ChatGPT can yield valuable responses in the context of orthopaedic trauma surgery.

Purpose: To assess the possibility of using Generative Pretrained Transformer (ChatGPT) specifically in the context of orthopaedic trauma surgery by questions posed to ChatGPT and to evaluate responses (correctness, completeness and adaptiveness) by orthopaedic trauma surgeons. Methods: ChatGPT (GPT-4 of 12 May 2023) was asked to address 34 common orthopaedic trauma surgery-related questions and generate responses suited to three target groups: patient, nonorthopaedic medical doctor and expert orthopaedic surgeon. Three orthopaedic trauma surgeons independently assessed ChatGPT's responses by using a three-point response scale with a response range between 0 and 2, where a higher number indicates better performance (correctness, completeness and adaptiveness). Results: A total of 18 (52.9%) of all responses were assessed to be correct (2.0) for the patient target group, while 22 (64.7%) and 24 (70.5%) of the responses were determined to be correct for nonorthopaedic medical doctors and expert orthopaedic surgeons, respectively. Moreover, a total of 18 (52.9%), 25 (73.5%) and 28 (82.4%) of the responses were assessed to be complete (2.0) for patients, nonorthopaedic medical doctors and expert orthopaedic surgeons, respectively. The average adaptiveness was 1.93, 1.95 and 1.97 for patients, nonorthopaedic medical doctors and expert orthopaedic surgeons, respectively. Conclusion: The study results indicate that ChatGPT can yield valuable and overall correct responses in the context of orthopaedic trauma surgery across different target groups, which encompassed patients, nonorthopaedic medical surgeons and expert orthopaedic surgeons. The average correctness scores, completeness levels and adaptiveness values indicated the ability of ChatGPT to generate overall correct and complete responses adapted to the target group. Level of Evidence: Not applicable.

A practical guide to the implementation of artificial intelligence in orthopaedic research-Part 2: A technical introduction.

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) present a broad range of possibilities in medical research. However, orthopaedic researchers aiming to participate in research projects implementing AI-based techniques require a sound understanding of the technical fundamentals of this rapidly developing field. Initial sections of this technical primer provide an overview of the general and the more detailed taxonomy of AI methods. Researchers are presented with the technical basics of the most frequently performed machine learning (ML) tasks, such as classification, regression, clustering and dimensionality reduction. Additionally, the spectrum of supervision in ML including the domains of supervised, unsupervised, semisupervised and self-supervised learning will be explored. Recent advances in neural networks (NNs) and deep learning (DL) architectures have rendered them essential tools for the analysis of complex medical data, which warrants a rudimentary technical introduction to orthopaedic researchers. Furthermore, the capability of natural language processing (NLP) to interpret patterns in human language is discussed and may offer several potential applications in medical text classification, patient sentiment analysis and clinical decision support. The technical discussion concludes with the transformative potential of generative AI and large language models (LLMs) on AI research. Consequently, this second article of the series aims to equip orthopaedic researchers with the fundamental technical knowledge required to engage in interdisciplinary collaboration in AI-driven orthopaedic research. Level of Evidence: Level IV.

Timing of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgery.

This narrative review examines the current literature for the influence of the surgical timing in the setting of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction on various outcomes. Although the exact definition of early and delayed ACL reconstruction (ACLR) is a subject of controversy, surgical timing influences arthrofibrosis and postoperative stiffness, quadriceps strength, postoperative knee function, and the incidence of intra-articular injuries to the menisci and cartilage. Additionally, there is a shortage of evidence regarding the role of ACLR timing in the setting of multiligament knee injury and when concurrent procedures are performed during the operative treatment of the ACL-injured knee.

Precision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

Precision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) refers to the individualized approach to prerehabilitation, surgery (including anatomy, bony morphology, and repair/reconstruction of concomitant injuries), postrehabilitation, and functional recovery. This individualized approach is poised to revolutionize orthopedic sports medicine, aiming to improve patient outcomes. The purpose of this article is to provide a summary of precision ACLR, from the time of diagnosis to the time of return to play, with additional insight into the future of ACLR.

