LaPrade, Robert F

AbstractPurposePart two of this consensus aimed to provide recommendations for the prevention of meniscus injuries, non‐operative treatment of acute tears and degenerative lesions, return to sports and patient‐reported outcome measures.MethodsThis consensus followed the European Society of Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) formal consensus methodology. For this combined ESSKA—American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM)—American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy (AASPT) initiative, 67 experts from 14 countries, including orthopedic surgeons and physiotherapists, were involved. The 26 Steering Group members established guiding questions, screened the existing evidence, and proposed statements, and provided Grades of recommendations. The 41 Rating Group members assessed the statements according to a Likert scale (1–9). Final documents were assessed by an international peer review group for geographical adaptability.ResultsLow to moderate scientific level of evidence was available, so that grades of recommendations were low (three Grade A ratings, four Grade B, three Grade C and 13 Grade D), underlining the relevance of this consensus. One strong and 17 relative agreements with overall median of 8 (8–9) and a mean of 7.92 ± 0.37 were achieved for 23 statements on 18 questions. Prevention of meniscus injuries is possible with general knee injury reduction programmes and through avoidance of certain activities. Non‐operative treatment including physical therapy is the first line approach for degenerative meniscus lesions and may be an option for some acute tears. Return to sports after meniscus tear surgery should be both criterion‐based and time‐based. Patient reported outcomes in combination with performance‐based measures are recommended to evaluate the rehabilitation process.ConclusionThis international EU–US consensus established recommendations for prevention strategies, describes rehabilitation of non‐operated patients and of patients after partial meniscectomy, meniscus repair and meniscus reconstruction, and establishes return to sport criteria. These updated and structured recommendations may be applied by surgeons and physiotherapists.Level of EvidenceLevel I, consensus.

Multiligament knee injuries (MLKIs) represent a broad spectrum of pathology with potentially devastating consequences. Currently, disagreement in the terminology, diagnosis and treatment of these injuries limits clinical care and research. This study aimed to develop consensus on the nomenclature, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation strategies for patients with MLKI, while identifying important research priorities for further study. An international consensus process was conducted using validated Delphi methodology in line with British Journal of Sports Medicine guidelines. A multidisciplinary panel of 39 members from 14 countries, completed 3 rounds of online surveys exploring aspects of nomenclature, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation and future research priorities. Levels of agreement (LoA) with each statement were rated anonymously on a 5-point Likert scale, with experts encouraged to suggest modifications or additional statements. LoA for consensus in the final round were defined ‘a priori’ if >75% of respondents agreed and fewer than 10% disagreed, and dissenting viewpoints were recorded and discussed. After three Delphi rounds, 50 items (92.6%) reached consensus. Key statements that reached consensus within nomenclature included a clear definition for MLKI (LoA 97.4%) and the need for an updated MLKI classification system that classifies injury mechanism, extent of non-ligamentous structures injured and the presence or absence of dislocation. Within diagnosis, consensus was reached that there should be a low threshold for assessment with CT angiography for MLKI within a high-energy context and for certain injury patterns including bicruciate and PLC injuries (LoA 89.7%). The value of stress radiography or intraoperative fluoroscopy also reached consensus (LoA 89.7%). Within treatment, it was generally agreed that existing literature generally favours operative management of MLKI, particularly for young patients (LoA 100%), and that single-stage surgery should be performed whenever possible (LoA 92.3%). This consensus statement will facilitate clinical communication in MLKI, the care of these patients and future research within MLKI.

Background: While posterior medial meniscus root (PMMR) techniques have evolved, there remains a need to both optimize repair strength and improve resistance to cyclic loading. Hypothesis: Adjustable tensioning would lead to higher initial repair strength and reduce displacement with cyclic loading compared with previously described transtibial pull-out repair (TPOR) fixation techniques. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: A total of 56 porcine medial menisci were used. Eight intact specimens served as a control for the native meniscus. For the others, PMMR tears were created and repaired with 6 different TPOR techniques (8 in each group). Fixed PMMR repairs were executed using 4 different suture techniques (two No. 2 cinch sutures, two cinch tapes, two No. 2 simple sutures, and two No. 2 sutures in a Mason-Allen configuration) all tied over a cortical button. Adjustable PMMR repairs using Mason-Allen sutures were fixed with an adjustable soft tissue anchor fixation tensioned at either 80 N or 120 N. The initial force, stiffness, and relief displacement of the repairs were measured after fixation. Repair constructs were then cyclically loaded, with cyclic displacement and stiffness measured after 1000 cycles. Finally, the specimens were pulled to failure. Results: The PMMR repaired with the 2 cinch sutures fixed technique afforded the lowest ( P < .001) initial repair load, stiffness, and relief displacement. The adjustable PMMR repairs achieved a higher initial repair load ( P < .001) and relief displacement ( P < .001) than all fixed repairs. The 2 cinch sutures fixed technique showed an overall higher cyclic displacement ( P < .028) and was completely loose compared with the native meniscus functional zone. Repairs with adjustable intratunnel fixation showed displacement with cyclic loading similar to the native meniscus. With cyclic loading, the Mason-Allen adjustable repair with 120 N of tension showed less displacement ( P < .016) than all fixed repairs and a stiffness comparable to the fixed Mason-Allen repair. The fixed Mason-Allen technique demonstrated a higher ultimate load ( P < .007) than the adjustable Mason-Allen techniques. All repairs were less stiff, with lower ultimate failure loads, than the native meniscus root attachment ( P < .0001). Conclusion: Adjustable TPOR led to considerably higher initial repair load and relief displacement than other conventional fixed repairs and restricted cyclic displacement to match the native meniscus function. However, the ultimate failure load of the adjustable devices was lower than that of a Mason-Allen construct tied over a cortical button. All repair techniques had a significantly lower load to failure than the native meniscus root. Clinical Relevance: Knotless adjustable PMMR repair based on soft anchor fixation results in higher tissue compression and less displacement, but the overall clinical significance on healing rates remains unclear.

