Most Orthopaedic Platelet-Rich Plasma Investigations Don't Report Protocols and Composition: An Updated Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature to assess the heterogeneity of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) preparation and composition reporting for the treatment of musculoskeletal/orthopaedic pathologies. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify Level I and Level II studies from 2016 to 2022 that evaluated the use of PRP therapy for musculoskeletal pathologies. The search phrase used was "platelet-rich plasma clinical studies." Studies were assessed based on their reporting of the PRP preparation methods and reporting of PRP composition. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-four studies (in 120 articles) met inclusion criteria for analysis. Of these studies, 15 (12.1%) provided comprehensive reporting, including a clear, well-described, and reproducible preparation protocol that future investigators can follow. Thirty-three studies (26.6%) quantitatively reported the final PRP product composition. CONCLUSIONS: Among the studies using PRP for the treatment of musculoskeletal/orthopaedic pathologies, less than 20% provided a clear, well-described, and reproducible PRP preparation protocol, and only one-fourth of studies reported on the final PRP product composition. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A diverse current reporting of PRP composition between studies provides a high heterogeneity of the term "PRP," which becomes a limitation for a comparison of studies using PRP.

Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis Who Receive Platelet-Rich Plasma or Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate Injections Have Better Outcomes Than Patients Who Receive Hyaluronic Acid: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature to compare the efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP), bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), and hyaluronic acid (HA) injections for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify Level I studies that compared the clinical efficacy of at least 2 of the following 3 injection therapies: PRP, BMAC, and HA for knee OA. The search phrase used was knee AND osteoarthritis AND randomized AND ("platelet rich plasma" OR "bone marrow aspirate" OR "hyaluronic acid"). Patients were primarily assessed based on patient-reported outcome scores (PROs) including the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies (all Level I) met inclusion criteria, including 1,042 patients undergoing intra-articular injection(s) with PRP (mean age 57.7 years, mean follow-up 13.5 months), 226 patients with BMAC (mean age 57.0 years, mean follow-up 17.5 months), and 1,128 patients with HA (mean age 59.0 years, mean follow-up 14.4 months). Nonnetwork meta-analyses demonstrated significantly better postinjection WOMAC (P < .001), VAS (P < .01), and Subjective IKDC scores (P < .001) in patients who received PRP compared with patients who received HA. Similarly, network meta-analyses demonstrated significantly better postinjection WOMAC (P < .001), VAS (P = .03), and Subjective IKDC (P < .001) scores in patients who received BMAC compared with patients who received HA. There were no significant differences in postinjection outcome scores when comparing PRP with BMAC. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing treatment for knee OA with PRP or BMAC can be expected to experience improved clinical outcomes when compared with patients who receive HA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, meta-analysis of Level I studies.