Higher odds of meniscectomy compared with meniscus repair in a young patient population with increased neighbourhood disadvantage.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of demographic and socioeconomic factors on the management of isolated meniscus tears in young patients and to identify trends in surgical management of meniscus tears based on surgeon volume. METHODS: Data from a large healthcare system on patients aged 14-44 years who underwent isolated meniscus surgery between 2016 and 2022 were analysed. Patient demographics, socioeconomic factors and surgeon volume were recorded. Patient age was categorised as 14-29 years and 30-44 years old. Area Deprivation Index (ADI), a measure of neighbourhood disadvantage with increased ADI corresponding to more disadvantage, was grouped as <25th, 25-75th and >75th percentile. Multivariate comparisons were made between procedure groups while univariate comparisons were made between surgeon groups. RESULTS: The study included 1552 patients treated by 84 orthopaedic surgeons. Older age and higher ADI were associated with higher odds of undergoing meniscectomy. Patients of older age and with non-private insurance were more likely to undergo treatment by a lower-volume knee surgeon. Apart from the year 2022, higher-volume knee surgeons performed significantly higher rates of meniscus repair compared with lower-volume knee surgeons. When controlling for surgeon volume, higher ADI remained a significant predictor of undergoing meniscectomy over meniscus repair. CONCLUSION: Significant associations exist between patient factors and surgical choices for isolated meniscus tears in younger patients. Patients of older age and with increased neighbourhood disadvantage were more likely to undergo meniscectomy versus meniscus repair. While higher-volume knee surgeons favoured meniscus repair, a growing trend of meniscus repair rates was observed among lower-volume knee surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective cohort study, level III.

'Real world' clinical implementation of blood flow restriction therapy does not increase quadriceps strength after quadriceps tendon autograft ACL reconstruction.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare strength outcomes of individuals undergoing postoperative rehabilitation following quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with and without blood flow restriction therapy. METHODS: A retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing ACLR with QT autograft with a minimum of two quantitative postoperative isometric strength assessments via an electromechanical dynamometer (Biodex) was included. Demographics, surgical variables and strength measurement outcomes were compared between patients undergoing blood flow restriction therapy as part of postoperative rehabilitation versus those who did not. RESULTS: Eighty-one (81) patients met the inclusion criteria. No differences were found in demographic and surgical characteristics between those who received blood flow restriction compared with those who did not. While both groups had improvements in quadriceps peak torque and limb symmetry index (LSI; defined as peak torque of the operative limb divided by the peak torque of the nonoperative limb) over the study period, the blood flow restriction group had significantly lower mean peak torque of the operative limb at first Biodex strength measurement (95.6 vs. 111.2 Nm; p = 0.03). Additionally, the blood flow restriction group had a significantly lower mean LSI than those with no blood flow restriction at the second Biodex measurement timepoint (81% vs. 90%; p = 0.02). No other significant differences were found between the strength outcomes measured. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study show that the 'real world' clinical implementation of blood flow restriction therapy to the postoperative rehabilitation protocol following QT autograft ACLR did not result in an increase in absolute or longitudinal changes in quadriceps strength measurements. A better understanding and standardisation of the use of blood flow restriction therapy in the rehabilitation setting is necessary to delineate the true effects of this modality on strength recovery after QT autograft ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Around-the-knee osteotomies part II: Surgical indications, techniques and outcomes - State of the art.

Recent advances in surgical techniques and planning for knee-based osteotomies have led to improvements in addressing lower extremity malalignment. Part 1 of this review presented the biomechanical and clinical rationale of osteotomies, emphasizing the importance of osteotomies for restoring normal knee kinematics. In Part 2 of this review, indications, surgical technique and outcomes of osteotomies to correct coronal, sagittal and axial plane deformities will be examined. Traditional high tibial and distal femoral osteotomies will be discussed in addition to more recent advanced techniques including biplanar corrections and double-level osteotomies, as well as slope-correcting osteotomies. Patient-specific instrumentation and its use in more complex corrections will also be addressed.

Around-the-knee osteotomies part 1: definitions, rationale and planning-state of the art.