Background: Primary device fixation and the resistance against gap formation during repetitive loading influence the quality of meniscal repair. There are limited biomechanical data comparing primary tensioning and cyclic behavior of all-inside versus inside-out repair. Hypothesis: All-inside devices provide higher initial load on the meniscal repair than inside-out fixation, and stiffer constructs show higher resistance against gap formation during cyclic loading. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: In total, 60 longitudinal bucket-handle tears in human cadaveric menisci were created and repaired with a single stitch and randomly assigned to 4 all-inside groups (TrueSpan, FastFix 360, Stryker AIR, FiberStich) and 2 inside-out groups (suture repair [IO-S], suture tape [IO-ST]). Residual load after repair tensioning (50 N) and relief displacement were measured. Constructs underwent cyclic loading between 2 and 20 N over 500 cycles (0.75 Hz) with cyclic stiffness, gap formation, and final peak elongation measured. Ultimate load and stiffness were analyzed during pull to failure (3.15 mm/s). Results: All-inside repair demonstrated significantly higher primary fixation strength than inside-out repair. The significantly highest load (mean ± SD; 20.1 ± 0.9 N; P < .037) and relief displacement (–2.40 ± 0.32 mm; P < .03) were for the knotless soft anchoring FiberStich group. The lowest initial load (9.0 ± 1.5 N; P < .001) and relief displacement (–1.39 ± 0.26 mm; P < .045) were for the IO-S repair group. The final gap formation (500th cycle) of FiberStich (0.75 ± 0.37 mm; P < .02) was significantly smaller than others and that of the IO-S (1.47 ± 0.33 mm; P < .045) significantly larger. The construct stiffness of the FiberStich and IO-ST groups was significantly greater at the end of cyclic testing (16.7 ± 0.80 and 15.5 ± 1.42 N/mm; P < .042, respectively) and ultimate failure testing (23.4 ± 3.6 and 20.6 ± 2.3 N/mm; P < .005). The FastFix 360 (86.4 ± 4.8 N) and Stryker AIR (84.4 ± 4.6 N) groups failed at a significantly lower load than the IO-S group ( P < .02) with loss of anchor support. The FiberStich (146.8 ± 23.4 N), TrueSpan (142.0 ± 17.8 N), and IO-ST (139.4 ± 7.3 N) groups failed at significantly higher loads ( P < .02) due to suture tearing. Conclusion: Overall, primary fixation strength of inside-out meniscal repair was significantly lower than all-inside repair in this cadaveric tissue model. Although absolute differences among groups were small, meniscal repairs with higher construct stiffness (IO-ST, FiberStich) demonstrated increased resistance against gap formation and failure load. Clinical Relevance: Knotless single-stitch all-inside meniscal repair with a soft anchor resulted in less gapping, but the overall clinical significance on healing rates remains unclear.

Purpose (1) To determine the area of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) insertion sites on the lateral wall of the medial femoral condyle (LWMFC) that demonstrates the least amount of length change through full range of motion (ROM) and (2) to identify a range of flexion that would be favorable for graft tensioning for single‐bundle (SB) and double‐bundle (DB) PCL reconstruction. Methods Six fresh‐frozen cadaveric knees were obtained. Three‐dimensional computed tomography point‐cloud models were obtained from 0° to 135°. A point grid was placed on the LWMFC and the tibial PCL facet. Intra‐articular length was calculated for each point on the femur to the tibia at all flexion angles and grouped to represent areas for bone tunnels of SB and DB PCLR. Normalized length changes were evaluated. Results Femoral tunnel location and angle of graft fixation were significant contributors to mean, minimum, and maximum normalized length of the PCL (all p < .001). Tibial tunnel location was not significant in any case (all p < .22). A femoral tunnel in the location of the posteromedial bundle of the PCL resulted in the least length change at all tibial positions (maximum change 13%). Fixation of the anterolateral bundle in extension or at 30° flexion resulted in significant overconstraint of the PCL graft. The femoral tunnel location for a SB PCLR resulted in significant laxity at lower ranges of flexion. Conclusion PCL length was significantly dependent on femoral tunnel position and angle of fixation, whereas tibial tunnel position did not significantly contribute to observed differences. All PCL grafts demonstrated anisometry, with the anterolateral bundle being more anisometric than the posteromedial bundle. For DB PCLR, the posteromedial bundle demonstrated the highest degree of isometry throughout ROM, although no area of the LWMFC was truly isometric. The anterolateral bundle should be fixed at 90° to avoid overconstraint, and SB PCLR demonstrated significant laxity at lower ranges of flexion. Clinical Relevance Surgeons can apply the results of this investigation to surgical planning in PCLR to optimize isometry, which may ultimately reduce graft strain and the risk of graft failure. Additionally, DB PCLR demonstrated superiority compared with SB PCLR regarding graft isometry, as significant laxity was encountered at lower ranges of flexion in SB PCLRs. Fixation of the ALB at 90° flexion should be performed to avoid overconstraint in knee extension.

