Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and hyaluronic acid (HA) are 2 nonoperative treatment options for knee osteoarthritis (OA) that are supposed to provide symptomatic relief and help delay surgical intervention. Purpose: To systematically review the literature to compare the efficacy and safety of PRP and HA injections for the treatment of knee OA. Study Design: Meta-analysis of level 1 studies. Methods: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify level 1 studies that compared the clinical efficacy of PRP and HA injections for knee OA. The search phrase used was platelet-rich plasma hyaluronic acid knee osteoarthritis randomized. Patients were assessed via the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and Subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scale. A subanalysis was also performed to isolate results from patients who received leukocyte-poor and leukocyte-rich PRP. Results: A total of 18 studies (all level 1) met inclusion criteria, including 811 patients undergoing intra-articular injection with PRP (mean age, 57.6 years) and 797 patients with HA (mean age, 59.3 years). The mean follow-up was 11.1 months for both groups. Mean improvement was significantly higher in the PRP group (44.7%) than the HA group (12.6%) for WOMAC total scores ( P < .01). Of 11 studies based on the VAS, 6 reported PRP patients to have significantly less pain at latest follow-up when compared with HA patients ( P < .05). Of 6 studies based on the Subjective IKDC outcome score, 3 reported PRP patients to have significantly better scores at latest follow-up when compared with HA patients ( P < .05). Finally, leukocyte-poor PRP was associated with significantly better Subjective IKDC scores versus leukocyte-rich PRP ( P < .05). Conclusion: Patients undergoing treatment for knee OA with PRP can be expected to experience improved clinical outcomes when compared with HA. Additionally, leukocyte-poor PRP may be a superior line of treatment for knee OA over leukocyte-rich PRP, although further studies are needed that directly compare leukocyte content in PRP injections for treatment of knee OA.

IV, systematic review.

Background:Numerous surgical options exist to treat chondral lesions in the knee, including microfracture (MFx), osteochondral autograft transplantation (OAT), first-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI-1), and next-generation ACI (ACI-2).Purpose:To compare the cost-effectiveness of MFx, OAT, and ACI-1. The secondary purpose of this study was to compare the functional outcomes of MFx, OAT, ACI-1, and ACI-2.Study Design:Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2.Methods:Two independent reviewers conducted an online literature search of 2 databases for level 1 and 2 studies using the Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and/or Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) Knee Score. A weighted mean difference in pre- to postoperative functional outcome score was calculated for each treatment. The mean per-patient costs associated with MFx, OAT, and ACI-1 were determined from a recent publication based on review of a national private insurance database. The cost for each procedure was then divided by the weighted mean difference in functional outcome score to give the cost-per-point change in outcome score.Results:A total of 12 studies (6 level 1, 6 level 2) met the inclusion criteria for the functional outcome analysis, including 730 knees (MFx, n = 300; OAT, n = 90; ACI-1, n = 68; ACI-2, n = 272). The mean follow-up was not significantly different between groups (MFx, 29.4 months; OAT, 38.3 months; ACI-1, 19.0 months; ACI-2, 26.7 months). The mean increase in functional outcome score was 23 for MFx, 19 for OAT, 20 for ACI-1, and 35 for ACI-2. The change in functional outcome score was significantly greater for ACI-2 when compared with all other treatments (P < .0001). The cost-per-point change in functional outcome score was $200.59 for MFx, $313.84 for OAT, and $536.59 for ACI-1.Conclusion:MFx, OAT, ACI-1, and ACI-2 are effective surgical procedures for the treatment of cartilage defects in the knee. All 4 treatments led to an increase in functional outcome scores postoperatively with a short-term follow-up. ACI-2 had a statistically greater improvement in functional outcome scores as compared with the other 3 procedures. MFx was found to be the most cost-effective treatment option and ACI-1 the least cost-effective.

The current, best available evidence suggests that early motion improves ROM after rotator cuff repair but increases the risk of rotator cuff retear. Lower quality meta-analyses indicate that tear size may provide a better strategy in determining the correct rehabilitation protocol.

Background:Previous meta-analyses have been conducted to compare outcomes of various treatment injections for lateral epicondylitis (LE), including corticosteroid injection (CSI) and autologous blood products such as autologous blood (AB) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP).Purpose:To conduct a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing different injection treatments (CSI, AB, PRP) for LE to determine which meta-analyses provide the best available evidence.Study Design:Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2.Methods:A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library to locate meta-analyses that compared clinical outcomes of CSI, AB, and PRP for the treatment of LE. Search terms included “injection,” “corticosteroid,” “platelet-rich plasma,” “autologous blood,” “tennis elbow,” “lateral epicondylitis,” and “meta-analysis.” Results were reviewed to determine study eligibility. Patient outcomes were extracted from these meta-analyses. Meta-analysis quality was assessed with the Oxman-Guyatt and Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) systems. The Jadad decision algorithm was then used to determine which meta-analyses provided the best level of evidence.Results:Nine meta-analyses (two level 1 studies, seven level 2 studies) containing 8656 patients met the eligibility criteria. Seven meta-analyses found that autologous blood products such as AB and PRP significantly improved pain and elbow function in the intermediate term (12-26 weeks), while 4 studies found that CSI effectively relieved pain and improved elbow function in the short term (<12 weeks). The study by Arirachakaran et al in 2016 received the highest QUOROM and Oxman-Guyatt scores; therefore, this meta-analysis appears to have the highest level of evidence. In addition, this study was rated the highest-quality study in this systematic review according to the Jadad decision algorithm. Lower-quality meta-analyses indicated that dosage, number of injections, and differences in therapeutic duration between CSI and autologous blood products may be essential factors in determining the appropriate treatment injection protocol for LE.Conclusion:The current best available evidence suggests that CSI improves functional outcomes and pain relief in the short term, while AB and PRP are the most effective treatments in the intermediate term.