Knee osteotomies are essential orthopedic procedures with the ability to preserve the joint and correct ligament instabilities. Literature supports the correlation between lower limb malalignment and outcomes after knee ligament reconstruction and cartilage procedures. Concepts such as joint line obliquity, posterior tibial slope angle, and intra-articular deformity correction are integral components of both preoperative planning and postoperative evaluations. The concept of preserving and/or restoring joint line congruence during simultaneous correction of varus or valgus deformity can be achieved through several different approaches. With advancements in osteotomy research and surgical planning technology, the surgical decision-making has increased in complexity. Based upon a patient's specific deformity, decisions need to be made whether to perform a single-level (proximal tibia or distal femur) versus double-level (both proximal tibia and distal femur) osteotomy, and whether to correct deformity in a single plane (coronal or sagittal) or perform a biplanar osteotomy, correcting two of the malalignments in either coronal, sagittal, or axial planes. Osteotomy procedures prioritize safety, reproducibility, precision, and meticulous planning. Equally important is the proactive management of possible complications and the implementation of preventive strategies for complications such as hinge fractures and unintentional changes to alignment in other planes. This review navigates the intricate landscape of lower limb alignment, commencing with foundational definitions and rationale for performing osteotomies, progressing through the planning phase, and addressing the critical aspect of complication prevention, all while looking ahead to anticipate future advancements in this field. However, rotational osteotomies and tibial tubercle osteotomies in isolation or as an adjunct procedure are beyond the scope of this review.

To achieve the unachievable-Patients' experiences of opting for delayed anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction after trying rehabilitation alone as primary treatment: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: About 50% of patients who sustain an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury are treated without ACL reconstruction (ACL-R). A significant proportion of these patients opt for late ACL-R. Patients' experience of changing treatment has not yet been investigated and presented in the scientific literature. AIM: To explore patients' experiences before and after changing treatment from ACL rehabilitation alone to ACL-R. METHOD: Fifteen patients were interviewed in semi-structured interviews, which were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed with qualitative content analysis, based on the method described by Graneheim and Lundman. Patients were between 26 and 58 years old, and had tried rehabilitation for a minimum of 9 months prior to ACL-R. RESULTS: Two themes, "Expecting what could not be achieved: the struggle to recover and not becoming stable", and "Internal completeness: expectations can be achieved", emerged from the analysis. Each theme was supported by three main categories and 5-6 subcategories. The first theme represents the journey before ACL-R, where patients experienced getting stronger, but perceived the knee as unstable. The second theme represents the journey after ACL-R, where patients expressed that they felt whole after their ACL-R, and where able to achieve their expections. Patients experienced a greater support from the healthcare system, and ultimately expressed a feeling of having achieved the unachievable after ACL-R. SUMMARY: Patients who cross over from ACL rehabilitation to ACL-R experienced rehabilitation alone as insufficient to achieve the desired outcomes, which resulted in a need to opt for delayed ACL-R. Healthcare providers need to support patients, who primarily choose to undergo rehabilitation alone and later opt for ACL-R, throughout the whole rehabilitation process.

