Rodeo, Scott A.

Background: A critical component of conducting systematic reviews or meta-analyses is assessing the methodological quality and bias of included studies. Several methodological quality assessment tools have been developed; however, these tools may not be relevant to observational sports medicine research, which carries numerous unique nuances and biases. Purpose: To develop the Sport Publication Observational Research Tool (SPORT), which evaluates and scores the methodological quality of observational sports medicine research. Study Design: Consensus statement. Methods: SPORT was developed through a modified Delphi approach involving members from the Herodicus Society and The FORUM. All active members were invited to participate in the process aimed at building consensus on SPORT content and scoring. After finalizing SPORT, a power analysis led to the independent selection of 55 observational clinical sports medicine studies, which were scored twice by 4 reviewers of varying training levels. Interrater and intrarater reliability for SPORT was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The distribution and percentiles for total SPORT score across the 55 studies were calculated. SPORT was also compared with the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS), a commonly utilized quality assessment tool. Results: A total of 51 members participated and achieved 100%, 100%, 98.0%, and 98.0% completion rates for rounds 1 through 4, respectively. The final SPORT included 19 subscores related to methodological quality and bias and achieved 94% consensus approval. Mean SPORT completion time was 6 minutes and 19 seconds per study, which varied significantly by reviewer training level. The subscore "peer review" demonstrated unacceptable reliability and was removed. The remaining 18 subscores exhibited ICC ranges of 0.599 to 0.955 for interrater reliability and 0.530 to 0.936 for intrarater reliability. Total SPORT score demonstrated excellent agreement, for interrater (ICC, 0.967) and intrarater reliability (ICC, 0.966). Median SPORT score across the 55 studies was 20.0 and skewed toward lower scores. There was a moderate significant correlation between SPORT and MINORS ( r [53] = 0.575; P < .001). Conclusion: An objective tool to assess the methodologic quality of observational sports medicine research (SPORT) was successfully developed through a modified Delphi approach with numerous content experts in the field. This tool may be useful in assessing the methodological quality of primary observational sports medicine studies included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

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.

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for the management of lateral epicondylitis (LE) have been characterized by substantial variability in reported outcomes. The source of this heterogeneity is uncertain. Purpose: To determine the effect of estimated platelet concentration on the efficacy of PRP for the management of LE. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: All RCTs evaluating the efficacy of PRP in managing LE were identified. RCTs were classified according to whether the study documented a platelet concentration factor of PRP representing a greater than 3-fold increase over whole blood or a supraphysiological platelet dose (high-dose vs low-dose PRP). The primary outcome was the mean difference (MD) in the visual analog scale (VAS) score at latest follow-up. Random-effects and mixed-effects meta-analyses were performed, and meta-regression was used to evaluate whether differences in outcomes after treatment with PRP could be explained by differences in the concentration of PRP used. Results: Overall, 13 RCTs with a total of 791 patients were included in this analysis, with 5 that utilized low-dose PRP and 8 that used high-dose PRP. Meta-analysis of VAS scores reported by studies that used high-dose PRP resulted in an MD of −1.31 (95% CI, −1.87 to −0.75) in favor of PRP over all alternative treatment strategies ( P < .001). Meta-analysis of VAS scores reported by studies that used low-dose PRP resulted in an MD of 0.08 (95% CI, −0.51 to 0.68), suggesting no difference in the effect between PRP and all alternative treatment strategies ( P = .79). The platelet concentration factor of PRP used in each RCT was found to be strongly predictive of the VAS score at final follow-up in meta-regression ( P < .001), with 58.5% of the heterogeneity in the outcomes of PRP between studies explained by the platelet concentration factor alone. Conclusion: The platelet concentration of PRP may play a significant role in the outcomes of patients with LE. A direct linear relationship was observed between the platelet concentration factor of PRP used and the magnitude of patient-reported symptom relief after the management of LE with PRP. Clinicians should ensure a supraphysiological platelet concentration when preparing PRP for the management of LE.

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.

