Citations

Background: Posterior medial meniscus root tears (PMMRTs) are frequently observed injuries that alter tibiofemoral biomechanics, yet the long-term outcomes are poorly described. Purpose: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current literature on long-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of operatively managed PMMRTs. Study Design: Meta-analysis and systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review was performed with the inclusion criteria of English-language studies, diagnosis of PMMRT on magnetic resonance imaging, and minimum 5-year radiographic or patient-reported outcome (PRO) metrics. Data analysis included management strategy, surgical technique, meniscal extrusion, medial joint space, PROs, and radiographic measurements. Failure was defined as conversion to arthroplasty, subsequent partial medial meniscectomy (PMM) and/or proximal tibial osteotomy, or clinical failure on PROs. Continuous outcome variables were analyzed with a random effects meta-analysis of mean differences. Chi-square meta-analysis was also used to analyze categorical variables. Results: Twelve studies were identified with >5-year follow-up after PMMRT (mean ± SD, 84.1 ± 11.0 months). Five studies performed PMM, 6 performed medial meniscus root repair (MMR), and 1 utilized either meniscectomy or repair. There were 797 total patients (female, n = 667; 83.7%), with mean ages ranging from 47.2 to 65. Both interventions showed significant PRO improvements after surgery: PMM (pre- vs postoperative Lysholm, 56.1 vs 68.2; P < .01) and MMR (Lysholm, 52.1 vs 83.1; International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], 40.0 vs 72.8; P < .01). MMR had significantly lower Kellgren-Lawrence grades (PMM vs MMR, 2.4 vs 1.8; P < .01) and superior IKDC scores (46.5 vs 72.8; P < .01) as compared with PMM. Additionally, PMM had a significantly higher failure rate (23% vs 5.3%) and conversion to knee arthroplasty (20.5% vs 3.5%) as compared with MMR, with odds ratios of 9.8 and 10.2, respectively. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis of studies with >5-year minimum follow-up found that PMM was associated with a 10-fold increase in clinical failure and conversion to knee arthroplasty relative to MMR in observational studies. In addition, MMR demonstrated superior Kellgren-Lawrence grades and IKDC scores as compared with PMM. The findings of the current analysis suggest that MMR is associated with superior outcomes as compared with PMM at mid- to long-term follow-up.

Background. Pancreas transplantation (PT), historically limited to patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D), is currently performed successfully in selected patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, contemporary practice patterns and eligibility criteria for PT in T2D remain incompletely characterized. Methods. The International Pancreas and Islet Transplant Association Pancreas Transplant Interest Group developed an electronic survey to assess center-level approaches to patient phenotyping, candidacy, and peri- and posttransplant management for PT in patients with T2D. The survey was distributed to international transplant professionals during an International Pancreas and Islet Transplant Association Pre-Congress meeting on June 15, 2025. Results. Thirty-seven participants completed the survey. Most respondents’ programs offer PT for T2D only when a kidney transplant is also indicated. Fewer respondents’ programs also offer PT alone (10%), evaluate T2D candidates on a case-by-case basis (3%), or do not offer PT to patients with T2D (10%). Total daily insulin requirement and body mass index (BMI) were the most selected factors in determining eligibility. Considerable variability existed in metabolic thresholds: 62% of programs reported no C-peptide cutoff, whereas nearly half required a BMI of <30 kg/m 2 for C-peptide-positive candidates. Respondents frequently recommend weight-optimization strategies, including lifestyle modification, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, and bariatric surgery for candidates exceeding acceptable BMI thresholds. Surgical technique, induction, and maintenance immunosuppression and early posttransplant glycemic management were largely uniform between T2D and T1D recipients. Conclusions. International practice reflects broad but heterogeneous adoption of PT for T2D, with most participants restricting its use to candidates requiring kidney transplantation and emphasizing integrated clinical phenotyping approaches.

Expert consensus recommendations from 21 academic centers were established for appropriate radiography utilization at 12 potentially low-yield anatomic sites through a multidisciplinary process endorsed by six major American medical societies.

