Inlay Scaffold Augmentation of Rotator Cuff Repairs Enhances Histologic Resemblance to Native Enthesis in Animal Studies: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To investigate the outcomes of inlay positioned scaffolds for rotator cuff healing and regeneration of the native enthesis after augmentation of rotator cuff tendon repairs in preclinical studies. METHODS: A literature search was performed using the PubMed, Embase, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Preclinical studies reporting on outcomes after inlay tendon augmentation in rotator cuff repair were included. Preclinical study quality was assessed using an adapted version of the Gold Standard Publication Checklist for animal studies. The level of evidence was defined based on the inclusion of clinical analyses (grade A), biomechanical analyses (grade B), biochemical analyses (grade C), semiquantitative analyses (grade D), and qualitative histologic analyses (grade E). RESULTS: Thirteen preclinical studies met the inclusion criteria. Quality assessment scores ranged from 4 to 8 points, and level-of-evidence grades ranged from B to E. Sheep/ewes were the main animal rotator cuff tear model used (n = 7). Demineralized bone matrix or demineralized cortical bone was the most commonly investigated scaffold (n = 6). Most of the preclinical evidence (n = 10) showed qualitative or quantitative differences regarding histologic, biomechanical, and biochemical outcomes in favor of interpositional scaffold augmentation of cuff repairs in comparison to controls. CONCLUSIONS: Inlay scaffold positioning in preclinical studies has been shown to enhance the healing biology of the enthesis while providing histologic similarities to its native 4-zone configuration. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although onlay positioned grafts and scaffolds have shown mixed results in preclinical and early clinical studies, inlay scaffolds may provide enhanced healing and structural support in comparison owing to the ability to integrate with the bone-tendon interface.

Lower Range of Recurrent Instability Rates Following Bankart Repair and Remplissage Compared to Isolated Bankart Repair in Patients With "Nonengaging/On-Track" Hill-Sachs Lesions and <20% Glenoid Bone Loss.

PURPOSE: To compare recurrent instability and return-to-sport rates along with external rotation differences between on-track (nonengaging) Hill-Sachs lesion patients undergoing either an isolated Bankart repair (IBR) or a Bankart repair augmented with a remplissage procedure (B+R). METHODS: A search was conducted using 3 databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL) in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Only clinical comparative (level of evidence I-III) studies were considered for inclusion. Quality assessment was performed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. RESULTS: Six level of evidence III studies, totaling 537 patients (202 B+R and 335 IBR) were included for analysis. All patients had <20% glenoid bone loss and a nonengaging, on-track Hill-Sachs lesion. At a median final follow-up of 34.7 months, recurrent dislocation rates ranged from 0% to 7.7% and 3.5% to 30% in the B+R and IBR groups, respectively. Moreover, subjective instability and revision surgery rates presented lower ranges in the B+R upon comparison with the IBR cohort (0%-32% vs 5%-71.4% and 0%-5% vs 0%-35%, respectively). Furthermore, return to preinjury level of sports ranged from 64% to 100% in the remplissage-augmented group and 50% to 90% in the IBR cohort. Postoperative external rotation at side varied from 50° to 63° in the B+R and 55° to 63° in the IBR arm. Additional subgroup analysis revealed recurrent dislocation rates in athletes and patients with near-track Hill-Sachs lesions undergoing remplissage augmentation to be 0% to 5% and 2% to 47% while ranging from 8.8% to 30% and 9% to 66% for IBR patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Upon qualitative analysis, ranges of recurrent instability measures, including recurrent dislocation rates, are higher in patients undergoing IBR in comparison to B+R. Activity level influences outcomes as athletes were found to have a higher range of recurrent dislocation rates in the IBR group. The addition of remplissage showed a higher range of return-to-sport rates with comparable postoperative external rotation between groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level III studies.

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Results in Similar Patient Reported Outcome Measures as Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review of Prospective Comparative Studies.

