Background Patellofemoral instability affects activities of daily living and hinders athletic participation. Over the past 2 decades more attention has been paid to medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFL) for treatment of recurrent patellar dislocations/subluxations. Numerous techniques have been reported; however, there is no consensus regarding optimal reconstruction. Purpose This study sought to report on the various techniques for MPFL reconstruction described in the literature and to assess the rate of complications associated with the procedure. Study Design Meta-analysis. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed in early October 2010 using keywords “medial patellofemoral ligament,” “MPFL”, “reconstruction,” “complication(s),” and “failure(s)”. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were reviewed. Graft choice, surgical technique, outcome measures, and complications were recorded and organized in a database. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed on the data collected. Results Twenty-five articles were identified and reviewed. A total of 164 complications occurred in 629 knees (26.1%). These adverse events ranged from minor to major including patella fracture, failures, clinical instability on post-operative examination, loss of knee flexion, wound complications, and pain. Twenty-six patients returned to the operating room for additional procedures. Conclusions Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction has a high rate of success for patients with patellofemoral instability; however, the complication rate of 26.1% associated with this procedure is not trivial. This study quantified complications and documented the variety of complications reported in outcomes-based literature.

Nearly four fifths of National Football League running backs and wide receivers who sustain an anterior cruciate ligament injury return to play in a game. On return to competition, player performance of injured players is reduced by one third.

Purpose To assess the effectiveness of a specific non-operative physical therapy program in treating atraumatic full thickness rotator cuff tears using a multicenter prospective cohort study design. Methods Patients with atraumatic full thickness rotator cuff tears who consented to enroll provided data via questionnaire on demographics, symptom characteristics, co-morbidities, willingness to undergo surgery, and patient related outcome assessments (SF-12, ASES, WORC, SANE score, Shoulder Activity Scale). Physicians recorded physical examination and imaging data. Patients began a physical therapy program developed from a systematic review of the literature and returned for evaluation at 6 and 12 weeks. At those visits patients could chose one of three courses: 1.) Cured (no formal follow up scheduled), 2.) Improved (continue therapy with scheduled reassessment in 6 weeks), or 3.) No better (offered surgery). Patients were contacted by telephone at 1 and 2 years to determine if they had undergone surgery since their last visit. A Wilcoxon signed rank test with continuity correction was used to compare initial, 6 week, and 12 week outcome scores. Results The cohort consists of 452 patients. Patient reported outcomes improved significantly at 6 and 12 weeks. Patients elected to undergo surgery less than 25% of the time. Patients who decided to have surgery generally did so between 6 and 12 weeks, and few had surgery between 3 and 24 months. Conclusion Non-operative treatment using this physical therapy protocol is effective for treating atraumatic full thickness rotator cuff tears in approximately 75% of patients followed for two years. Level of evidence Level IV, Case Series, Treatment Study

Failure rate after all ACI generations is low (1.5-7.7%). Failure rate is highest with PACI, and lower with CACI and second-generation techniques. One out of three ACI patients underwent a re-operation. Unplanned re-operations are seen most often following PACI. Hypertrophy and delamination is most commonly seen after PACI. Arthrofibrosis is most commonly seen after arthrotomy-based ACI. Use of a collagen-membrane cover, second-generation techniques, and all-arthroscopic, second-generation approaches have reduced the failure, complication, and re-operation rate after ACI.

In general, the short-term clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate reconstruction with allograft were not significantly different from those with autograft. However, it is important to note that none of these nonrandomized studies stratified outcomes according to age or utilized multivariable modeling to mathematically control for age (or any other possible confounder, such as activity level, that is not equally distributed in the two treatment groups). Understanding these limitations of the best available evidence, the surgeon may incorporate the results of the present systematic review into the informed-consent and shared-decision-making process in order to individualize optimum patient care.