Background The past two decades have witnessed tremendous growth in the appreciation and treatment of sacroiliac joint (SIJ) complex pain, including anatomical dissections that shed light on innervation, an appreciation for the contribution of extra-articular components to SIJ complex pain, the advent of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and a host of minimally-invasive surgical techniques. Yet, there is no standardization of diagnosis and treatment paradigms. Methods In February 2023, the Boards of Directors for the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) and American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine (ASRA-PM) approved the development of multispecialty guidelines on SIJ complex pain. Thirty partner organizations with clinical and scientific interests in SIJ complex pain were identified, and formal letters of request-for-participation were sent to each, along with a request for nominees to serve on the committee. Twenty five organizations agreed to participate in addition to the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. A steering committee developed 21 questions, which spanned criteria for diagnosis, non-interventional and interventional treatments including surgery, technical parameters on how to optimize results, and what constitutes positive outcomes. Questions were methodically assigned to specialized modules comprising 4–5 members with complementary expertise, who collaborated with the Subcommittee Lead and one of three Committee Chairs to develop preliminary drafts. Following thorough revisions, these drafts were subsequently submitted to the full committee for comprehensive review. A modified Delphi method was used in which the answers to questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was achieved. During a committee meeting before commencement, it was agreed that recommendations would be noted when there was >50% agreement among committee members, but that a formal recommendation would require ≥75% consensus. Results Twenty-one organizations formally endorsed the guidelines. The American Society of Anesthesiologists, and American Academy of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, and the North American Spine Society affirmed the benefit of the guidelines but did not officially endorse them. The American Academy of Neurology declined to affirm the benefit of the guidelines citing ‘lack of relevance to their membership.’ Per policies, while the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs did not formally review the guidelines for endorsement, their representatives approved them. In addition to being endorsed or the benefit affirmed by all voting organizations, complete consensus from committee members was obtained on all 21 questions. On two recommendations, there were dissensions from three societies who thought that selecting patients for sacral lateral branch RFA and minimally-invasive fusion should be based on ≥75% relief from two blocks instead of at least 50% relief from a single block before RFA, and greater than 50% pain relief with documented functional improvement after a single block before fusion. One additional society (Latin American Society of Regional Anesthesia) abstained on the statement that the evidence is stronger for extra-articular than intra-articular injections. The committee found that a battery of physical exam tests has reasonable sensitivity, but lower specificity, for identifying intra-articular but not extra-articular pain, with negative tests having greater predictive value than positive ones. Intra-articular injections have diagnostic validity for SIJ intra-articular, but not extra-articular, pain. There is unclear or negative evidence for imaging. The prevalence rates of intra-articular and extra-articular pathology are comparable, with both intra- and extra-articular steroid injections providing at least 4 weeks of relief in well-selected patients. However, the evidence is slightly stronger for extra-articular corticosteroid injections to provide short-term relief. The evidence base for non-interventional therapies is indirect, extrapolated mostly from low back pain studies. There is weak evidence supporting dextrose-based prolotherapy and platelet-rich plasma to provide at least 3 months of pain relief. There is strong evidence for sacral lateral branch RFA to provide relief for at least 6 months in individuals with extra-articular pathology, with face validity and indirect evidence from randomized trials supporting sacral lateral branch blocks as a prognostic tool. There is stronger evidence for larger lesions or more aggressive lesioning strategies than for less stringent techniques. There is weak evidence to support non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to prevent neuritis after RFA, and in most cases anticoagulation does not require cessation in the periprocedural period. With an aggressive lesioning strategy, sensory stimulation provides minimal therapeutic benefit, with weak, extrapolated evidence that motor stimulation can provide safety benefit. The cut-off to designate diagnostic or prognostic blocks as positive is most commonly set at 50%, with higher values not shown to improve outcomes for more definitive procedures; for therapeutic treatment outcomes, the evidence supports a lower threshold of ≥30% pain relief or meaningful benefit on non-pain outcomes (eg, opioid cessation) for designation of a positive response. For carefully selected patients with intra-articular SIJ complex pain based on controlled blocks who have failed conservative therapies, there is weak or very weak evidence that minimally invasive SIJ fusion can provide benefit for at least one year. Conclusions SIJ complex pain remains an underappreciated source of chronic low back pain, affecting between 15% and 30% of patients with axial pain predominantly below L5. Answers to many questions were limited by low-quality evidence, indicating the need for better research. SIJ complex pain is a multifarious condition (ie, pain can be from different portions of both the intra- and extra-articular components of the joint) for which an interdisciplinary, multimodal treatment plan can optimize treatment outcomes.

