Bodendorfer, Blake M.

Purpose To perform a prospective, double‐blind, randomized controlled trial to assess differences in integration and patient‐reported outcomes metrics (PROMs) of osteochondral allograft transplantation with and without bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) augmentation. Methods Patients (n = 36) undergoing osteochondral allograft transplantation of the knee were consented and enrolled in this prospective study. They were randomized to either iliac crest BMAC or sham incision groups and blinded to their allocation. Computerized tomography (CT) scans of the knee were obtained at 6 months postoperatively after the index transplantation and graded by the semiquantitative assessment CT osteochondral allograft system. PROMs, including the International Knee Documentation Committee and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score–Joint Replacement, were obtained at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. Results On 6‐month postoperative CT scans, patients receiving BMAC‐treated grafts were more likely to have small cystic changes ( P = .01), with an associated trend toward reduction in large cyst formation ( P = .06), but equal osseous integration, graft signal density, and presence of discernible clefts and intra‐articular fragments. The BMAC group was less likely to undergo subsequent surgery for graft debridement or revision (5.3% vs 35.3%; P = .02). There were no significant differences in PROMs between the 2 groups preoperatively or postoperatively at 6 months, 1 year, or 2 years. Patients receiving BMAC trended toward a higher rate of achievement of Knee Documentation Committee and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score–Joint Replacement minimal clinically important difference (88% vs 55%; P = .076). Conclusions Patients receiving BMAC‐treated grafts were more likely to have small cystic changes and were less likely to undergo subsequent surgery for persistent or new symptoms after the index procedure. No difference in postoperative PROMs was shown at the 6‐month, 1‐year, and 2‐year follow‐ups between the 2 groups. Level of Evidence Level I, prospective, randomized controlled trial.

Purpose To assess the consistency and quality of risk factor reporting for rotator cuff repair (RCR) retear and identify risk factors most frequently associated with retear. Methods A systematic review was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Of the initial 3,158 studies, a total of 31 met the following inclusion criteria: (1) clinical studies regarding RCR failure, (2) arthroscopic procedures involving RCR, (3) reporting of clinical outcomes, (4) publication within the past 5 years, and (5) studies investigating preoperative risk factors for retear. After full‐text review, 18 risk factors were analyzed. Results The most consistently significant risk factors were acromiohumeral distance (80%), critical shoulder angle (67%), tear size (63%), anterior‐posterior dimension (60%), fatty infiltration (FI) (58%), and retraction size (56%). FI was analyzed using different methods among studies, with 63% finding significant results and 50% of all studies performing ordinal analysis. Tear size was inconsistently analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively, with 58% of studies finding significant results and 63% of all studies performing quantitative analysis. Risk factors consistently found to be nonsignificant included age, sex, diabetes mellitus, symptom duration, hand dominance, repair technique, smoking, and body mass index. Conclusions Tear size, FI, and retraction size were found to be significant risk factors in most of the included studies evaluating rotator cuff retear. Risk factors less likely reported as predictive included repair technique, age, sex, diabetes mellitus, symptom duration, hand dominance, repair technique, smoking, and body mass index. Risk factors that require further investigation include critical shoulder angle, acromiohumeral distance, and anterior‐posterior tear dimension. Level of Evidence Level III, systematic review of Level III‐IV studies.