Krych, Aaron J.

Abstract Meniscus allograft transplant (MAT) can provide meaningful improvement in patient outcomes in those who are otherwise meniscus deficient. A common finding in the setting of a failed MAT is meniscus extrusion. Meniscus centralization is a technique performed to reduce the meniscus to its intra‐articular location and has been shown to improve postoperative pain and function in patients with an extruded meniscus. Prior techniques have been described for meniscus centralization in the setting of a meniscus root tear or with the use of single tension devices that are tensioned after meniscocapsular fixation. We present a minimally invasive technique for meniscus centralization that can be performed in conjunction with MAT using a centralization stabilization suture and re‐tensionable root‐fixation subchondral anchors that can be secured prior to meniscocapsular fixation. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Background: Treatment decisions in patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are influenced by multiple factors, such as the desire to return to sports or symptomatic instability. Identifying the differential treatment effect of ACL reconstruction (ACLR) compared with nonoperative management on a patient-specific level can inform surgical decision-making. Hypothesis: Unsupervised machine learning can identify distinct patient subgroups based on outcome achievement after ACL injury, and ACLR will exert a protective effect on the development of posttraumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) over nonoperative management. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A longitudinal populational registry identified patients with ACL injuries from 1990 to 2016 with a minimum 7.5-year follow-up. An unsupervised random forest algorithm was utilized to develop and validate patient subgroups. Treatment effects of ACLR on outcomes were analyzed using a machine learning causal inference estimator. Patient subgroup membership was incorporated into a multivariable logistic regression to identify factors predictive of optimal outcomes. Results: A total of 923 patients (785 primary ACLR, 138 nonoperative) were included. The random forest algorithm arrived at an optimal partition of 2 subgroups, with 653 patients in the optimal outcome subgroup (368 male [56.4%]; mean age, 26.0 ± 10.2 years; mean body mass index [BMI], 26.5 ± 4.30) and 270 patients in the suboptimal outcome subgroup (152 male [56.3%]; mean age, 35.0 ± 10.1 years; mean BMI, 30.5 ± 5.54). The latter group demonstrated significantly increased rates of secondary meniscal injury, development of symptomatic PTOA, and progression to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) at the final follow-up (all P < .01). In the optimal outcome subgroup, ACLR had significantly protective treatment effects on the risk of secondary meniscal injury (average treatment effect [ATE], 61%), contralateral ACL injury (ATE, 8%), symptomatic PTOA (ATE, 16%), and progression to TKA (ATE, 6%) (all P < .01). Conversely, in the suboptimal outcome subgroup, ACLR only protected against symptomatic PTOA (ATE, 11%) and progression to TKA (ATE, 8%) (both P < .01). Conclusion: Two clinically meaningful subgroups were identified from retrospectively collected data and found to experience differential treatment responses after ACL injuries. ACLR decreased the rate of development of PTOA and TKA in both subgroups but was not as effective in preventing secondary meniscal injuries or contralateral ACL injuries in patients who were older, heavier, or had concomitant medial meniscus injuries.

Abstract Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft remains one of the most common autografts used, and there is significant evidence to support its title as the “gold standard.” There are nuances and technical challenges associated with every step of an ACLR, which always leave room for improvement. The purpose of this Technical Note is to provide reproducible, technical pearls where errors are commonly encountered during ACLR. In this article, we detail 10 technical pearls that surgeons should consider to enhance operative workflow and optimize success during ACLR with a bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Purpose To develop an expert consensus statement on the diagnosis, management, and rehabilitation of medial meniscal root tears (MMRTs) using a modified Delphi technique. Methods A working group developed statements on MMRT diagnosis, nonoperative management, surgical indications, surgical management, alignment, and rehabilitation using modified Delphi techniques. Fifty‐six experts were surveyed over 3 rounds to reach consensus, with agreement measured on a 5‐point Likert scale. Statements were included, revised, or excluded on the basis of predefined thresholds (≥75% agreement, <20% disagreement). Experts suggested revisions or new statements in the first 2 rounds, and final consensus statements were included. Results All 56 experts completed 3 survey rounds. Experts agreed that root tears may occur with no known history of trauma, typically in older patients, and that it should be diagnosed with an magnetic resonance imaging. In symptomatic patients with MMRTs without advanced osteoarthritis should be repaired using an anatomic transtibial pull‐out technique (performing a pie‐crusting technique can be helpful for visualization). Nonoperative management is advised for patients with advanced osteoarthritis. High tibial osteotomy may be considered for significant varus malalignment during MMRT repair. The only statement without consensus was the management of asymptomatic MMRTs with mild medial compartment cartilage wear, indicating ongoing debate. Conclusions Overall, 98% of statements reached consensus. There is agreement that magnetic resonance imaging is the gold standard for diagnosis. Symptomatic MMRTs without advanced osteoarthritis should be repaired early using an anatomic transtibial pull‐out technique. End‐stage knee osteoarthritis warrants nonoperative management of MMRTs, and a structured postoperative protocol with limited weightbearing and range of motion is essential after repair. No agreement was reached on managing asymptomatic MMRTs in patients without significant medial compartment degeneration. Meniscal centralization sutures may help in cases of substantial extrusion, but their routine use is debated. Level of Evidence Level V, consensus of expert opinion.