Abstract Background The past two decades have witnessed tremendous growth in the appreciation and treatment of sacroiliac joint (SIJ) complex pain, including anatomical dissections that shed light on innervation, an appreciation for the contribution of extra-articular components to SIJ complex pain, the advent of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and a host of minimally invasive surgical techniques. Yet, there is no standardization on diagnosis and treatment paradigms. Methods In February 2023, the Boards of Directors for the American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) and American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine (ASRA-PM) approved the development of multispecialty guidelines on SIJ complex pain. Thirty partner organizations with clinical and scientific interests in SIJ complex pain were identified, and formal letters of request-for-participation were sent to each, along with a request for nominees to serve on the committee. Twenty five organizations agreed to participate in addition to the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. A steering committee developed 21 questions, which spanned criteria for diagnosis, non-interventional and interventional treatments including surgery, technical parameters on how to optimize results, and what constitutes positive outcomes. Questions were methodically assigned to specialized modules comprising 4-5 members with complementary expertise, who collaborated with the Subcommittee Lead and one of three Committee Chairs to develop preliminary drafts. Following thorough revisions, these drafts were subsequently submitted to the full committee for comprehensive review. A modified Delphi method was used in which the answers to questions were sent to the committee en bloc and comments were returned in a non-blinded fashion to the Chairs, who incorporated the comments and sent out revised versions until consensus was achieved. During a committee meeting before commencement, it was agreed that recommendations would be noted when there was &gt;50% agreement among committee members, but that a formal recommendation would require ≥75% consensus. Results Twenty-one organizations formally endorsed the guidelines. The American Society of Anesthesiologists, and American Academy of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, and the North American Spine Society affirmed the benefit of the guidelines but did not officially endorse them. The American Academy of Neurology declined to affirm the benefit of the guidelines citing “lack of relevance to their membership.” Per policies, while the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs did not formally review the guidelines for endorsement, their representatives approved them. In addition to being endorsed or the benefit affirmed by all voting organizations, complete consensus from committee members was obtained on all 21 questions. On 2 recommendations, there were dissensions from 3 societies who thought that selecting patients for sacral lateral branch RFA and minimally invasive fusion should be based on ≥75% relief from 2 blocks instead of at least 50% relief from a single block before RFA, and greater than 50% pain relief with documented functional improvement after a single block before fusion. One additional society (Latin American Society of Regional Anesthesia) abstained on the statement that the evidence is stronger for extra-articular than intra-articular injections. The committee found that a battery of physical exam tests has reasonable sensitivity, but lower specificity, for identifying intra-articular but not extra-articular pathology, with negative tests having greater predictive value than positive ones. Intra-articular injections have diagnostic validity for SIJ intra-articular, but not extra-articular pain. There is unclear or negative evidence for imaging. The prevalence rates of intra-articular and extra-articular pathology are comparable, with both intra- and extra-articular steroid injections providing at least 4 weeks of relief in well-selected patients. However, the evidence is slightly stronger for extra-articular corticosteroid injections to provide short-term relief. The evidence base for non-interventional therapies is indirect, extrapolated mostly from low back pain studies. There is weak evidence supporting dextrose-based prolotherapy and platelet-rich plasma to provide at least 3 months of pain relief. There is strong evidence for sacral lateral branch RFA to provide relief for at least 6 months in individuals with extra-articular pathology, with face validity and indirect evidence from randomized trials supporting sacral lateral branch blocks as a prognostic tool. There is stronger evidence for larger lesions or more aggressive lesioning strategies than for less stringent techniques. There is weak evidence to support non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to prevent neuritis after RFA, and in most cases anticoagulation does not require cessation in the periprocedural perioid. With an aggressive lesioning strategy, sensory stimulation provides minimal therapeutic benefit, with weak, extrapolated evidence that motor stimulation can provide safety benefit. The cutoff to designate diagnostic or prognostic blocks as positive is most commonly set at 50%, with higher values not shown to improve outcomes for more definitive procedures; for therapeutic treatment outcomes, the evidence supports a lower threshold of ≥30% pain relief or meaningful benefit on non-pain outcomes (eg, opioid cessation) for designation of a positive response. For carefully selected patients with intra-articular SIJ complex pain based on controlled blocks who have failed conservative therapies, there is weak or very weak evidence that minimally invasive SIJ fusion can provide benefit for at least one year. Conclusions SIJ complex pain remains an underappreciated source of chronic low back pain, affecting between 15% and 30% of patients with axial pain predominantly below L5. Answers to many questions were limited by low-quality evidence, indicating the need for better research. SIJ complex pain is a multifarious condition (ie, pain can be from different portions of both the intra- and extra-articular components of the joint) for which an interdisciplinary, multimodal treatment plan can optimize treatment outcomes.