PURPOSE: To investigate the patient-reported outcomes (PROs), knee stability, and complications in prospective comparative studies of patients undergoing augmented anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair compared to ACL reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: A literature search was performed according to the 2020 PRISMA guidelines. Human clinical studies of level I-II evidence comparing PROs, knee stability and complications following ACL repair and reconstruction were included, and a qualitative analysis was performed. Excluded studies included those lacking reporting outcomes, studies that performed open ACLR or repair, studies published prior to the year 2000 and studies with evidence levels III-IV. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Seven level of evidence I-II studies were retained including 190 ACLR and 221 repairs (75 Bridge-Enhanced ACL Repair (BEAR), 49 Suture Augmentation (SA), and 97 Dynamic Intraligamentary Stabilization (DIS)). At final follow-up, re-rupture rates varied between 0-14% (BEAR) vs 0-6% (ACLR) and mean side-to-side differences measured using KT-1000 testing ranged from 1.6-1.9mm (BEAR) vs 1.7-3.14mm (ACLR). For DIS vs ACLR, mean anterior tibial translation values at final follow-up were 1.7mm (DIS) vs. 1.4mm (ACLR), and re-rupture rates ranged from 20.8%-29% (DIS) vs. 17%-27.2% (ACLR). For SA vs ACLR, the mean side to side difference ranged from 0.2-0.39mm (SA) vs 0.33-0.4mm (ALCR), while the re-rupture rates were 10% (SA) vs. 0% (ACLR). International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Tegner, Lysholm and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome (KOOS) scores across both cohorts exhibited statistically significant, and comparable improvement, from baseline to final follow-up ranging from 1 to 5 years. CONCLUSION: Augmented ACL repair results in similar patient reported outcomes measures in comparison to ACL reconstruction. However, augmented ACL repair may be associated with higher rates of failure given re-rupture rates of up to 14%, 29% and 10% for BEAR, DIS and SA, respectively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II; Systematic review of level I-II studies.

ACL Reconstruction in Patients Over Fifty Years of Age Results in Improvements in Functional Outcomes and Broad Complication Rates: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To assess the patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs), functional knee measures, and incidence of complications in patients aged 50 and older undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: A literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases, spanning from their inception to November 2023, in accordance with the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Inclusion criteria consisted of clinical studies reporting PROMs, measures of knee stability, and complication rates, following ACLR in patients aged ≥ 50 with minimum 2 year follow-up. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria was used to assess study quality. Primary outcome measures consisted of changes PROMs and complication rates following ACLR. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies, consisting of 1,163 patients undergoing ACLR were identified. Autografts were utilized in 90.3% of patients, compared to 9.7% of patients treated using allografts. At minimum 24-month follow-up, the mean International Knee Documentation Score (IKDC) ranged from 67.4 to 92.96, while mean Lysholm scores ranged from 84.4 to 94.8, and mean Tegner scores ranged from 0.3 to 5.4. The mean side to side difference at final follow-up ranged from 1.2 to 2.4mm while the rates of recurrent instability ranged from 0 to 18%. Complications and revisions ranged from 0% to 40.4% and 0% to 37.5% of cases, with the highest rates observed in studies noting a high incidence of intraoperative cartilage lesions. CONCLUSION: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients above the age of 50 results in favorable IKDC, Lysholm and Tegner activity scores and improvements in functional knee measures. However, a wide range of reoperation and complications are reported, attributed to varying levels of chondral injury and osteoarthritis which warrant consideration when discussing expectations in patients 50 and above undergoing ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, Systematic Review of Level II-IV studies.

