Dancy, Malik E.

Purpose To describe the clinical and radiographic features associated with isolated hypermobile lateral meniscus (HLM), and report patient outcomes following surgically repaired isolated HLM. Methods All patients diagnosed with HLM from 2000 to 2020 at a single academic institution were identified and reviewed. Patients were excluded if they had concomitant ligament injury or lacked 2‐year follow‐up. Preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores were determined from clinical notes. Statistical analysis was performed in JMP, and statistical significance was determined with use of a paired t ‐test. Results Eighteen knees in 17 patients met inclusion criteria. Mean patient age was 24.1 (range: 6‐61) years. Mean follow‐up was 73 months (25‐151 months). All 18 knees reported pain at presentation; 94% (17/18) had mechanical symptoms. All 18 knees had preoperative MRIs, but only 1 (5.6%) knee was correctly diagnosed by a musculoskeletal trained radiologist. Most repairs were performed with an all‐inside technique (61%, 11/18). VAS score improved significantly from 7.2 ± 2.9 preoperatively to 0.7 ± 1.9 postoperatively, with average improvement of VAS score of 6.5 ( P < .001). Only one (5.6%) knee required revision meniscal surgery. Conclusions Hypermobile lateral meniscus patients commonly see multiple providers, fail to have their HLM diagnosed on MRI, and undergo various treatments prior to a successful diagnosis. Localized lateral joint line pain, mechanical symptoms, and absence of distinct meniscus tear on MRI are the most frequent clinical presentations. Surgery with meniscus repair is a reliable solution to improve pain and mechanical symptoms. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) have gained popularity in recent years as biologic approaches to potentially augment healing after meniscus repair. There have been few studies comparing outcomes in patients undergoing meniscus repair with versus without biologic augmentation and, furthermore, little clarity on the role of biologic augmentation for meniscus repairs performed with concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Purpose: To determine the association of BMAC or PRP augmentation with revision surgery after both isolated meniscus repair and meniscus repair performed concomitantly with ACLR. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The PearlDiver Mariner dataset was queried to identify all patients who underwent primary meniscus repair, both with and without concomitant ACLR, and who received ipsilateral BMAC or PRP at the time of surgery. Patients who underwent similar surgery but without BMAC or PRP augmentation were then identified and matched in a 5:1 ratio according to age, sex, body mass index, and various comorbidities to 3 separate BMAC/PRP augmentation groups: overall cohort (with and without ACLR), repair with concomitant ACLR, and isolated repair. The primary outcome was revision meniscus surgery (meniscectomy or revision meniscus repair). Results: Overall, 3420 patients (570 with BMAC/PRP augmentation; 2850 matched controls without augmentation) were included. There were no significant differences in the reported demographics or comorbidities between any of the BMAC/PRP groups and their respective matched controls ( P > .05 for all comparisons). There was no difference in revision rate between BMAC/PRP-augmented isolated meniscus repairs and matched controls ( P = .235). Patients who underwent BMAC/PRP-augmented meniscus repair with concomitant ACLR experienced a significantly lower incidence of revision surgery compared with matched controls without BMAC/PRP augmentation (5.2% vs 7.9% respectively; odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.27-0.63; P < .001), but the number of revisions was relatively small. Conclusion: There was no association between BMAC or PRP augmentation and the incidence of revision surgery after isolated primary meniscus repair. There was a statistically significant decrease in the rate of revision meniscus surgery when BMAC or PRP was used to augment meniscus repairs in the setting of concurrent ACLR; however, the overall revision rates were small.

Purpose To evaluate the efficacy of an automated pneumatic torniquet pump and its ability to automatically calculate the limb occlusion pressure (LOP), as compared with the manual Doppler ultrasound technique. Methods Participants presenting to a Sports Medicine clinic were evaluated for study enrollment. Participants were fitted with a pneumatic tourniquet for the upper and lower extremity. LOP measurements were taken with a Doppler ultrasound or automated SmartCuffs PRO device in a randomized order. Results Final analysis was performed on 96 limbs (48 upper extremities and 48 lower extremities). The study population had a mean age 37.1 ± 14.7 years old and a mean body mass index of 25.47 ± 3.80. The mean measured LOP pressure on the upper extremity with Doppler ultrasound was 174.0 ± 48.7 mm Hg with a range from 120 to 282 mm Hg, whereas the mean measured LOP by the automated pump was 184.0 ± 44.9 mm Hg with a range from 135 to 266 mm Hg. There was no statistically significant difference found between the Doppler LOP and the Smart Cuff upper extremity LOP ( P = .29). When evaluating LOP pressure on the lower extremity the mean LOP found with the Doppler ultrasound was 195.0 ± 31.9 mm Hg with a range from 160 to 272 mm Hg, whereas the automated pump the mean LOP was 205.0 ± 27.1 mm Hg with a range from 168 to 278 mm Hg. There was no statistically significant difference found between the Doppler LOP and the automated pump lower extremity LOP ( P = .09). Conclusions No difference in the personalized LOP measurement was found when comparing an automated pump with the current gold standard of manual Doppler ultrasound. No patients companied of pain or discomfort during the LOP measurement. Level of Evidence Level II, diagnostic: prospective cohort study.