Purpose Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) aims to restore knee function and stability, allowing patients to return to the activities they enjoy and minimize further injury to the meniscus and cartilage and their ultimate progression to osteoarthritis. This study aims to present the evolution of graft choice over the last three decades according to members of the ACL Study Group (SG). Methods Prior to the January 2020 ACL SG biannual meeting, a survey was administered consisting of 87 questions and 16 categories, including ACLR graft choice. A similar questionnaire has been administered prior to each meeting and survey results from the past 14 meetings (1992 through 2020, excluding 1994) are included in this work. Survey responses are reported as frequencies in percentages to quantify changes in practice over the surgery period. Results In 1992, the most frequent graft choice for primary ACLR was bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autograft, at nearly 90%. Hamstring tendon (HT) autografts have increased in popularity, currently over 50%, followed by just under 40% BTB autograft. Recently, quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft has increased in popularity since 2014. Conclusion Autograft (HT, BTB, QT) is an overwhelming favorite for primary ACLR over allograft. The preference for HT autograft increased over the study period relative to BTB autograft, with QT autograft gaining in popularity in recent years. Graft selection should be individualized for each patient and understanding the global trends in graft choice can help orthopaedic surgeons discuss graft options with their patients and determine the appropriate graft for each case. Level of evidence Level V, Expert Opinion.
The current study provides baseline normative data for activity level in a census-weighted representative population sample of 2002 American youth through the use of a validated activity score (HSS Pedi-FABS). There was a modest but statistically significant decrease in activity scores with increasing age. These results will aid future research by providing normative, representative population-level activity data and will help to quantify the natural rate of decreased activity during adolescence.
Objective To create a treatment algorithm for focal grade 3 or 4 cartilage defects of the knee using both classic and novel cartilage restoration techniques. Design A comprehensive review of the literature was performed highlighting classic as well as novel cartilage restoration techniques supported by clinical and/or basic science research and currently being employed by orthopedic surgeons. Results There is a high level of evidence to support the treatment of small to medium size lesions (<2-4 cm2) without subchondral bone involvement with traditional techniques such as marrow stimulation, osteochondral autograft transplant (OAT), or osteochondral allograft transplant (OCA). Newer techniques such as autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis and bone marrow aspirate concentrate implantation have also been shown to be effective in select studies. If subchondral bone loss is present OAT or OCA should be performed. For large lesions (>4 cm2), OCA or matrix autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI) may be performed. OCA is preferred over MACI in the setting of subchondral bone involvement while cell-based modalities such as MACI or particulated juvenile allograft cartilage are preferred in the patellofemoral joint. Conclusions Numerous techniques exist for the orthopedic surgeon treating focal cartilage defects of the knee. Treatment strategies should be based on lesion size, lesion location, subchondral bone involvement, and the level of evidence supporting each technique in the literature.
ObjectivesThe primary objective of this survey was to gauge the current global trends in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) as reported by the members of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) Study Group (SG).MethodsA survey was created and distributed among the members of the ACL SG consisting of 87 questions and 16 categories related to ACLR, including member demographics, preoperative management, primary ACLR techniques and graft choice, use of concomitant procedures and biological augmentation, postoperative rehabilitation, and more.ResultsThe survey was completed by the 140 members of the ACL SG. Fifty per cent of members are from Europe, 29% from the USA, 15% from the Asia-Pacific and the remaining 6% are from Latin America, the Middle East, New Zealand and Africa. Most (92%) do not believe there is a role for non-operative management of ACL tears in higher level athletes; conversely, most agree there is a role for non-operative management in lower impact athletes (92%). A single-bundle (90%) technique with hamstring autograft (53%) were most common for primary ACLR. Tunnel position varied among respondents. Sixty-one per cent do not use allograft for primary ACLR. Fifty per cent of respondents use cortical suspensory fixation on the femur, with variable responses on the tibia. Most (79%) do not use biologics in primary ACLR, while 83% think there is a selective role for extra-articular augmentation in primary ACLR. Fifty per cent prefer bone-tendon-bone autograft for revision ACLR and extra-articular augmentation is more commonly used (13% always, 26% often) than in primary ACLR (0% always, 15% often). A majority (53%) use a brace after primary ACLR. The most common responses for minimal time to return to play after primary ACLR were 6–8 months (44%) and 8–12 months (41%).ConclusionWe presented the thoughts and preferences of the ACL SG on the management of ACL injuries. This survey will help to facilitate an ongoing discussion with regard to ACLR by providing global insights into the current surgical trends in ACLR.Level of evidenceLevel V, Expert Opinion.
