To achieve the unachievable-Patients' experiences of opting for delayed anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction after trying rehabilitation alone as primary treatment: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: About 50% of patients who sustain an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury are treated without ACL reconstruction (ACL-R). A significant proportion of these patients opt for late ACL-R. Patients' experience of changing treatment has not yet been investigated and presented in the scientific literature. AIM: To explore patients' experiences before and after changing treatment from ACL rehabilitation alone to ACL-R. METHOD: Fifteen patients were interviewed in semi-structured interviews, which were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed with qualitative content analysis, based on the method described by Graneheim and Lundman. Patients were between 26 and 58 years old, and had tried rehabilitation for a minimum of 9 months prior to ACL-R. RESULTS: Two themes, "Expecting what could not be achieved: the struggle to recover and not becoming stable", and "Internal completeness: expectations can be achieved", emerged from the analysis. Each theme was supported by three main categories and 5-6 subcategories. The first theme represents the journey before ACL-R, where patients experienced getting stronger, but perceived the knee as unstable. The second theme represents the journey after ACL-R, where patients expressed that they felt whole after their ACL-R, and where able to achieve their expections. Patients experienced a greater support from the healthcare system, and ultimately expressed a feeling of having achieved the unachievable after ACL-R. SUMMARY: Patients who cross over from ACL rehabilitation to ACL-R experienced rehabilitation alone as insufficient to achieve the desired outcomes, which resulted in a need to opt for delayed ACL-R. Healthcare providers need to support patients, who primarily choose to undergo rehabilitation alone and later opt for ACL-R, throughout the whole rehabilitation process.

Metal interference screw fixation combinations show high revision rates in primary hamstring tendon ACL reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Different fixation methods in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) have been associated with different revision rates, specifically in the early postoperative period. However, most previous research has either grouped together different fixation types or evaluated femoral-sided fixation or tibial-sided fixation separately. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine ACL revision rates for specific combinations of femoral and tibial fixation methods within 2 years of primary hamstring tendon autograft ACLR based on data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry (SNKLR). METHODS: Patients that underwent primary hamstring tendon autograft ACLR between 2005 and 2018 in the SNKLR were included. The collected data included patient characteristics (age, sex, body mass index [BMI]), activity at time of injury, surgical information (concomitant injuries, time from injury to surgery, fixation types at the femur and tibia), and subsequent revision ACLR. Revision rate within 2 years of the index procedure was chosen, as ACLR fixation is most likely to contribute to ACLR revision within the first 2 years, during graft maturation. RESULTS: Of the 23,238 included patients undergoing primary hamstring ACLR, 581 (2.5%) underwent revision ACLR within 2 years of the index procedure. Among the combinations used for > 300 patients, the femoral metal interference screw/tibial metal interference screw fixation combination had the highest revision rate followed by metal interference screw/resorbable screw and Endobutton/AO screw fixation combinations, with respective revision rates of 4.0, 3.0, and 3.0%. The lowest revision rate within 2 years of ACLR was found in the Endobutton/metal interference screw with backup Osteosuture fixation combination, used in 433 cases, with a failure rate of 0.9%. CONCLUSION: Different early ACL revision rates were found across different combinations of femoral and tibial fixation devices within 2 years of primary hamstring tendon autograft ACLR. Metal interference screw fixation, particularly when performed on both the femoral and tibial sides, most frequently resulted in revision ACLR. These findings may be helpful for surgeons in selecting appropriate fixation devices for hamstring ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Comparison of knee flexor strength recovery between semitendinosus alone versus semitendinosus with gracilis autograft for ACL reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Whether there is a difference in harvesting the semitendinosus tendon alone (S) or in combination with the gracilis tendon (SG) for the recovery of knee flexor strength after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction remains inconclusive. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the recovery of knee flexor strength based on the autograft composition, S or SG autograft at 6, 12, and ≥ 24 months after ACL reconstruction. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search was performed encompassing the Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, PEDRo and AMED databases from inception to January 2023. Inclusion criteria were human clinical trials published in English, comprised of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), longitudinal cohort-, cross-sectional and case-control studies that compared knee flexor strength recovery between S and SG autografts in patients undergoing primary ACL reconstruction. Isokinetic peak torques were summarized for angular velocities of 60°/s, 180°/s, and across all angular velocities, assessed at 6, 12, and ≥ 24 months after ACL reconstruction. A random-effects model was used with standardized mean differences and 95% confidence intervals. Risk of bias was assessed with the RoBANS for non-randomized studies and the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs. Certainty of evidence was appraised using the GRADE working group methodology. RESULTS: Among the 1,227 patients from the 15 included studies, 604 patients received treatment with S autograft (49%), and 623 received SG autograft (51%). Patients treated with S autograft displayed lesser strength deficits at 6 months across all angular velocities d = -0.25, (95% CI -0.40; -0.10, p = 0.001). Beyond 6 months after ACL reconstruction, no significant difference was observed between autograft compositions. CONCLUSION: The harvest of S autograft for ACL reconstruction yields superior knee flexor strength recovery compared to SG autograft 6 months after ACL reconstruction, irrespective of angular velocity at isokinetic testing. However, the clinical significance of the observed difference in knee flexor strength between autograft compositions at 6 months is questionable, given the very low certainty of evidence and small effect size. There was no significant difference in knee flexor strength recovery between autograft compositions beyond 6 months after ACL reconstruction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42022286773.