Metal interference screw fixation combinations show high revision rates in primary hamstring tendon ACL reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Different fixation methods in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) have been associated with different revision rates, specifically in the early postoperative period. However, most previous research has either grouped together different fixation types or evaluated femoral-sided fixation or tibial-sided fixation separately. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine ACL revision rates for specific combinations of femoral and tibial fixation methods within 2 years of primary hamstring tendon autograft ACLR based on data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry (SNKLR). METHODS: Patients that underwent primary hamstring tendon autograft ACLR between 2005 and 2018 in the SNKLR were included. The collected data included patient characteristics (age, sex, body mass index [BMI]), activity at time of injury, surgical information (concomitant injuries, time from injury to surgery, fixation types at the femur and tibia), and subsequent revision ACLR. Revision rate within 2 years of the index procedure was chosen, as ACLR fixation is most likely to contribute to ACLR revision within the first 2 years, during graft maturation. RESULTS: Of the 23,238 included patients undergoing primary hamstring ACLR, 581 (2.5%) underwent revision ACLR within 2 years of the index procedure. Among the combinations used for > 300 patients, the femoral metal interference screw/tibial metal interference screw fixation combination had the highest revision rate followed by metal interference screw/resorbable screw and Endobutton/AO screw fixation combinations, with respective revision rates of 4.0, 3.0, and 3.0%. The lowest revision rate within 2 years of ACLR was found in the Endobutton/metal interference screw with backup Osteosuture fixation combination, used in 433 cases, with a failure rate of 0.9%. CONCLUSION: Different early ACL revision rates were found across different combinations of femoral and tibial fixation devices within 2 years of primary hamstring tendon autograft ACLR. Metal interference screw fixation, particularly when performed on both the femoral and tibial sides, most frequently resulted in revision ACLR. These findings may be helpful for surgeons in selecting appropriate fixation devices for hamstring ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Outcomes of bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft and quadriceps tendon autograft for ACL reconstruction in an all-female soccer player cohort with mean 4.8-year follow up.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose is to compare functional outcomes, return to soccer rates, and revision rates in an all-female soccer player cohort undergoing quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft ACLR versus bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autograft ACLR. METHODS: Female soccer players who sustained an ACL rupture and underwent primary anatomic, single-bundle ACLR with BPTB autograft or QT autograft were included. Demographic and surgical characteristics were collected. Outcomes of interest included Tegner score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Marx score, return to soccer rates, and failure rates. RESULTS: Data on 23 patients undergoing BPTB autograft ACLR and 14 undergoing QT autograft ACLR was available. Average age was 18.7 years, and average follow up was 4.8 years. Overall, 76 â€‹% (28/37) returned to soccer and 5.4 â€‹% (2/37) underwent revision ACLR. No major significant differences were found in demographic or surgical characteristics. No differences were found in postoperative IKDC scores, preoperative, postoperative, or change from pre-to postoperative Marx activity scores, or pre-and postoperative Tegner scores between the groups. QT autograft ACLR patients had significantly less change in Tegner scores pre-to postoperatively compared to the BTPB autograft ACLR group (0.6 â€‹± â€‹1.2 versus 2.1 â€‹± â€‹1.8; p â€‹= â€‹0.02). Both groups had similar rates of return to soccer [78 â€‹% (18/23) BPTB autograft ACLR versus 71 â€‹% (10/14) QT autograft ACLR; p â€‹= â€‹0.64] and rates of revision (8.7 % (2/23) BPTB autograft ACLR; 0 % (0/14) QT autograft ACLR. CONCLUSION: Results of this study suggest that BPTB autograft ACLR and QT autograft ACLR produce comparable, successful functional and return to soccer outcomes in this all-female soccer player cohort study. Larger, prospective studies are needed to improve the strength of conclusions and provide more information on the optimal graft choice for female soccer players. Surgeons can use the results of this study to counsel female soccer players on expected outcomes after ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Strength symmetry after autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

