Applicability and Durability of Valve-Sparing Tetralogy of Fallot Repair.

BACKGROUND: Although valve-sparing repair remains ideal for patients with tetralogy of Fallot, the durability of valve-sparing repair and which patients may have been better served with a transannular patch remain unclear. METHODS: Retrospective review was performed of tetralogy of Fallot operations at our institution from January 2008 to December 2018. Standard demographic data were collected, including echocardiographic parameters, operative details, and clinical outcomes. Statistical analysis was performed comparing the transannular patch and valve-sparing repair groups. RESULTS: Sixty-seven patients underwent tetralogy of Fallot repair with a median age of 4.5 (3.2-6.0) months and weight of 5.8 (5.2, 6.7) kg. Seventeen (25%) patients underwent transannular patch repair and 50 (75%) patients underwent valve-sparing repair. There was no difference in age or weight between patients who underwent a transannular patch repair and those who underwent a valve-sparing repair. At last follow-up (median 42 months), there was a trend of a higher peak pulmonary valve/right ventricular outflow tract gradient (P = .06) in the valve-sparing group, but no difference in the pulmonary valve annulus z-scores. Additionally, the pulmonary valve z-scores in the valve-sparing group decreased from -2.3 ± 1.0 on predischarge echocardiogram of to -1.2 ± 1.6 on last follow-up, with the peak gradient on predischarge 23 (0-37) mm Hg remaining stable on last follow-up at 18 (0-29) mm Hg. There was one reoperation: pulmonary valve replacement six years after a transannular patch. CONCLUSIONS: Obtaining a postrepair pulmonary valve z-score of -2 yields satisfactory, stable valve-sparing repair with pulmonary valve growth, acceptable gradients, minimal regurgitation, and high freedom from reintervention during follow-up.

Does the graft source really matter in the outcome of patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction? An evaluation of autograft versus allograft reconstruction results: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Despite the large number of anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions performed each year, there remains a significant controversy regarding the effect of the graft source on the functional outcome of patients. HYPOTHESIS: There is no difference in outcomes of autograft versus allograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: The authors systematically identified prospective studies (Oxford level of evidence I or II only) that included autograft patients, allograft patients, or both. Objective outcomes that were reported were meta-analyzed; this included pivot-shift results, KT-1000 arthrometer results, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, Lysholm Scores, graft failures, and postoperative complications. Two statistical analyses were performed. First a primary statistical analysis was performed comparing pooled autograft data (bone-patellar-tendon bone and hamstrings combined) and pooled allograft data (bone-patellar-tendon bone and hamstrings combined). To have a more comprehensive understanding of the differences between each specific graft source, a secondary analysis was performed without pooling the data; this directly compared the 4 types of graft sources that were studied. RESULTS: Over 400 scientific manuscripts were initially reviewed; 31 manuscripts fulfilled all of the search criteria. There were very few statistically significant differences between autograft and allograft tissue. The KT-1000 arthrometer laxity testing revealed a mean of 1.4 +/- 0.2 mm (weighted mean +/- standard error of the mean) for the allograft group compared with 1.8 +/- 0.1 mm for the autograft group (t = 2.40; P <.02). However, this difference was only for the mean score; there was no statistical significance when considering KT-1000 arthrometer measurements of greater than 3 or 5 mm. The percentage of patients receiving a final IKDC score of "A" (normal knee) was statistically significant for allograft tissue (43.9% +/- 5.5%) versus autograft tissue (28.2% +/- 1.0%) reconstructions. There was no statistically significant difference between the percentages of IKDC scores of A or B for patients receiving pooled allograft (82.9% +/- 4.2%) versus pooled autograft (87.2% +/- 0.9%) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (t = 1.01; P > .1). The graft failure rate was 4.7 +/- 0.5 per 100 for autograft reconstructions and 8.2 +/- 2.1 per 100 allograft reconstructions; although this may represent a trend, it is not statistically significant (t = 1.49; P > .1). The complication rate was slightly higher for autograft reconstructions at 3.5 +/- 0.4 complications per 100 autograft reconstructions compared with 2.4 +/- 1.1 complications per 100 allograft reconstructions, but not significant (t = 1.41; P > .1). CONCLUSION: After a comprehensive examination and statistical analysis of the modern literature, the authors could not identify an individual graft source that was clearly superior to the other graft sources. This led them to believe that, with currently available data, the graft source has a minimal effect on the outcome of patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

Quantitative analysis of single- vs. multiple-set programs in resistance training.

The purpose of this study was to examine the existing research on single-set vs. multiple-set resistance training programs. Using the meta-analytic approach, we included studies that met the following criteria in our analysis: (a) at least 6 subjects per group; (b) subject groups consisting of single-set vs. multiple-set resistance training programs; (c) pretest and posttest strength measures; (d) training programs of 6 weeks or more; (e) apparently "healthy" individuals free from orthopedic limitations; and (f) published studies in English-language journals only. Sixteen studies generated 103 effect sizes (ESs) based on a total of 621 subjects, ranging in age from 15-71 years. Across all designs, intervention strategies, and categories, the pretest to posttest ES in muscular strength was (chi = 1.4 +/- 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.41-3.8; p < 0.001). The results of 2 x 2 analysis of variance revealed simple main effects for age, training status (trained vs. untrained), and research design (p < 0.001). No significant main effects were found for sex, program duration, and set end point. Significant interactions were found for training status and program duration (6-16 weeks vs. 17-40 weeks) and number of sets performed (single vs. multiple). The data indicated that trained individuals performing multiple sets generated significantly greater increases in strength (p < 0.001). For programs with an extended duration, multiple sets were superior to single sets (p < 0.05). This quantitative review indicates that single-set programs for an initial short training period in untrained individuals result in similar strength gains as multiple-set programs. However, as progression occurs and higher gains are desired, multiple-set programs are more effective.