Knotted Transosseous-Equivalent Technique for Rotator Cuff Repair Shows Superior Biomechanical Properties Compared With a Knotless Technique: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the biomechanical properties of the knotted versus knotless transosseous-equivalent (TOE) techniques for rotator cuff repair (RCR). METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify studies that compared the biomechanical properties of knotted and knotless TOE RCR techniques. The search phrase used was as follows: (Double Row) AND (rotator cuff) AND (repair) AND (biomechanical). Evaluated properties included ultimate load to failure, cyclic displacement, stiffness, footprint characteristics, and failure mode. RESULTS: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, including a total of 67 specimens in each group. Of 6 studies reporting on ultimate load to failure, 4 found tendons repaired with the knotted TOE technique to experience significantly higher ultimate load to failure compared with knotless TOE repairs (knotted range, 323.5-549.0 N; knotless range, 166.0-416.8 N; P < .05). Of 6 studies reporting on failure stiffness, 2 found knotted TOE repairs to have significantly higher failure stiffness compared with knotless TOE repairs (knotted range, 30.0-241.8 N/mm; knotless range, 28.0-182.5 N/mm; P < .05), whereas 1 study found significantly higher failure stiffness in knotless TOE repairs compared with knotted TOE repairs (P = .039). Cyclic gap formation favored the knotted TOE group in 2 of 3 studies (knotted range, 0.6-5.2 mm; knotless range, 0.4-9.1 mm; P < .05). The most common mode of failure in both groups was suture tendon tear. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the included cadaveric studies, rotator cuff tendons repaired via the knotted TOE technique display superior time-zero biomechanical properties, including greater ultimate load to failure, compared with rotator cuffs repaired via the knotless TOE technique. Suture tearing through the tendon remains a common failure method for both techniques. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this systematic review provide helpful insight into the biomechanical differences between 2 popular techniques for RCR. Although these results should be carefully considered by surgeons who are using either of these techniques in the operating room, they should not be mistaken for direct clinical applicability because cadaveric studies may not directly correlate to clinical outcomes.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Hyaluronic Acid for Hip Osteoarthritis Yields Similarly Beneficial Short-Term Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Level I and II Randomized Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature to compare the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) injections for the treatment of hip osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify randomized controlled trials that compared the clinical efficacy of PRP and HA injections for hip OA. The search phrase used was hip, osteoarthritis, platelet-rich plasma, hyaluronic acid, randomized. Patients were assessed based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, and the Harris Hip Score (HHS). Subanalyses were performed for any outcome score in which ≥3 studies reported results. RESULTS: Six studies (5 level I, 1 level II) met inclusion criteria, including 211 patients undergoing intra-articular injection with PRP (mean age 60.0 years, mean follow-up 12.2 months) and 197 patients with HA (mean age 62.3 years, mean follow-up 11.9 months). No significant differences were found in the weighted improvement of any outcome score (WOMAC, VAS, or HHS) from preinjection to postinjection between groups. When excluding a study with the highest risk of bias to eliminate heterogeneity, pooled subanalysis demonstrated no significant differences in WOMAC subscores between PRP and HA groups. Similarly, in a pooled subanalysis that isolated patients treated with leukocyte-poor PRP, no significant differences in WOMAC subscores were found between PRP and HA groups. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing treatment for hip OA with either PRP or HA injections can expect to experience similarly beneficial short-term clinical outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, systematic review of level I and II studies.

A Systematic Review Shows High Variation in Terminology, Surgical Techniques, Preoperative Diagnostic Measures, and Geographic Differences in the Treatment of Athletic Pubalgia/Sports Hernia/Core Muscle Injury/Inguinal Disruption.

PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of reported terminologies, surgical techniques, preoperative diagnostic measures, and geographic differences in the treatment of core muscle injury (CMI)/athletic pubalgia/inguinal disruption. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify clinical studies or articles that described a surgical technique to treat CMI refractory to nonoperative treatment. The search phrase used was "core muscle injury" OR "sports hernia" OR "athletic pubalgia" OR "inguinal disruption." The diagnostic terminology, country of publication, preoperative diagnostic measures, surgical technique, and subspecialty of the operating surgeons described in each article were extracted and reported. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria, including 3 surgical technique articles and 28 clinical articles (2 Level I evidence, 1 Level II, 4 Level III, and 21 Level IV). A total of 1,571 patients were included. The most common terminology used to describe the diagnosis was "athletic pubalgia," followed by "sports hernia." Plain radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging of the pelvis were the most common imaging modalities used in the preoperative evaluation of CMI/athletic pubalgia/inguinal disruption. Tenderness-to-palpation testing was the most common technique performed during physical examination, although the specific locations assessed with this technique varied substantially. The operating surgeons were general surgeons (16 articles), a combination of orthopaedic and general surgeons (7 articles), or orthopaedic surgeons (5 articles). The most common procedures performed were open or laparoscopic mesh repair, adductor tenotomy, primary tissue (hernia) repair, and rectus abdominis repair. The procedures performed differed on the basis of surgeon subspecialty, geographic location, and year of publication. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of diagnostic methods and surgical procedures have been used in the treatment of a CMI/athletic pubalgia/sports hernia/inguinal disruption. These procedures are performed by orthopaedic and/or general surgeons, with the procedures performed differing on the basis of surgeon subspecialty and geographic location. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, systematic review of Level I to V studies.

