Allahabadi, Sachin

Background: While the biomechanical properties of the native medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) have been well studied, there is no comprehensive summary of the biomechanics of MPFL reconstruction (MPFLR). An accurate understanding of the kinematic properties and functional behavior of current techniques used in MPFLR is imperative to restoring native biomechanics and improving outcomes. Purpose: To provide a comprehensive review of the biomechanical effects of variations in MPFLR, specifically to determine the effect of graft choice and reconstruction technique. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: A systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A total of 32 studies met inclusion criteria: (1) using ≥8 human cadaveric specimens, (2) reporting on a component of MPFLR, and (3) having multiple comparison groups. Results: Gracilis, semitendinosus, and quadriceps grafts demonstrated an ultimate load to failure (N) of 206.2, 102.8, and 190.0 to 205.0 and stiffness (N/mm) of 20.4, 8.5, and 21.4 to 33.6, respectively. Single-bundle and double-bundle techniques produced an ultimate load to failure (N) of 171 and 213 and stiffness (N/mm) of 13.9 and 17.1, respectively. Anchors placed centrally and superomedially in the patella produced the smallest degree of length changes throughout range of motion in contrast to anchors placed more proximally. Sutures, suture anchors, and transosseous tunnels all produced similar ultimate load to failure, stiffness, and elongation data. Femoral tunnel malpositioning resulted in significant increases in contact pressures, patellar translation, tilt, and graft tightening or loosening. Low tension grafts (2 N) most closely restored the patellofemoral contact pressures, translation, and tilt. Graft fixation angles variably and inconsistently altered contact pressures, and patellar translation and tilt. Conclusion: Data demonstrated that placement of the MPFLR femoral tunnel at the Schöttle point is critical to success. Femoral tunnel diameter should be ≥2 mm greater than graft diameter to limit graft advancement and overtensioning. Graft fixation, regardless of graft choice or fixation angle, is optimally performed under minimal tension with patellar fixation at the medial and superomedial patella. However, lower fixation angles may reduce graft strain, and higher fixation angles may exacerbate anisometry and length changes if femoral tunnel placement is nonanatomic.

Study Design Retrospective comparative study. Objective To compare patient-reported physical activity between anterior thoracic vertebral body tethering and posterior lumbar spine tethering (ATVBT/PLST) and posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion (PSIF) with minimum 2 year follow-up. Methods Consecutive skeletally immature patients with idiopathic scoliosis and a thoracic and lumbar curve magnitude ≥40° who underwent either ATVBT/PLST or PSIF from 2015-2019 were included. The primary outcome was rate of returning to sport. Secondary outcomes included ability to bend and satisfaction with sport performance as well as weeks until return to sport, school, physical education (PE) classes, and running. Results Ten patients underwent ATVBT/PLST and 12 underwent PSIF. ATVBT/PLST patients reported significantly faster return to sport (13.5 weeks vs 27.9 weeks, P = .04), running (13.3 weeks vs 28.8 weeks, P = .02), and PE class (12.6 weeks vs 26.2 weeks, P = .04) compared to PSIF patients. ATVBT/PLST patients reported that they had to give up activities due to their ability to bend at lower rates than PSIF patients while reporting “no changes” in their ability to bend after surgery at higher rates than PSIF patients (0% vs 4% giving up activities and 70% vs 0% reporting no changes in bending ability for ATVBT/PLST and PSIF, respectively, P = .01). Compared to PSIF patients, ATVBT/PLST patients experienced less main thoracic and thoracolumbar/lumbar curve correction at most recent follow-up (thoracic: 41 ± 19% vs 69 ± 18%, P = .001; thoracolumbar/lumbar: 59 ± 25% vs 78 ± 15%, P = .02). No significant differences in the number of revision surgeries were observed between ATVBT/PLST and PSIF patients (4 (40%) and 1 (8%) for ATVBT/PLST and PSIF, respectively, P = .221). Conclusions ATVBT/PLST patients reported significantly faster rates of returning to sport, running, and PE. In addition, ATVBT/PLST patients were less likely to have to give up activities due to bending ability after surgery and reported no changes in their ability to bend after surgery more frequently than PSIF patients. However, the overall rate of return to the same or higher level of sport participation was high amongst both groups, with no significant difference observed between ATVBT/PLST and PSIF patients.

