Krych, Aaron J

Background: Optimized surgical fixation and meniscal stabilization during rehabilitation increase healing success. However, the latest generation of all-inside devices has not yet been biomechanically compared with inside-out suture tape (IO-ST) repair. Hypothesis: (1) The contact area of a suture anchor (SA) would compensate for a meniscal defect better than polyether ether ketone anchors (PA); (2) adjustable tensioning for all-inside meniscal repair fixation would result in higher initial load than IO-ST repair; and (3) stiffer constructs would decrease secondary displacement. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: This study investigates human menisci (N = 39) via microscopic imaging and a biomechanical testing protocol. For the imaging protocol, needles of an all-inside SA or PA device and an IO-ST device were inserted after staining to measure the iatrogenic defect created by the needle insertion (n = 20) and the length, width, and meniscus contact area of deployed all-inside anchors (n = 6). For biomechanical testing, menisci with longitudinal bucket handle tears were prepared, and single stitches were repaired (each n = 9). After suture tensioning (50 N) and fixation, initial load, initial stiffness, and relief displacement were measured. Constructs underwent cyclic loading between 2 and 20 N, with 10,000 cycles (0.75 Hz), and stiffness and displacement were measured. Ultimate stiffness and load-to-failure were analyzed at 3.15 mm/sec. Results: All-inside needles created greater iatrogenic meniscal defects ( P < .001) than IO-ST repair. While PAs were longer ( P < .001), SAs were wider with a greater meniscal contact area (both P < .001). IO-ST repair resulted in the lowest initial load ( P < .001) and relief displacement ( P < .001), whereas SA repair resulted in a higher initial load ( P < .007) and stiffness ( P < .023) than PA repair. The overall stiffer SA fixation ( P < 001) significantly reduced cyclic displacement compared with other repairs ( P < .044). The PA group failed due to an anchor fracture at a significantly lower load (84.3 ± 10.7 N; P < .001) than the IO-ST (136.4 ± 10.5 N) and the SA repair (122.1 ± 17.5 N), with a suture-based failure mode. The ultimate stiffness of SA constructs was higher ( P < .045) than that of other repairs. Conclusion: While all-inside devices showed improved primary stability, the IO-ST construct demonstrated the highest load-to-failure. In a human cadaveric model, meniscal repair with a more compact and conforming SA was stiffer and reduced cyclic displacement compared with PA and IO-ST repair. Clinical Relevance: All-inside SA repair improved primary stability. Future clinical series will define the overall significance of healing rates.

Abstract The acetabular labrum is a fibrocartilaginous structure that deepens the acetabular socket and helps maintain a suction seal. In patients with hip dysplasia, a distinct labral tear pattern called an inside‐out labral tear is often seen. This tear pattern is particularly challenging to correct via conventional techniques since the labrum can potentially remain everted and insufficiently restore the native hip labral suction seal after repair. An inverted hip labral repair technique is performed for this pathology at our institution and focuses on achieving optimal labral orientation to enhance the suction seal and joint stability, particularly in dysplastic hips. This Technical Note aims to describe the key surgical principles and clinical considerations of inverted hip labral repair. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Background: Patellofemoral instability (PFI) is a condition that leads to recurrent dislocation events and is typically secondary to extensor mechanism malalignment and rotational deformities. To correct malalignment, a tibial tubercle osteotomy (TTO) can be performed; however, an understanding of the associated complications, recurrence rates, and potential for reoperation is necessary. Purpose: To systematically review the literature to determine the incidence of postoperative complications, rate of recurrent instability, and all-cause reoperation rate after TTO for PFI. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence 4. Methods: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, and CINAHL were queried for studies that reported complications after TTO. No date limits were applied. A total of 1050 studies were identified. Complications were categorized into “minor” and “major” groups using a modified Clavien-Dindo Classification. A meta-analysis was conducted to examine complication rates, recurrent instability, and all-cause reoperation, utilizing a DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. A meta-analysis for recurrent instability was subgrouped according to follow-up periods of ≤2 years and >2 years. Results: A total of 38 studies were included, comprising 1546 patients, representing 1733 knees. The study dates ranged from 1989 to 2024, and the level of evidence ranged from 2 to 4. The weighted mean age at surgery was 24.1 years (range, 20-54 years), and 67% of patients were women. The weighted mean follow-up of all studies was 4.2 years. Overall, 197 minor complications, 39 major complications, 90 recurrent instability events, and 275 reoperations were identified. The minor complication rate was 9% (range, 0%-65% [95% CI, 6%-13%]). The major complication rate was 3% (range, 0%-10% [95% CI, 3%-4%]). Seven studies had a ≤2-year follow-up, and the remaining 31 studies had a >2-year follow-up. The recurrent instability rate was 3% in studies with ≤2 years of follow-ups (range, 0%-26% [95% CI, 1%-13%]). In studies with >2 years of follow-up, the recurrent instability rate was 8% (range, 0%-31% [95% CI, 6%-12%]). The all-cause reoperation rate was 16% (range, 0%-54% [95% CI, 11%-21%]). Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis identified the incidence of complications (17%), the rate of recurrent instability (3%-8%), and the all-cause reoperation rate (16%) after TTO. TTO, performed alone or in combination with medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction for the treatment of PFI, reliably improved clinical outcome scores in the setting of variable complication rates. Interestingly, rates of recurrent instability increased over time, and most reoperations were undertaken for hardware removal rather than revision patellar stabilization surgery.

