Addition of anterolateral ligament reconstruction to primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction could benefit recovery of functional outcomes.

This study aimed to compare functional outcomes sequentially up to 1 year after combined anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) and anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) and isolated ACLR. Fifty patients who underwent ACLR with versus without ALLR were analyzed at four different time points (preoperatively and 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively). For the functional outcomes, muscle strength and acceleration time (AT) were measured using an isokinetic dynamometer. Proprioception was evaluated using joint position sense and dynamic postural stability. Patient-reported outcomes were measured using the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia (TSK-11) scores. Functional performance was assessed using single-leg hop distance (SLHD) and Limb Symmetry Index. In the operated knees, quadriceps (at 6 months postoperatively, p = 0.003) and hamstring (at 6 and 12 months postoperatively, p < 0.001) strength were significantly higher in the combined ACLR and ALLR group than the isolated ACLR group. The TSK-11 (at 6 and 12 months postoperatively, p < 0.001) was significantly lower in the combined ACLR and ALLR group than the isolated ACLR group. SLHD was significantly higher in the combined ACLR and ALLR group than the isolated ACLR group (at 6 months, p = 0.022 and at 12 months, p = 0.024). The addition of ALLR to primary ACLR yielded better muscle performance, fear of movement, and functional performance than isolated ACLR.

Comparison of Functional Outcomes after Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Meniscal Repair for Unstable versus Stable Meniscal Tears.

This study aimed to compare functional outcomes including knee muscle strength in the quadriceps and hamstrings, and proprioception, assessed through dynamic postural stability (overall stability index [OSI]) and self-reported outcomes in the operated and non-operated knees between anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with meniscal repair for unstable (root and radial tears) and stable (longitudinal, horizontal, and bucket handle tears) meniscal tears. A total of 76 patients were randomly selected (41 with ACLR with meniscal repair for unstable meniscal tears and 35 with ACLR with meniscal repair for stable meniscal tears) at three different time points (preoperative, 6 months, and 12 months). Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to investigate the differences in outcomes for between-subject and within-subject factors. In the operated knees, there were no significant differences for functional outcomes between the two groups (all p > 0.05). In the non-operated knees, a significant difference was observed for the OSI between the two groups, which was significantly higher in ACLR with meniscal repair for unstable meniscal tears than for stable meniscal tears at 6 months (p < 0.001). Multiple linear regression analysis showed that age (p = 0.027), preoperative OSI in the operated knees (p = 0.005), and postoperative OSI in the operated knees at 6 months (p = 0.002) were significant and independent predictors for OSI in the non-operated knees at 6 months postoperatively. Therefore, while no differences were observed in functional outcomes between the two groups in the operated knees, dynamic postural stability was poorer at 6 months postoperatively in the non-operated knees of patients with ACLR with meniscal repair for unstable meniscal tears. Furthermore, a significant correlation was observed between preoperative/postoperative dynamic postural stability in the operated knees and postoperative dynamic postural stability in the non-operated knees. Hence, we recommend incorporating balance exercises for both knees in post-surgical rehabilitation, particularly for patients with unstable meniscal tears.

Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug Injections versus Steroid Injections in the Management of Upper and Lower Extremity Orthopedic Conditions: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although corticosteroid injections are an effective treatment for musculoskeletal pathologies, they may not be suitable for all patients. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare clinical outcomes between patients who received NSAID and corticosteroid injections for various orthopedic conditions. METHODS: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, and meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model for outcomes presented in three or more studies. Other studies were qualitatively analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 28 articles with 2113 patients were included. A meta-analysis of five studies in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome demonstrated that there was no significant difference in the pain visual analogue scale (VAS) between subacromial NSAID injections and corticosteroid injections at 1 month [weighted mean difference (WMD) -0.244; 95% CI, -1.232 to 0.745; I2, 94.5%]. For patients with knee osteoarthritis, a meta-analysis of three studies demonstrated that there was no significant difference between intraarticular NSAID injections and corticosteroid injections in pain VAS at 1 month (WMD 0.754; 95% CI, -0.413 to 1.921; I2, 90.2%) and 3 months (WMD-0.089; 95% CI, -0.345 to 0.166; I2, 0%). A review of the studies assessing pain outcomes for hip osteoarthritis, adhesive capsulitis, and plantar fasciitis showed no significant differences between the NSAID and corticosteroid groups. CONCLUSION: NSAID injections may be safe and effective alternatives to steroid injections, especially in shoulder impingement syndrome and knee osteoarthritis.