Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Studies Comparing Complete Capsular Closure Against Unrepaired Hip Capsules During Hip Arthroscopy.

Background: While the biomechanical importance of the hip capsule is well described, there remains controversy over the necessity of routine capsular closure after hip arthroscopy. Purpose: To perform a meta-analysis of clinical studies to compare pooled outcomes of complete hip capsular closure cohorts against unrepaired hip capsule cohorts. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL/EBSCO, and Scopus were queried in February 2022 for studies that directly compared clinical outcomes for hip arthroscopy patients treated with either complete capsular closure or an unrepaired capsule. Outcomes assessed were incidence of revision hip arthroscopy, incidence of subsequent conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA), and improvement from baseline in modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score (HOS) activities of daily living (ADL), HOS sports specific (SS) subscale, Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS) ADL, and HAGOS SS subscale. A pooled weighted mean difference (WMD) was used to compare changes in mHHS. A pooled standardized mean difference (SMD) was used to compare changes in the ADL and SS outcomes. A pooled risk ratio (RR) was used to compare the probability of revision hip arthroscopy and conversion to THA based on capsular management. For pooled outcomes where heterogeneity was regarded as potentially unimportant, a fixed-effects model was implemented. For pooled outcomes with considerable heterogeneity, a random-effects model was implemented. Results: Of the 1896 records identified in our search, 11 studies (1897 patients) were included. A significantly higher improvement in mHHS (WMD, -3.72; 95% CI, -4.95 to -2.50; P < .00001) and ADL outcomes (SMD, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.54 to -0.07; P = .01) were seen after complete capsular closure. There was a significantly lower probability of subsequent revision hip arthroscopy (RR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.14 to 2.45; P = .008) and conversion to THA (RR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.06 to 3.79; P = .03) after complete capsular repair. There was no difference in SS outcomes (SMD, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.16 to 0.13; P = .81) between the 2 groups. Conclusion: This meta-analysis demonstrated that routine complete capsular closure after hip arthroscopy led to superior clinical outcomes relative to unrepaired hip capsules.

Medial Collateral Ligament Reconstruction and Repair Show Similar Improvement in Outcome Scores, But Repair Shows Higher Rates of Knee Stiffness and Failure: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To compare patient-reported outcomes and complications in patients with medial collateral ligament (MCL) injuries undergoing repair versus reconstruction with a minimum 2-year follow-up. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using the PubMed, Scopus, and Embase-computerized databases from database inception to November 2022, according to the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies evaluating clinical outcomes and complications at a minimum of 2 years following MCL repair versus reconstruction were included. Study quality was assessed using the MINORS criteria. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies published from 1997 to 2022, consisting of 503 patients were identified. Twelve studies (n = 308 patients; mean age: 32.6 years) reported outcomes following MCL reconstruction, and 8 studies (n = 195 patients; mean age: 28.5 years) reported results following MCL repair. Postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee, Lysholm, and Tegner scores ranged from 67.6 to 91, 75.8 to 94.8, and 4.4 to 8, respectively, in the MCL reconstruction group, compared to 73 to 91, 75.1 to 98.5, and 5.2 to 10, respectively, in the MCL repair group. Knee stiffness was the most commonly reported complication following MCL repair (range: 0% - 50%) and reconstruction (range: 0% - 26.7%). Failures occurred in 0% to 14.6% of patients following reconstruction versus 0% to 35.1% of patients undergoing MCL repair. Manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) for postoperative arthrofibrosis (range: 0% - 12.2%) and surgical debridement for arthrofibrosis (range: 0% - 20%) were the most commonly reported reoperations in the MCL reconstruction and repair groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: MCL reconstruction versus repair both demonstrate improved International Knee Documentation Committee, Lysholm, and Tegner scores. MCL repair demonstrates higher rates of postoperative knee stiffness and failure at a minimum 2-year follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.

