Background: Data are lacking regarding the survival rate after medial meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) alone. Furthermore, little information is available about prognostic factors for graft survival that affect the outcomes of medial MAT. Purpose: To investigate the prognostic factors and survival rate of allograft after medial MAT. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The records of 78 consecutive patients who underwent primary medial MAT between 1996 and 2018 were reviewed. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to analyze the anatomic and clinical survival rates. Anatomic failure was defined as a tear covering >50% of the allograft or unstable peripheral rim. Clinical failure was considered Lysholm score <65 or need for additional surgery such as meniscal repair, revision MAT, realignment osteotomy, and meniscectomy for >50% of the allograft. Patient factors affecting anatomic and clinical failure were analyzed. Results: The mean follow-up period was 6.9 ± 5.3 years (range, 2-21 years). Anatomic failure was noted in 19 patients (24.4%), and none of these patients had a persistent poor Lysholm score of <65; of these, 2 patients who underwent meniscal repair also had clinical failure. Clinical failure was noted in 7 patients (9.0%); 4 patients had Lysholm score <65, 2 patients underwent meniscal repair, and 1 patient underwent realignment osteotomy. The estimated 10-year anatomic and clinical survival rates were 73.89% and 87.90%, respectively. Anatomic survival was significantly associated with only high-grade International Cartilage Regeneration & Joint Preservation (ICRS) lesion (ICRS grade 3 or 4) (hazard ratio, 3.171; 95% CI, 1.124-8.944; P = .029). However, the clinical survival rate was not significantly associated with any factors. Patients with low-grade ICRS lesion (ICRS grade 0, 1, or 2) showed a higher estimated 10-year anatomic survival rate compared with patients with high-grade ICRS lesions (87.6% vs 63.3%, respectively; P = .022). Conclusion: Low-grade ICRS lesion was associated with higher anatomic survival rate after medial MAT. In patients with high-grade ICRS lesions, the clinical outcome might be good; however, the status of an allograft might be poor. The surgeon should be aware of this and explain to the patient that close observation is necessary.

BackgroundWhile reconstruction of soft tissue defects is the common purpose, surgical reconstructions of upper extremities and lower extremities have different goals in terms of functional and aesthetic outcomes. The purpose of the current study was to compare and analyze differences between reconstructions of upper extremities and lower extremities using an anterolateral thigh (ALT) flap.MethodsWe analyzed 74 patients who underwent reconstructions of upper extremities and lower extremities using an ALT flap from October 2006 to August 2012 (upper extremities, 45 cases; lower extremities, 29 cases). The study focused on the statistical analysis of patient satisfaction according to the donor site of the ALT flap and the timing of a debulking procedure.ResultsOn the choice of donor site, in the upper extremity reconstruction, flap elevation from the opposite side of the recipient limb was preferred (p = 0.019) because it causes less inconvenience while walking. In the lower extremity reconstruction, flap elevation from the same side of the recipient limb (p = 0.002) was preferred. The debulking procedure performed on the upper extremities at 4 weeks after reconstruction led to better functional results and enhanced patient satisfaction (p = 0.022). In the case of lower extremities, enhanced satisfaction was noted in patients who underwent the procedure at 6 months after reconstruction (p < 0.001).ConclusionsElevation of the flap in reconstruction reduced inconvenience when performed on the same side of the recipient limb for lower extremities and on the opposite side for upper extremities. In addition, debulking resulted in better satisfaction when performed 4 weeks postoperatively in the upper extremities and 6 months postoperatively in the lower extremities.

IV.