The Principles of Hip Joint Preservation.

The 3 primary factors involved with preservation of the hip joint are femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), hip dysplasia, and femoral torsion abnormalities. Each of these factors affects the health of the acetabular labrum and femoroacetabular cartilage. The appropriate surgical treatments for each of these factors include arthroscopic or open femoroplasty or acetabuloplasty for FAI, periacetabular osteotomy (PAO) for acetabular dysplasia, and de-rotational femoral osteotomy for femoral torsion abnormalities. When evaluating patients with prearthritic hip conditions, orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of the various factors involved in hip joint preservation and, if surgery is indicated, surgeons should be sure to address all factors that need surgical treatment rather than focusing on the most obvious issue or injury (e.g., a labral tear). The purpose of this infographic is to illustrate the importance of the factors involved in hip joint preservation and the appropriate treatments for pathology in any of these factors.

Mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty does not yield uniform outcomes across all coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK) phenotypes.

PURPOSE: Patient dissatisfaction rates following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) reported in the literature reach 20%. The optimal coronal alignment is still under debate. The aim of this retrospective study was to compare clinical outcomes in different coronal plane alignment of the knee (CPAK) phenotypes undergoing mechanically aligned (MA) TKA. The hypothesis was that knees with preoperative varus arithmetic hip-knee-ankle angle (aHKA) would achieve inferior clinical outcomes after surgery compared to other aHKA categories. Additionally, another objective was to assess CPAK phenotypes distribution in the study population. METHODS: A retrospective selection was made of 180 patients who underwent MA TKA from April 2021 to December 2022, with a 1-year follow-up. Coronal knee alignment was classified according to the CPAK classification. Clinical outcome evaluations were measured using the Knee Society Score (KSS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Short Form Survey 12 and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS). Differences in clinical outcomes were considered statistically significant with a p value <0 .05. RESULTS: Patients with varus aHKA achieved significantly inferior outcomes at final follow-up compared to other aHKA categories in KSS pt. 1 (79.7 ± 17.2 vs. 85.6 ± 14.7; p = 0.028), OKS (39.2 ± 9.2 vs. 42.2 ± 7.2; p = 0.019) and FJS (75.4 ± 31.0 vs. 87.4 ± 22.9; p =0 .003). The most common aHKA category was the varus category (39%). The most common CPAK phenotypes were apex distal Types I (23.9%), II (22.8%) and III (13.3%). CONCLUSION: MA TKA does not yield uniform outcomes across all CPAK phenotypes. Varus aHKA category shows significantly inferior results at final follow-up. The most prevalent CPAK categories are varus aHKA and apex distal JLO, with phenotypes I, II and III being the most common. However, their gender distribution varies significantly. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

A practical guide to the development and deployment of deep learning models for the orthopaedic surgeon: Part III, focus on registry creation, diagnosis, and data privacy.