The Anterolateral Ligament of the Knee: An Updated Systematic Review of Anatomy, Biomechanics, and Clinical Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To perform an updated systematic review of the anatomy, biomechanics, function of the anterolateral ligament (ALL), and the clinical outcomes of anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) when performed in conjunction with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase with the search phrase anterolateral ligament for articles published from February 2017 to May 2020. Inclusion criteria included studies that evaluated the anatomy, function, or biomechanics of the ALL; surgical technique articles on ALLR; clinical articles reporting outcomes of ALLR; studies published in English; and full-text articles. Exclusion criteria included studies published before February 2017. A subjective synthesis was performed, in which ranges were reported, and individual study data were presented in forest plots. RESULTS: Overall, 40 articles were included in this systematic review, with 11 articles describing ALL anatomy, 14 articles analyzing ALL function and biomechanics, 7 articles discussing the surgical technique of combined ACLR and ALLR (ACLR/ALLR), and 8 articles describing the clinical outcomes of ACLR/ALLR. The addition of ALLR in combination with ACLR (ACLR+) results in lower graft failure rates for ACLR/ALLR (0.0%-15.7%) when compared with isolated ACLR (I-ACLR) patients (7.4%-21.7%). Three of 5 studies using the Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee score, 2 of 5 studies using the Lysholm score, and 1 of 2 studies using the Tegner score reported significantly better scores at latest follow-up among ACLR+ patients compared with I-ACLR (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The ALL acts as a secondary stabilizer to the anterior cruciate ligament and helps resist internal knee rotation and anterior tibial translation. Based on the current literature, combined ACLR with ALLR may result in lower graft failure rates and improved patient-reported outcomes when compared with I-ACLR in patients with specific indications, although several studies have shown equivalent outcomes between these 2 cohorts. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The contents of this review provide great insight for orthopaedic surgeons who are performing ACLR and considering additional procedures to increase overall knee stability and decrease likeliness for re-rupture. The postoperative functional and clinical outcomes shown in patients undergoing ACLR+ compared with I-ACLR should be given proper consideration when evaluating available treatment courses.

Tranexamic Acid Use in Knee and Shoulder Arthroscopy Leads to Improved Outcomes and Fewer Hemarthrosis-Related Complications: A Systematic Review of Level I and II Studies.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature to compare the efficacy and safety of tranexamic acid (TXA) as a means to minimize hemarthrosis-related complications after arthroscopic procedures of the knee, hip, and shoulder. METHODS: A systematic review according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed by searching PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases to locate randomized controlled trials comparing the clinical outcomes and postoperative complications of patients undergoing arthroscopy with and without TXA. Search terms used were "tranexamic acid," "arthroscopy," "knee," "hip," and "shoulder." Patients were evaluated based on early (<6 weeks) postoperative signs of hemarthrosis using the Coupens and Yates classification, postoperative complications (myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism events), range of motion (ROM), and patient-reported outcome scores (Visual analog scale, Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee, Lysholm, and Tegner activity scores). RESULTS: Five studies (2 level I and 3 level II) met inclusion criteria, including a total of 299 patients undergoing arthroscopy with TXA and 299 patients without TXA. The average follow-up duration for all patients was 43.9 days. Procedures performed were partial meniscectomy, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, and rotator cuff repair. No studies evaluating TXA use in hip arthroscopy were identified. Coupens-Yates hemarthrosis grades significantly improved in the TXA groups across all studies. Three studies found TXA patients to experience significantly less postoperative pain at latest follow-up, 1 study found TXA patients to have significantly better postoperative Lysholm scores, and 1 study found TXA patients to have significantly more ROM at latest follow-up compared with non-TXA patients (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing arthroscopy, particularly arthroscopic meniscectomy, arthroscopic-assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, with TXA can be expected to experience improved outcomes and less hemarthrosis-related complications in the early postoperative period compared with non-TXA patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, systematic review of level I and II studies.