Purpose Part-two of this consensus aimed to provide recommendations for the prevention of meniscus injuries, non-operative treatment of acute tears and degenerative lesions, return to sports, and patient-reported outcome measures. Methods This consensus followed the European Society of Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) formal consensus methodology. For this combined ESSKA- American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) - American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy (AASPT) initiative, 67 experts from 14 countries, including orthopedic surgeons and physiotherapists, were involved. The 26 Steering Group members established guiding questions, screened the existing evidence, and proposed statements, and provided Grades of recommendations. The 41 Rating Group members assessed the statements according to a Likert scale (1-9). Final documents were assessed by an international peer review group for geographical adaptability. Results Low to moderate scientific level of evidence was available, so that grades of recommendations were low (three Grade A ratings, four Grade B, three Grade C and 13 Grade D), underlining the relevance of this consensus. One strong and 17 relative agreements with overall median of 8 (8-9) and a mean of 7.92 +/- 0.37 were achieved for 23 statements on 18 questions. Prevention of meniscus injuries is possible with general knee injury reduction programs and through avoidance of certain activities. Non-Operative treatment including physical therapy is the first line approach for degenerative meniscus lesions and may be an option for some acute tears. Return to sports after meniscus tear surgery should be both criterion-based and time-based. Patient reported outcomes in combination with performance-based measures are recommended to evaluate the rehabilitation process. Conclusion This international EU-US consensus established recommendations for prevention strategies, describes rehabilitation of non-operated patients and of patients after partial meniscectomy, meniscus repair and meniscus reconstruction, and establishes return to sport criteria. These updated and structured recommendations may be applied by surgeons and physiotherapists. Level of Evidence I, Formal Consensus.

Purpose: Part II of this consensus aimed to provide recommendations for the prevention of meniscus injuries, nonoperative treatment of acute tears and degenerative lesions, return to sports and patient-reported outcome measures. Methods: This consensus followed the European Society of Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) formal consensus methodology. For this combined ESSKA—American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM)—American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy (AASPT) initiative, 67 experts from 14 countries, including orthopedic surgeons and physiotherapists, were involved. The 26 Steering Group members established guiding questions, screened the existing evidence, and proposed statements, and provided Grades of recommendations. The 41 Rating Group members assessed the statements according to a Likert scale (1–9). Final documents were assessed by an international peer review group for geographical adaptability. Results: Low to moderate scientific level of evidence was available, so that grades of recommendations were low (3 Grade A ratings, 4 Grade B, 3 Grade C and 13 Grade D), underlining the relevance of this consensus. One strong and 17 relative agreements with overall median of 8 (8–9) and a mean of 7.92 ± 0.37 were achieved for 23 statements on 18 questions. Prevention of meniscus injuries is possible with general knee injury reduction programs and through avoidance of certain activities. Non-operative treatment including physical therapy is the first line approach for degenerative meniscus lesions and may be an option for some acute tears. Return to sports after meniscus tear surgery should be both criterion-based and timebased. Patient reported outcomes in combination with performance-based measures are recommended to evaluate the rehabilitation process. Conclusion: This international EU–US consensus established recommendations for prevention strategies, describes rehabilitation of nonoperated patients and of patients after partial meniscectomy, meniscus repair and meniscus reconstruction, and establishes return to sport criteria. These updated and structured recommendations may be applied by surgeons and physiotherapists. Level of Evidence: Level I, consensus.