OBJECTIVE: To compare postoperative isometric quadriceps strength indices (QI%) and hamstring strength limb symmetry indices (HI%) between partial thickness quadriceps tendon (pQT), full thickness quadriceps tendon (fQT), and bone-patellar-tendon bone (BPTB) autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: Patients with primary ACLR with pQT, fQT, or BPTB autograft with the documentation of quantitative postoperative strength assessments between 2016 and 2021 were included. Isometric Biodex data, including QI% and HI% (calculated as the percentage of involved to uninvolved limb strength) were collected between 5 and 8 months and between 9 and 15 months postoperatively. RESULTS: In total, 124 and 51 patients had 5-8- and 9-15-month follow-up strength data, respectively. No significant difference was detected between groups for sex. However, patients undergoing fQT were found to be older than those undergoing BPTB (24.6±7 vs 20.2±5; â€‹p = 0.01). There were no significant differences in the number of concomitant meniscus repairs between the groups (pQT vs. fQT vs. BPTB). No significant differences were detected in median (min-max) QI% between pQT, fQT, and BPTB 5-8 months [87 â€‹% (44%-130 â€‹%), 84 â€‹% (44%-110 â€‹%), 82 â€‹% (37%-110 â€‹%) or 9-15 months [89 â€‹% (50%-110 â€‹%), 89 â€‹% (67%-110 â€‹%), and 90 â€‹% (74%-140 â€‹%)] postoperatively. Similarly, no differences were detected in median HI% between the groups 5-8 months or 9-15 months postoperatively. CONCLUSION: The study was unable to detect differences in the recovery of quadriceps strength between patients undergoing ACLR with pQT, fQT, and BPTB autografts at 5-8 months and 9-15-months postoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Overhead athletes have comparable intraoperative injury patterns and clinical outcomes to non-overhead athletes following surgical stabilization for first-time anterior shoulder instability at average 6-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Anterior shoulder instability is a common problem affecting young, athletic populations that results in potential career-altering functional limitations. However, little is known regarding the differences in clinical outcomes after operative management of overhead vs. non-overhead athletes presenting with first-time anterior shoulder instability. We hypothesized that overhead athletes would have milder clinical presentations, similar surgical characteristics, and diminished postoperative outcomes when compared with non-overhead athletes after surgical stabilization following first-time anterior shoulder instability episodes. METHODS: Patients with first-time anterior shoulder instability events (subluxations and dislocations) undergoing operative management between 2013 and 2020 were included. The exclusion criteria included multiple dislocations and multidirectional shoulder instability. Baseline demographic characteristics, imaging data, examination findings, and intraoperative findings were retrospectively collected. Patients were contacted to collect postoperative patient-reported outcomes including American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score, Brophy activity index score, and Subjective Shoulder Value, in addition to return-to-work and -sport, recurrent dislocation, and revision rates. RESULTS: A total of 256 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 178 (70%) were non-overhead athletes. The mean age of the entire population was 23.1 years. There was no significant difference in concomitant shoulder pathology, preoperative range of motion, or preoperative strength between cohorts. A greater proportion of overhead athletes presented with instability events not requiring manual reduction (defined as subluxations; 64.1% vs. 50.6%; P < .001) and underwent arthroscopic surgery (97% vs. 76%, P < .001) compared with non-overhead athletes. A smaller proportion of overhead athletes underwent open soft-tissue stabilization compared with non-overhead athletes (1% vs. 19%, P < .001). Outcome data were available for 60 patients with an average follow-up period of 6.7 years. No significant differences were found between groups with respect to recurrent postoperative instability event rate (13.0% for overhead athletes vs. 16.8% for non-overhead athletes), revision rate (13.0% for overhead athletes vs. 11.1% for non-overhead athletes), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score, Brophy score, Subjective Shoulder Value, or rates of return to work or sport. CONCLUSION: Overhead athletes who underwent surgery after an initial instability event were more likely to present with subluxations compared with non-overhead athletes. With limited follow-up subject to biases, this study found no differences in recurrence or revision rates, postoperative patient-reported outcomes, or return-to-work or -sport rates between overhead and non-overhead athletes undergoing shoulder stabilization surgery following first-time instability events. Although larger prospective studies are necessary to draw firmer conclusions, the findings of this study suggest that overhead athletes can be considered in the same treatment pathway for first-time dislocation as non-overhead athletes.

Comparison of Improvement in Patient-Reported Knee Function After Revision and Multiple-Revision ACL Reconstruction Compared With Primary ACL Reconstruction.

Background: Graft failure after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a debilitating complication often requiring revision surgery. It is widely agreed upon that functional knee outcomes after revision ACLR (r-ACLR) are inferior compared with those after primary reconstruction. However, data are scarce on outcomes after multiple-revision ACLR (mr-ACLR). Purpose: To compare patient-reported knee function in terms of Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively after primary ACLR, r-ACLR, and mr-ACLR and evaluate the pre- to postoperative improvement in KOOS scores for each procedure. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry who underwent their index ACLR between 2005 and 2020 with a minimum age of 15 years at the time of surgery were included in this study. All patients had pre- and postoperative KOOS data. The 1-year postoperative KOOS and the pre- to postoperative changes in KOOS were assessed between patients who underwent primary ACLR and those who underwent subsequent r-ACLR and mr-ACLR. Results: Of 20,542 included patients, 19,769 (96.2%) underwent primary ACLR, 760 (3.7%) underwent r-ACLR, and 13 (0.06%) underwent mr-ACLR. Patients who underwent r-ACLR had significantly smaller pre- to postoperative changes on all KOOS subscales compared with patients undergoing primary ACLR (P < .0001 for all). Furthermore, patients in the mr-ACLR group had significantly smaller changes in the KOOS-Pain subscale compared with patients in the r-ACLR group (-9 ± 23.3 vs 2.5 ± 18; P = .024). Conclusion: The study results indicated that while improvement is seen after primary ACLR, r-ACLR, and mr-ACLR, the greatest improvement in functional outcomes is observed after primary ACLR. Patients who underwent at least 1 r-ACLR, specifically mr-ACLR, had lower postoperative outcome scores, indicating that primary ACLR may provide the best chance for recovery after ACL injury.