Geniculate Artery Embolization for the Treatment of Mild to Moderate Knee Osteoarthritis Improves Pain and Function at Short-Term Follow-Up With Significant Procedural Heterogeneity Described Across the Literature: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To evaluate procedural heterogeneity, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and complications following geniculate artery embolization (GAE) for knee osteoarthritis (OA). METHODS: A literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases from inception to August 2023 according to the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Human clinical studies reporting PROs following GAE for treatment of knee OA were included, and a qualitative comparison across PROs, procedural descriptions, and complications was performed. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool and the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. The primary outcome measures included changes in PROs at 12 months and variances in procedural methodology. RESULTS: A total of 17 studies, consisting of 533 patients and 620 knees, were identified. The reported mean improvement at 12 months for visual analog scale for pain and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index scores ranged from 10 to 59 and 35.3 to 47, respectively. At 12 months, median improvements were observed in Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales such as Pain (range, 8.3-19.5), Quality of Life (15.49-25.0), Sport (7.5-26.3), and Symptoms (1.8-25.0). Decreasing minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement was observed between the 3-month and 6-month follow-up points. Patients with advanced OA and degenerative findings on magnetic resonance imaging exhibited lower rates of MCID achievement. Transient adverse events occurred in up to 80% of patients. Limited evidence from serial magnetic resonance imaging assessments suggests that GAE improves levels of synovitis. Significant heterogeneity exists among the GAE methodology as 4 different definitions of technical success, 4 distinct embolization targets, and use of 5 embolization agents were noted. CONCLUSIONS: GAE results in short-term improvements in pain and function with decreasing MCID achievement observed after 3 to 6 months. Patients with severe OA also demonstrate lower rates of MCID achievement. A high rate of transient complications is reported, including skin discoloration and access site hematomas. Significant protocol heterogeneity exists, which contributes to variable outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies.

Arthroscopic Bankart with remplissage results in lower rates of recurrent instability with similar range of motion compared to isolated arthroscopic Bankart for anterior glenohumeral instability: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The addition of the remplissage procedure to an arthroscopic Bankart procedure has been shown to improve clinical outcomes, yet at the expense of potentially decreasing shoulder range of motion. The purpose of this study was to assess recurrent instability, range of motion, functional outcomes and rates of return to sport outcomes in patients undergoing an isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair compared to those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair in addition to the remplissage procedure. METHODS: According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, a search was conducted using three databases (MEDLINE/OVID, EMBASE and PubMed). Retrieved studies were screened based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria for comparative studies. Data were extracted and meta-analysis performed using a random-effects model. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies (13 level III studies, 2 level II studies and 1 level I) were included with a total of 507 and 704 patients in the Bankart plus remplissage and isolated Bankart repair groups, respectively. No studies reported glenoid bone loss of >20% with the least percentage of glenoid bone loss reported among studies being <1%. There was a significantly increased rate of recurrent dislocations (odds ratio [OR] = 4.22, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.380-7.48, p < 0.00001) and revision procedures (OR = 3.36, 95% CI: 1.52-7.41, p = 0.003) in the isolated Bankart repair group compared to the Bankart plus remplissage group. Additionally, there were no significant differences between groups in terms of external rotation at side (n.s.), in abduction (n.s.) or at forward flexion (n.s.) at final follow-up. Furthermore, return to preinjury level of sport favoured the Bankart plus remplissage group (OR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.35-0.85, p = 0.007). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart plus remplissage for anterior shoulder instability have lower rates of recurrent instability, higher rates of return to sport, and no significant difference in range of motion at final follow-up when compared to an isolated arthroscopic Bankart repair. Further large, prospective studies are needed to further determine which patients and degree of bone loss would benefit most from augmentation with the remplissage procedure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Failure and complication rates following meniscal all-inside and inside-out repairs: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: This study examines failure rates, complication rates and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for meniscal all-inside (AI) and inside-out (IO) repair techniques. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted on PubMed, Embase and Cochrane (inception to January 2024) assessing for Level I-III studies evaluating outcomes after meniscal repair. The primary outcome regarded differences in failure rates between AI and IO repair techniques. Secondary outcomes included a comparison of complication rates and PROMs. Quality assessment was performed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. A meta-analysis was conducted for outcomes reported by more than three comparative studies. RESULTS: A total of 24 studies (13 studies and 912 menisci for AI vs. 17 studies and 1,117 menisci for IO) were included. The mean follow-up ranges were 22-192 months (AI) and 18.5-155 months (IO). The overall reported AI failure rate ranged from 5% to 35% compared to 0% to 25% within the IO group. When comparing meniscal repair failure rates in the setting of concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, the AI group had a failure rate (AI: 5%-34%; IO: 0%-12.9%). The complication rate ranged from 0% to 40% for AI and 0% to 20.5% for IO. Post-operative PROM scores ranged from 81.2 to 93.8 (AI) versus 89.6 to 94 (IO) for IKDC and 4.0-7.02 (AI) versus 4.0-8.0 (IO) for Tegner. Upon pooling of six comparative studies, a significantly lower failure rate favouring the IO technique was observed (15.9% AI vs. 11.1% IO; p = 0.02), although this result was influenced by a study with a predominantly elite athlete population. Moreover, no significant differences were found regarding complication rates between cohorts (7.3% AI vs. 4.8% IO; p = 0.86). CONCLUSION: The present study underscores comparable clinical success between AI and IO meniscal repair techniques, with both techniques demonstrating similar complication rates. However, the AI repair technique was associated with 1.77 times higher odds of failure compared to the IO cohort. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Antibiotic prophylaxis following low-velocity gunshot fractures: an updated review.