Purpose To compare clinical and functional outcomes (including range of motion, clinical laxity, reoperation/revision rates, and patient‐reported outcome measures) of combined anterior cruciate ligament/posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR/PCLR) with and without suture tape (ST) augmentation via a propensity‐matched cohort analysis. Methods A retrospective review was performed to identify all patients who underwent simultaneous primary ACLR/PCLR between 2001 and 2022. A 1:1 propensity match was performed using patient sex, Schenck classification grade, age ±8 years, and body mass index ±10 to produce 2 cohorts: ACLR/PCLR with and without (control) ST augmentation. Clinical outcomes (visual analog scale [VAS], range of motion, Tegner activity scale, Lysholm score, and International Knee Documentation Committee subjective score) were analyzed. Results The propensity match produced a final cohort of 50 ACLR/PCLR patients: 25 with ST augmentation and 25 nonaugmented controls. Most patients had a KD3M injury (12 in each cohort), and no significant differences were noted in concomitant neurovascular, meniscal, or chondral injuries between the groups. Forty patients (80%) completed follow‐up at a mean of 4.7 years for the ST cohort and 8.5 years for the control cohort ( P > .05). Postoperative ST versus control values for outcome measures including VAS at rest (0.9 vs 1.5; P = .71), VAS with use (3.0 vs 2.2; P = .24), International Knee Documentation Committee (75.7 vs 76.3; P = .37), Lysholm (81.8 vs 77.6; P = .91), and Tegner activity (4.8 vs 5.4; P = .37) scores showed no differences ( P > .05 for all). There were no differences in excessive postoperative clinical laxity between ST and control cohorts (ST n = 1 vs control n = 2, Lachman 2+, P = .140; ST n = 3 vs control n = 1, posterior drawer 2+, P = .122). The total number of patients who underwent reoperation was 7 of 25 (28%) for the ST cohort and 8 of 25 (32%) for the control cohort ( P = .76). Conclusions Concomitant ACLR/PCLR utilizing ST augmentation showed similarly satisfactory postoperative clinical outcomes at a minimum 2‐year follow‐up compared to a matched cohort without ST. The use of an independent ST did not limit motion or increase the incidence of complications or revision surgery. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective comparative case series.

Abstract Meniscus allograft transplant (MAT) can provide meaningful improvement in patient outcomes in those who are otherwise meniscus deficient. A common finding in the setting of a failed MAT is meniscus extrusion. Meniscus centralization is a technique performed to reduce the meniscus to its intra‐articular location and has been shown to improve postoperative pain and function in patients with an extruded meniscus. Prior techniques have been described for meniscus centralization in the setting of a meniscus root tear or with the use of single tension devices that are tensioned after meniscocapsular fixation. We present a minimally invasive technique for meniscus centralization that can be performed in conjunction with MAT using a centralization stabilization suture and re‐tensionable root‐fixation subchondral anchors that can be secured prior to meniscocapsular fixation. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Background: Treatment decisions in patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries are influenced by multiple factors, such as the desire to return to sports or symptomatic instability. Identifying the differential treatment effect of ACL reconstruction (ACLR) compared with nonoperative management on a patient-specific level can inform surgical decision-making. Hypothesis: Unsupervised machine learning can identify distinct patient subgroups based on outcome achievement after ACL injury, and ACLR will exert a protective effect on the development of posttraumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) over nonoperative management. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A longitudinal populational registry identified patients with ACL injuries from 1990 to 2016 with a minimum 7.5-year follow-up. An unsupervised random forest algorithm was utilized to develop and validate patient subgroups. Treatment effects of ACLR on outcomes were analyzed using a machine learning causal inference estimator. Patient subgroup membership was incorporated into a multivariable logistic regression to identify factors predictive of optimal outcomes. Results: A total of 923 patients (785 primary ACLR, 138 nonoperative) were included. The random forest algorithm arrived at an optimal partition of 2 subgroups, with 653 patients in the optimal outcome subgroup (368 male [56.4%]; mean age, 26.0 ± 10.2 years; mean body mass index [BMI], 26.5 ± 4.30) and 270 patients in the suboptimal outcome subgroup (152 male [56.3%]; mean age, 35.0 ± 10.1 years; mean BMI, 30.5 ± 5.54). The latter group demonstrated significantly increased rates of secondary meniscal injury, development of symptomatic PTOA, and progression to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) at the final follow-up (all P < .01). In the optimal outcome subgroup, ACLR had significantly protective treatment effects on the risk of secondary meniscal injury (average treatment effect [ATE], 61%), contralateral ACL injury (ATE, 8%), symptomatic PTOA (ATE, 16%), and progression to TKA (ATE, 6%) (all P < .01). Conversely, in the suboptimal outcome subgroup, ACLR only protected against symptomatic PTOA (ATE, 11%) and progression to TKA (ATE, 8%) (both P < .01). Conclusion: Two clinically meaningful subgroups were identified from retrospectively collected data and found to experience differential treatment responses after ACL injuries. ACLR decreased the rate of development of PTOA and TKA in both subgroups but was not as effective in preventing secondary meniscal injuries or contralateral ACL injuries in patients who were older, heavier, or had concomitant medial meniscus injuries.