AbstractPurposePart two of this consensus aimed to provide recommendations for the prevention of meniscus injuries, non‐operative treatment of acute tears and degenerative lesions, return to sports and patient‐reported outcome measures.MethodsThis consensus followed the European Society of Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) formal consensus methodology. For this combined ESSKA—American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM)—American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy (AASPT) initiative, 67 experts from 14 countries, including orthopedic surgeons and physiotherapists, were involved. The 26 Steering Group members established guiding questions, screened the existing evidence, and proposed statements, and provided Grades of recommendations. The 41 Rating Group members assessed the statements according to a Likert scale (1–9). Final documents were assessed by an international peer review group for geographical adaptability.ResultsLow to moderate scientific level of evidence was available, so that grades of recommendations were low (three Grade A ratings, four Grade B, three Grade C and 13 Grade D), underlining the relevance of this consensus. One strong and 17 relative agreements with overall median of 8 (8–9) and a mean of 7.92 ± 0.37 were achieved for 23 statements on 18 questions. Prevention of meniscus injuries is possible with general knee injury reduction programmes and through avoidance of certain activities. Non‐operative treatment including physical therapy is the first line approach for degenerative meniscus lesions and may be an option for some acute tears. Return to sports after meniscus tear surgery should be both criterion‐based and time‐based. Patient reported outcomes in combination with performance‐based measures are recommended to evaluate the rehabilitation process.ConclusionThis international EU–US consensus established recommendations for prevention strategies, describes rehabilitation of non‐operated patients and of patients after partial meniscectomy, meniscus repair and meniscus reconstruction, and establishes return to sport criteria. These updated and structured recommendations may be applied by surgeons and physiotherapists.Level of EvidenceLevel I, consensus.

Abstract As the prevalence of hip arthroscopy increases, management of capsular defects as well as capsulotomy closure has increasingly been recognized for their impact on recurrent symptoms in the young athletic hip. Several recent studies have shown that capsular closure at the time of primary hip arthroscopy improves both short‐ and long‐term patient‐reported outcomes, revision rates, and conversion to arthroplasty. Specifically, capsular insufficiency is a source of recurrent pain and microinstability. In this context, far medial labral tears pose a challenge for suture fixation, given the historic need of extending the interportal capsulotomy to obtain adequate trajectory for suture anchors and subsequent passage. Given the suboptimal stability consequences of extending the capsulotomy medially, here we present a novel approach for suture fixation of the medial labrum. This technique provides an effective method for suture fixation of the medial labrum, without necessitating extension of the interportal capsulotomy. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Abstract Arthrofibrosis of the knee is a difficult‐to‐manage complication after meniscoligamentous knee injuries, traumatic injuries with articular extension, and surgeries to treat these conditions. Treatment protocols for the management of postoperative arthrofibrosis exhaust nonoperative therapies before proceeding to the operating room for lysis of adhesions (LOA). Although LOA restores range of motion in most cases, a recurrence of arthrofibrosis is possible when postoperative therapy protocols are not strictly followed. Limited treatment options exist in the setting of recalcitrant arthrofibrosis. Revision arthroscopic LOA may be performed in this scenario. This revision procedure places neurovascular anatomy in the posterior compartment at risk. Performing a posterior capsule release in the arthroscopic management of recalcitrant arthrofibrosis is challenging but important to optimize recovery of range of motion. This Technical Note and accompanying video present a stepwise approach to LOA that demonstrates a safe method for performing an arthroscopic posterior capsule release in these challenging cases. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Background: Osteochondral allograft transplant and autograft transplant for femoral head defects have emerged as promising treatments for concomitant cartilage and subchondral bone injuries in young patients. Purpose: To evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients who underwent osteochondral allograft or autograft transplant for femoral head defects and identify any risk factors that may lead to conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA). Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: All patients who underwent osteochondral allograft or autograft transplant for femoral head defects across 2 institutions were analyzed. Clinical outcomes were assessed at final follow-up with the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), Hip Outcome Score–Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12). Complications and reoperations were recorded. Patients were assessed radiographically preoperatively and at final follow-up for osteoarthritis using Tönnis grading. Results: A total of 27 patients were included in this study (19 osteochondral allograft transplant, 8 osteochondral autograft transplant). The mean follow-up for the allograft and autograft cohorts was 2.8 and 9.5 years, respectively. The mean defect size for patients who underwent allograft and autograft transplant was 2.8 × 2.1 cm and 1.6 × 1.0 cm, respectively. The mean mHHS, HOS-ADL, HOS-SSS, and iHOT-12 for the allograft cohort were 86.7, 92.8, 81.4, and 79.0, respectively, and for the autograft cohort were 87.6, 92.7, 83.1, and 82.0, respectively. No significant difference in outcomes was noted for patients who underwent femoral head allograft versus nonorthotopic femoral condyle allograft transplant. For the allograft cohort, 4 patients (21.1%) underwent conversion to THA at a mean of 1.9 years. Of the remaining 15 allograft patients, only 1 patient (6.7%) had radiographic osteoarthritis progression. None of the patients in the autograft cohort underwent conversion to THA. Conclusion: Osteochondral allograft and autograft transplant for femoral head defects demonstrated overall favorable clinical outcomes and rates of conversion to THA. Additionally, nonorthotopic femoral condyle allografts demonstrated similar outcomes to femoral head allografts. Both osteochondral allograft and autograft transplant should be considered for patients with focal femoral head defects.