Kraeutler, Matthew J.

Background: Multiple studies have compared outcomes among patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with autograft versus allograft, but these data are inconsistently reported and long-term outcomes depending on graft type are yet to be determined. Purpose: To perform a systematic review of clinical outcomes after revision ACLR (rACLR) with autograft versus allograft. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify studies that compared the outcomes of patients undergoing rACLR with autograft versus allograft. The search phrase used was autograft allograft revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Graft rerupture rates, return-to-sports rates, anteroposterior laxity, and patient-reported outcome scores (subjective International Knee Documentation Committee, Tegner, Lysholm, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) were evaluated. Results: Eleven studies met inclusion criteria, including 3011 patients undergoing rACLR with autograft (mean age, 28.9 years) and 1238 patients undergoing rACLR with allograft (mean age, 28.0 years). Mean follow-up was 57.3 months. The most common autograft and allograft types were bone–patellar tendon–bone grafts. Overall, 6.2% of patients undergoing rACLR experienced graft retear, including 4.7% in the autograft group and 10.2% in the allograft group ( P < .0001). Among studies that reported return-to-sports rates, 66.2% of patients with an autograft returned to sports as opposed to 45.3% of patients with an allograft ( P = .01). Two studies found significantly greater postoperative knee laxity in the allograft group as compared with the autograft group ( P < .05). Among all patient-reported outcomes, 1 study found 1 significant difference between groups: patients with an autograft had a significantly higher postoperative Lysholm score when compared with patients with an allograft. Conclusion: Patients undergoing revision ACLR with an autograft can be expected to experience lower rates of graft retear, higher rates of return to sports, and less postoperative anteroposterior knee laxity when compared with patients undergoing revision ACLR with an allograft.

Background: Various analgesic modalities have been used to improve postoperative pain in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. Purpose: To systematically review the literature to compare the efficacy of the fascia iliaca block (FIB) with that of other analgesic modalities after hip arthroscopy in terms of postoperative pain scores and analgesic consumption. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase up to April 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials that compared postoperative pain and analgesic consumption in patients after hip arthroscopy with FIB versus other pain control modalities. The search phrase used was “hip arthroscopy fascia iliaca randomized.” Patients were evaluated based on postoperative pain scores and total postoperative analgesic consumption. Results: Five studies (3 level 1, 2 level 2) were identified that met inclusion criteria, including 157 patients undergoing hip arthroscopy with FIB (mean age, 38.3 years; 44.6% men) and 159 patients among the following comparison groups: lumbar plexus block (LPB), intra-articular ropivacaine (IAR), local anesthetic infiltration (LAI), saline placebo, and a no-block control group (overall mean age, 36.2 years; 36.5% men). No significant differences in pain scores were reported in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) between the FIB and LPB (3.4 vs 2.9; P = .054), IAR (7.7 vs 7.9; P = .72), control group (no FIB: 4.1 vs 3.8; P = .76); or saline placebo (difference, –0.2 [95% CI, –1.1 to 0.7]). One study reported significantly higher pain scores at 1 hour postoperation in the FIB group compared with the LAI group (5.5 vs 3.4; P = .02). Another study reported significantly greater total analgesic consumption (in morphine equivalent dosing) in the PACU among the FIB group compared with the LPB group (20.8 vs 17.0; P = .02). No significant differences were observed in total PACU analgesic consumption between FIB and other analgesic modalities. Conclusion: In patients undergoing hip arthroscopy, the FIB does not appear to demonstrate superiority to other forms of analgesics in the immediate postoperative period. Therefore, it is not recommended as a routine form of pain control for these procedures.