Purpose To develop an expert consensus statement on the diagnosis, management, and rehabilitation of medial meniscal root tears (MMRTs) using a modified Delphi technique. Methods A working group developed statements on MMRT diagnosis, nonoperative management, surgical indications, surgical management, alignment, and rehabilitation using modified Delphi techniques. Fifty‐six experts were surveyed over 3 rounds to reach consensus, with agreement measured on a 5‐point Likert scale. Statements were included, revised, or excluded on the basis of predefined thresholds (≥75% agreement, <20% disagreement). Experts suggested revisions or new statements in the first 2 rounds, and final consensus statements were included. Results All 56 experts completed 3 survey rounds. Experts agreed that root tears may occur with no known history of trauma, typically in older patients, and that it should be diagnosed with an magnetic resonance imaging. In symptomatic patients with MMRTs without advanced osteoarthritis should be repaired using an anatomic transtibial pull‐out technique (performing a pie‐crusting technique can be helpful for visualization). Nonoperative management is advised for patients with advanced osteoarthritis. High tibial osteotomy may be considered for significant varus malalignment during MMRT repair. The only statement without consensus was the management of asymptomatic MMRTs with mild medial compartment cartilage wear, indicating ongoing debate. Conclusions Overall, 98% of statements reached consensus. There is agreement that magnetic resonance imaging is the gold standard for diagnosis. Symptomatic MMRTs without advanced osteoarthritis should be repaired early using an anatomic transtibial pull‐out technique. End‐stage knee osteoarthritis warrants nonoperative management of MMRTs, and a structured postoperative protocol with limited weightbearing and range of motion is essential after repair. No agreement was reached on managing asymptomatic MMRTs in patients without significant medial compartment degeneration. Meniscal centralization sutures may help in cases of substantial extrusion, but their routine use is debated. Level of Evidence Level V, consensus of expert opinion.

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.

Abstract As the prevalence of hip arthroscopy increases, management of capsular defects as well as capsulotomy closure has increasingly been recognized for their impact on recurrent symptoms in the young athletic hip. Several recent studies have shown that capsular closure at the time of primary hip arthroscopy improves both short‐ and long‐term patient‐reported outcomes, revision rates, and conversion to arthroplasty. Specifically, capsular insufficiency is a source of recurrent pain and microinstability. In this context, far medial labral tears pose a challenge for suture fixation, given the historic need of extending the interportal capsulotomy to obtain adequate trajectory for suture anchors and subsequent passage. Given the suboptimal stability consequences of extending the capsulotomy medially, here we present a novel approach for suture fixation of the medial labrum. This technique provides an effective method for suture fixation of the medial labrum, without necessitating extension of the interportal capsulotomy. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Abstract Arthrofibrosis of the knee is a difficult‐to‐manage complication after meniscoligamentous knee injuries, traumatic injuries with articular extension, and surgeries to treat these conditions. Treatment protocols for the management of postoperative arthrofibrosis exhaust nonoperative therapies before proceeding to the operating room for lysis of adhesions (LOA). Although LOA restores range of motion in most cases, a recurrence of arthrofibrosis is possible when postoperative therapy protocols are not strictly followed. Limited treatment options exist in the setting of recalcitrant arthrofibrosis. Revision arthroscopic LOA may be performed in this scenario. This revision procedure places neurovascular anatomy in the posterior compartment at risk. Performing a posterior capsule release in the arthroscopic management of recalcitrant arthrofibrosis is challenging but important to optimize recovery of range of motion. This Technical Note and accompanying video present a stepwise approach to LOA that demonstrates a safe method for performing an arthroscopic posterior capsule release in these challenging cases. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.