Background: Preclinical studies suggest that for complete midsubstance anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, a suture repair of the ACL augmented with a protein implant placed in the gap between the torn ends (bridge-enhanced ACL repair [BEAR]) may be a viable alternative to ACL reconstruction (ACLR). Hypothesis: We hypothesized that patients treated with BEAR would have a noninferior patient-reported outcomes (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] Subjective Score; prespecified noninferiority margin, –11.5 points) and instrumented anteroposterior (AP) knee laxity (prespecified noninferiority margin, +2-mm side-to-side difference) and superior muscle strength at 2 years after surgery when compared with patients who underwent ACLR with autograft. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: One hundred patients (median age, 17 years; median preoperative Marx activity score, 16) with complete midsubstance ACL injuries were enrolled and underwent surgery within 45 days of injury. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either BEAR (n = 65) or autograft ACLR (n = 35 [33 with quadrupled semitendinosus-gracilis and 2 with bone–patellar tendon–bone]). Outcomes—including the IKDC Subjective Score, the side-to-side difference in instrumented AP knee laxity, and muscle strength—were assessed at 2 years by an independent examiner blinded to the procedure. Patients were unblinded after their 2-year visit. Results: In total, 96% of the patients returned for 2-year follow-up. Noninferiority criteria were met for both the IKDC Subjective Score (BEAR, 88.9 points; ACLR, 84.8 points; mean difference, 4.1 points [95% CI, –1.5 to 9.7]) and the side-to-side difference in AP knee laxity (BEAR, 1.61 mm; ACLR, 1.77 mm; mean difference, –0.15 mm [95% CI, –1.48 to 1.17]). The BEAR group had a significantly higher mean hamstring muscle strength index than the ACLR group at 2 years (98.2% vs 63.2%; P < .001). In addition, 14% of the BEAR group and 6% of the ACLR group had a reinjury that required a second ipsilateral ACL surgical procedure ( P = .32). Furthermore, the 8 patients who converted from BEAR to ACLR in the study period and returned for the 2-year postoperative visit had similar primary outcomes to patients who had a single ipsilateral ACL procedure. Conclusion: BEAR resulted in noninferior patient-reported outcomes and AP knee laxity and superior hamstring muscle strength when compared with autograft ACLR at 2-year follow-up in a young and active cohort. These promising results suggest that longer-term studies of this technique are justified. Registration: NCT02664545 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier)

Background:Bridge-enhanced anterior cruciate ligament repair (BEAR) combines suture repair of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) with a specific extracellular matrix scaffold (the BEAR scaffold) that is placed in the gap between the torn ends of the ACL to facilitate ligament healing.Purpose/Hypothesis:The purpose of this study was to report the 12- and 24-month outcomes of patients who underwent the BEAR procedure compared with a nonrandomized concurrent control group who underwent ACL reconstruction (ACLR) with an autograft. We hypothesized that the BEAR group would have physical examination findings, patient-reported outcomes, and adverse events that were similar to those of the ACLR group.Study Design:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.Methods:Ten patients underwent BEAR, and 10 underwent ACLR with a 4-stranded hamstring autograft. At 24 months, 9 of the 10 BEAR patients and 7 of the 10 ACLR patients completed a study visit. Outcomes reported included International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective and objective results, knee anteroposterior (AP) laxity findings via an arthrometer, and functional outcomes.Results:There were no graft or repair failures in the first 24 months after surgery. The IKDC subjective scores in both groups improved significantly from baseline (P < .0001) at 12 and 24 months, to 84.6 ± 17.2 in the ACLR group and to 91.7 ± 11.7 in the BEAR group. An IKDC objective grade of A (normal) was found in 44% of patients in the BEAR group and in 29% of patients in the ACLR group at 24 months; no patients in either group had C (abnormal) or D (severely abnormal) grades. Arthrometer testing demonstrated mean side-to-side differences in AP laxity that were similar in the 2 groups at 24 months (BEAR, 1.94 ± 2.08 mm; ACLR, 3.14 ± 2.66 mm). Functional hop testing results were similar in the 2 groups at 12 and 24 months after surgery. Hamstring strength indices were significantly higher in the BEAR group compared with the ACLR group (P = .0001).Conclusion:In this small, first-in-human study, BEAR produced similar outcomes to ACLR with a hamstring autograft. BEAR may result in knee stability and patient-reported outcomes at 2 years sufficient to warrant longer term studies of efficacy in larger groups of patients.