Identification of somatic mutations in cancer is a major goal for understanding and monitoring the events related to cancer initiation and progression. High resolution melting (HRM) curve analysis represents a fast, post-PCR high-throughput method for scanning somatic sequence alterations in target genes. The aim of this study was to assess the sensitivity and specificity of HRM analysis for tumor mutation screening in a range of tumor samples, which included 216 frozen pediatric small rounded blue-cell tumors as well as 180 paraffin-embedded tumors from breast, endometrial and ovarian cancers (60 of each). HRM analysis was performed in exons of the following candidate genes known to harbor established commonly observed mutations: PIK3CA, ERBB2, KRAS, TP53, EGFR, BRAF, GATA3, and FGFR3. Bi-directional sequencing analysis was used to determine the accuracy of the HRM analysis. For the 39 mutations observed in frozen samples, the sensitivity and specificity of HRM analysis were 97% and 87%, respectively. There were 67 mutation/variants in the paraffin-embedded samples, and the sensitivity and specificity for the HRM analysis were 88% and 80%, respectively. Paraffin-embedded samples require higher quantity of purified DNA for high performance. In summary, HRM analysis is a promising moderate-throughput screening test for mutations among known candidate genomic regions. Although the overall accuracy appears to be better in frozen specimens, somatic alterations were detected in DNA extracted from paraffin-embedded samples.
Background: Meniscal repair leads to improved patient outcomes compared with meniscectomy in small case series. Purpose: To compare the reoperation rates, 30-day complication rates, and cost differences between meniscectomy and meniscal repair in a large insurance database. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A national insurance database was queried for patients who underwent meniscectomy (Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] code 29880 or 29881) or meniscal repair (CPT code 29882 or 29883) in the outpatient setting and who had a minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients without confirmed laterality and patients who underwent concomitant ligament reconstruction were excluded. Reoperation was defined by ipsilateral knee procedure after the index surgery. The 30-day postoperative complication rates were assessed using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification codes. The cost of the procedures per patient was calculated. Propensity score matching was utilized to create matched cohorts with similar characteristics. Statistical comparisons of cohort characteristics, reoperations, postoperative complications, and payments were made. All P values were reported with significance set at P < .05. Results: A total of 27,580 patients (22,064 meniscectomy and 5516 meniscal repair; mean age, 29.9 ± 15.1 years; 41.2% female) were included in this study with a mean follow-up of 45.6 ± 21.0 months. The matched groups were similar with regard to characteristics and comorbidities. There were significantly more patients who required reoperation after index meniscectomy compared with meniscal repair postoperatively (5.3% vs 2.1%; P < .001). Patients undergoing meniscectomy were also significantly more likely to undergo any ipsilateral meniscal surgery ( P < .001), meniscal transplantation ( P = .005), or total knee arthroplasty ( P = .001) postoperatively. There was a significantly higher overall 30-day complication rate after meniscal repair (1.2%) compared with meniscectomy (0.82%; P = .011). The total day-of-surgery payments was significantly higher in the repair group compared with the meniscectomy group ($7094 vs $5423; P < .001). Conclusion: Meniscal repair leads to significantly lower rates of reoperation and higher rates of early complications with a higher total cost compared with meniscectomy in a large database study.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.