Deep learning is a subset of artificial intelligence (AI) with enormous potential to transform orthopaedic surgery. As has already become evident with the deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) like ChatGPT (OpenAI Inc.), deep learning can rapidly enter clinical and surgical practices. As such, it is imperative that orthopaedic surgeons acquire a deeper understanding of the technical terminology, capabilities and limitations associated with deep learning models. The focus of this series thus far has been providing surgeons with an overview of the steps needed to implement a deep learning-based pipeline, emphasizing some of the important technical details for surgeons to understand as they encounter, evaluate or lead deep learning projects. However, this series would be remiss without providing practical examples of how deep learning models have begun to be deployed and highlighting the areas where the authors feel deep learning may have the most profound potential. While computer vision applications of deep learning were the focus of Parts I and II, due to the enormous impact that natural language processing (NLP) has had in recent months, NLP-based deep learning models are also discussed in this final part of the series. In this review, three applications that the authors believe can be impacted the most by deep learning but with which many surgeons may not be familiar are discussed: (1) registry construction, (2) diagnostic AI and (3) data privacy. Deep learning-based registry construction will be essential for the development of more impactful clinical applications, with diagnostic AI being one of those applications likely to augment clinical decision-making in the near future. As the applications of deep learning continue to grow, the protection of patient information will become increasingly essential; as such, applications of deep learning to enhance data privacy are likely to become more important than ever before. Level of Evidence: Level IV.

