Hurley, Eoghan T.

Background The management of osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLT) is challenging, with 2 main options being conservative and surgical management. Orthobiologic therapies come to bridge the gap between these 2 options; however, inconsistencies in indication, composition, and heterogeneous evidence limit clinical decision-making. To address these challenges, 3 International Congress Meetings on Cartilage Repair of the Ankle were convened in Pittsburgh, USA (2017), Dublin, Ireland (2019), and New York, USA (2025) to establish agreement on the role of conservative management and injectable orthobiologic strategies in the treatment of OLT. Methods Seventy-five multidisciplinary experts from over 25 countries and 1 territory participated in a structured Delphi-based consensus process. Blinded surveys, structured questionnaires, and in-person discussions were used to develop and refine statements, supported by literature review and graded evidence (A1–E). Consensus strength was defined as consensus (51%-74%), strong consensus (75%-99%), or unanimous (100%) Results In total, 29 consensus statements were achieved across the 3 meetings. Strong agreement was reached regarding indications and expected outcomes of conservative management, including the role of immobilization and appropriate timing for surgical intervention. Orthobiologic injections, including platelet-rich plasma, concentrated bone marrow aspirate, and hyaluronic acid, were considered appropriate in select patients with persistent symptoms, although no superiority was demonstrated among formulations, preparation methods, or injection strategies. When used as adjuncts to surgical procedures, orthobiologics may improve radiological outcomes, with limited evidence for improvement in clinical outcomes. Technical considerations, including preferred harvest sites and a lack of standardized preparation protocols, were identified, along with key principles for patient counseling Conclusion These international consensus statements establish a standardized framework for the conservative management and use of injectable orthobiologic therapies in OLT. By clarifying indications, technical considerations, and current limitations, this work aims to improve consistency in clinical practice, guide treatment decision-making, and inform future research.

Purpose To establish consensus statements via a modified Delphi process about ethics, transparency, regulation, and best practices for the use of orthobiologics in clinical practice for musculoskeletal pathology. Methods A consensus process on the regulation of orthobiologics at the provider level was conducted using a modified Delphi technique. Twenty orthopaedic surgeons, sports medicine physicians, or basic scientists participated. Each participant was a Biologic Association member organization representative and asked to participate because of their active interest in the field of orthobiologics. Levels of consensus were delineated according to the number of votes for each statement: no consensus, <80%; consensus, 80% to 89%; strong consensus, 90% to 99%; unanimous, 100%. Results The 26 consensus statements on orthobiologics resulted in 14 achieving unanimous consensus, 8 achieving strong consensus, 3 achieving consensus, and 1 did not achieve consensus. Overall, 85% of the statements reached either a unanimous or strong consensus. Of the statements regarding communication and transparency, 9 reached unanimous consensus, including information to convey and helpful tools to describe current orthobiologics, persistent misinformation, use of the word “stem cells,” “off‐label” use, and problems with the present regulatory environment. Five statements discussing the regulation of novel orthobiologics achieved unanimous consensus. These statements highlighted research regulation, safety, and suggested improvements to regulatory issues. The statement that did not achieve any consensus was on the regulatory processes that should be in place by an institution providing novel orthobiologic treatments. No statement reached a unanimous agreement on cost or ethical considerations. Conclusions This study successfully identified key consensus statements emphasizing the importance of ethics, transparency, and regulation in the use of orthobiologics, with 85% of statements reaching unanimous or strong consensus. These findings underscore the need for standardized communication, improved regulatory frameworks, and enhanced safety measures while highlighting persistent challenges in addressing cost and ethical considerations. Level of Evidence Level V, expert opinion.

Background: The use of telerehabilitation after sports medicine procedures such as an arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) has rapidly increased in recent years; however, the functional outcomes and patient satisfaction with telerehabilitation compared to in-person rehabilitation remain unclear. The purpose of this study was to compare the functional outcomes and patient satisfaction with telerehabilitation to in-person rehabilitation in a randomized controlled trial after two common sports procedures, ARCR and ACLR. Methods: Two randomized controlled trials were conducted involving patients scheduled to undergo ARCR or ACLR by one of six fellowship-trained sports medicine surgeons between October 2020 and November 2021. Each trial had an enrollment goal of 60 patients. Subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive telerehabilitation or in-person rehabilitation postoperatively. Functional outcome and satisfaction metrics were collected at baseline and at post-operative visits and compared between groups. Results: In total, 16 ACLR patients were enrolled, of whom 10 (62.5%) were assigned to in-person rehabilitation and 6 (37.5%) to telerehabilitation. Additionally, 32 ARCR patients were enrolled, of whom 20 (62.5%) were assigned in-person rehabilitation and 12 (37.5%) were assigned telerehabilitation. In total, of the 30 patients assigned to in-person rehabilitation, none reported a crossover to telerehabilitation. Of the 18 patients initially assigned to telerehabilitation, 12 (67%) completed the final follow-up survey, of which 11 (92%) reported a crossover; 9 patients completed in-person rehabilitation and 2 patients completed hybrid in-person and telerehabilitation. Conclusions: Patients preferred in-person rehabilitation compared to telerehabilitation after ACLR and ARCR, as evidenced by the nearly ubiquitous crossover from telerehabilitation to in-person rehabilitation in both studies. Our findings suggest that telerehabilitation protocols still need to be perfected, and that there may be a role for a hybrid in-person and tele-rehab model.

Purpose To establish consensus statements on platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) for the treatment of musculoskeletal pathologies. Methods A consensus process on the treatment of PRP using a modified Delphi technique was conducted. Thirty‐five orthopaedic surgeons and sports medicine physicians participated in these consensus statements on PRP. The participants were composed of representatives of the Biologic Association, representing 9 international orthopaedic and musculoskeletal professional societies invited due to their active interest in the study of orthobiologics. Consensus was defined as achieving 80% to 89% agreement, strong consensus was defined as 90% to 99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. Results There was consensus on 62% of statements about PRP. Conclusions (1) PRP should be classified based on platelet count, leukocyte count, red blood count, activation method, and pure‐plasma versus fibrin matrix; (2) PRP characteristics for reporting in research studies are platelet count, leukocyte count, neutrophil count, red blood cell count, total volume, the volume of injection, delivery method, and the number of injections; (3) the prognostic factors for those undergoing PRP injections are age, body mass index, severity/grade of pathology, chronicity of pathology, prior injections and response, primary diagnosis (primary vs postsurgery vs post‐trauma vs psoriatic), comorbidities, and smoking; (4) regarding age and body mass index, there is no minimum or maximum, but clinical judgment should be used at extremes of either; (5) the ideal dose of PRP is undetermined; and (6) the minimal volume required is unclear and may depend on the pathology. Level of Evidence Level V, expert opinion.