Background: The lack of a standardized system for describing cell therapies acts as a barrier to advancement in clinical and basic research and practice. The aim of this study was to establish an international expert consensus on strategies to improve standardization and transparency when describing cell therapies. The secondary aim was to develop a consensus among experts on the contents of a standardized tool for describing cell therapies. Methods: The need for expert consensus on strategies to improve cell therapy communication was confirmed at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons/National Institutes of Health Optimizing Clinical Use of Biologics Symposium in 2018. A working group of 6 experts convened an international consensus process involving clinicians and basic scientists using validated Delphi methodology. This iterative process was used to define statements on communication of cell therapies and develop a standardized tool for describing cell therapies. Results: Thirty-four experts completed 3 rounds survey with use of the Delphi process. After 3 rounds, 27 statements relating to existing nomenclature, solutions to improve communication, ideal characteristics of a framework, mandatory elements of a new framework, and future work to facilitate application reached consensus with >80% agreement and <5% disagreement. Consensus was reached on the contents of a tool for improving standardization and transparency when describing cell therapies. This tool, dubbed “DOSES,” is based on the reporting of 5 core items: donor (i.e., autologous, allogeneic, xenogeneic), origin of tissue, separation from other cell types/preparation method, exhibited cell characteristics associated with behavior, and the site of delivery. Conclusions: This study has established expert consensus on the communication of cell therapies. The DOSES tool has been developed to improve standardization and transparency in describing cell therapies. Clinical Relevance: The DOSES tool for describing cell therapies can be utilized by researchers, clinicians, regulators, and industry professionals to improve standardization and transparency when describing cell therapies. The use of this tool may allow clinicians and patients to better understand the characteristics of current and future cell preparations.

Background: Medial meniscus root tears are a common knee injury and can lead to accelerated osteoarthritis, which might ultimately result in a total knee replacement. Purpose: To compare meniscus repair, meniscectomy, and nonoperative treatment approaches among middle-aged patients in terms of osteoarthritis development, total knee replacement rates (clinical effectiveness), and cost-effectiveness. Study Design: Meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted. Progression to osteoarthritis was pooled and meta-analyzed. A Markov model projected strategy-specific costs and disutilities in a cohort of 55-year-old patients presenting with a meniscus root tear without osteoarthritis at baseline. Failure rates of repair and meniscectomy procedures and disutilities associated with osteoarthritis, total knee replacement, and revision total knee replacement were accounted for. Utilities, costs, and event rates were based on literature and public databases. Analyses considered a time frame between 5 years and lifetime and explored the effects of parameter uncertainty. Results: Over 10 years, meniscus repair, meniscectomy, and nonoperative treatment led to 53.0%, 99.3%, and 95.1% rates of osteoarthritis and 33.5%, 51.5%, and 45.5% rates of total knee replacement, respectively. Meta-analysis confirmed lower osteoarthritis and total knee replacement rates for meniscus repair versus meniscectomy and nonoperative treatment. Discounted 10-year costs were $22,590 for meniscus repair, as opposed to $31,528 and $25,006 for meniscectomy and nonoperative treatment, respectively; projected quality-adjusted life years were 6.892, 6.533, and 6.693, respectively, yielding meniscus repair to be an economically dominant strategy. Repair was either cost-effective or dominant when compared with meniscectomy and nonoperative treatment across a broad range of assumptions starting from 5 years after surgery. Conclusion: Repair of medial meniscus root tears, as compared with total meniscectomy and nonsurgical treatment, leads to less osteoarthritis and is a cost-saving intervention. While small confirmatory randomized clinical head-to-head trials are warranted, the presented evidence seems to point relatively clearly toward adopting meniscus repair as the preferred initial intervention for medial meniscus root tears.

➤ The medial and lateral menisci have an important role in load-bearing and shock absorption and contribute to knee stability, with meniscectomy resulting in increased anterior translation of the femoral condyle on the tibia. ➤ Meniscal repair provides improved long-term outcomes, better clinical outcome scores, and less severe degenerative changes seen radiographically compared with partial meniscectomy. ➤ Given the potential long-term sequelae of meniscal pathology, patients with symptomatic meniscal tears warrant a thorough assessment with surgical consultation to determine the optimal treatment strategy. ➤ Advancements in surgical techniques and biologic augmentation have expanded the indications for meniscal repair to include tear patterns previously considered irreparable.