Differences in postoperative knee function based on concomitant treatment of lateral meniscal injury in the setting of primary ACL reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Concomitant lateral meniscal (LM) injuries are common in acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures. However, the effect of addressing these injuries with various treatment methods during primary ACL reconstruction (ACLR) on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is unknown. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare postoperative Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) at 2-, 5-, and 10-years after isolated primary ACLR to primary ACLR with various treatment methods to address concomitant LM injury. METHODS: This study was based on data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry. Patients ≥ 15 years with data on postoperative KOOS who underwent primary ACLR between the years 2005 and 2018 were included in this study. The study population was divided into five groups: 1) Isolated ACLR, 2) ACLR + LM repair, 3) ACLR + LM resection, 4) ACLR + LM injury left in situ, and 5) ACLR + LM repair + LM resection. Patients with concomitant medial meniscal or other surgically treated ligament injuries were excluded. RESULTS: Of 31,819 included patients, 24% had LM injury. After post hoc comparisons, significantly lower scores were found for the KOOS Symptoms subscale in ACLR + LM repair group compared to isolated ACLR (76.0 vs 78.3, p = 0.0097) and ACLR + LM injury left in situ groups (76.0 vs 78.3, p = 0.041) at 2-year follow-up. However, at 10-year follow-up, no differences were found between ACLR + LM repair and isolated ACLR, but ACLR + LM resection resulted in significantly lower KOOS Symptoms scores compared to isolated ACLR (80.4 vs 82.3, p = 0.041). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that LM injury during ACLR is associated with lower KOOS scores, particularly in the Symptoms subscale, at short- and long-term follow-up. However, this finding falls below minimal clinical important difference and therefore may not be clinically relevant. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Delayed multiligament PCL reconstruction is associated with a higher prevalence of intraarticular injury and may influence treatment.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to investigate differences in concomitant injury patterns and their treatment in patients undergoing early (≤ 12 weeks) and delayed (> 12 weeks) primary multiligament posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction (PCL-R). METHODS: This study was a retrospective chart review of patients undergoing primary multiligament PCL-R at a single institution between 2008 and 2020. Multiligament PCL-R was defined as PCL-R and concurrent surgical treatment of one or more additional knee ligament(s). Exclusion criteria included isolated PCL-R, PCL repair, and missing data for any variable. Patients were dichotomized into early (≤ 12 weeks) and delayed (> 12 weeks) PCL-R groups based on the time elapsed between injury and surgery. Between-group comparison of variables were conducted with the Chi-square, Fisher's exact, and independent samples t-tests. RESULTS: A total of 148 patients were eligible for analysis, with 57 (38.5%) patients in the early and 91 (61.1%) patients in the delayed multiligament PCL-R groups. Concomitant LCL/PLC reconstruction (LCL-R/PLC-R) was performed in 55 (60%) of delayed multiligament PCL-Rs and 23 (40%) of early PCL-Rs (p = 0.02). Despite similar rates of meniscus injury, concomitant meniscus surgery was significantly more prevalent in the early (n = 25, 44%) versus delayed (n = 19, 21%) multiligament PCL-R group (p = 0.003), with a significantly greater proportion of medial meniscus surgeries performed in the early (n = 16, 28%) compared to delayed (n = 13, 14%) PCL-R group (p = 0.04). The prevalence of knee cartilage injury was significantly different between the early (n = 12, 24%) and delayed (n = 41, 46%) multiligament PCL-R groups (p = 0.01), with more frequent involvement of the lateral (n = 17, 19% vs. n = 3, 5%, respectively; p = 0.04) and medial (n = 31, 34% vs. n = 6, 11%, respectively; p = 0.005) femoral condyles in the delayed compared to the early PCL-R group. CONCLUSIONS: Given higher rates of chondral pathology and medial meniscus surgery seen in delayed multiligament PCL-R, early management of PCL-based multiligament knee injury is recommended to restore knee stability and potentially prevent the development of further intraarticular injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Generalised joint hypermobility leads to increased odds of sustaining a second ACL injury within 12 months of return to sport after ACL reconstruction.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the 12-month risk of a second anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury in a population of patients with and without generalised joint hypermobility (GJH) who return to sports (RTS) at competition level after ACL reconstruction (ACL-R). METHODS: Data were extracted from a rehabilitation-specific registry for 16-50-year-old patients treated with ACL-R between 2014 and 2019. Demographics, outcome data and the incidence of a second ACL injury within 12 months of RTS, defined as a new ipsilateral or contralateral ACL, were compared between patients with and without GJH. Univariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were performed to determine the influence of GJH and time of RTS on the odds of a second ACL injury, and ACL-R survival without a second ACL injury after RTS. RESULTS: A total of 153 patients, 50 (22.2%) with GJH and 175 (77.8%) without GJH, were included. Within 12 months of RTS, 7 (14.0%) patients with GJH and 5 (2.9%) without GJH had a second ACL injury (p=0.012). The odds of sustaining a second ipsilateral or contralateral ACL injury were 5.53 (95% CI 1.67 to 18.29) higher in patients with GJH compared with patients without GJH (p=0.014). The lifetime HR of a second ACL injury after RTS was 4.24 (95% CI 2.05 to 8.80; p=0.0001) in patients with GJH. No between-group differences were observed in patient-reported outcome measures. CONCLUSION: Patients with GJH undergoing ACL-R have over five times greater odds of sustaining a second ACL injury after RTS. The importance of joint laxity assessment should be emphasised in patients who aim to return to high-intensity sports following ACL-R.

When ACL reconstruction does not help: risk factors associated with not achieving the minimal important change for the KOOS Sport/Rec and QoL.

