Cartilage Injury in the Knee: Assessment and Treatment Options.

Cartilage injuries in the knee are common and can occur in isolation or in combination with limb malalignment, meniscus, ligament, and bone deficiencies. Each of these problems must be addressed to achieve a successful outcome for any cartilage restoration procedure. If nonsurgical management fails, surgical treatment is largely based on the size and location of the cartilage defect. Preservation of the patient's native cartilage is preferred if an osteochondral fragment can be salvaged. Chondroplasty and osteochondral autograft transfer are typically used to treat small (<2 cm) cartilage defects. Microfracture has not been shown to be superior to chondroplasty alone and has potential adverse effects, including cyst and intralesional osteophyte formation. Osteochondral allograft transfer and matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation are often used for larger cartilage defects. Particulated juvenile allograft cartilage is another treatment option for cartilage lesions that has good to excellent short-term results but long-term outcomes are lacking.

Meniscal Root Injuries.

Meniscal root tears are an increasingly recognized injury leading to notable functional limitations, potential rapid cartilage deterioration of the affected compartment, and subsequent risk of total knee arthroplasty if left untreated. Repair of these tears is advised when articular cartilage remains intact because both medial and lateral meniscus root repairs have demonstrated favorable results. Recent literature demonstrates decreased rates of osteoarthritis and arthroplasty after medial meniscus root repair compared with partial meniscectomy and nonsurgical management. The transtibial pull-out repair technique is most commonly used and provides a biomechanically strong suture construct with standard and familiar knee arthroscopy portals. Furthermore, repair has recently been shown to be economically effective by decreasing overall societal healthcare costs when compared with more conservative management strategies. This review outlines the evaluation, treatment, and documented outcomes of meniscal root repair, which is imperative to the preservation of knee function and maintaining quality of life.

Improving Resident Performance in Knee Arthroscopy: A Prospective Value Assessment of Simulators and Cadaveric Skills Laboratories.

BACKGROUND: Cadaveric skills laboratories and virtual reality simulators are two common methods used outside of the operating room to improve residents' performance of knee arthroscopy. We are not aware of any head-to-head comparisons of the educational values of these two methodologies. The purpose of this prospective randomized trial was to assess the efficacy of these training methods, compare their rates of improvement, and provide economic value data to programs seeking to implement such technologies. METHODS: Orthopaedic surgery residents were randomized to one of three groups: control, training on cadavera (cadaver group), and training with use of a simulator (simulator group). Residents completed pretest and posttest diagnostic knee arthroscopies on cadavera that were timed and video-recorded. Between the pretest and posttest, the control group performed no arthroscopy, the cadaver group performed four hours of practice on cadavera, and the simulator group trained for four hours on a simulator. All tests were scored in a blinded, randomized fashion using the validated Arthroscopy Surgical Skill Evaluation Tool (ASSET). The mean improvement in the ASSET score and in the time to complete the procedure were compared between the pretest and posttest and among the groups. RESULTS: Forty-five residents (fifteen per group) completed the study. The mean difference in the ASSET score from the pretest to the posttest was -0.40 (p = 0.776) in the control group, +4.27 (p = 0.002) in the cadaver group, and +1.92 (p = 0.096) in the simulator group (p = 0.015 for the comparison among the groups). The mean difference in the test-completion time (minutes:seconds) from the pretest to the posttest was 0:07 (p = 0.902) in the control group, 3:01 (p = 0.002) in the cadaver group, and 0:28 (p = 0.708) in the simulator group (p = 0.044 for the comparison among groups). Residents in the cadaver group improved their performance at a mean of 1.1 ASSET points per hour spent training whereas those in the simulator group improved 0.5 ASSET point per hour of training. CONCLUSIONS: Cadaveric skills laboratories improved residents' performance of knee arthroscopy compared with that of matched controls. Residents practicing on cadaveric specimens improved twice as fast as those utilizing a high-fidelity simulator; however, based on cost estimation specific to our institution, the simulator may be more cost-effective if it is used at least 300 hours per year. Additional study of this possibility is warranted.

Ice hockey summit II: zero tolerance for head hits and fighting.

OBJECTIVE: To present currently known basic science and on-ice influences of sport related concussion (SRC) in hockey, building upon the Ice Hockey Summit I action plan (2011) to reduce SRC. METHODS: The prior summit proceedings included an action plan intended to reduce SRC. As such, the proceedings from Summit I served as a point of departure, for the science and discussion held during Summit II (Mayo Clinic, Rochester MN, October, 2013). Summit II focused on Basic Science of Concussions in Ice Hockey: Taking Science Forward; (2) Acute and Chronic Concussion Care: Making a Difference; (3) Preventing Concussions via Behavior, Rules, Education and Measuring Effectiveness; (4) Updates in Equipment: their Relationship to Industry Standards and (5) Policies and Plans at State, National and Federal Levels to reduce SRC. Action strategies derived from the presentations and discussion described in these sectors were subsequently voted on for purposes of prioritization. The following proceedings include the knowledge and research shared by invited faculty, many of whom are health care providers and clinical investigators. RESULTS: The Summit II evidence based action plan emphasizes the rapidly evolving scientific content of hockey SRC. It includes the most highly prioritized strategies voted on for implementation to decrease concussion. CONCLUSIONS: The highest priority action items identified from the Summit include: 1) eliminate head hits from all levels of ice hockey, 2) change body checking policies, and 3) eliminate fighting in all amateur and professional hockey.

Proceedings from the Ice Hockey Summit on Concussion: a call to action.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this proceeding is to integrate the concussion in sport literature and sport science research on safety in ice hockey to develop an action plan to reduce the risk, incidence, severity, and consequences of concussion in ice hockey. METHODS: A rationale paper outlining a collaborative action plan to address concussions in hockey was posted for review two months prior to the Ice Hockey Summit: Action on Concussion. Focused presentations devoted specifically to concussion in ice hockey were presented during the Summit and breakout sessions were used to develop strategies to reduce concussion in the sport. This proceedings and a detailed scientific review (a matrix of solutions) were written to disseminate the evidence-based information and resulting concussion reduction strategies. The manuscripts were reviewed by the authors, advisors and contributors to ensure that the opinions and recommendations reflect the current level of knowledge on concussion in hockey. RESULTS: Six components of a potential solution were articulated in the Rationale paper and became the topics for breakout groups that followed the professional, scientific lectures. Topics that formed the core of the action plan were: metrics and databases; recognizing, managing and return to play; hockey equipment and ice arenas; prevention and education; rules and regulations; and expedient communication of the outcomes. The attendees in breakout sessions identified action items for each section. The most highly ranked action items were brought to a vote in the open assembly, using an Audience Response System (ARS). The strategic planning process was conducted to assess: Where are we at?; Where must we get to?; and What strategies are necessary to make progress on the prioritized action items? CONCLUSIONS: Three prioritized action items for each component of the solution and the percentage of the votes received are listed in the body of this proceeding.