Biceps tenodesis versus tenotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of level I randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Biceps tenodesis and tenotomy are 2 surgical treatment options for relief of long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) pathology and superior labrum anterior-to-posterior (SLAP) tears. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the clinical outcomes and complications of biceps tenodesis and tenotomy for the treatment of LHBT or SLAP pathology during shoulder arthroscopy. METHODS: We performed a systematic review by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify level I randomized controlled trials that compared the clinical outcomes of biceps tenodesis vs. tenotomy. The search phrase used was as follows: biceps tenodesis tenotomy randomized. Patients were assessed based on the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, visual analog scale score for pain, and Constant-Murley score, as well as postoperative range of motion, strength, and cosmetic deformity. RESULTS: Five studies (all level I) met the inclusion criteria, including 236 patients undergoing biceps tenodesis (mean age, 60.3 years) and 232 patients undergoing biceps tenotomy (mean age, 59.7 years). The mean follow-up period was 23.0 months. Overall, 6.8% of tenodesis patients experienced cosmetic deformity at latest follow-up compared with 23.3% of tenotomy patients (P < .001). No differences in Constant-Murley, visual analog scale, or American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores were found between groups in any study, and of all the studies evaluating strength and range of motion at latest follow-up, only 1 found a significant difference between groups, in which tenodesis patients demonstrated significantly increased forearm supination strength (P = .02). One study found tenodesis patients to experience significantly more biceps cramping at 6-month follow-up compared with tenotomy patients (P = .043), although no differences in complication rates at latest follow-up were found in any study. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing treatment for LHBT or SLAP pathology with either biceps tenodesis or tenotomy can be expected to experience similar improvements in patient-reported and functional outcomes. There is an increased rate of cosmetic deformity in patients undergoing biceps tenotomy compared with tenodesis.

Comparing Hamstring Autograft With Hybrid Graft for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature in an effort to compare the demographics and clinical outcomes of patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with a hamstring tendon autograft (HT) versus an irradiated or nonirradiated hybrid autograft-allograft. METHODS: A systematic review of the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. All English-language literature that reported general demographics and compared the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing primary ACLR with autograft versus hybrid graft (HG) with a minimum 2-year follow-up was reviewed by 2 independent reviewers. Search terms used were "anterior cruciate ligament" and "hybrid graft." Patients were assessed based on graft failure, anteroposterior laxity, and patient-reported outcomes (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, visual analog scale, Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee score, Lysholm, and Tegner scores). Study quality was evaluated with the Modified Coleman Methodology Score and ROBINS-I risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Twelve studies (1 level II, 11 level III) met inclusion criteria (follow-up, 2.0-8.9 years), including 471 patients undergoing ACLR with an irradiated hybrid graft (IH), 89 patients with a nonirradiated hybrid graft, and 829 patients with HT. Graft diameter ranged from 7.5 to 10.0 mm and from 6.5 to 10.0 mm in HG and HT patients, respectively. Overall, graft failure ranged from 0% to 30.0% and from 0% to 28.3% in HG and HT patients, respectively (I2 = 35.9%; 95% confidence interval 0%-74.8%). Among HG patients, graft failure ranged from 0%-30.0% and from 2.4%-4.2% in IH and nonirradiated hybrid graft groups, respectively (I2 = 33.6%; 95% confidence interval, 0%-71.8%). Results for postoperative anteroposterior laxity and patient-reported outcomes were also inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing ACLR with HT demonstrate inconsistent differences in clinical outcomes at midterm follow-up compared with IH patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, systematic review of level II and III studies.

Prevention of Cutibacterium acnes infection in arthroscopic shoulder surgery: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Cutibacterium acnes is a gram-positive anaerobe that can lead to postoperative shoulder infections. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of C acnes infections following shoulder arthroscopy and evaluate the efficacy of perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis in the prevention of these infections. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify studies that evaluated the prevalence and clinical indications of C acnes infections after various arthroscopic shoulder surgical procedures. Patients were assessed based on positive culture rates, the contraction of infection, and antibiotic regimens used to prevent infection. RESULTS: A total of 9 studies (1 level I, 5 level II, 1 level III, and 2 level IV) met the inclusion criteria, including a total of 3758 patients with a mean age of 59.9 years (range, 17-87 years) at the time of surgery. The mean follow-up time was 1.6 months (range, 1.0-12.0 months). Overall, 37.3% of patients (173 of 464) had positive C acnes skin and/or joint culture results, and in 0.22% of patients (8 of 3586), a C acnes infection was diagnosed postoperatively. The application of a topical benzoyl peroxide antibiotic in the days leading up to surgery significantly reduced the positive culture rate from 41.6% to 9.6% (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: C acnes infections occur at a very low rate (0.22%) following shoulder arthroscopy. The application of a topical benzoyl peroxide antibiotic in the days leading up to surgery in combination with preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis significantly reduces the prevalence of C acnes in shoulder arthroscopy patients.