OBJECTIVES: To determine factors associated with not achieving a minimal important change (MIC) in the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Function in Sport and Recreation (Sport/Rec), and Knee-Related Quality of Life (QoL) subscales 1 year after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R). METHODS: This study used data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with not achieving a MIC. The change in the preoperative and postoperative KOOS Sport/Rec and QoL subscale scores were dichotomised based on not achieving MIC for both subscales versus achieving MIC for either one or both subscales. The MICs for the Sport/Rec and QoL subscales were 12.1 and 18.3, respectively, and were used to combine both subscales into a single variable (Sport & QoL). RESULTS: Of 16 131 included patients, 44% did not achieve the MIC for the combined Sport/Rec and QoL subscales 1 year after ACL-R. From the multivariable stepwise logistic regression, older patients (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.94; p<0.0001), males (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.99; p=0.034) and patients receiving hamstring tendon autograft ACL-R (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.81; p<0.0001) had lower odds of not achieving the MIC 1 year after ACL-R compared with younger patients, females and patients receiving patellar tendon autograft. Furthermore, patients with cartilage injuries (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.27; p<0.0001) and higher pre-operative KOOS Sport/Rec and QoL scores (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.36; p<0.0001) had higher odds of not achieving the MIC. CONCLUSION: Younger patients, females and patients with cartilage injuries and higher pre-operative Sport/Rec and QoL KOOS scores are less likely to benefit from ACL-R and subsequently, have a lower probability for improved Sport/Rec and QoL scores after ACL-R. Furthermore, graft choice may also affect the risk of not achieving the MIC. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective cohort study, level III.

Some, but not all, patients experience full symptom resolution and a positive rehabilitation process after ACL reconstruction: an interview study.

PURPOSE: To gain a deeper understanding of patients' experiences over 5 years after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. METHODS: Seventeen semi-structured interviews were performed with patients treated with ACL reconstruction at least 5 years earlier without a second knee injury. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using qualitative content analysis according to methods described by Graneheim and Lundman. RESULTS: Patients' long-term experiences after an ACL reconstruction were summarized as: "to cope or not to cope, that is the question", and five main categories: (1) Adapting life after knee symptom: the past will not come back; (2) An arduous and demanding rehabilitation: sailing against the wind; (3) Accepting what cannot be changed: biting the bullet; (4) Being satisfied with results: end of a chapter; (5) Apprehensively peregrinating on an unknown road. CONCLUSIONS: More than 5 years after ACL reconstruction, patients can experience full symptom resolution and the ACL injury process as positive, or experience persistent symptoms and are forced to accept negative life-changing choices due to the injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Greater self-efficacy, psychological readiness and return to sport amongst paediatric patients compared with adolescents and young adults, 8 and 12 months after ACL reconstruction.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in rehabilitation-specific outcomes between paediatric patients, adolescents and young adults within the first 2 years after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. A further aim was to determine whether patient age was associated with an increased risk of not achieving symmetrical muscle function within the first 2 years after ACL reconstruction. METHODS: The patient data in the present study were extracted from the rehabilitation outcome registry, Project ACL. Patients aged 11-25 years registered for primary ACL reconstruction with a hamstring tendon autograft between April 1, 2013 and November 23, 2020 were included. A total of 691 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study; 41 paediatric patients (females 11-13, males 11-15 years), 347 adolescents (females 14-19, males 16-19 years) and 303 young adults (females 20-25, males 20-25 years). RESULTS: The comparison between groups revealed that 70% of paediatric patients, 39% of adolescents and 35% of young adults had returned to knee-strenuous sport at 8 months and that 90% of paediatric patients, 71% of adolescents and 62% of young adults had returned to sport at 12 months. Paediatric patients also reported higher scores compared with both the other patient groups on the Knee Self-Efficacy Scale (K-SES) and the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Return to Sport after Injury scale (ACL-RSI) at 8 and 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: A larger proportion of paediatric patients had returned to sport compared with adolescents and young adults 8 and 12 months after ACL reconstruction. Paediatric patients also reported higher self-efficacy and greater psychological readiness to return to sport at 8 and 12 months than the other two groups. No differences in terms of muscle function tests when comparing paediatric patients, adolescents and young adults were found. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Sports activity and quality of life improve after isolated ACL, isolated PCL, and combined ACL/PCL reconstruction.

