Analysis of patient-directed search content and online resource quality for ulnar collateral ligament injury and surgery.

Background: Patients use the Internet to learn information about injuries, yet online content remains largely unstudied. This study analyzed patient questions posed online regarding ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) tears or UCL surgical management. Methods: Three separate search strings about UCL tear and UCL surgery were queried on the Google search engine. The 300 most commonly asked questions were compiled for each topic and associated webpage information was collected from the "People also ask" section. Questions were categorized using the Rothwell classification and webpages by Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria. Results: The most frequent UCL tear questions were "how long does it take to heal a torn UCL?" and "what is nonsurgical treatment for the UCL?" The most frequent UCL surgery question was "can you retear your UCL after surgery?" The Rothwell classification of questions for UCL tear/UCL surgery was 55%/32% policy, 38%/57% fact, and 7%/11% value with highest subcategories being indications/management (46%/25%) and technical details (24%/25%). The most common webpages were academic (39%/29%) and medical practice (24%/26%). Mean JAMA score for all 600 webpages was low (1.2), with journals (mean = 3.4) having the highest score. Medical practice (mean = 0.5) and legal websites (mean = 0.0) had the lowest JAMA scores. Only 30% of webpages provided UCL-specific information. Conclusion: Online UCL patient questions commonly pertain to technical details and injury management. Webpages suggested by search engines contain information specific to UCL tears and surgery only one-third of the time. The quality of most webpages provided to patients is poor, with minimal source transparency.

Correlation between articular cartilage status on outcomes and survivorship following meniscal allograft transplantation: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review evaluating potential correlations between preoperative articular cartilage integrity on outcomes and survivorship in patients undergoing meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT). METHODS: A literature search was performed by querying SCOPUS, PubMed, Medline, and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials from database inception through May 2023 according to the 2020 PRISMA statement. Inclusion criteria were limited to studies reporting on outcomes and survivorship following MAT based on preoperative cartilage status. RESULTS: Sixteen studies, consisting of 1723 patients (n = 1758 total menisci), were identified in six level III and 10 level IV evidence studies. There was high heterogeneity in cartilage grading scales, reporting of concomitant cartilage procedures, and indications for MAT based on osteoarthritis. Patients with lower limb malalignment were either excluded or corrected with an osteotomy. MAT failure rate was reported in nine studies, with four studies reporting a greater rate of failure in knees with higher degrees of cartilage damage. Eight studies reported on clinical outcomes based on cartilage grade, with two studies reporting significant differences in clinical outcomes based on cartilage grade. Of the five studies reporting management of full-thickness chondral defects with cartilage surgery, three studies reported no significant difference in survivorship based on preoperative cartilage grade, while one study reported lower survivorship and one study reported unclear results. No studies found significant differences in survivorship and outcomes between medial and lateral MAT. CONCLUSIONS: Conflicting results and high variability in reporting of concomitant cartilage repair and indications for MAT exist in studies evaluating the efficacy of MAT based on articular cartilage status. The degree of preoperative chondral damage did not have a strong relationship with clinical outcomes following MAT. Higher degrees of cartilage damage were associated with higher MAT failure rates, with possible improvement in survivorship when treated with an appropriate cartilage procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Suture Anchor Fixation Has Less Gap Formation and No Difference in Complications or Revisions for Patellar Tendon Repair: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the literature on suture anchor (SA) usage for patellar tendon repair, summarize the overall biomechanical and clinical outcomes, and assess whether the cumulative research supports the adoption of this technique compared with transosseous (TO) repair. METHODS: A systematic literature review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic and Meta-Analyses guidelines was performed. Multiple electronic databases were searched to identify studies focusing on surgical outcomes of patellar tendon repair with suture anchor usage. Cadaver and animal biomechanical studies, technical studies, and clinical studies were included. RESULTS: A total of 29 studies met the inclusion criteria: 6 cadaver, 3 animal, 9 technical, and 11 clinical reports. Four of the 6 cadaver studies and 1 of the 2 animal studies found significantly less gap formation from SA than from TO repair. Average gap formation in human studies ranged from 0.9 to 4.1 mm in the SA group compared with 2.9 to 10.3 mm in TO groups. Load to failure was significantly stronger in 1 of 5 cadaver studies and 2 of 3 animal studies, with human studies SA load to failure ranging from 258 to 868 N and TO load to failure ranging from 287 to 763 N. There were 11 clinical studies that included 133 knees repaired using SA. Nine studies showed no difference between complication rate or risk for reoperation, where one study reported a significantly lower re-rupture rate after SA repair compared with TO repair. CONCLUSIONS: SA repair is a viable option for patellar tendon repair and could have several advantages over TO repair. Multiple studies indicate that SA repair has less gap formation during biomechanical testing compared with TO repair in human cadaver and animal models. No differences in complications or revisions were found in the majority of clinical studies. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Both animal and human models suggest SA fixation has potential biomechanical benefits when compared with TO tunnels for patellar tendon repair, whereas clinical studies show no difference in complications and revisions postoperatively.

Single-Incision Distal Biceps Tendon Repair With Bicortical Tensionable Locking Button Fixation.

Acute, traumatic distal biceps tendon injuries are common among the middle-aged athletic male population. Surgical repair of distal biceps tendon remains the most effective means to restore maximal strength of forearm supination and elbow flexion with relief of antecubital pain. To date, no consensus exists on the optimal fixation method during distal biceps tendon repair and multiple techniques are accepted, including 1- and 2-incision approaches and tendon fixation with suture anchors, transosseous sutures, interference screws, and cortical buttons. In this Technical Note, we demonstrate a distal biceps tendon repair technique using a single-incision approach with bicortical, tensionable suspensory button fixation.

Return to Sport After Nonoperative Management of Elbow Ulnar Collateral Ligament Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Elbow ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) injuries can result in significant functional impairment in throwing and overhead athletes. UCL reconstruction and repair are proven treatments to restore stability, but the efficacy of nonoperative management is unclear. PURPOSE: To determine the rate of return to sports (RTS) and return to previous level of play (RTLP) in athletes sustaining medial elbow ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) injuries treated nonoperatively. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A literature search was performed using Scopus, PubMed, Medline, the Cochrane Database for Systematic Review, and the Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials according to the 2020 PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. Inclusion criteria were limited to level 1 to 4 human studies reporting on RTS outcomes after nonoperative management of UCL injuries. RESULTS: A total of 15 studies, consisting of 365 patients with a mean age of 20.45 ± 3.26 years, were identified. Treatment primarily consisted of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections with physical therapy (n = 189 patients; n = 7 studies) versus physical therapy alone (n = 176 patients; n = 8 studies). The overall RTS rate was 79.7% and the overall RTLP rate was 77.9%. Increasing UCL injury severity grade was associated with lower RTS rates. The RTS rate for proximal tears (89.7%; n = 61/68) was significantly greater than that for distal tears (41.2%; n = 14/34) (P < .0001). No significant difference in RTS rate was seen in patients treated with PRP versus those who did not receive PRP (P = .757). CONCLUSION: For athletes undergoing nonoperative management of UCL injuries, the overall RTS and RTLP rates were 79.7% and 77.9%, respectively, with excellent outcomes in grade 1 and grade 2 UCL injuries, specifically. The RTS rate for proximal tears was significantly higher than that for distal tears. Athletes were most commonly treated with PRP injection and physical therapy.