Editorial Commentary: Evaluation for Cartilage Lesions on Magnetic Resonance Imaging Continues to Improve: Artificial Intelligence Applications May Result in Higher Sensitivity and Specificity.

Accurate detection of cartilage lesions of the knee is required to offer patient-specific care and can alter surgical intervention options. To date, diagnostic arthroscopy remains the gold standard yet often requires the need for staged operative procedure for treatment. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is the most accurate imaging modality with high specificity, yet even with recent advances, MRI has limited specificity. Newer scanners (3 T) and updated scanning sequences (3-dimensional MRI and quantitative MRI) are most sensitive in characterizing cartilage lesions of the knee, but these resources are not available to all users. Promising new avenues for patient-specific MRI scans along with the utilization of artificial intelligence will more accurately identify and quantify lesion size, location, and depth.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Fixation Techniques.

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is among the most common procedures performed by orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons and has inherent challenges due to the complex anatomy and biomechanical properties required to reproduce the function and stability of the native ACL. Awareness of the anatomic and biomechanical factors, including graft selection and tunnel placement, along with graft tensioning and fixation techniques, is vital in achieving a successful clinical outcome. Common techniques for ACLR graft fixation include intratunnel fixation with interference screws, suspensory fixation, or hybrid fixation strategies, along with several supplemental fixation techniques. Interference screw fixation may decrease graft-tunnel motion, tunnel widening, and graft creep and may be performed with metallic, PEEK (polyether ether ketone), or bioabsorbable screws. Suspensory fixation techniques primarily include suture-buttons, anchors, staples, and screws/washers. Suspensory fixation allows adequate biomechanical strength, although some techniques have been linked to increased graft-tunnel motion and potential tunnel widening. Supplemental fixation techniques may be performed in the setting of concerns for adequacy of primary fixation and includes the use of suture anchors, staples, and screw/washer devices. Regardless of the implant chosen for fixation, secure fixation is paramount to avoid displacement of the graft and allow for integration into the bone tunnel and facilitates early postoperative rehabilitation. It is important for orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons performing primary and revision ACLR to be familiar with multiple fixation techniques.

Posterior Shoulder Instability, Part I-Diagnosis, Nonoperative Management, and Labral Repair for Posterior Shoulder Instability-An International Expert Delphi Consensus Statement.

PURPOSE: To establish consensus statements on the diagnosis, nonoperative management, and labral repair for posterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment of posterior shoulder instability was conducted, with 71 shoulder/sports surgeons from 12 countries participating on the basis of their level of expertise in the field. Experts were assigned to 1 of 6 working groups defined by specific subtopics within posterior shoulder instability. Consensus was defined as achieving 80% to 89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90% to 99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. RESULTS: Unanimous agreement was reached on the indications for nonoperative management and labral repair, which include whether patients had primary or recurrent instability, with symptoms/functional limitations, and whether there was other underlying pathology, or patient's preference to avoid or delay surgery. In addition, there was unanimous agreement that recurrence rates can be diminished by attention to detail, appropriate indication and assessment of risk factors, recognition of abnormalities in glenohumeral morphology, careful capsulolabral debridement and reattachment, small anchors with inferior placement and multiple fixation points that create a bumper with the labrum, treatment of concomitant pathologies, and a well-defined rehabilitation protocol with strict postoperative immobilization. CONCLUSIONS: The study group achieved strong or unanimous consensus on 63% of statements related to the diagnosis, nonoperative treatment, and labrum repair for posterior shoulder instability. The statements that achieved unanimous consensus were the relative indications for nonoperative management, and the relative indications for labral repair, as well as the steps to minimize complications for labral repair. There was no consensus on whether an arthrogram is needed when performing advanced imaging, the role of corticosteroids/orthobiologics in nonoperative management, whether a posteroinferior portal is required. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, expert opinion.

Posterior Shoulder Instability, Part II-Glenoid Bone Grafting, Glenoid Osteotomy, and Rehabilitation/Return to Play-An International Expert Delphi Consensus Statement.