PURPOSE: To compare patient-reported outcomes following isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R), isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCL-R), and combined ACL-R and PCL-R (ACL/PCL-R), at a minimum follow-up of 2 years. METHODS: This was a prospective observational registry cohort study based on the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry. Patients undergoing isolated ACL-R, isolated PCL-R, and combined ACL/PCL-R between 2005 and 2019 were eligible for inclusion. Demographic characteristics as well as injury- and surgery-related data were queried from the SNKLR. To evaluate functional outcomes, the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was collected preoperatively and at 1- and 2-year follow-ups and compared between the treatment groups. RESULTS: In total, 45,169 patients underwent isolated ACL-R, 192 patients isolated PCL-R, and 203 patients combined ACL/PCL-R. Preoperatively, and at the 1- and 2-year follow-ups, KOOS subscales were highest for the isolated ACL-R group, followed by the isolated PCL-R, and lowest for the combined ACL/PCL-R groups. Significant improvements were observed across all treatment groups in the majority of KOOS subscales between the preoperative, and 1- and 2-year follow-ups. All treatment groups showed the greatest improvements between the preoperative and 2-year follow-ups in the knee-related quality of life (mean improvement: isolated ACL-R, + 28 points; isolated PCL-R, + 23 points; combined ACL/PCL-R, + 21 points) and the function in sport and recreation (mean improvement: isolated ACL-R, + 26 points; isolated PCL-R, + 20 points; combined ACL/PCL-R, + 19 points) subscales. CONCLUSION: Clinically relevant improvements in knee function can be expected after isolated ACL-R, isolated PCL-R, and combined ACL/PCL-R. Functional improvements were particularly pronounced in the KOOS function in sport and recreation subscale, indicating the importance of knee stability for sports activity. This study facilitates more comprehensive patient education about functional expectations after surgical treatment of isolated and combined ACL and PCL injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2.

Different patient and activity-related characteristics result in different injury profiles for patients with anterior cruciate ligament and posterior cruciate ligament injuries.

PURPOSE: To compare patient characteristics including patient sex, age, body mass index (BMI), activities at the time of injury and injury profiles in patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injuries. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry. Two study groups were created: (1) index ACL reconstruction (ACL group) and (2) index PCL reconstruction (PCL group). Between-group differences were investigated using Fisher's exact test and Fisher's non-parametric permutation test for dichotomous variables and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS: Of 39,010 patients, 38,904 were ACL injuries. A larger proportion of patients with combined injuries to the PCL, meniscus and cartilage were female, aged > 25 years and with a BMI of > 35 kg/m2 compared with patients with combined injuries to the ACL, meniscus and cartilage. An isolated ACL injury was more commonly found in males, while all other injury profiles of ACL, including combined injuries with meniscus, cartilage and collateral ligament injuries, were more frequently observed in females. The PCL injuries were sustained either during pivoting sports, non-pivoting sports or were traffic-related. CONCLUSION: Different patient characteristics (BMI, age and sex), and activities at the time of injury (sport- versus traffic-related activities), resulted in distinct injury profiles for the ACL and PCL groups. These findings provide valuable information of the way specific injury patterns of cruciate ligament injuries occur, and subsequently may help clinicians with the diagnostic process of ACL and PCL injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Exploring the potential of ChatGPT as a supplementary tool for providing orthopaedic information.

PURPOSE: To investigate the potential use of large language models (LLMs) in orthopaedics by presenting queries pertinent to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery to generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT, specifically using its GPT-4 model of March 14th 2023). Additionally, this study aimed to evaluate the depth of the LLM's knowledge and investigate its adaptability to different user groups. It was hypothesized that the ChatGPT would be able to adapt to different target groups due to its strong language understanding and processing capabilities. METHODS: ChatGPT was presented with 20 questions and response was requested for two distinct target audiences: patients and non-orthopaedic medical doctors. Two board-certified orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons and two expert orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons independently evaluated the responses generated by ChatGPT. Mean correctness, completeness, and adaptability to the target audiences (patients and non-orthopaedic medical doctors) were determined. A three-point response scale facilitated nuanced assessment. RESULTS: ChatGPT exhibited fair accuracy, with average correctness scores of 1.69 and 1.66 (on a scale from 0, incorrect, 1, partially correct, to 2, correct) for patients and medical doctors, respectively. Three of the 20 questions (15.0%) were deemed incorrect by any of the four orthopaedic sports medicine surgeon assessors. Moreover, overall completeness was calculated to be 1.51 and 1.64 for patients and medical doctors, respectively, while overall adaptiveness was determined to be 1.75 and 1.73 for patients and doctors, respectively. CONCLUSION: Overall, ChatGPT was successful in generating correct responses in approximately 65% of the cases related to ACL surgery. The findings of this study imply that LLMs offer potential as a supplementary tool for acquiring orthopaedic knowledge. However, although ChatGPT can provide guidance and effectively adapt to diverse target audiences, it cannot supplant the expertise of orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons in diagnostic and treatment planning endeavours due to its limited understanding of orthopaedic domains and its potential for erroneous responses. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: V.