Knee Osteoarthritis After Single-Bundle Versus Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: To systematically review high-quality studies in the literature to compare the postoperative radiographic incidence of knee osteoarthritis (OA) after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with a single-bundle (SB) versus double-bundle (DB) graft. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to locate randomized controlled trials that compared the postoperative progression of knee OA in SB versus DB ACLR patients. The search terms used were "anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction," "single-bundle," "double-bundle," "randomized," and "osteoarthritis." Patients were assessed based on radiographic evaluation (Kellgren-Lawrence [K-L] and objective International Knee Documentation Committee scales) and graft failure. RESULTS: A total of 7 studies (5 Level I and 2 Level II) met the inclusion criteria, including 375 SB and 477 DB ACLR patients with a mean follow-up period of 5.3 years. Graft failure occurred in 3.2% of patients overall (27 of 852), with no significant difference between groups (P = .10). No significant difference in overall K-L grade distribution was found between groups (P = .90). Overall, 15.1% of patients (58 of 383) were given a K-L grade of 2 or greater, including 14.4% in the SB group (31 of 215) and 16.1% in the DB group (27 of 168) (P = .65). Using other, unconventional grading schemes, 2 studies found DB ACLR patients to have significantly fewer signs of radiographic knee OA at follow-up compared with SB ACLR patients (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing ACLR with either an SB or DB graft can be expected to experience a similar incidence of postoperative knee OA at midterm follow-up according to the K-L grading system. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, systematic review of Level I and II studies.

Primary Arthroscopic Repair of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament: A Systematic Review of Clinical Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To describe the clinical outcomes after primary arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair. METHODS: A systematic review of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. All English-language literature published from 2000 to 2018 that reported the clinical outcomes after primary arthroscopic repair (AR) of complete tear of the ACL (without augmentation) with a minimum 2-year follow-up was reviewed by 2 independent reviewers. Outcomes included repair failure, reoperation, postoperative knee stability, and patient-reported outcomes. Descriptive statistics are presented. Study quality was evaluated with the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS) and the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) score. RESULTS: Six studies (2 level III, 4 level IV) were included. The mean MCMS was 62.2. The mean MINORS score for noncomparative studies was 11.8, and for comparative studies, 18. Six studies reported outcomes of 89 patients who underwent AR of the ACL from 2007 to 2016 (age, 8 to 67 years; follow-up, 24 to 110 months). All 6 studies included exclusively proximal avulsion tears. Overall, 0% to 25.0% of patients experienced repair failure (I2 = 23.7%; 95% confidence interval, 0% to 67.6%), and 0% to 20.0% of patients had a subsequent reoperation (I2 = 12.1%; 95% confidence interval, 0% to 77.7%). Similar inconsistent results were shown for postoperative knee stability measures and patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The literature on clinical outcomes of primary arthroscopic ACL repair is limited. The reported rates of repair failure and reoperation are highly inconsistent. Most studies report relatively high failure rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, systematic review of level III and IV studies.

Knee Osteoarthritis After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Versus Hamstring Tendon Autograft: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to systematically review high-quality studies in the literature to compare the postoperative radiographic incidence of knee osteoarthritis (OA) after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) versus hamstring tendon (HT) autograft. The secondary purpose of this study was to compare other symptoms of postoperative knee OA between these 2 groups through patient-reported outcome scores and knee range of motion. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to locate randomized controlled trials that compared postoperative progression of knee OA in patients who had undergone ACLR with BPTB versus HT autograft. Search terms used were "anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction," "patellar tendon," "hamstring," "randomized," and "osteoarthritis." Patients were assessed based on radiographic evaluation (Kellgren-Lawrence, Ahlbäck, Fairbank, and the Objective International Knee Documentation Committee scales), patient-reported outcome scores (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and visual analog scale scores), graft failure, and active knee flexion and extension deficit. RESULTS: Eight studies (6 Level I, 2 Level II) were identified that met inclusion criteria, including a total of 237 and 268 nonoverlapping patients who had undergone ACLR with BPTB and HT autograft, respectively, with a mean follow-up of 11.5 years (range, 3-16 years). Graft failure was experienced by 7.0% of patients in each group (P = .99). A Kellgren-Lawrence grade ≥2 was found in 52.0% and 51.0% of BPTB and HT autograft patients, respectively (P = .85). An Ahlbäck and Fairbank grade ≥2 was found in 5.0% and 8.4% of BPTB and HT autograft patients, respectively (P = .36). There were no significant differences in any patient-reported outcomes between groups within any study. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing ACLR with BPTB autograft or HT autograft can be expected to experience a similar incidence of postoperative knee OA at long-term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, systematic review of Level I and II studies.