Background: There is no consensus on technique of choice for repair of bucket-handle meniscal tears (BHMTs). Purpose: To determine factors that affect patient outcomes and failure rates in patients undergoing all-inside repairs of BHMTs. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: A systematic review of 3 databases using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was performed. All English-language literature from 1993 to 2019 describing clinical outcomes for patients undergoing all-inside BHMT repair with ≥12-month follow-up was reviewed by 2 independent reviewers. Patient characteristics (patient sex, age), intraoperative factors (laterality, concomitant procedures, surgical technique, implants utilized), and postoperative outcomes (failure rates) were analyzed. Study quality was evaluated with the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS). Results: Fifteen studies (1 level 1, 4 level 3, 10 level 4) with 763 total patients (64% male; average age, 26.4 years [range, 9-58 years]; average follow-up, 39.8 months [range, 12-120 months]) including 396 all-inside BHMT repairs were included. Six devices were used for repair including the Meniscal Repair System, FasT-Fix, Meniscus Arrow, Biofix Arrow, RapidLoc device, and PDS II suture, with failure rates of 13.5%, 22.4%, 27.1%, 42.9%, 45.2%, and 0%, respectively. The overall repair failure rate was 29.3% at an average of 13.0 months (range, 5.0-32.4 months), but 19.0% for devices still in use. The RapidLoc and Biofix Arrow had higher failure rates than other devices ( P = .0003). Women (31%) were less likely to experience a failure than were men (69%) ( P = .03). Longer follow-up duration resulted in higher failure rates (>30 months, 34.4%; <30 months, 23.4%; P = .016). In 4 studies reporting on both all-inside and inside-out repairs, no significant differences in failure rates were observed. No significant differences in failure rates were found between medial and lateral repairs nor repair with and without concurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction ( P > .05 for all). The overall average MCMS was 54.4 ± 12. Conclusion: The overall failure rate after all-inside repair of BHMTs is 29.3% at an average of 13.0 months, with no difference in failure rates between medial and lateral meniscal repairs. The variables shown to negatively affect the failure rates were the RapidLoc and Biofix Arrow, male sex, and longer follow-up duration.

Background:Previous meta-analyses have compared bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) with hamstring tendon (HT) autografts for primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).Purpose:To conduct a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing BPTB with HT autografts for ACLR to determine which meta-analyses provide the best available evidence.Study Design:Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.Methods:A systematic review was performed by searching the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases. Search words included “anterior cruciate ligament” AND “patellar tendon” AND “hamstring tendon” AND “meta-analysis.” Results were reviewed to determine study eligibility. Patient outcomes and postoperative complications were extracted from the included meta-analyses. Meta-analysis quality was assessed using the Oxman-Guyatt and Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) scores. The Jadad decision algorithm was then utilized to determine which meta-analyses provided the best level of evidence.Results:Sixteen meta-analyses containing an average of 1396 patients met the eligibility criteria. Most studies found BPTB autografts to provide superior stability but more postoperative complications, such as anterior knee pain and kneeling pain. Studies by Gabler et al (2016), Mohtadi et al (2011), and Xie et al (2015) received the highest Oxman-Guyatt and QUOROM scores, and therefore, these meta-analyses proved to provide the highest level of evidence. Additionally, Xie et al was selected as the highest-quality study in this systematic review based on the Jadad decision algorithm.Conclusion:The current best evidence suggests that ACLR with BPTB autografts provides superior static knee stability and that there are fewer postoperative complications in ACLR with HT autografts.

Background:Fixed- and adjustable-loop femoral cortical suspension devices are commonly used for femoral graft fixation during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).Purpose:To compare the biomechanical results of fixed- versus adjustable-loop femoral cortical suspension devices in studies simulating ACLR with an isolated device and/or specimen setup using porcine femora and bovine flexor tendons.Study Design:Systematic review.Methods:Two independent reviewers searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases to find studies comparing the biomechanical strength of fixed- and adjustable-loop cortical suspension devices for ACLR with isolated device and/or specimen setups using porcine femora and bovine flexor tendons. Studies that compared both devices with similar biomechanical methods were included. Data extracted included displacement during cyclic loading, ultimate load to failure, and mode of failure of the different cortical suspension devices for ACLR.Results:Six studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria, including a total of 76 fixed-loop devices and 120 adjustable-loop devices. Load to failure was significantly different (P < .0001), with the strongest fixation device being the ToggleLoc with ZipLoop adjustable-loop device (1443.9 ± 512.3 N), compared with the Endobutton CL fixed-loop device (1312.9 ± 258.1 N; P = .04) and the TightRope RT adjustable-loop device (863.8 ± 64.7 N; P = .01). Cyclic displacement was significantly different, with Endobutton CL (3.7 ± 3.9 mm) showing the least displacement, followed by ToggleLoc with ZipLoop (4.9 ± 2.3 mm) and TightRope RT (7.7 ± 11.1 mm) (P < .0001). Mode of failure was statistically different between the 3 groups (P = .01), with suture failure accounting for 83.8% of TightRope RT devices, 69.4% of ToggleLoc with ZipLoop devices, and 60.3% of Endobutton CL devices.Conclusion:Current biomechanical data suggest that the ToggleLoc with ZipLoop device is the strongest fixation device at “time zero” in terms of ultimate load to mechanical failure. However, the Endobutton CL device demonstrated the least cyclic displacement, which may be a more clinically applicable measure of device superiority.