Citations

Purpose To (1) assess clinical outcomes of revision multiligament knee injury (MLKI) reconstruction at a minimum of 2 years' follow‐up and (2) present a standardized treatment algorithm used in treating revision MLKI patients. Methods A retrospective review of our institution's MLKI database was performed to identify all patients who underwent revision MLKI reconstructions (≥2 ligaments reconstructed) after implementation of a standardized treatment algorithm in 2000 and had a minimum of 2 years' follow‐up. Patient demographic information, injury description (mechanism of injury, neurovascular status, knee dislocation grade, associated chondral or meniscal injury), surgical technique (repair vs reconstruction, staged vs nonstaged, concomitant procedures), mechanism of failure, knee stability, and range of motion, as well as International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm scores, were obtained. Results We assessed 23 patients (8 female and 15 male patients), with an average age of 26.7 ± 11.5 years at primary surgery and 30.8 ± 11.0 years at revision surgery. The mean follow‐up period was 7.5 ± 5.3 years. Of the 23 patients, 10 (43.4%) underwent staged revision procedures: isolated bone grafting in 3, osteotomy in 4, hardware removal with osteochondral allograft in 1, hardware removal with bone grafting in 1, and meniscus repair for a locked knee in 1. The average International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm scores were 74.5 ± 22.3 and 79.4 ± 20.2, respectively. High‐energy injury and increasing age at revision surgery were the only risk factors found to be associated with significantly worse outcomes ( P < .05). Conclusions Patients with recurrent instability after MLKI reconstruction present with many concomitant pathologies, including limb malalignment, bone tunnel widening, retained hardware, meniscal incompetence, and cartilage defects. Revision MLKI reconstruction can provide these patients with modest functional outcomes when a standardized treatment algorithm is used focusing on identification and treatment of the concomitant pathology, often in a staged manner. Level of Evidence Level IV, case series.

Abstract Understanding of meniscal function through basic science, natural history, and biomechanics has highlighted the importance of preserving the meniscus to maintain normal knee biomechanics. Tears that may alter these biomechanics can contribute to the progressive nature of degenerative joint disease in the knee. Radial tears result in the disruption of the circumferential fibers causing inability of the native meniscus to resist normal hoop stresses, thereby leading to increased focal areas of pressure that cause complications such as early onset arthrosis. In this technical note, we describe our preferred operative technique to repair radial meniscal tears using an arthroscopic inside‐out approach with satisfactory clinical outcomes and healing response. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Abstract Varus knee malalignment caused by medial compartment arthritis results in progressive asymmetric wear of the tibiofemoral joint. This wear can cause progressively painful gonarthrosis. Surgical methods to address varus knee malalignment include lateral closing‐wedge proximal tibial osteotomy, medial opening‐wedge osteotomy, and arthroplasty. Medial opening‐wedge proximal tibial osteotomy is an effective procedure for restoring proper coronal alignment and reducing knee pain. In this technical note, we present a reproducible technique for proximal tibial osteotomy. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Abstract Coronal limb malalignment is a significant contributor to asymmetric joint wear, gait abnormalities, and the development and progression of degenerative joint disease. Osteotomies about the knee were developed to realign the mechanical axis of the limb to unload the affected compartment. Valgus malalignment is less common than varus malalignment, but can contribute to a variety of clinical conditions, including lateral compartment cartilage defects and arthritis, lateral patellofemoral instability, and medial collateral ligament laxity. In this article, we describe our preferred operative technique for a lateral opening wedge varus‐producing distal femoral osteotomy to correct mild to moderate valgus malalignment. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Purpose Fixed-dose rate gemcitabine plus docetaxel achieves objective response in 35% of patients with uterine leiomyosarcoma (uLMS). This study aimed to determine whether the addition of bevacizumab to gemcitabine-docetaxel increases progression-free survival (PFS) in uLMS. Patients and Methods In this phase III, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients with chemotherapy-naive, metastatic, unresectable uLMS were randomly assigned to gemcitabine-docetaxel plus bevacizumab or gemcitabine-docetaxel plus placebo. PFS, overall survival (OS), and objective response rates (ORRs) were compared to determine superiority. Target accrual was 130 patients to detect an increase in median PFS from 4 months (gemcitabine-docetaxel plus placebo) to 6.7 months (gemcitabine-docetaxel plus bevacizumab). Treatment effects on PFS and OS were described by hazard ratios (HRs), median times to event, and 95% CIs. Results In all, 107 patients were accrued: gemcitabine-docetaxel plus placebo (n = 54) and gemcitabine-docetaxel plus bevacizumab (n = 53). Accrual was stopped early for futility. No statistically significant differences in grade 3 to 4 toxicities were observed. Median PFS was 6.2 months for gemcitabine-docetaxel plus placebo versus 4.2 months for gemcitabine-docetaxel plus bevacizumab (HR, 1.12; P = .58). Median OS was 26.9 months for gemcitabine-docetaxel plus placebo and 23.3 months for gemcitabine-docetaxel plus bevacizumab (HR, 1.07; P = .81). Objective responses were observed in 17 (31.5%) of 54 patients randomly assigned to gemcitabine-docetaxel plus placebo and 19 (35.8%) of 53 patients randomly assigned to gemcitabine-docetaxel plus bevacizumab. Mean duration of response was 8.6 months for gemcitabine-docetaxel plus placebo versus 8.8 months for gemcitabine-docetaxel plus bevacizumab. Conclusion The addition of bevacizumab to gemcitabine-docetaxel for first-line treatment of metastatic uLMS failed to improve PFS, OS, or ORR. Gemcitabine-docetaxel remains a standard first-line treatment for uLMS.