Quadriceps Tendon Autograft for Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Comparative Studies With Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature in an effort to compare outcomes of patients undergoing primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with a quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft versus a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) or hamstring tendon (HT) autograft. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to locate studies (Level of Evidence I-III) comparing the clinical outcomes of the QT autograft versus the BPTB or HT autograft in patients undergoing primary ACLR. Patients were evaluated based on graft failure rate, examination of knee laxity, and patient-reported outcome scores. RESULTS: Eight studies (1 Level II, 7 Level III) were identified that met inclusion criteria, including a total of 368 patients undergoing primary ACLR with a QT autograft, 225 with a BPTB autograft, and 150 with an HT autograft. The average follow-up duration for all patients was 2.9 years. Overall, 2.8% of patients (17/603) experienced graft failure. Within the studies that compared the QT versus BPTB autograft, no study found a significant difference in graft failure rate between groups, and the odds ratio for graft failure between QT and BPTB was found to be 1.58 (95% confidence interval: 0.49-5.07; P = .44). Within the studies that compared graft failure rate between the QT and HT autograft, none found significant differences between groups, although a meta-analysis was not performed because of a low number of trials. Two studies found significantly greater postoperative knee laxity in HT patients compared with QT patients (P < .05), although there were no significant differences found in laxity measurements between QT and BPTB patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing primary ACLR with either a QT, BPTB, or HT autograft can all be expected to experience improvement in clinical outcomes. QT patients experienced less knee laxity postoperatively compared with HT patients, although no significant differences were found in graft failure rate between groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level II and III studies.

Similar clinical outcomes following collagen or polyurethane meniscal scaffold implantation: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the current literature in an effort to assess specific clinical outcomes following meniscal scaffold implantation using the two available scaffolds: Collagen Meniscal Implant (CMI) and the Actifit polyurethane meniscal scaffold. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library to find studies evaluating clinical outcomes of patients undergoing meniscal scaffold implantation. Search terms used were "meniscus", "meniscal", "scaffold", and "implant". Studies were evaluated based on scaffold type, treatment failure rates, patient-reported outcome scores, concomitant procedures, and radiological findings. Radiological findings were recorded using the Genovese scale to assess morphology and signal intensity and the Yulish score to assess articular cartilage. RESULTS: Nineteen studies (1 level I, 1 level II, 17 level IV evidence) were identified that met inclusion criteria, including a total of 658 patients (347 Actifit, 311 CMI). The overall average follow-up was 45 months. Treatment failure occurred in 9.9% of patients receiving the Actifit scaffold at a mean follow-up of 40 months and 6.7% of patients receiving CMI at a mean follow-up of 44 months (n.s.). However, the rate of failure ranged from 0 to 31.8% amongst the included studies with a variable definition of failure. Additionally, overlapping patients and presence of concomitant surgeries such as anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) may have a significant influence on these results. Outcomes for the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, Lysholm knee score, and Tegner activity score improved from preoperatively to latest follow-up in both groups, while the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and International Knee Documentation Committee scores improved from preoperatively to latest follow-up for Actifit scaffold patients. Overall, patients receiving CMI scaffolds had higher grades for Genovese morphology and signal intensity when compared to Actifit scaffold patients. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing meniscal scaffold implantation with either CMI or Actifit scaffold can both be expected to experience improvement in clinical outcomes when used in association with concomitant procedures such as ACLR and HTO. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, systematic review.