PURPOSE: To establish consensus statements on glenoid bone grafting, glenoid osteotomy, rehabilitation, return to play, and follow-up for posterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment of posterior shoulder instability was conducted, with 71 shoulder/sports surgeons from 12 countries participating on the basis of their level of expertise in the field. Experts were assigned to 1 of 6 working groups defined by specific subtopics within posterior shoulder instability. Consensus was defined as achieving 80% to 89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90% to 99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. RESULTS: All of the statements relating to rehabilitation, return to play, and follow-up achieved consensus. There was unanimous consensus that the following criteria should be considered: restoration of strength, range of motion, proprioception, and sport-specific skills, with a lack of symptoms. There is no minimum time point required to return to play. Collision athletes and military athletes may take longer to return because of their greater risk for recurrent instability, and more caution should be exercised in clearing them to return to play, with elite athletes potentially having different considerations in returning to play. The relative indications for revision surgery are symptomatic apprehension, multiple recurrent instability episodes, further intra-articular pathologies, hardware failure, and pain. CONCLUSIONS: The study group achieved strong or unanimous consensus on 59% of statements. Unanimous consensus was reached regarding the criteria for return to play, collision/elite athletes having different considerations in return to play, indications for revision surgery, and imaging only required as routine for those with glenoid bone grafting/osteotomies at subsequent follow-ups. There was no consensus on optimal fixation method for a glenoid bone block, the relative indications for glenoid osteotomy, whether fluoroscopy is required or if the labrum should be concomitantly repaired. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, expert opinion.

Reaching Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Substantial Clinical Benefit, and Patient-Acceptable Symptomatic State for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures following Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Does Not Correlate with Patient Satisfaction.

Purpose: Minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) serve as metrics to gauge orthopedic treatment efficacy based on anchoring questions that do not account for a patient's satisfaction with their surgical outcome. This study evaluates if reaching MCID, SCB, or PASS values for American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES), Single Alpha Numeric Evaluation (SANE), Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and Visual Analog Score (VAS) for pain following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) correlates with overall patient satisfaction. Methods: This was a single-institution, retrospective study of patients who underwent RCR from 2015 to 2019. Pre-operative and 2 year postoperative ASES, SANE, SST, and VAS scores were recorded. Patients underwent a survey to assess: (1) what is your overall satisfaction with your surgical outcome? (scale 1 to 10); (2) if you could go back in time, would you undergo this operation again? (yes/no); (3) for the same condition, would you recommend this operation to a friend or family member? (yes/no). Spearman correlation coefficients were run to assess relationship between reaching MCID, SCB, or PASS and satisfaction. Results: Ninety-two patients were included. Mean preoperative ASES was 51.1 ± 16.9, SANE was 43.3 ± 20.9, SST was 5.4 ± 2.9, and VAS was 4.6 ± 2.1. Mean 2 year ASES was 83.9 ± 18.5, SANE was 81.7 ± 27.0, SST was 9.8 ± 3.2, and VAS was 1.4 ± 1.9. Mean patient satisfaction was 9.0 ± 1.9; 89 (96.7%) patients would undergo surgery again and recommend surgery. Correlation for reaching PASS for SANE and satisfaction was moderate. Correlation coefficients were very weak for all other outcome metrics. Conclusions: Reaching MCID, SCB, and PASS in ASES, SANE, SST, or VAS following RCR did not correlate with a patient's overall satisfaction or willingness to undergo surgery again or recommend surgery. Further investigation into the statistical credibility and overall clinical value of MCID, SCB, and PASS is necessary.

Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Autograft, the Incidence of Anterior Knee Pain Ranges From 5.4% to 48.4% and the Incidence of Kneeling Pain Ranges From 4.0% to 75.6%: A Systematic Review of Level I Studies.

Purpose: To (1) perform a systematic review of level I randomized controlled trials (RCTs) detailing the incidence of anterior knee pain and kneeling pain following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autograft and (2) investigate the effect of bone grafting the patellar harvest site on anterior knee and kneeling pain. Methods: A systematic review of level I studies from 1980 to 2023 was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The primary outcome evaluated was the presence of donor site morbidity in the form of anterior knee pain or kneeling pain. A secondary subanalysis was performed to assess for differences in the incidence of postoperative pain between patient groups undergoing ACLR with BPTB receiving harvest site bone grafting and those in whom the defect was left untreated. Results: Following full-text review, 15 studies reporting on a total of 696 patients met final inclusion criteria. Patients were followed for an average of 4.78 years (range, 2.0-15.3), and the mean age ranged from 21.7 to 38 years old. The incidence of anterior knee pain, calculated from 354 patients across 10 studies, ranged from 5.4% to 48.4%. The incidence of postoperative pain with kneeling was determined to range from 4.0% to 75.6% in 490 patients from 9 studies. Patients treated with bone grafting of the BPTB harvest site had no significant difference in incidence of any knee pain compared with those who were not grafted, with incidences of 43.3% and 40.2%, respectively. Conclusions: Based on the current level I RCT data, the incidences of anterior knee pain and kneeling pain following ACLR with BPTB autograft range from 5.4% to 48.4% and 4.0% to 75.6%, respectively. Level of Evidence: Level I, systematic review of RCTs.