PURPOSE: Low-velocity gunshot fractures (LVGFs) are a common type of gunshot-induced trauma with the potential for complications such as infection and osteomyelitis. The effectiveness of antibiotic therapy in LVGFs remains uncertain, leading to ongoing debate about the appropriate treatment. In this review, we evaluate recent updates on the current understanding of antibiotic therapy in LVGFs, how previous studies have investigated the use of antibiotics in LVGFs, and the current state of institutional policies and protocols for treating LVGFs with antibiotics. METHODS: We conducted a review of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science databases to identify studies that investigated the use of antibiotics in LVGFs after the last review in 2013. Due to the lack of quantitative clinical trial studies, we employed a narrative synthesis approach to analyze and present the findings from the included primary studies. We categorized the outcomes based on the anatomical location of the LVGFs. RESULTS: After evaluating 67 publications with the necessary qualifications out of 578 abstracts, 17 articles were included. The sample size of the studies ranged from 22 to 252 patients. The antibiotics used in the studies varied, and the follow-up period ranged from three months to ten years. The included studies investigated the use of antibiotics in treating LVGFs at various anatomic locations, including the humerus, forearm, hand and wrist, hip, femur, tibia, and foot and ankle. CONCLUSION: Our study provides updated evidence for the use of antibiotics in LVGFs and highlights the need for further research to establish evidence-based guidelines. We also highlight the lack of institutional policies for treating LVGFs and the heterogeneity in treatments among institutions with established protocols. A single-dose antibiotic approach could be cost-effective for patients with non-operatively treated LVGFs. We suggest that a national or international registry for gunshot injuries, antibiotics, and infections could serve as a valuable resource for collecting and analyzing data related to these important healthcare issues.

Accuracy assessment of ChatGPT responses to frequently asked questions regarding anterior cruciate ligament surgery.

BACKGROUND: The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) has allowed users to have access to large sources of information in a chat-like manner. Thereby, we sought to evaluate ChatGPT-4 response's accuracy to the 10 patient most frequently asked questions (FAQs) regarding anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery. METHODS: A list of the top 10 FAQs pertaining to ACL surgery was created after conducting a search through all Sports Medicine Fellowship Institutions listed on the Arthroscopy Association of North America (AANA) and American Orthopaedic Society of Sports Medicine (AOSSM) websites. A Likert scale was used to grade response accuracy by two sports medicine fellowship-trained surgeons. Cohen's kappa was used to assess inter-rater agreement. Reproducibility of the responses over time was also assessed. RESULTS: Five of the 10 responses received a 'completely accurate' grade by two-fellowship trained surgeons with three additional replies receiving a 'completely accurate' status by at least one. Moreover, inter-rater reliability accuracy assessment revealed a moderate agreement between fellowship-trained attending physicians (weighted kappa = 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.15-0.99). Additionally, 80% of the responses were reproducible over time. CONCLUSION: ChatGPT can be considered an accurate additional tool to answer general patient questions regarding ACL surgery. None the less, patient-surgeon interaction should not be deferred and must continue to be the driving force for information retrieval. Thus, the general recommendation is to address any questions in the presence of a qualified specialist.

A Network Meta-Analysis on the Surgical Management of Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures: Anterior, Posterior, and Combined.