Acellular Dermal Allograft and Tensor Fascia Lata Autograft Show Similar Patient Outcome Improvement and High Rates of Complications and Failures at a Minimum 2-Year Follow-Up: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical and radiologic outcomes following superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) using dermal allograft versus tensor fascia lata (TFL) autograft for massive rotator cuff tears with a minimum 2-year follow-up. METHODS: A literature search was performed by querying Scopus, EMBASE, and PubMed computerized databases from database inception through September 2022 in accordance with the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Studies evaluating clinical and radiologic outcomes, as well as complications following SCR for the treatment of massive rotator cuff tears were included. Study quality was assessed via the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment. The mean change from preoperative to postoperative values (delta) was calculated for each outcome. RESULTS: Seventeen studies, consisting of 519 patients were identified. Mean duration of follow-up ranged from 24 to 60 months. Mean reduction in visual analog scale pain score ranged from 2.9 to 5.9 points following use of dermal allograft, and 3.4 to 7.0 points following TFL autograft reconstruction. Mean improvements in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score were similar between groups (dermal allograft: 28.0-61.6; TFL autograft: 24.7-59.3). The mean increase in forward flexion ranged from 31° to 38° with dermal allograft, versus 19° to 69° with TFL autograft. Average improvement in active external rotation with dermal allograft ranged from -0.4° to 11° and from 2° to 22.4° using TFL autograft. A similar change in acromiohumeral distance following SCR (dermal allograft: 0.9-3.2 mm; TFL autograft: 0.3-3.6 mm) was appreciated. The rate of complications within the dermal allograft group ranged from 4.5% to 38.2% versus 13.3% to 86.4% following TFL autograft. Failure rate ranged from 4.5 to 38.2% following dermal allograft versus 4.5 to 86.4% with TFL autograft. CONCLUSIONS: Acellular dermal allograft versus TFL autograft for SCR both demonstrate improved VAS and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, with increased values in flexion and external rotation, and increased visual analog scale, although with high variability. Both grafts demonstrate high rates of complications and failures at minimum 2-year follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV; systematic review of level II-IV studies.

A Comprehensive Meta-analysis of Clinical and Biomechanical Outcomes Comparing Double-Bundle and Single-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Techniques.

BACKGROUND: Posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction techniques have historically focused on single-bundle (SB) reconstruction of the larger anterolateral bundle without addressing the codominant posteromedial bundle. The SB technique has been associated with residual laxity and instability, leading to the development of double-bundle (DB) reconstruction techniques. PURPOSE: To perform a meta-analysis of comparative clinical and biomechanical studies to differentiate the pooled outcomes of SB and DB PCL reconstruction cohorts. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis and systematic review: Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Six databases were queried in February 2022 for literature directly comparing clinical and biomechanical outcomes for patients or cadaveric specimens undergoing DB PCL reconstruction against SB PCL reconstruction. Biomechanical outcomes included posterior tibial translational laxity, external rotational laxity, and varus laxity at 30° and 90° of knee flexion. Clinical outcomes included the side-to-side difference in posterior tibial translation during postoperative stress radiographs, risk of a major complication, and the following postoperative patient-reported outcome measures: Lysholm, Tegner, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective and objective scores. A random-effects model was used to compare pooled clinical and biomechanical outcomes between the cohorts. RESULTS: Fifteen biomechanical studies and 13 clinical studies were included in this meta-analysis. The DB group demonstrated significantly less posterior tibial translation at 30° and 90° of knee flexion (P < .00001). Additionally, the DB group demonstrated significantly less external rotation laxity at 90° of knee flexion (P = .0002) but not at 30° of knee flexion (P = .33). There was no difference in varus laxity between the groups at 30° (P = .56) or 90° (P = .24) of knee flexion. There was significantly less translation on stress radiographs in the DB group (P = .02). Clinically, there was no significant difference between the groups for the Lysholm score (P = .95), Tegner score (P = .14), or risk of a major complication (P = .93). DB PCL reconstruction led to significantly higher odds of achieving "normal" or "near normal" objective IKDC outcomes for the included prospective studies (P = .04) and higher subjective IKDC scores (P = .01). CONCLUSION: DB PCL reconstruction leads to superior biomechanical outcomes and clinical outcomes relative to SB PCL reconstruction. Re-creating native anatomy during PCL reconstruction maximizes biomechanical stability and clinical outcomes.