Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction can be performed with different techniques for independent and transtibial (TT) drilling of femoral tunnels, but there is still no consensus on which approach leads to the best outcome. Purpose: To assess whether the independent or TT drilling approach for ACL reconstruction leads to the best functional outcomes. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted on July 1, 2020, using the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases. The influence of different femoral drilling techniques was analyzed through a meta-analysis in terms of patient-reported outcome measure scores, risk of complications, range of motion limitations, graft failure, and differential laxity. Subanalyses were performed to compare the different independent drilling techniques considered. Linear metaregression was performed to evaluate if the year of study publication influenced the results. The risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed following the Cochrane guidelines. Results: A total of 22 randomized controlled trials including 1658 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Both International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score and Lysholm score were higher with the independent drilling approach (mean difference [MD], 1.24 [ P = .02] and 0.55 [ P = .005], respectively). No difference was documented in terms of the risk of reinjury, but independent drilling led to reduced KT-1000 arthrometer–assessed anterior tibial translation (MD, 0.23; P = .01) and a higher probability of a negative postoperative pivot-shift test finding (risk ratio, 1.13; P = .04). There were no significant differences in IKDC objective or Tegner scores. A P value of .07 was found for the association between the year of the study and IKDC objective scores. Conclusion: Independent femoral tunnel drilling provided better results than the TT approach, although the difference was not clinically significant. No difference was observed in the risk of reinjury. Increasingly better results were seen among surgical procedures performed in more recent years. Among the independent drilling options, the anteromedial portal technique seemed to provide the most favorable outcomes. The lack of clinically significant differences and the promising outcomes reported with new modified TT techniques suggest the importance of correct placement, rather than the tunnel drilling approach, to optimize the results of ACL reconstruction.

Objectives The impact of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction on knee osteoarthritis (OA) is still unclear. The aim of the current meta-analysis was to compare surgical treatment versus nonoperative management of ACL tears to assess the impact of these approaches on knee OA development at a 5 and 10 years of follow-up. Design A meta-analysis was performed after a systematic literature search (May 2021) was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Both randomized and nonrandomized comparative studies with more than 5 years of follow-up were selected. Influence of the treatment was assessed in terms of knee OA development, subjective and objective clinical results, activity level, and risk of further surgeries. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed following the Cochrane guidelines. Results Twelve studies matched the inclusion criteria, for a total of 1,004 patients. Level of evidence was rated low to very low. No difference was documented in terms of knee OA development, Tegner score, subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), and Lysholm scores. A significant difference favoring the surgical treatment in comparison with a nonsurgical approach was observed in terms of objective IKDC score ( P = 0.03) and risk of secondary meniscectomy ( P < 0.0001). The level of evidence was considered very low for subjective IKDC, low for knee OA development, objective IKDC, number of secondary meniscectomies, and Lysholm score, and moderate for post-op Tegner score. Conclusions The meta-analysis did not support an advantage of ACL reconstruction in terms of OA prevention in comparison with a nonoperative treatment. Moreover, no differences were reported for subjective results and activity level at 5 and 10 years of follow-up. On the contrary, patients who underwent surgical treatment of their ACL tear presented important clinical findings in terms of better objective knee function and a lower rate of secondary meniscectomies when compared with conservatively managed patents. Protocol Registration: CRD420191156483 (PROSPERO)

Purpose The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate complete transphyseal (CTP), partial transphyseal (PTP), and physealsparing (PS) techniques for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Methods A systematic literature search of the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Scopus literature databases was performed on 10.05.2021. All human studies evaluating the outcomes of CTP, PTP, and PS techniques were included. The inluence of the selected approach was evaluated in terms of rates of retears, return to previous level of sport competition, IKDC subjective and objective scores, Lysholm score, rate of normal Lachman and pivot-shift tests, limb length discrepancy, and hip-knee angle (HKA) deviation. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed following the Downs and Black checklist. Results Forty-nine out of 425 retrieved studies (3260 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The results of the meta-analysis comparing CTP, PTP, and PS approaches for ACL reconstruction in the under 20-year-old population showed a signiicant diference in terms of diferential laxity (CTP 1.98 mm, PTP 1.69 mm, PS 0.22 mm, p < 0.001). No signiicant diferences were seen in terms of growth malalignment, rate of normal Lachman and pivot-shift tests, and rate of normal/quasi-normal IKDC objective score. Conclusions The present meta-analysis found overall similar results with the three ACL reconstruction approaches. The PS technique showed better results in terms of knee laxity than the PTP and CTP approaches, but this did not lead to a signiicant diference in terms of subjective and objective scores. No clear superiority of one technique over the others was found with respect to re-ruptures, growth disturbances, and axial deviations. While the argument for avoiding growth malalignment does not seem to be a crucial point, the PS technique should be the preferred approach in a young population to ensure knee laxity restoration. Level of evidence Level III.

Background: Both nonoperative and operative treatments have been proposed to manage distal biceps brachii tendon avulsions. However, the advantages and disadvantages of these approaches have not been properly quantified. Purpose: To summarize the current literature on both nonoperative and operative approaches for distal biceps brachii tendon ruptures and to quantify results and limitations. The advantages and disadvantages of the different surgical strategies were investigated as well. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in March 2020 using PubMed Central, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Iscrctn.com , clinicaltrials.gov , greylit.org , opengrey.eu , and Scopus literature databases. All human studies evaluating the clinical outcome of nonoperative treatment as well as different surgical techniques were included. The influence of the treatment approach was assessed in terms of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score and the Mayo Elbow Performance Index; extension, flexion, supination, and pronation range of motion (ROM); and flexion and supination strength ratio between the injured and uninjured arms. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using the Cochrane guidelines. Results: Of 1275 studies, 53 studies (N = 1380 patients) matched the inclusion criteria. The results of the meta-analysis comparing operative versus nonoperative approaches for distal biceps tendon avulsion showed significant differences in favor of surgery in terms of DASH score ( P = .02), Mayo Elbow Performance Index ( P < .001), flexion strength (94.7% vs 83.0%, respectively; P < .001), and supination strength (89.2% vs 62.6%, respectively; P < .001). The surgical approach presented 10% heterotopic ossifications, 10% transient sensory nerve injuries, 1.6% transient motor nerve injuries, and a 0.1% rate of persistent motorial disorders. Comparison of the different surgical techniques showed similar results for the fixation methods, whereas the single-incision technique led to a better pronation ROM versus the double-incision approach (81.5° vs 76.1°, respectively; P = .01). Conclusion: The results of this meta-analysis showed the superiority of surgical management over the nonoperative approach for distal biceps tendon detachment, with superior flexion and supination strength and better patient-reported outcomes. The single-incision surgical approach demonstrated a slightly better pronation ROM compared with the double-incision approach, whereas all fixation methods led to similar outcomes.