The NCCN Guidelines for Survivorship include recommendations for screening, evaluation, and treatment of psychosocial and physical problems resulting from adult-onset cancer and its treatment. They also include recommendations to promote healthy behaviors and immunizations in survivors and provide a framework for care coordination. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel’s current recommendations regarding sexual health and fertility.

AbstractBackgroundThere are limited national‐level data on the contemporary practices of mechanical circulatory support (MCS) use in acute myocardial infarction‐cardiogenic shock (AMI‐CS).MethodsWe utilized the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project‐National/Nationwide Inpatient Sample data (2005–2017) to identify adult admissions (>18 years) with AMI‐CS. MCS devices were classified as intra‐aortic balloon pump (IABP), percutaneous left ventricular assist devices (pLVAD), or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We evaluated trends in the initial device used (IABP alone, pLVAD alone or ≥2 MCS devices), device escalation, bridging to durable LVAD/heart transplantation, and predictors of in‐hospital mortality and device escalation.ResultsAmong 327,283 AMI‐CS admissions, 131,435 (40.2%) had an MCS device placed with available information on timing of placement. IABP, pLVAD, and ≥2 MCS devices were used as initial device in 120,928 (92.0%), 8202 (6.2%), and 2305 (1.7%) admissions, respectively. Most admissions were maintained on the initial MCS device with 1%–1.5% being escalated (IABP to pLVAD/ECMO, pLVAD to ECMO). Urban, medium, and large‐sized hospitals and acute multiorgan failure were significant independent predictors of MCS escalation. In admissions receiving MCS, escalation of MCS device was associated with higher in‐hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio: 1.56, 95% confidence interval: 1.38–1.75; p < 0.001). Admissions receiving durable LVAD/heart transplantation increased over time in those initiated on pLVAD and ≥2 MCS devices, resulting in lower in‐hospital mortality.ConclusionsIn this 13‐year study, escalation of MCS in AMI‐CS was associated with higher in‐hospital mortality suggestive of higher acuity of illness. The increase in number of durable LVAD/heart transplantations alludes to the role of MCS as successful bridge strategies.

The NCCN Guidelines for Prostate Cancer Early Detection provide recommendations for individuals with a prostate who opt to participate in an early detection program after receiving the appropriate counseling on the pros and cons. These NCCN Guidelines Insights provide a summary of recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines with regard to the testing protocol, use of multiparametric MRI, and management of negative biopsy results to optimize the detection of clinically significant prostate cancer and minimize the detection of indolent disease.