Biphasic Scaffold Loaded With Autologous Cartilage Yields Better Clinical Outcome and Magnetic Resonance Imaging Filling Compared With Marrow Stimulation for Focal Osteochondral Lesions in the Knee.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of marrow stimulation (MS) versus biphasic scaffold loaded with autologous cartilage (scaffold) in treating focal osteochondral lesions of the knee. METHODS: In total, 54 patients with symptomatic focal chondral or osteochondral lesion in the knee were randomized to either the scaffold group or the MS group. International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score, the Knee Injury Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were assessed preoperatively and at 1 and 2 years after operation to compare treatment outcomes. Biopsy and second-look arthroscopy were performed at 1 year postoperatively for consenting patients. RESULTS: There were 27 patients (mean age 31.33 ± 10.95 years) in the scaffold group, and 27 patients (31.74 ± 11.44) in the MS group. The scaffold group and the MS group both included 23 patients with lesions ≤12.5 × 12.5 mm2 mm in size. In addition, each group had 4 patients with lesions between than 12.5 × 12.5 mm2 and ≤12.5 × 25 mm2. Both interventions achieved significant improvement in clinical outcome scores at 2 years. The scaffold group had greater International Knee Documentation Committee score than the MS group at 2 years (93.85 ± 9.55 vs 92.11 ± 9.84) and in the Symptoms/Stiffness and Sport/Recreation subscales of Knee Injury Osteoarthritis Outcome Score at 2 years (96.57 ± 5.97 vs 93.57 ± 6.52, P < .05) and (90.2 ± 17.76 vs 82.8 ± 16.08, P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The use of biphasic scaffold loaded with autologous cartilage in treating focal osteochondral lesions demonstrates superior clinical outcomes and better cartilage refill on magnetic resonance imaging at the 2-year follow-up compared to marrow stimulation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, Randomized controlled trial.

Postoperative Rehabilitation after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction through Telerehabilitation with Artificial Intelligence Brace during COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Due to the rapid spread of the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19), most of the patients expressed a reluctance to undergo postoperative rehabilitation at a rehabilitation clinic. Therefore, in this scenario it was necessary to reshape the crucial role of postoperative rehabilitation of these patients. We conducted a telerehabilitation program based on an artificial intelligence brace (AI brace) which can monitor the progress of rehabilitation through an app and an internet server. Our hypothesis was that home-based telerehabilitation might provide clinical outcomes comparable to face-to-face, hospital-based rehabilitation programs in terms of effectiveness. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study enrolled patients who received anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) between January and September 2020. Patients were divided into two groups: the tele-AI group received telerehabilitation with an AI brace while the FTF group had face-to-face, hospital-based rehabilitation. Clinical knee functional scores and Tegner Activity Scale (TAS) were assessed and analyzed until 12 months after the operation. RESULTS: The tele-AI group had higher IKDC scores at 3 months (p = 0.0443) and 6 months (p = 0.0052) after surgery and higher KOOS scores at 1 month (p = 0.0365) and 6 months (p = 0.0375) after surgery. However, no significant difference between the two groups was detected at the end of the follow-up. The tele-AI group had higher TAS than FTF group after 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Telerehabilitation after ACLR seems to provide a superior short-term outcome compared to hospital-based rehabilitation during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction implemented by the Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System over a minimum follow-up of 10 years.

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the long-term clinical follow-up results of patients who underwent double-bundle posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction using the Ligament Advanced Reinforcement System (LARS). METHODS: Patients were assessed using clinical scores that included the Tegner activity level scale, the Lysholm score, and the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score. KT-1000 was adopted to assess stability. Radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were used to evaluate osteoarthritis and LARS condition. RESULTS: This study examined 38 patients, of which follow-up procedures were completed for 33 patients, resulting in a follow-up rate of 86.8%. The average follow-up period was 11.9 ±â€¯1.2 years (range: 10.3-14.2 years). The median scores of the clinical scales were as follows: Tegner activity score, 6 (range: five to seven); Lysholm score, 90 (range: 67-100); and IKDC score, 89.7 (range: 46-100). The median of the side-to-side difference (SSD) was four millimeters (range: 0-10 mm). In radiographs, the moderate OA rate was 6.9%. MRI results revealed that 26 patients exhibited ingrowth and 11 patients exhibited partial rupture of the LARS. With SSD ≤ 3 mm set as the standard for successful knee stabilization, the optimal cutoff point of LARS midsubstance thickness in the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was 14.3 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term follow-up of the studied patients demonstrated the durability of LARS. However, clinical outcomes showed no enhancement using LARS, so it is not recommended for routine use in PCL reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.