index procedure in TKA, suggesting UKA may be a cost-saving alternative for isolated medial compartment knee OA.

Level of evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of the literature regarding anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury prevention programmes (IPPs) in order to assess the effectiveness of ACL prevention programmes based on current high-quality studies. The hypothesis was that the implementation of ACL IPPs significantly reduces the incidence of ACL ruptures compared to standard practice.

Methods: A meta-analysis of the literature was conducted using the databases PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINHAL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The search terms utilized were ACL, injury, knee, control and prevention. The collected data and reported clinical outcomes were independently gathered by three different individuals. After evaluating the heterogeneity of the studies, the DerSimonian-Laird random effects models were employed to determine the pooled risk ratios (RRs) and the risk differences (RDs) regarding ACL Injuries. The RD was utilized to ascertain the number needed to treat.

Results: The search strategy identified 743 studies, of which 11 met all inclusion and quality criteria for pooled analysis. The total number of study participants was 16,316. The overall RR of sustaining an ACL injury in the intervention group was 0.36 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.23 to 0.57) of the control group, showing a significant reduction in the ACL injury risk of the intervention group (p < 0.001). We identified an RD of -1.4% (95% CI: -2.4% to -0.4%) in favour of the intervention group. The number needed to treat in preventing one ACL rupture was 71.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the study clearly demonstrates a significant positive preventive effect of training programmes concerning ACL injuries (p < 0.001). The pooled estimates indicate that such programmes result in a significant reduction of ACL injury risks (p < 0.001). Despite the moderate quality of the included literature, the results exhibit robustness. However, based on the literature examined, no definitive superior training programme could be identified.

Level of evidence: II.

Purpose: To compare graft failure, nonrevision reoperation, complication, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and return to sports (RTS) between patients who underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with and without suture augmentation (SA).

Methods: A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Cochrane, Embase and Web of Science databases from the inception of databases to 18 April 2024, according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies comparing clinical outcomes of SA- and standard ACLR with a minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Data extraction and quality appraisal were performed by two researchers independently.

Results: Eight retrospective cohort studies were included, with a total of 408 patients receiving SA-ACLR and 443 patients receiving standard ACLR. A meta-analysis of graft failure demonstrated a 62% relative risk reduction (RR [risk ratio], 0.38 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.19-0.73]; p = .004) in those receiving SA-ACLR compared with standard ACLR. An age-related heterogeneity in graft failure reduction was detected in the subgroup analysis, which was more pronounced in studies with mean ages of <20 years compared with ≥20 years (p = .05; I² = 73.9%). No significant difference was observed in nonrevision reoperation or complication rates. No clinically relevant difference was observed in PROMs. SA-ACLR was associated with a significantly higher RTS rate compared with the standard ACLR (RR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.00-1.24]; p = .04), whereas no significant difference was observed in time to RTS.

Conclusion: SA-ACLR is associated with a reduced graft failure rate and increased RTS rate compared with standard ACLR without additional reoperations or complications. However, confidence in the evidence is limited by substantial heterogeneity. Future studies with a higher level of evidence are warranted to validate the benefit of SA and to determine the indication for different risk populations.

Level of evidence: Level III.

Purpose: To assess the incidence of ramp lesions in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries and to compare preoperative knee laxity between the patients with and without ramp lesions by using an electromagnetic measurement system (EMS).

Methods: Two hundred six patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction with preoperative EMS measurements were retrospectively enrolled in the present study. The diagnoses of the ramp lesions were made by arthroscopic inspections. The patients with ramp lesions and no other meniscal lesions were allocated to 'ramp group', and the patients without any meniscal lesions were allocated to 'control group'. Before ACL reconstruction under general anaesthesia, the side-to-side difference (SSD) in anterior tibial translation (ATT) during Lachman test (mm) and tibial acceleration (m/s²) of posterior tibial reduction during the pivot-shift test was measured using the EMS. The SSD in tibial internal/external rotation angle (°) at 30, 60 and 90 were further measured using the EMS. The SSD in ATT using KT-2000 was also measured. Knee laxity measurements were compared between two groups using unpaired Student's t test.

Results: Ramp lesions were observed in 30 patients (14.7%). Subsequently, 17 patients were allocated to 'ramp group' and 77 patients to 'control group', and there were no statistical differences with regard to background demographics. ATT-SSD during Lachman test was significantly greater in 'ramp group' (9.1 [95% confidence interval, CI: 5.7-12.5] mm vs. 6.2 [95% CI: 5.1-7.3] mm, p = 0.037). However, SSD in ATT with KT-2000, tibial acceleration during pivot-shift test, and SSD in tibial rotational angles were not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusion: Presence of ramp lesion was associated with increased anterior knee laxity during Lachman test, suggesting ramp lesions may need to be addressed at the time of ACL reconstruction.

Level of evidence: IV.

Purpose: Due to a lack of consensus regarding effective treatment options in young patients, the indications of meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) have widened to include those with substantial cartilage disease. The aim of this study was to report the long-term patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and allograft survival rates for patients with substantial cartilage disease.

Methods: A review of the prospectively maintained database was performed. Patients with International Cartilage Repair Society 3b or above cartilage grading in either their femur or tibia were classified as having substantial cartilage disease. Postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee, Tegner, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and Lysholm were compared between those with and without substantial cartilage disease. Kaplan-Meir analysis was used to assess the survival rates. Survival was defined as revision or removal of allograft or conversion to arthroplasty.

Results: Data from 422 patients were included in the analysis with 129 patients found to have full-thickness chondral lesions and 281 patients without full-thickness chondral lesions. The mean follow-up was 6.33 (SD 3.48) years for the cohort. The mean age for the entire cohort was 30 (SD 9.23). Patients in substantial cartilage disease group underwent meniscal transplantation at an older age (32 [standard deviation {SD} 8.47] years vs. 29 [SD 9.35] years [p < 0.001]). There was no significant difference in PROMs between the two groups up to 10 years postoperatively (p > 0.05). The substantial cartilage disease group had significantly lower survival rates compared to those without (80.62% vs. 94.32%).

Conclusions: MAT in the context of substantial cartilage disease was associated with an improvement in PROMs up to 10 years with no difference to the group without substantial cartilage disease. The PROMs in combination with the long-term survival rates in this study can be used to counsel patients preoperatively.

Level of evidence: Level IV.