A practical guide to the implementation of AI in orthopaedic research - part 1: opportunities in clinical application and overcoming existing challenges.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform medical research by improving disease diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and outcome prediction. Despite the rapid adoption of AI and machine learning (ML) in other domains and industry, deployment in medical research and clinical practice poses several challenges due to the inherent characteristics and barriers of the healthcare sector. Therefore, researchers aiming to perform AI-intensive studies require a fundamental understanding of the key concepts, biases, and clinical safety concerns associated with the use of AI. Through the analysis of large, multimodal datasets, AI has the potential to revolutionize orthopaedic research, with new insights regarding the optimal diagnosis and management of patients affected musculoskeletal injury and disease. The article is the first in a series introducing fundamental concepts and best practices to guide healthcare professionals and researcher interested in performing AI-intensive orthopaedic research studies. The vast potential of AI in orthopaedics is illustrated through examples involving disease- or injury-specific outcome prediction, medical image analysis, clinical decision support systems and digital twin technology. Furthermore, it is essential to address the role of human involvement in training unbiased, generalizable AI models, their explainability in high-risk clinical settings and the implementation of expert oversight and clinical safety measures for failure. In conclusion, the opportunities and challenges of AI in medicine are presented to ensure the safe and ethical deployment of AI models for orthopaedic research and clinical application. Level of evidence IV.

Anatomic Flat Double-Bundle Medial Collateral Ligament Reconstruction.

Several surgical techniques have been described to restore the anatomy of the medial collateral ligament, involving suture repair and reconstruction, with the latter having been associated with superior postoperative outcomes. Recently, a growing interest in anatomic isometric medial collateral ligament reconstruction (MCLR) has been developed, involving careful evaluation and finding the most appropriate location for the femoral placement of the allograft. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to describe anatomic MCLR aiming to restore medial knee stability by focusing on isometric positions within the native anatomy of the MCL.

Differences in postoperative knee function based on concomitant treatment of lateral meniscal injury in the setting of primary ACL reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant lateral meniscal (LM) injuries are common in acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures. However, the effect of addressing these injuries with various treatment methods during primary ACL reconstruction (ACLR) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is unknown. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare postoperative Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at 2-, 5-, and 10-years after isolated primary ACLR to primary ACLR with various treatment methods to address concomitant LM injury. METHODS: This study was based on data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry. Patients ≥ 15 years with data on postoperative KOOS who underwent primary ACLR between the years 2005 and 2018 were included in this study. The study population was divided into five groups: 1) Isolated ACLR, 2) ACLR + LM repair, 3) ACLR + LM resection, 4) ACLR + LM injury left in situ, and 5) ACLR + LM repair + LM resection. Patients with concomitant medial meniscal or other surgically treated ligament injuries were excluded. RESULTS: Of 31,819 included patients, 24% had LM injury. After post hoc comparisons, significantly lower scores were found for the KOOS Symptoms subscale in ACLR + LM repair group compared to isolated ACLR (76.0 vs 78.3, p = 0.0097) and ACLR + LM injury left in situ groups (76.0 vs 78.3, p = 0.041) at 2-year follow-up. However, at 10-year follow-up, no differences were found between ACLR + LM repair and isolated ACLR, but ACLR + LM resection resulted in significantly lower KOOS Symptoms scores compared to isolated ACLR (80.4 vs 82.3, p = 0.041). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that LM injury during ACLR is associated with lower KOOS scores, particularly in the Symptoms subscale, at short- and long-term follow-up. However, this finding falls below minimal clinical important difference and therefore may not be clinically relevant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Effect of Concomitant Lateral Meniscal Management on ACL Reconstruction Revision Rate and Secondary Meniscal and Cartilaginous Injuries.