No abstract

Discoid meniscus is a congenital variant of the knee joint that typically involves abnormal morphology and potential instability of the lateral meniscus. Some discoid menisci have abnormal peripheral attachments and are unstable. Discoid menisci are prone to tearing secondary to increased thickness, poor tissue quality, and instability. Patients may or may not be symptomatic. Torn or unstable discoid menisci cause mechanical symptoms, pain, and swelling. Symptomatic patients in whom nonsurgical management fails most frequently are treated with arthroscopic surgery. Historically, complete meniscectomy has successfully alleviated symptoms but has resulted in poor midterm results, with degenerative changes to the knee joint. Current treatment emphasizes the saucerization of the meniscus, with removal of the central disk and retention of the peripheral crescent. Peripheral meniscal repair is performed when instability is present. Short-term results are good; however, degenerative changes have been reported at intermediate follow-up.

Surgical treatment of patellofemoral OCD in children and adolescents produces a high rate of satisfaction and return to sports. Female sex, prolonged duration of symptoms, and internal fixation may be associated with worse outcomes.

Background:Tibial spine fractures involve an avulsion injury of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) at the intercondylar eminence, typically in children and adolescents. Displaced fractures are commonly treated with either suture or screw fixation.Purpose:To investigate differences in various outcomes between patients treated with arthroscopic suture versus screw fixation for tibial spine avulsion fractures in one of the largest patient cohorts in the literature.Study Design:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:A search of medical records was performed with the goal of identifying all type 2 and type 3 tibial spine avulsion fractures surgically treated between 2000 and 2014 at a pediatric hospital. All patients had a minimum of 12 months clinical follow-up, suture or screw fixation only, and no major concomitant injury.Results:There were 68 knees in 67 patients meeting criteria for analysis. There were no differences with regard to postsurgical arthrofibrosis (P = .59), ACL reconstruction (P = .44), meniscal procedures (P = .85), instability (P = .49), range of motion (P = .51), return to sport (P >.999), or time to return to sport (P = .11). Elevation of the repaired fragment on postoperative imaging was significantly greater in the suture group (5.4 vs 3.5 mm; P = .005). Postoperative fragment elevation did not influence surgical outcomes. The screw fixation group had more reoperations (13 vs 23; P = .03), a larger number of reoperations for implant removal (3 vs 22; P < .001), and nearly 3 times the odds of undergoing reoperation compared with suture patients (odds ratio, 2.9; P = .03).Conclusion:Clinical outcomes between suture and screw fixation were largely equivalent in our patients. Postoperative fragment elevation does not influence surgical outcomes. Consideration should be given for the greater likelihood of needing a second operation, planned or unplanned, after screw fixation.

Background: Primary repair of the ACL augmented with a tissue engineered scaffold to facilitate ligament healing is a technique under development for patients with ACL injuries. The size (the amount of tissue) and signal intensity (the quality of tissue) of the healing ligament as visualized on MRI have been shown to be related to its strength in large animal models. Hypothesis: It was hypothesized that both modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors could influence the size and signal intensity of the repaired ligament in patients at six months after surgery. Study Design: Case Series. Methods: Sixty-two patients (mean age=19.4 years; range 14 to 35 years) underwent MR imaging of the knee six months after ACL repair augmented with an extracellular matrix scaffold. The signal intensity (normalized to cortical bone) and average cross-sectional area of the healing ligament was measured from the MR image stack obtained using a gradient echo sequence. Associations between these two measures and subject characteristics, which included demographic, clinical and anatomic features, were determined using multivariable regression analysis. Results: A higher cross-sectional area of the repaired ligament at six months was associated with male sex, older age and the performance of a larger notchplasty (p<0.05 for all associations). A lower signal intensity at six months, indicating greater similarity to normal ligament, was associated with a lower tibial slope and greater side-to-side difference in quadriceps strength three

Context:The rising popularity and intensity of youth sports has increased the incidence of patellar dislocation. These sports-related injuries may be associated with significant morbidity in the pediatric population. Treatment requires understanding and attention to the unique challenges in the skeletally immature patient.Evidence Acquisition:PubMed searches spanning 1970-2013.Study Design:Clinical review.Level of Evidence:Level 5.Results:Although nonoperative approaches are most often suitable for first-time patellar dislocations, surgical treatment is recommended for acute fixation of displaced osteochondral fractures sustained during primary instability and for patellar realignment in the setting of recurrent instability. While a variety of procedures can prevent recurrence, the risk of complications is not minimal.Conclusion:Patellar stabilization and realignment procedures in skeletally immature patients with recurrent patellar dislocation can effectively treat patellar instability without untoward effects on growth if careful surgical planning incorporates protection of growth parameters in the skeletally immature athlete.