Background: Thoracolumbar burst fractures (BFs) are traumatic lesions instigated by compression forces. Canal compression and compromise may lead to neurological deficits. Optimal surgical management is yet to be fully defined since various approaches such as anterior, posterior, or combined exist. This study aims to determine the operative performance of these three treatment modalities. Methods: In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was performed, identifying studies comparing anterior, posterior, and/or combined surgical approaches in patients with thoracolumbar BFs. To analyze available evidence, a Bayesian network meta-analysis framework was utilized. Results: In this study, 16 studies were included. The shortest operative times and lowest operative blood losses were found for a posterior approach. The length of stay (LoS) was shorter with the posterior approach compared with the other two modalities. Return to work, postoperative kyphotic angle (PKA), and complications all favored the posterior approach. The visual analog scale score was similar between groups. Conclusions: This study suggests that the posterior approach has significant advantages in terms of operative time, blood loss, LoS, PKA, return to work, and complication rates when compared to the other approaches. Treatment should remain an individualized process, and before choosing an approach, factors such as patient characteristics, surgeon experience, and hospital settings should be considered.

Minimally Invasive versus Open Surgery for Spinal Metastasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Bones are the third most common location for solid tumor metastasis affecting up to 10% of patients with solid tumors. When the spine is involved, thoracic and lumbar vertebrae are frequently affected. Access to spinal lesions can be through minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or traditional open surgery (OS). This study aims to determine which method provides an advantage. Following the PRISMA (Preferred Inventory for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines, a systematic review was conducted to identify studies that compare MIS with OS in patients with spinal metastatic disease. Data were analyzed using Review Manager ver. 5.3 (RevMan; Cochrane, London, UK). Ten studies were included. Operative time was similar among groups at -35.23 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI], -73.36 to 2.91 minutes; p=0.07). Intraoperative bleeding was lower in MIS at -562.59 mL (95% CI, -776.97 to -348.20 mL; p<0.00001). OS procedures had higher odds of requiring blood transfusions at 0.26 (95% CI, 0.15 to 0.45; p<0.00001). Both approaches instrumented similar numbers of levels at -0.05 levels (95% CI, -0.75 to 0.66 levels; p=0.89). We observed a decreased need for postoperative bed rest at -1.60 days (95% CI, -2.46 to -0.74 days; p=0.0003), a shorter length of stay at -3.08 days (95% CI, -4.50 to -1.66 days; p=0.001), and decreased odds of complications at 0.60 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.96; p=0.03) in the MIS group. Both approaches revealed similar reintervention rates at 0.65 (95% CI, 0.15 to 2.84; p=0.57), effective rates of reducing metastasis-related pain at -0.74 (95% CI, -2.41 to 0.94; p=0.39), and comparable scores of the Tokuhashi scale at -0.52 (95% CI, -2.08 to 1.05; p=0.41), Frankel scale at 1.00 (95% CI, 0.60 to 1.68; p=1.0), and American Spinal Injury Association Scale at 0.53 (95% CI, 0.21 to 1.37; p=0.19). MIS appears to provide advantages over OS. Larger and prospective studies should fully detail the role of MIS as a treatment for spine metastasis.

Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Anterior and Posterior Approaches.

Background: A thoracolumbar burst fracture (BF) is a severe type of compression fracture, which is the most common type of traumatic spine fractures. Generally, surgery is the preferred treatment, but whether the optimal approach is either an anterior or a posterior approach remains unclear. This study aims to determine whether either method provides an advantage. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a systematic review was conducted, identifying studies comparing anterior versus posterior surgical approaches in patients with thoracolumbar BFs. Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3. Seven studies were included. Results: An operative time of 87.97 min (53.91, 122.03; p<0.0001) and blood loss of 497.04 mL (281.8, 712.28; p<0.0001) were lower in the posterior approach. Length of hospital stay, complications, reintervention rate, neurological outcomes, postoperative kyphotic angle, and costs were similar between both groups. Conclusions: Surgical intervention is usually selected to rehabilitate patients with BFs. The data obtained from this study suggest that a posterior approach represents a viable alternative to an anterior approach, with various advantages such as a shorter operative time and decreased bleeding.