What is the Value of a National Football League Draft Pick? An Analysis Based on Changes Made in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

Kraeutler, MJ, Carver, TJ, Belk, JW, and McCarty, EC. What is the value of a National Football League draft pick? An analysis based on changes made in the collective bargaining agreement. J Strength Cond Res 32(6): 1656-1661, 2018-The purpose of this study was to analyze and compare the value of players drafted in early rounds of the National Football League (NFL) Draft since the new collective bargaining agreement began in 2011. The NFL's player statistics database and database of player contract details were searched for players drafted in the first 3 rounds of the 2011 to 2013 NFL Drafts. Performance outcomes specific to each position were divided by each player's salary to calculate a value statistic. Various demographics, NFL Combine results, and total number of games missed because of injury were also recorded for each player. These statistics were compared within each position between players selected in the first round of the NFL Draft (group A) vs. those drafted in the second or third round (group B). A total of 147 players were included (group A 35, group B 112). Overall, players in group A were significantly taller (p ≤ 0.01) and heavier (p = 0.037) than players in group B. Group B demonstrated significantly greater value statistics than group A for quarterbacks (p = 0.028), wide receivers (p ≤ 0.001), defensive tackles (p = 0.019), and cornerbacks (p ≤ 0.001). No significant differences were found between groups with regard to number of games missed because of injury. Players drafted in the second or third rounds of the NFL Draft often carry more value than those drafted in the first round. NFL teams may wish to more frequently trade down in the Draft rather than trading up.

Autograft Demonstrates Superior Outcomes for Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction When Compared With Allograft: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have compared outcomes among patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with autograft versus allograft, but these data are inconsistently reported and long-term outcomes depending on graft type are yet to be determined. PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of clinical outcomes after revision ACLR (rACLR) with autograft versus allograft. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify studies that compared the outcomes of patients undergoing rACLR with autograft versus allograft. The search phrase used was autograft allograft revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Graft rerupture rates, return-to-sports rates, anteroposterior laxity, and patient-reported outcome scores (subjective International Knee Documentation Committee, Tegner, Lysholm, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) were evaluated. RESULTS: Eleven studies met inclusion criteria, including 3011 patients undergoing rACLR with autograft (mean age, 28.9 years) and 1238 patients undergoing rACLR with allograft (mean age, 28.0 years). Mean follow-up was 57.3 months. The most common autograft and allograft types were bone-patellar tendon-bone grafts. Overall, 6.2% of patients undergoing rACLR experienced graft retear, including 4.7% in the autograft group and 10.2% in the allograft group (P < .0001). Among studies that reported return-to-sports rates, 66.2% of patients with an autograft returned to sports as opposed to 45.3% of patients with an allograft (P = .01). Two studies found significantly greater postoperative knee laxity in the allograft group as compared with the autograft group (P < .05). Among all patient-reported outcomes, 1 study found 1 significant difference between groups: patients with an autograft had a significantly higher postoperative Lysholm score when compared with patients with an allograft. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing revision ACLR with an autograft can be expected to experience lower rates of graft retear, higher rates of return to sports, and less postoperative anteroposterior knee laxity when compared with patients undergoing revision ACLR with an allograft.

Immobilization in External Rotation Versus Arthroscopic Stabilization After Primary Anterior Shoulder Dislocation: A Systematic Review of Level 1 and 2 Studies.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic stabilization has been established as a superior treatment option for primary glenohumeral instability when compared with immobilization in internal rotation. However, immobilization in external rotation (ER) has recently gained interest as a viable nonoperative treatment option for patients with shoulder instability. PURPOSE: To compare the rates of recurrent instability and subsequent surgery in patients undergoing treatment for primary anterior shoulder dislocation with arthroscopic stabilization versus immobilization in ER. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify studies that'evaluated patients being treated for primary anterior glenohumeral dislocation with either arthroscopic stabilization or immobilization in ER. The search phrase used various combinations of the keywords/phrases "primary closed reduction,""anterior shoulder dislocation,""traumatic,""primary,""treatment,""management,""immobilization,""external rotation,""surgical,""operative,""nonoperative," and "conservative." Inclusion criteria included patients undergoing treatment for primary anterior glenohumeral joint dislocation with either immobilization in ER or arthroscopic stabilization. Rates of recurrent instability, subsequent stabilization surgery, return to sports, positive postintervention apprehension tests, and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated. RESULTS: The 30 studies that met inclusion criteria included 760 patients undergoing arthroscopic stabilization (mean age, 23.1 years; mean follow-up time, 55.1 months) and 409 patients undergoing immobilization in ER (mean age, 29.8 years; mean follow-up time, 28.8 months). Overall, 8.8% of operative patients experienced recurrent instability at latest follow-up compared with 21.3% of patients who had undergone ER immobilization (P < .0001). Similarly, 5.7% of operative patients had undergone a subsequent stabilization procedure at latest follow-up compared with 11.3% of patients who had undergone ER immobilization (P = .0015). A higher rate of return to sports was found in the operative group (P < .05), but no other differences were found between groups. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing arthroscopic treatment for primary anterior glenohumeral dislocation with arthroscopic stabilization can be expected to experience significantly lower rates of recurrent instability and subsequent stabilization procedures compared with patients undergoing ER immobilization.