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.

Subsequent ipsi- and contralateral femoral fractures after intramedullary nailing of a trochanteric or subtrochanteric fracture: a cohort study on 2012 patients.

BACKGROUND: The literature is inconclusive as to whether an intramedullary nail changes the distribution of a subsequent ipsi- or contralateral fracture of the femur. We have compared the incidence, localisation, and fracture pattern of subsequent femoral fractures after intramedullary nailing of trochanteric or subtrochanteric fractures in patients without previous implants in either femur at the time of surgery. METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed of a two-centre cohort of 2012 patients treated with a short or long intramedullary nail for the management of trochanteric or subtrochanteric fracture between January 2005 and December 2018. Subsequent presentations with ipsi- and contralateral femoral fractures were documented. Only patients with no previous femoral surgery performed, other than the index nailing were followed. Odds ratios (ORs) for subsequent femoral fracture were calculated using robust variance estimates in logistic regression. RESULTS: The mean age of the cohort was 82.4 years and 72.1% were female. The total number of patients presenting with subsequent femoral fractures was 299 (14.9%). The number of patients presenting with subsequent ipsilateral and contralateral femoral fractures was 51 (2.5%) and 248 (12.3%) respectively (OR 5.0; CI 3.7-6.9). Twenty-six (8.7%) of all subsequent femoral fractures occured in the ipsilateral shaft, 14 (4.7%) in the ipsilateral metaphyseal area, one (0.33%) in the contralateral shaft, and three (1.0%) in the contralateral metaphysis (OR 10; CI 3.6-29). CONCLUSION: An intramedullary nail significantly changes the fracture pattern in the event of a second low-energy trauma, reducing the risk of subsequent proximal ipsilateral femoral fractures and increasing the risk of subsequent ipsilateral femoral fractures in the shaft and distal metaphyseal area compared with the native contralateral femur.

Lower rate of acceptable knee function in adolescents compared with young adults five years after acl reconstruction: results from the swedish national knee ligament register.

BACKGROUND: The number of studies with a large cohort of patients that primarily focus on patient-reported outcomes after ACL reconstruction in children and adolescents is limited. The purpose of the present study was to determine whether patient age affects the proportion of patients that achieve a patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) on the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales one, two, five and 10 years after an ACL reconstruction. METHODS: The patient data in the present study were extracted from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register (SNKLR). Patients aged between five and 35 years that underwent a primary ACL reconstruction between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2017 and had completed the KOOS questionnaire at the one-, two-, five- or 10-year follow-up were included. A total of 2,848 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the study; 47 paediatric patients (females 5-13, males 5-15 years), 522 adolescents (females 14-19, males 16-19 years) and 2,279 young adults (females 20-35, males 20-35 years). The results from the KOOS were presented as the mean and 95% confidence interval (CI) for the mean. For comparisons between groups, the chi-square test was used for non-ordered categorical variables. For pairwise comparisons between groups, Fisher's exact test (2-sided) was used for dichotomous variables. All the statistical analyses was set at 5%. RESULTS: Adolescents reported a significantly lower score than young adults on the KOOS4 at the two- (68.4 vs. 72.1; P < 0.05), five- (69.8 vs. 76.0; P < 0.05) and 10-year follow-ups (69.8 vs. 78.2; P < 0.05). Moreover, a significantly smaller proportion of adolescents achieved a PASS on each of the KOOS subscales when compared with young adults at the five-year follow-up (Symptoms: 83.3% vs. 91.6%; Pain: 42.9% vs. 55.3%; Function in daily living: 31.4% vs. 41.1%; Function in sports and recreational activities: 42.3% vs. 55.7%; Knee-related quality of life: 50.0% vs. 65.0%; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A significantly smaller proportion of adolescents achieved a PASS on each of the KOOS subscales when compared with young adults five years after ACL reconstruction. The results of the present study provide important information for physicians and physiotherapists treating young patients after an ACL injury and they can aid in providing realistic expectations in terms of the mid- and long-term outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospective Observational Register/Cohort Study, Level II.