Background: Several studies have reported that graft extrusion after meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) is associated with deterioration of surgical outcomes. However, no study has investigated the effect of graft extrusion on the articular cartilage using objective quantitative methods. Purpose/Hypothesis: This study aimed to investigate the influence of graft extrusion on the chondroprotective effect of lateral MAT on knee articular cartilage. We hypothesized that MAT without graft extrusion would result in better cartilage quality than MAT with graft extrusion. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Altogether, 105 patients who underwent isolated lateral MAT were divided into the extrusion and nonextrusion groups based on postoperative 3-month magnetic resonance imaging. Quantitative T2 mapping was performed on pre- and postoperative magnetic resonance imaging at midterm follow-up (mean ± SD, 3.2 ± 0.7 years). The weightbearing area of the femoral and tibial plateau articular cartilage was divided into 6 segments (F1, F2, F3, TP1, TP2, and TP3) from the anterior to posterior direction according to the meniscal coverage area. Each segment was further segmented into superficial and deep layers for zonal analysis. Longitudinal change in cartilage T2 value was compared between the groups. Lysholm scores were used to evaluate clinical function. Results: The mean T2 value of the nonextrusion group showed a significant improvement in 14 of 18 segments after lateral MAT, whereas the extrusion group demonstrated no statistically significant change. The biochemical properties of cartilage tissue as judged by quantitative T2 mapping indicated improvement in the nonextrusion group as compared with the extrusion group in the F2, TP2, and TP3 segments overall; the deep layers of the F1, F2, and TP2 segments; and the superficial layer of the TP3 segment ( P < .05). Conclusion: This study shows that the nonextruded graft results in better cartilage properties of the knee joint after lateral MAT as compared with the extruded graft at midterm follow-up.

No abstract

Purpose: Base on the concept of the Mac stitch, we designed the modified Mac-suture bridge technique to improve the outcome of arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff tear with poor tissue quality. Moreover, we evaluated both the radiological and clinical outcomes of the surgery to assess the effectiveness of the newly designed technique. Materials and Methods: From January 2010 to December 2014, a total of 52 patients (25 males, 27 females) with rotator cuff tear, with poor tissue quality according to both radiological and intraoperative findings, who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using the modified Mac-suture bridge technique and followed-up for at least 1 year were included in this study. The mean patient age at the time of surgery was 60 years. The average follow-up period was 20 months. We evaluated the clinical outcomes by checking the range of motion and compared the following, both preoperatively and postoperatively: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon (ASES) score, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) score, Constant shoulder score (CSS), visual analogue scale (VAS). In addition, we analyzed 42 series of postoperative magnetic resonance imaging by using the Sugaya's classification for the evaluation of the repair integrity. Results: All clinical scores showed significant improvement (ASES score improved from 56.75 to 83.44, UCLA score from 20.52 to 29.23, CSS from 64.04 to 80.90, and VAS from 6.17 to 1.62; p<0.001). The range of motion was also improved; forward flexion improved from 108° to 158°, abduction from 109° to 160°, external rotation from 27° to 50°, and internal rotation from 31° to 57° (p<0.001). Satisfactory radiologic results were noted on postoperative magnetic resonance imaging, consisting of 15 cases (35.7%) type I, 22 cases (52.4%) type II, 3 cases (7.1%) type III, 2 cases (4.8%) type IV, and no type V, according to the Sugaya's method. Conclusion:The modified Mac-suture bridge technique provided satisfactory results both radiologically and clinically for the treatment of rotator cuff tear with poor tendon tissue quality. It could possibly be a good alternative to previous techniques of arthroscopic repair.

No abstract

PurposeThe goal of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta‐analysis to compare the clinical and radiologic outcomes of rotator cuff repair, depending on the presence of developed periimplant osteolysis (PIO) after using suture anchors. MethodsThe electronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for articles published up until October 2019 to find relevant articles comparing the outcomes of rotator cuff repair between the periimplant osteolysis group and non‐periimplant osteolysis group. Data searching, extraction, analysis, and quality assessment were performed according to the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. The results are presented as risk ratio (RR) for binary outcomes and standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). ResultsSix clinical studies were included. No significant differences were found between the group with periimplant osteolysis and the group without periimplant osteolysis regarding retear rate (RR = 1.34; 95% CI 0.93–1.94; I2 = 28%), postoperative clinical scores (SMD = 0.29; 95% CI − 0.26 to 0.83; I2 = 80%) and range of motion (ROM); forward flexion (SMD = 0.39; 95% CI − 0.16 to 0.93; I2 = 0%), external rotation (SMD = − 0.10; 95% CI − 0.64 to 0.45; I2 = 0%) and internal rotation (SMD = − 0.37; 95% CI − 0.92 to 0.17; I2 = 0%). ConclusionThe presence of periimplant osteolysis after rotator cuff repair with suture anchor does not affect the clinical outcomes such as retear rate, clinical scoring, and ROM. However, as there was no standard consensus on the criteria for evaluating periimplant osteolysis, this result may not fully reflect the effect of periimplant osteolysis depending on its severity. Level of evidenceLevel IV.