Management of anterior cruciate ligament revision in adults: the 2022 ESSKA consensus part III-indications for different clinical scenarios using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

PURPOSE: The aim of the ESSKA 2022 consensus Part III was to develop patient-focused, contemporary, evidence-based, guidelines on the indications for revision anterior cruciate ligament surgery (ACLRev). METHODS: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RAM) was used to provide recommendations on the appropriateness of surgical treatment versus conservative treatment in different clinical scenarios based on current scientific evidence in conjunction with expert opinion. A core panel defined the clinical scenarios with a moderator and then guided a panel of 17 voting experts through the RAM tasks. Through a two-step voting process, the panel established a consensus as to the appropriateness of ACLRev for each scenario based on a nine-point Likert scale (in which a score in the range 1-3 was considered 'inappropriate', 4-6 'uncertain', and 7-9 'appropriate'). RESULTS: The criteria used to define the scenarios were: age (18-35 years vs 36-50 years vs 51-60 years), sports activity and expectation (Tegner 0-3 vs 4-6 vs 7-10), instability symptoms (yes vs no), meniscus status (functional vs repairable vs non-functional meniscus), and osteoarthritis (OA) (Kellgren-Lawrence [KL] grade 0-I-II vs grade III). Based on these variables, a set of 108 clinical scenarios was developed. ACLRev was considered appropriate in 58%, inappropriate in 12% (meaning conservative treatment is indicated), and uncertain in 30%. Experts considered ACLRev appropriate for patients with instability symptoms, aged ≤ 50 years, regardless of sports activity level, meniscus status, and OA grade. Results were much more controversial in patients without instability symptoms, while higher inappropriateness was related to scenarios with older age (51-60 years), low sporting expectation, non-functional meniscus, and knee OA (KL III). CONCLUSION: This expert consensus establishes guidelines as to the appropriateness of ACLRev based on defined criteria and provides a useful reference for clinical practice in determining treatment indications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

A novel technique with Dacron vascular graft augmentation for knee extensor mechanism repairs: Technical note.

Ruptures of the extensor apparatus can have different etiologies and be complicated by underlying situations. Direct repair is not always possible, and reconstruction procedures can be insufficient, which leads to the appearance of multiple augmentation techniques to improve the strength of these constructs. Despite the proven results of these techniques, numerous procedures are described without any gold standard. We present our augmentation method for repairing the knee extensor apparatus with a vascular prosthesis that facilitates healing, does not interfere with the primary procedure, has no donor morbidity or rejection risk, and allows earlier mobilization and rehabilitation. The technique was used in different cases with multiple etiologies that needed reinforcement, with promising results.

ACL reconstruction combined with lateral monoloop tenodesis can restore intact knee laxity.

PURPOSE: An anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is often combined with injury to the lateral extra-articular structures, which may cause a combined anterior and rotational laxity. It was hypothesised that addition of a 'monoloop' lateral extra-articular tenodesis (mLET) to an ACL reconstruction would restore anteroposterior, internal rotation and pivot-shift laxities better than isolated ACL reconstruction in combined injuries. METHOD: Twelve cadaveric knees were tested, using an optical tracking system to record the kinematics through 0°-100° of knee flexion with no load, anterior and posterior translational forces (90 N), internal and external rotational torques (5 Nm), and a combination of an anterior translational (90 N) plus internal rotational load (5 Nm). They were tested intact, after sectioning the ACL, sectioning anterolateral ligament (ALL), iliotibial band (ITB) graft harvest, releasing deep ITB fibres, hamstrings tendon ACL reconstruction, mLET combined with ACL reconstruction, and isolated mLET. Two-way repeated-measures ANOVA compared laxity data across knee states and flexion angles. When differences were found, paired t tests with Bonferroni correction were performed. RESULTS: In the ACL-deficient knee, cutting the ALL significantly increased anterior laxity only at 20°-30°, and only significantly increased internal rotation at 50°. Additional deep ITB release significantly increased anterior laxity at 40°-90° and caused a large increase of internal rotation at 20°-100°. Isolated ACL reconstruction restored anterior drawer, but significant differences remained in internal rotation at 30°-100°. After adding an mLET there were no remaining differences with anterior translation or internal rotation compared to the intact knee. With the combined injury, isolated mLET allowed abnormal anterior translation and rotation to persist. CONCLUSIONS: Cutting the deep fibres of the ITB caused large increases in tibial internal rotation laxity across the range of knee flexion, while cutting the ALL alone did not. With ACL deficiency combined with anterolateral deficiency, ACL reconstruction alone was insufficient to restore native knee rotational laxity. However, combining a 'monoloop' lateral extra-articular tenodesis with ACL reconstruction did restore native knee laxity.

Posterolateral corner of the knee: an expert consensus statement on diagnosis, classification, treatment, and rehabilitation.