Outcomes of Total Shoulder Arthroplasty With and Without Prior Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review.

Background: The effect of prior rotator cuff repair (RCR) on clinical outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is unclear. Purpose: To systematically review the literature to compare the outcomes of TSA in patients with and without prior RCR. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review was performed using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines by searching the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases to identify studies comparing outcomes of TSA with and without prior RCR. The inclusion criteria were full-text studies that directly compared outcomes between patients undergoing anatomic or reverse TSA with and without prior RCR. A quality assessment was performed using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS), and risk of bias assessment was performed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. A total of 1542 articles were identified for review based on initial database queries. Weighted means of quantifiable demographics and patient-reported outcomes were calculated for all included studies and compiled, in addition to the MCMS and ROBINS-I tool. Results: Twelve studies (10 level 3, 2 level 4) met inclusion criteria, including a total of 885 patients who underwent RCR before TSA (mean age, 68.2 years) and 2275 patients with no prior RCR (mean age, 70.0 years). Of all outcomes evaluated, patients with reverse TSA showed superior results in the no prior RCR group. Three reverse TSA studies found the no prior RCR group to have significantly higher postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores when compared with the prior RCR group (P < .05). Multiple reverse TSA studies found the no prior RCR group to have significantly higher postoperative Simple Shoulder Test scores (P < .05) and significantly improved forward elevation (P < .05) when compared with the prior RCR group. Of all outcomes in anatomic TSA studies, only complication rate was different between groups, with 1 study finding a significantly lower complication rate in the no prior RCR group (P = .01). Conclusion: Patients undergoing reverse TSA without prior RCR can be expected to experience statistically better outcomes when compared with patients with prior RCR, while patients undergoing anatomic TSA can be expected to have similar outcomes regardless of prior RCR status.

Isolated Osteotomy Versus Combined Osteotomy and Cartilage Repair for Osteoarthritis or Focal Chondral Defects of the Medial Compartment of the Knee Joint: A Systematic Review.

Background: The extent to which concomitant cartilage repair provides an improvement in clinical outcomes after osteotomy is unclear. Purpose: To compare studies reporting clinical outcomes after isolated osteotomy with or without cartilage repair for osteoarthritis (OA) or focal chondral defects (FCDs) of the knee joint. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines by searching PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. The search was done to identify comparative studies that directly compared outcomes between isolated osteotomy-high tibial osteotomy or distal femoral osteotomy-and osteotomy with concomitant cartilage repair for OA or FCDs of the knee joint. Patients were evaluated based on reoperation rate, magnetic resonance observation of cartilage repair tissue score, macroscopic International Cartilage Regeneration & Joint Preservation Society score, and patient-reported outcomes. Results: In total, 6 studies-level 2 evidence (n = 2);, level 3 evidence (n = 3);, and level 4 evidence (n = 1)-met the inclusion criteria, including a total of 228 patients undergoing osteotomy alone (group A) and 255 patients undergoing osteotomy with concomitant cartilage repair (group B). The mean patient age was 53.4 and 54.8 years, respectively, and the mean preoperative alignment was 6.6° and 6.7° of varus in groups A and B, respectively. The mean follow-up time was 71.5 months. All studies assessed medial compartment lesions with varus deformity. One study compared osteotomy alone for patients with medial compartment OA versus osteotomy with autologous chondrocyte implantation for patients with FCDs of the medial compartment. Three other studies included a heterogeneous cohort of patients with OA and FCDs in both groups. Only 1 study isolated its comparison to patients with medial compartment OA and 1 study isolated its comparison to patients with FCDs. Conclusion: There is limited evidence with substantial heterogeneity between studies on clinical outcomes after osteotomy alone versus osteotomy with cartilage repair for OA or FCDs of the knee joint. At this time, no conclusion can be made regarding the role of additional cartilage procedures in treating medial compartment OA or FCDs. Further studies are needed that isolate specific disease pathology and specific cartilage procedures.