BACKGROUND: Simultaneous meniscal tears are often present with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, and in the acute setting, the lateral meniscus (LM) is more commonly injured than the medial meniscus. PURPOSE: To investigate how a concomitant LM injury, repaired, resected, or left in situ during primary ACL reconstruction (ACLR), affects the ACL revision rate and cartilaginous and meniscal status at the time of revision within 2 years after the primary ACLR. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Data for 31,705 patients with primary ACLR, extracted from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry, were used. The odds of revision ACLR, and cartilaginous as well as meniscal injuries at the time of revision ACLR, were assessed between the unexposed comparison group (isolated ACLR) and the exposed groups of interest (ACLR + LM repair, ACLR + LM resection, ACLR + LM repair + LM resection, or ACLR + LM injury left in situ). RESULTS: In total, 719 (2.5%) of the included 29,270 patients with 2 years follow-up data underwent revision ACLR within 2 years after the primary ACLR. No significant difference in revision rate was found between the groups. Patients with concomitant LM repair (OR, 3.56; 95% CI, 1.57-8.10; P = .0024) or LM resection (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.18-2.62; P = .0055) had higher odds of concomitant meniscal injuries (medial or lateral) at the time of revision ACLR than patients undergoing isolated primary ACLR. Additionally, higher odds of concomitant cartilage injuries at the time of revision ACLR were found in patients with LM resection at index ACLR compared with patients undergoing isolated primary ACLR (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.14-2.63; P = .010). CONCLUSION: The results of this study demonstrated higher odds of meniscal and cartilaginous injuries at the time of revision ACLR within 2 years after primary ACLR + LM resection and higher odds of meniscal injury at the time of revision ACLR within 2 years after primary ACLR + LM repair compared with isolated ACLR. Surgeons should be aware of the possibility of concomitant cartilaginous and meniscal injuries at the time of revision ACLR after index ACLR with concomitant LM injury, regardless of the index treatment type received.

Revision Rates After Primary Allograft ACL Reconstruction by Allograft Tissue Type in Older Patients.

Background: While there is extensive literature on the use of allograft versus autograft in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, there is limited clinical evidence to guide the surgeon in choice of allograft tissue type. Purpose: To assess the revision rate after primary ACL reconstruction with allograft and to compare revision rates based on allograft tissue type and characteristics. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients who underwent primary allograft ACL reconstructions at a single academic institution between 2015 and 2019 and who had minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Exclusion criteria were missing surgical or allograft tissue type data. Demographics, operative details, and subsequent surgical procedures were collected. Allograft details included graft tissue type (Achilles, bone-patellar tendon-bone [BTB], tibialis anterior or posterior, semitendinosus, unspecified soft tissue), allograft category (all-soft tissue vs bone block), donor age, irradiation duration and intensity, and chemical cleansing process. Revision rates were calculated and compared by allograft characteristics. Results: Included were 418 patients (age, 39 ± 12 years; body mass index, 30 ± 9 kg/m2). The revision rate was 3% (11/418) at a mean follow-up of 4.9 ± 1.4 years. There were no differences in revision rate according to allograft tissue type across Achilles tendon (3%; 3/95), BTB (5%; 3/58), tibialis anterior or posterior (3%; 5/162), semitendinosus (0%; 0/46), or unspecified soft tissue (0%; 0/57) (P = .35). There was no difference in revision rate between all-soft tissue versus bone block allograft (6/283 [2%] vs 5/135 [4%], respectively; P = .34). Of the 51% of grafts with irradiation data, all grafts were irradiated, with levels varying from 1.5 to 2.7 Mrad and 82% of grafts having levels of <2.0 Mrad. There was no difference in revision rate between the low-dose and medium-to high-dose irradiation cohorts (4% vs 6%, respectively; P = .64). Conclusion: Similarly low (0%-6%) revision rates after primary ACL reconstruction were seen regardless of allograft tissue type, bone block versus all-soft tissue allograft, and sterilization technique in 418 patients with mean age of 39 years. Surgeons may consider appropriately processed allograft tissue with or without bone block when indicating ACL reconstruction in older patients.