Context: Many clinicians, trainers, and athletes do not have a true understanding of the effects of commonly used performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) on performance and health. Objective: To provide an evidence-based review of 7 commonly used pharmacological interventions for performance enhancement in athletes. Data Sources: PubMed and Scopus databases were searched on April 8, 2022. Study Selection: Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) assessing the performance-enhancing effects of the following interventions were included: androgenic anabolic steroids (AAS), growth hormone (GH), selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs), creatine, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE)-inhibitors, recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO), and cannabis. Study Design: Umbrella review of SRs and MAs. Level of Evidence: Level 4. Data Extraction: Primary outcomes collected were (1) body mass, (2) muscle strength, (3) performance, and (4) recovery. Adverse effects were also noted. Results: A total of 27 papers evaluating 5 pharmacological interventions met inclusion criteria. No studies evaluating SARMs or ACE-inhibitors were included. AAS lead to a 5% to 52% increase in strength and a 0.62 standard mean difference in lean body mass with subsequent lipid derangements. GH alters body composition, without providing a strength or performance benefit, but potential risks include soft tissue edema, fatigue, arthralgias, and carpel tunnel syndrome. Creatine use during resistance training can safely increase total and lean body mass, strength, and performance in high-intensity, short-duration, repetitive tasks. Limited evidence supports rHuEPO benefit on performance despite increases in both VO 2 max and maximal power output, and severe cardiovascular risks are documented. Cannabis provides no performance benefit and may even impair athletic performance. Conclusion: In young healthy persons and athletes, creatine can safely provide a performance-enhancing benefit when taken in controlled doses. AAS, GH, and rHuEPO are associated with severe adverse events and do not support a performance benefit, despite showing the ability to change bodily composition, strength, and/or physiologic measures. Cannabis may have an ergolytic, instead of ergogenic, effect.

Background: All-suture anchors and knotless anchors are increasingly used in the repair of anteroinferior labral tears in patients with shoulder instability. Optimal repair constructs may limit recurrent instability. Purpose: To perform a quantitative biomechanical comparison of 3 labral fixation devices for soft tissue Bankart lesions: knotless soft-body tensionable anchor (SB knotless), knotted soft-body anchor (SB knotted), and knotless hard-body PEEK (polyether ether ketone) interference anchor (HB knotless). Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 21 glenoid specimens were randomized into 3 groups: SB knotless, SB knotted, and HB knotless. Artificial Bankart lesions were created at the anteroinferior labrum. Anchors were placed at the 3:30, 4:30, and 5:30 clockface positions, and sutures were passed through 1 cm of tissue. Anchors were tested simultaneously as one construct by pulling capsular tissue connected to the anteroinferior quadrant. Cyclic loading (5-25 N, 100 cycles) was followed by load-to-failure testing (15 mm/min). Biomechanical testing variables were collected, and failure mechanisms were recorded per individual anchor. Results: There were no differences in baseline specimen characteristics. There was no difference in elongation during cyclic loading ( P = .40). The ultimate load to failure between SB knotless (309.7 ± 125.6 N), SB knotted (226.4 ± 34.8 N), and HB knotless (256.5 ± 90.5 N) did not significantly differ ( P = .25). Failure mechanisms differed among groups ( P = .008); mechanisms included anchor pullout (SB knotless: 33.3%; SB knotted: 23.8%; HB knotless: 28.6%), suture pull-through (SB knotless: 66.7%; SB knotted: 38.1%; HB knotless: 33.3%), and anchor fixation method failure, defined as knot failure for knotted anchors or locking mechanism failure for knotless anchors (SB knotless: 0.0%; SB knotted: 38.1%; HB knotless: 38.1%).) Conclusion: The SB knotless, SB knotted, and HB knotless labral fixation anchors studied exhibited comparable elongation during cyclic loading, stiffness, and ultimate loads to failure in a cadaveric model. However, the failure mechanisms significantly differed, as SB knotless anchors failed primarily from suture pull-through, while SB knotted and HB knotless anchors were subject to knot failure and locking mechanism failure, respectively. Clinical Relevance: These data support the benefit of SB knotless anchors for anteroinferior labral repair in limiting knot failure typically seen with knotted anchors, perhaps demonstrating that all-suture anchors may have better locking mechanism quality than their PEEK counterparts.