PURPOSE: To develop a statement on the diagnosis, classification, treatment, and rehabilitation concepts of posterolateral corner (PLC) injuries of the knee using a modified Delphi technique. METHODS: A working group of three individuals generated a list of statements relating to the diagnosis, classification, treatment, and rehabilitation of PLC injuries to form the basis of an initial survey for rating by an international group of experts. The PLC expert group (composed of 27 experts throughout the world) was surveyed on three occasions to establish consensus on the inclusion/exclusion of each item. In addition to rating agreement, experts were invited to propose further items for inclusion or to suggest modifications of existing items at each round. Pre-defined criteria were used to refine item lists after each survey. Statements reaching consensus in round three were included within the final consensus document. RESULTS: Twenty-seven experts (100% response rate) completed three rounds of surveys. After three rounds, 29 items achieved consensus with over 75% agreement and less than 5% disagreement. Consensus was reached in 92% of the statements relating to diagnosis of PLC injuries, 100% relating to classification, 70% relating to treatment and in 88% of items relating to rehabilitation statements, with an overall consensus of 81%. CONCLUSIONS: This study has established a consensus statement relating to the diagnosis, classification, treatment, and rehabilitation of PLC injuries. Further research is needed to develop updated classification systems, and better understand the role of non-invasive and minimally invasive approaches along with standardized rehabilitation protocols. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Consensus of expert opinion, Level V.

Two-Year Clinical Results of Lateral Collagen Meniscus Implant: A Multicenter Study.

PURPOSE: To present the 2-year results of the use of the lateral Collagen Meniscus Implant (CMI) for the treatment of irreparable lateral meniscal lesions or partial lateral meniscal defects, to investigate the potential predictors of clinical results, and to monitor device safety. METHODS: Forty-three patients with a mean age of 30.1 ± 12.0 years were clinically evaluated 24 months after treatment of partial lateral meniscal defects with the CMI (Ivy Sports Medicine, Gräfelfing, Germany). We used the Lysholm score, the Tegner Activity Scale, a visual analog scale for pain (during strenuous activity, during routine activity, and at rest), a functional questionnaire, and a satisfaction questionnaire for the evaluation. All demographic and surgical parameters were used for multiple regression analysis to find outcome predictors. Serious adverse events and reoperations were monitored. RESULTS: All clinical scores significantly improved from preoperatively to final evaluation at 24.2 ± 1.9 months' follow-up. The Lysholm score improved significantly from 64.3 ± 18.4 preoperatively to 93.2 ± 7.2 at final follow-up (P = .0001). Functional improvement was detected from 6 months after surgery, whereas strenuous activities and knee swelling reached optimal results after 12 months. The highest pain ratings experienced during strenuous activity, during routine activity, and at rest significantly improved from 59 ± 29, 29 ± 25, and 20 ± 25, respectively, preoperatively to 14 ± 18, 3 ± 5, and 2 ± 6, respectively, at 2 years' follow-up (P = .0001). At final follow-up, 58% of patients reported activity levels similar to their preinjury values whereas 95% of patients reported that they were satisfied with the procedure. A higher body mass index, the presence of concomitant procedures, and a chronic injury pattern seemed to negatively affect the final outcomes. Serious adverse events with a known or unknown relation to the scaffold, such as pain, swelling, and scaffold resorption, were reported in 6% of patients, leading to CMI explantation, debridement, or synovectomy. CONCLUSIONS: The lateral CMI scaffold could be considered a potentially effective and safe procedure to treat both irreparable lateral meniscal tears and post-meniscectomy syndrome in appropriately selected patients. Chronic injury, high body mass index, and concomitant procedures have been shown to negatively affect the short-term results; however, the results appeared to slowly improve through the 24-month follow-up period. Thus patience is needed when evaluating the expectations for and results of the described procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Characterized chondrocyte implantation results in better structural repair when treating symptomatic cartilage defects of the knee in a randomized controlled trial versus microfracture.

BACKGROUND: As the natural healing capacity of damaged articular cartilage is poor, joint surface injuries are a prime target for regenerative medicine. Characterized chondrocyte implantation uses an autologous cartilage cell therapy product that has been optimized for its biological potency to form stable cartilage tissue in vivo. PURPOSE: To determine whether, in symptomatic cartilage defects of the femoral condyle, structural regeneration with characterized chondrocyte implantation is superior to repair with microfracture. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: Characterized chondrocyte implantation was compared with microfracture in patients with single grade III to IV symptomatic cartilage defects of the femoral condyles in a multicenter trial. Patients aged 18 to 50 years were randomized to characterized chondrocyte implantation (n = 57) or microfracture (n = 61). Structural repair was blindly assessed in biopsy specimens taken at 1 year using (1) computerized histomorphometry and (2) evaluation of overall histological components of structural repair. Clinical outcome was measured using the self administered Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Adverse events were recorded throughout the study. RESULTS: Characterized chondrocyte implantation resulted in better structural repair, as assessed by histomorphometry (P = .003) and overall histologic evaluation (P = .012). Aspects of structural repair relating to chondrocyte phenotype and tissue structure were superior with characterized chondrocyte implantation. Clinical outcome as measured by the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score at 12 to 18 months after characterized chondrocyte implantation was comparable with microfracture at this stage. Both treatment groups had a similar mean baseline overall Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (56.30 +/- 13.61 and 59.53 +/- 14.95 for microfracture and characterized chondrocyte implantation, respectively), which increased in both groups to 70.56 +/- 12.39 and 72.63 +/- 15.55 at 6 months, 73.26 +/- 14.66 and 73.10 +/- 16.01 at 12 months, and 74.73 +/- 17.01 and 75.04 +/- 14.50 at 18 months, respectively. Both techniques were generally well tolerated; the incidence of adverse events after characterized chondrocyte implantation was not markedly increased compared with that for microfracture. CONCLUSION: One year after treatment, characterized chondrocyte implantation was associated with a tissue regenerate that was superior to that after microfracture. Short-term clinical outcome was similar for both treatments. The superior structural outcome may result in improved long-term clinical benefit with characterized chondrocyte implantation. Long-term follow-up is needed to confirm these findings.