Acute Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Performed Within 10 Days of Injury Does Not Increase Risk of Postoperative Arthrofibrosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) remains a controversial topic. Previous reviews have demonstrated that there are no differences between early and delayed ACLR; however, these studies have been limited by heterogeneous definitions of acute ACL injury. PURPOSE: To evaluate postoperative patient functional outcomes and risk for arthrofibrosis after acute arthroscopic ACLR performed ≤10 days after injury. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using multiple medical databases. Inclusion criteria were studies that evaluated postoperative range of motion outcomes for patients undergoing ACLR ≤10 days after initial ACL injury. For included comparative studies comparing patient groups undergoing ACLR ≤10 days and patients undergoing "delayed" ACLR after ≥3 weeks of initial injury, quantitative analysis was performed to assess for differences in postoperative arthrofibrosis, reoperation rates, and patient-reported outcomes between groups. DerSimonian-Laird binary random-effects models were constructed to quantitatively describe the association between the ACLR time period and patient outcomes by generating effect estimates in the form of odds ratios with 95% CIs. Qualitative analysis was performed to describe variably reported patient outcomes and the risk of arthrofibrosis after ACLR for noncomparative studies. RESULTS: Screening yielded 6 full-text articles with 448 patients who underwent ACLR (296 ACLR <10 days, 152 ACLR >3 weeks), with a pooled mean age of 28.1 years. For studies amenable to quantitative analysis, there were no significant differences between ACLR performed ≤10 days and ACLR performed at the 3-week point or after in terms of postoperative stiffness (3 studies; odds ratio, 1.27; P = .508), Tegner scores (2 studies; mean difference, -0.056; P = .155), or reoperation for stiffness (3 studies; odds ratio, 0.869; P = .462). The overall incidence of postoperative arthrofibrosis after 12 months of follow-up was 11 of 296 (3.7%) for ACLRs performed ≤10 days versus 6 of 152 (3.9%) for those performed at the 3-week point or after. CONCLUSION: ACLR performed ≤10 days after the inciting injury does not increase the risk of postoperative arthrofibrosis and demonstrates similar patient-reported outcomes compared with ACLR performed at the 3-week point or after.

Biomechanical comparison of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction fixation methods and implications on clinical outcomes.

Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is one of the more common surgeries encountered by orthopaedic surgeons, which has its inherent challenges due to the complex anatomy and biomechanical properties required to reproduce the function and stability of the native ACL. Multiple biomechanical factors from graft choice and tunnel placement to graft tensioning and fixation methods are vital in achieving a successful clinical outcome. Common methods of ACLR graft fixation in both the primary and revision setting are classified into compression/interference, suspensory, or hybrid fixation strategies with multiple adjunct methods of fixation. The individual biomechanical properties of these implants are crucial in facilitating early post-operative rehabilitation, while also withstanding the shear and tensile forces to avoid displacement and early graft failure during graft osseointegration. Implants within these categories include the use of interference screws (IFSs), as well as suspensory fixation with a button, posts, surgical staples, or suture anchors. Outcomes of comparative studies across the various fixation types demonstrate that compression fixation can decrease graft-tunnel motion, tunnel widening, and graft creep, at the risk of damage to the graft by IFSs and graft slippage. Suspensory fixation allows for a minimally invasive approach while allowing similar cortical apposition and biomechanical strength when compared to compression fixation. However, suspensory fixation is criticized for the risk of tunnel widening and increased graft-tunnel motion. Several adjunct fixation methods, including the use of posts, suture-anchors, and staples, offer biomechanical advantages over compression or suspensory fixation methods alone, through a second form of fixation in a second plane of motion. Regardless of the method or implant chosen for fixation, technically secure fixation is paramount to avoid displacement of the graft and allow for appropriate integration of the graft into the bone tunnel. While no single fixation technique has been established as the gold standard, a thorough understanding of the biomechanical advantages and disadvantages of each fixation method can be used to determine the optimal ACLR fixation method through an individualized patient approach.