'I was young, I wanted to return to sport, and re-ruptured my ACL' - young active female patients' voices on the experience of sustaining an ACL re-rupture, a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Despite anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) re-ruptures being common, research on patient experiences after knee trauma has primarily focused on the time after primary ACL reconstruction. Integrating qualitative research and patient experiences can facilitate researchers and clinicians in understanding the burden of an ACL re-rupture. The aim of the study was to explore the experiences of an ACL re-rupture journey in young active females aiming to return to knee-strenuous sports after primary ACL reconstruction. METHOD: Fifteen young (19[range 16-23] years old) active females who suffered an ACL re-rupture were interviewed with semi-structured interviews. Qualitative content analysis using deductive approach based on Wiese-Bjornstal's 'integrated model of response to sport injury' was used. RESULTS: The results are presented in two timelines 1) from first ACL injury to ACL re-rupture, and 2) from ACL re-rupture to present day, and further stratified according to the domains of the 'integrated model of psychological response to injury'. Results in the first timeline are summarised into seven categories: Finding hope for the journey; Accepting my ACL injury; I succeeded; What matters now? Who am I?; Where will this end? What is going to happen? In the second timeline, eight categories were identified: Fighting spirit; A helping hand; Working hard; I am a new me; I am destroyed; Loneliness; Painful changes; and, I could have made it to the pro´s. CONCLUSION: Young active females who suffered an ACL re-rupture did not express any positive experience following their first ACL injury, however, in contrast, expressed positive experiences and personal growth after going through the ACL re-rupture journey, characterized by a lot of struggling, and ultimately led to the experience of becoming a new, stronger person.

Massive foreign body reaction and osteolysis following primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with the ligament augmentation and reconstruction system (LARS): a case report with histopathological and physicochemical analysis.

BACKGROUND: Autologous hamstrings and patellar tendon have historically been considered the gold standard grafts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). In the last decades, the utilization of synthetic grafts has re-emerged due to advantageous lack of donor site morbidity and more rapid return to sport. The Ligament Augmentation and Reconstruction System (LARS) has demonstrated to be a valid and safe option for ACLR in the short term. However, recent studies have pointed out the notable frequency of associated complications, including synovitis, mechanical failure, and even chondrolysis requiring joint replacement. CASE PRESENTATION: We report the case of a 23-year-old male who developed a serious foreign body reaction with wide osteolysis of both femoral and tibial tunnels following ACLR with LARS. During first-stage arthroscopy, we performed a debridement of the pseudocystic mass incorporating the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and extending towards the tunnels, which were filled with autologous anterior iliac crest bone graft chips. Histological analysis revealed the presence of chronic inflammation, fibrosis, and foreign body giant cells with synthetic fiber inclusions. Furthermore, physicochemical analysis showed signs of fiber depolymerization, increased crystallinity and formation of lipid peroxidation-derived aldehydes, which indicate mechanical aging and instability of the graft. After 8 months, revision surgery was performed and ACL revision surgery with autologous hamstrings was successfully carried out. CONCLUSIONS: The use of the LARS grafts for ACLR should be cautiously contemplated considering the high risk of complications and early failure.