No Difference in Most Reported Outcome Measures for Allograft Versus Autograft for Hip Labral Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies.

PURPOSE: To systematically review studies comparing outcomes of allograft versus autograft for hip labral reconstruction. METHODS: A systematic review following guidelines established by PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) was performed in 3 databases using the terms "labrum," "hip," "acetabulum," "reconstruction," "augmentation," "allograft," and "autograft." Data on study characteristics, patient demographic characteristics, follow-up time, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), rates of revision surgery, and rates of conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) were collected. RESULTS: Three studies were included, with Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) scores ranging from 17 to 23. Among 92 patients receiving allografts, the mean ages ranged from 30.6 to 34.8 years; mean follow-up times, from 34.6 to 66.1 months; revision rates, from 0% to 23.6%; and conversion-to-THA rates, from 0% to 20%. Among 185 patients receiving autografts, the mean ages ranged from 34.6 to 35.9 years; mean follow-up times, from 32.7 to 80.8 months; revision rates, from 0% to 7.3%; and conversion-to-THA rates, from 0% to 6.7%. One study reported significantly higher revision rates in the allograft group. All studies reported no statistically significant differences in postoperative PROs, and all postoperative PROs significantly improved compared with preoperative PROs. Rates of achievement of the minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptomatic state, reported by 1 study, were statistically similar between the 2 groups and ranged from 55.6% to 100% for the allograft group and from 53.8% to 84.6% for the autograft group. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences between allograft and autograft patients in terms of postoperative PROs; however, all PRO measures were slightly higher in allograft patients. Both revision and conversion-to-THA rates were higher in allograft patients in 2 studies, with the level of significance being reached in terms of revision in 1 study. The third study reported zero revisions and conversions to THA in allograft and autograft patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level II and III studies.

The Role of Extracellular Vesicles in SARS-CoV-2-Induced Acute Kidney Injury: An Overview.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has affected millions worldwide since its outbreak in the winter of 2019. While extensive research has primarily focused on the deleterious respiratory effects of SARS-CoV-2 in recent years, its pan-tropism has become evident. Among the vital organs susceptible to SARS-CoV-2 infection is the kidney. Post SARS-CoV-2 infection, patients have developed coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19), with reported incidences of COVID-19 patients developing acute kidney injury (AKI). Given COVID-19's multisystemic manifestation, our review focuses on the impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection within the renal system with an emphasis on the current hypotheses regarding the role of extracellular vesicles (EVs) in SARS-CoV-2 pathogenesis. Emerging studies have shown that SARS-CoV-2 can directly infect the kidney, whereas EVs are involved in the spreading of SARS-CoV-2 particles to other neighboring cells. Once the viral particles are within the kidney system, many proinflammatory signaling pathways are shown to be activated, resulting in AKI. Hence, clinical investigation of urinary proinflammatory components and total urinary extracellular vesicles (uEVs) with viral particles have been used to assess the severity of AKI in patients with COVID-19. Remarkedly, new emerging studies have shown the potential of mesenchymal stem cell-derived EVs (MSC-EVs) and ACE2-containing EVs as a hopeful therapeutic tool to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 RNA replication and block viral entry, respectively. Overall, understanding EVs' physiological role is crucial and hopefully will rejuvenate our therapeutic approach towards COVID-19 patients with AKI.

Orphan Applicants in Orthopedic Surgery: Where Do Allopathic Applicants Without an Affiliated Residency Program Match?

Background  Orthopedic surgery is one of the most competitive specialties to match into a residency. With a plethora of qualified applicants and the subjective nature of matching into any residency program, it can be difficult to accurately assess the chances of successfully matching into orthopedic surgery and the types of programs an applicant will match into. The purpose of this study is to compare the types of programs that students from medical schools with and without home programs match. Methods This was a five-year retrospective study (2019 to 2023) analyzing 155 United States Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) programs and their orthopedic residency-matched students. Of the 155 programs, 40 were excluded from the study due to the lack of obtainable data. For each medical school, we analyzed several variables: the presence of a home program, the total number of orthopedic residency matches, residency program matches, and residency program affiliation (academic, community, university-affiliated community-based, military). Results Of the 2066 total matched applicants from institutions with home programs, 1508 (73%) matched into academic centers, 315 (15.3%) into university-affiliated community programs, 172 (8.3%) into community programs, and 71 (3.4%) into military programs. In contrast, of the 219 total matched applicants from institutions without home programs (orphan applicants), 144 (67.8%) matched into academic programs, 36 (16.4%) into university-affiliated community programs, 28 (12.8%) into community programs, and 11 (5%) into military programs. Conclusion A greater proportion of students from institutions with home programs matched into academic centers compared to orphan applicants (73% vs. 65.8%). A greater proportion of orphan applicants matched into community programs (12.8% vs. 8.3%).