Frank, Rachel M

Background: Orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships are highly competitive, yet objective data defining characteristics of successful applicants remain limited. Hypothesis: It was hypothesized that greater academic productivity, top-tier residency training, and certain demographic factors would be associated with matching into a top-ranked orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed applicants who matched into one of the top 10 orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships from 2020 to 2025, as identified by previous applicant preference rankings. Applicant data were obtained from publicly available sources and verified by 2 independent reviewers. Variables included sex, degree type, residency program ranking, geographic region, and research productivity (total publications, primary publication count, H-index, and sports-related publications). Multivariate logistic regression assessed predictors of matching into top 5 versus 6th- to 10th-ranked programs. Results: Among 226 matched applicants, 87.7% were male and 99.1% held a doctorate in medicine degree. The mean total publication count was 12.4, mean H-index was 8.2, and 30.5% trained at a top 20 orthopaedic residency. Applicants matching into top 5 programs had significantly higher research metrics than those in the 6th- to 10th-ranked programs: total publications (20.1 vs 4.7), primary publication count (6.2 vs 1.6), and sports-related publications (11.4 vs 1.9). On regression analysis, total publications, H-index, and residency ranking were independent predictors of matching into a top 5 program. Conclusion: Matching into a top orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship is associated with higher academic productivity and training at a top-tier residency program.

Abstract The all‐inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction technique has gained popularity because of its ability to preserve bone stock, accommodate shorter graft lengths, and reduce postoperative pain. Traditionally, this technique uses metallic cortical suspensory buttons for graft fixation, which are reliable but may cause soft‐tissue irritation and hardware prominence. A recent modification to traditional all‐inside suspensory fixation uses all‐suture cortical buttons, eliminating the need for metallic or screw‐based implants while maintaining secure fixation. This Technical Note describes an all‐inside anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction technique that uses an all–soft tissue quadriceps tendon autograft, secured with only suture‐based buttons (no metal, no plastic) on both the femoral and tibial sides. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

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.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to characterize content posted by orthopaedic surgeons on social media (SM) while investigating patient perceptions of this content from various regions of the United States. Analysis was included regarding how this content may influence the respondents’ healthcare decisions. Methods: SM posts by orthopaedic surgeons were reviewed and categorized. A patient survey was written to assess respondent SM usage practices as well as respondent perceptions of these categories. The survey was administered in the clinic of 13 separate orthopaedic surgeons via QR code. Survey results were analyzed for differences in SM utilization. Patient responses were assessed to judge perception of social medial content types. Results: There were 674 completed patient surveys. The 18-24 (89.3%) and 25-34 (87.6%) age groups were more likely to report daily use (p=0.002), but SM utilization was high among all age groups. 23% of patients reported using SM to see information about their healthcare at least once per month, 38% of patients reported reviewing the SM account of a physician at least once per month, and 23% of patients reported that they were likely or very likely to view the SM account of their own physician. 26% of patients reported that SM content is likely or very likely to influence which physician they see. Patients held the most consistently positive view of posts educating patients regarding common injuries, discussing sports team coverage, providing patient testimonials, and posts illustrating examples of imaging used to diagnose and treat patients. Patients held consistently neutral views of posts educating colleagues, discussing research and presentations at national meetings, displaying aspects of surgeons’ personal lives, and supporting marginalized groups. Several post categories elicited negative or highly polarized responses including those discussing research publications, showing surgical techniques or pictures/videos taken during surgery, or political statements. Conclusions: SM is an increasingly useful tool to help physicians interact with patients or build a practice. Physicians who wish to interact with patients should consider posting content viewed most positively including posts educating patients, discussing sports team coverage, and patient testimonials. Content that is viewed less favorably should be posted sparingly or with a sensitive tag. The most effective way to reach large patient populations appears to be through Instagram, Facebook, Tik Tok, Snapchat, and LinkedIn, in that order. Further ongoing study is required to understand the differences between physician SM content focused on interacting with patients compared to content focused on interacting with other physicians.

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.

Abstract Incomplete healing and/or functional failure following rotator cuff tear repair remains a challenging problem for both patients and surgeons. Augmentation strategies are growing to increase healing through biologic and mechanical mechanisms to improve functional results after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. The majority of currently described augmentation techniques use allograft tissue. An alternative, low‐cost, autograft option for augmentation is the use of the long head of biceps tendon autograft as a free functional graft. Here, we describe the use of autograft biceps tendon as a viable option for augmentation of double‐row rotator cuff repair with knotless all‐suture suture anchors. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

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.

Objectives The current lack of agreement regarding standardized terminology in musculoskeletal and sports ultrasound presents challenges in education, clinical practice, and research. This consensus was developed to provide a reference to improve clarity and consistency in communication. Methods A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened consisting of 18 members representing multiple specialty societies identified as key stakeholders in musculoskeletal and sports ultrasound. A Delphi process was used to reach consensus which was defined as group level agreement >80%. Results Content was organized into seven general topics including: 1) General Definitions, 2) Equipment and Transducer Manipulation, 3) Anatomic and Descriptive Terminology, 4) Pathology, 5) Procedural Terminology, 6) Image Labeling, and 7) Documentation. Terms and definitions which reached consensus agreement are presented herein. Conclusions The historic use of multiple similar terms in the absence of precise definitions has led to confusion when conveying information between colleagues, patients, and third‐party payers. This multidisciplinary expert consensus addresses multiple areas of variability in diagnostic ultrasound imaging and ultrasound‐guided procedures related to musculoskeletal and sports medicine.