Outcomes after posterior meniscal root repair significantly improved postoperatively and patient satisfaction was high, regardless of age or meniscal laterality. Patients <50 years had outcomes similar to those of patients ≥50 years, as did patients who underwent medial versus lateral root repair. Transtibial double-tunnel pull-out meniscal root repair provided improvement in function, pain, and activity level, which may aid in delayed progression of knee osteoarthritis.

Background:Bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) has emerged as a novel treatment for pathology of the knee. Despite containing a limited number of stem cells, BMAC serves as a source of growth factors that are thought to play an important role as a result of their anabolic and anti-inflammatory effects. To our knowledge, there is no systematic review regarding the outcomes of bone marrow aspirate concentrate used for the treatment of chondral defects and osteoarthritis of the knee.Purpose:To perform a systematic review on the outcomes of bone marrow aspirate concentrate for the treatment of chondral defects and osteoarthritis of the knee.Study Design:Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.Methods:A systematic review of the literature was performed using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and MEDLINE from 1980 to present. Inclusion criteria were as follows: use of BMAC for treatment of chondral defects and osteoarthritis of the knee, English language, and human studies. We excluded cadaveric studies, animal studies, basic science articles, editorial articles, surveys, and studies that did not include the knee. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, studies were evaluated for efficacy and safety of BMAC for treatment of articular cartilage knee pathologies.Results:Eleven studies were considered. Of these, 5 were prospective studies, 1 was a retrospective study, 2 were case series, and 3 were case reports. Three comparative studies (2 with level 2 evidence, 1 with level 3 evidence) were found in our search; none of them were randomized. Three studies investigated the clinical efficacy of BMAC in the treatment of osteoarthritis, and 8 studies evaluated the efficacy of BMAC on focal cartilage injuries. All 3 studies regarding osteoarthritis and all 8 studies regarding focal chondral defects reported good to excellent overall outcomes with the use of BMAC.Conclusion:Although a growing interest for biological alternatives of treating knee pathology has been observed in the past few years, there still remains a paucity of high-quality studies. The studies included in this systematic review reported varying degrees of beneficial results with the use of BMAC with and without an additional procedure for the treatment of chondral defects and early stages of osteoarthritis. Most articles present the use of BMAC as a safe procedure and report good results.

In this study, objective outcomes and subjective patient scores and satisfaction were not significantly different between 1-stage and 2-stage revision ACLRs. Both groups had significantly improved objective outcomes and patient subjective outcomes without notable differences in failure rates. Further longitudinal studies comparing 1-stage and 2-stage revision ACLRs over a longer time frame are recommended.

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Restoration of anteroposterior laxity after an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction has been predictable with traditional open and endoscopic techniques. However, anterolateral rotational stability has been difficult to achieve in a subset of patients, even with appropriate anatomic techniques. Therefore, differing techniques have attempted to address this rotational laxity by augmenting or reconstructing lateral-sided structures about the knee. In recent years, there has been a renewed interest in the anterolateral ligament as a potential contributor to residual anterolateral rotatory instability in anterior cruciate ligament-deficient patients. Numerous anatomic and biomechanical studies have been performed to further define the functional importance of the anterolateral ligament, highlighting the need for surgical techniques to address these injuries in the unstable knee. This article details our technique for an anatomic anterolateral ligament reconstruction using a semitendinosus tendon allograft.

The most important finding in this study was that there was no difference in outcomes in meniscal repair performed with biological augmentation using an MVP versus that performed concomitantly with ACL reconstruction. The similar outcomes reported for meniscal repair with an MVP and meniscal repair with ACL reconstruction may be partly attributed to biological augmentation.

No abstract

Outcomes of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction have been reported to be far superior to those of revision reconstruction. However, as the incidence of ACL reconstruction is rapidly increasing, so is the number of failures. The subsequent need for revision ACL reconstruction is estimated to occur in up to 13,000 patients each year in the United States. Revision ACL reconstruction can be performed in one or two stages. A two-stage approach is recommended in cases of improper placement of the original tunnels or in cases of unacceptable tunnel enlargement. The aim of this study was to describe the technique for allograft ACL tunnel bone grafting in patients requiring a two-stage revision ACL reconstruction.