We asked whether autologous chondrocyte implantation or osteochondral autograft transfer yields better clinical outcomes compared with one another or with traditional abrasive techniques for treatment of isolated articular cartilage defects and whether lesion size influences this clinical outcome. We performed a literature search and identified five randomized, controlled trials and one prospective comparative trial evaluating these treatment techniques in 421 patients. The operative procedures included autologous chondrocyte implantation, osteochondral autograft transfer, matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation, and microfracture. Minimum followup was 1 year (mean, 1.7 years; range, 1-3 years). All studies documented greater than 95% followup for clinical outcome measures. No technique consistently had superior results compared with the others. Outcomes for microfracture tended to be worse in larger lesions. All studies reported improvement in clinical outcome measures in all treatment groups when compared with preoperative assessment; however, no control (nonoperative) groups were used in any of the studies. A large prospective trial investigating these techniques with the addition of a control group would be the best way to definitively address the clinical questions.

Purpose Many clinical studies and systematic reviews have compared the short-term (2 year) outcomes of ACL reconstruction with hamstring and patellar tendon autograft. Few differences have been observed, with the exception of increased kneeling pain with patellar tendon grafts. The goal of this systematic review is to determine where there are differences in clinical, patient reported, or radiographic outcomes based on graft choice at a minimum of 5 years after ACL reconstruction. Methods A systematic review was performed to identify all prospective outcome studies comparing patellar tendon and hamstring autograft ACL reconstruction with minimum follow-up of at least five years. Seven studies were identified and meta-analysis of select data determined to be sufficiently homogenous was performed (failure and laxity). Results Five randomized controlled trials and two prospective cohorts comparing hamstring and patellar tendon autografts were identified. Clinical assessment [failure rate, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) class, Lachman, pivot shift, and KT 1000 testing] showed no difference between grafts. Patient-reported outcomes (Lysholm, Cincinnati, and IKDC) showed no difference. Both anterior knee pain (3/3 studies) and kneeling pain (4/4 studies) were more frequent in the patellar tendon group. However, the patient-reported outcomes in these studies were not different. Radiographic evidence of osteoarthritis was inconsistent between autograft choices. Conclusion This Level II systematic review demonstrates no difference in major clinical results between graft types with the exception of increased anterior knee and kneeling pain. There exists a potential for increased incidence of osteoarthritis in the patellar tendon group but increased sample size is required. These longer-term outcomes are similar to results of prior systematic reviews with two-year follow-up.

Data from large prospectively collected ACL cohorts are being utilized to address clinical questions regarding ACL injury demographics and outcomes of ACL reconstruction. These data are affected by patient and injury factors as well as surgical factors associated with the site of data collection. The aim of this paper is to compare primary ACL reconstruction data from patient cohorts in the United States and Norway, demonstrating the similarities and differences between two large cohorts. Primary ACL reconstruction data from the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) in the United States and the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry (NKLR) were compared to identify similarities and differences in patient demographics, activity at injury, preoperative Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), time to reconstruction, intraarticular pathology, and graft choice. 713 patients from the MOON cohort were compared with 4928 patients from the NKLR. A higher percentage of males (NKLR 57%, MOON 52%; p < 0.01) and increased patient age (NKLR 27 years, MOON 23 years; p < 0.001) were noted in the NKLR population. The most common sports associated with injury in the MOON cohort were basketball (20%), soccer (17%), and American football (14%); while soccer (42%), handball (26%), and downhill skiing (10%) were most common in the NKLR. Median time to reconstruction was 2.4 (Interquartile range [IQR] 1.2–7.2) months in the MOON cohort and 7.9 (IQR 4.2–17.8) months in the NKLR cohort (p < 0.001). Both meniscal tears (MOON 65%, NKLR 48%; p < 0.001) and articular cartilage defects (MOON 46%, NKLR 26%; p < 0.001) were more common in the MOON cohort. Hamstring autografts (MOON 44%, NKLR 63%) and patellar tendon autografts (MOON 42%, NKLR 37%) were commonly utilized in both cohorts. Allografts were much more frequently utilized in the MOON cohort (MOON 13%, NKLR 0.04%; p < 0.001). Significant diversity in patient, injury, and surgical factors exist among large prospective cohorts collected in different locations. Surgeons should investigate and consider the characteristics of these cohorts when applying knowledge gleaned from these groups to their own patient populations.