Purpose To describe the complications that occur following biologic therapeutic injections. Methods We queried physician members of the Biologic Association, a multidisciplinary organization dedicated to providing a unified voice for all matters related to musculoskeletal biologics and regenerative medicine. Patients included in this study must have (1) received a biologic injection, (2) sustained an adverse reaction, and (3) had a minimum of 1‐year follow‐up after the injection. Patient demographic information, medical comorbidities, diagnoses, and previous treatments were recorded. The type of injection, injection setting, injection manufacturers, and specific details about the complication and outcome were collected. Results In total, 14 patients were identified across 6 institutions in the United States (mean age 63 years, range: 36‐83 years). The most common injections in this series were intra‐articular knee injections (50%), followed intra‐articular shoulder injections (21.4%). The most common underlying diagnosis was osteoarthritis (78.5%). Types of injections included umbilical cord blood, platelet‐rich plasma, bone marrow aspirate concentrate, placental tissue, and unspecified “stem cell” injections. Complications included infection (50%), suspected sterile inflammatory response (42.9%), and a combination of both (7.1%). The most common pathogen identified from infection cases was Escherichia coli (n = 4). All patients who had isolated infections underwent treatment with at least one subsequent surgical intervention (mean: 3.6, range: 1‐12) and intravenous antibiotic therapy. Conclusions This study demonstrates that serious complications can occur following treatment with biologic injections, including infections requiring multiple surgical procedures and inflammatory reactions. Level of Evidence Level IV, case series.

ABSTRACTCell‐based therapies, defined here as the delivery of cells in vivo to treat disease, have recently gained increasing public attention as a potentially promising approach to restore structure and function to musculoskeletal tissues. Although cell‐based therapy has the potential to improve the treatment of disorders of the musculoskeletal system, there is also the possibility of misuse and misrepresentation of the efficacy of such treatments. The medical literature contains anecdotal reports and research studies, along with web‐based marketing and patient testimonials supporting cell‐based therapy. Both the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) and the Orthopaedic Research Society (ORS) are committed to ensuring that the potential of cell‐based therapies is realized through rigorous, reproducible, and clinically meaningful scientific discovery. The two organizations convened a multidisciplinary and international Task Force composed of physicians, surgeons, and scientists who are recognized experts in the development and use of cell‐based therapies. The Task Force was charged with defining the state‐of‐the art in cell‐based therapies and identifying the gaps in knowledge and methodologies that should guide the research agenda. The efforts of this Task Force are designed to provide researchers and clinicians with a better understanding of the current state of the science and research needed to advance the study and use of cell‐based therapies for skeletal tissues. The design and implementation of rigorous, thorough protocols will be critical to leveraging these innovative treatments and optimizing clinical and functional patient outcomes. In addition to providing specific recommendations and ethical considerations for preclinical and clinical investigations, this report concludes with an outline to address knowledge gaps in how to determine the cell autonomous and nonautonomous effects of a donor population used for bone regeneration. © 2020 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 38:485–502, 2020

ABSTRACT Cell-based therapies, defined here as the delivery of cells in vivo to treat disease, have recently gained increasing public attention as a potentially promising approach to restore structure and function to musculoskeletal tissues. Although cell-based therapy has the potential to improve the treatment of disorders of the musculoskeletal system, there is also the possibility of misuse and misrepresentation of the efficacy of such treatments. The medical literature contains anecdotal reports and research studies, along with web-based marketing and patient testimonials supporting cell-based therapy. Both the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) and the Orthopaedic Research Society (ORS) are committed to ensuring that the potential of cell-based therapies is realized through rigorous, reproducible, and clinically meaningful scientific discovery. The two organizations convened a multidisciplinary and international Task Force composed of physicians, surgeons, and scientists who are recognized experts in the development and use of cell-based therapies. The Task Force was charged with defining the state-of-the art in cell-based therapies and identifying the gaps in knowledge and methodologies that should guide the research agenda. The efforts of this Task Force are designed to provide researchers and clinicians with a better understanding of the current state of the science and research needed to advance the study and use of cell-based therapies for skeletal tissues. The design and implementation of rigorous, thorough protocols will be critical to leveraging these innovative treatments and optimizing clinical and functional patient outcomes. In addition to providing specific recommendations and ethical considerations for preclinical and clinical investigations, this report concludes with an outline to address knowledge gaps in how to determine the cell autonomous and nonautonomous effects of a donor population used for bone regeneration. © 2019 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Background: Since healing of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) grafts occurs by formation of a fibrovascular scar-tissue interface rather than by reformation of the native fibrocartilage transition zone, the purpose of our study was to examine expression of various signaling molecules and transcription factors that are known to be involved in embryologic insertion-site development following ACL reconstruction. We also aimed to characterize a murine model of ACL reconstruction to allow future study of the molecular mechanisms of healing. Methods: Seventy-nine mice underwent reconstruction of the ACL with autograft. Healing was assessed using histology in 12 mice and quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) gene-expression analysis in 3 mice at 1 week postoperatively (Group-1 mice) and by biomechanical analysis in 7, histological analysis in 7, immunohistochemical analysis in 5, microcomputed tomography analysis in 5, and qRT-PCR analyses in 8 at 2 weeks (Group-2 mice) and 4 weeks (Group-3 mice) postoperatively. Fifteen additional mice did not undergo surgery and were used for biomechanical (7 mice), qRT-PCR (3 mice), and immunohistochemical (5 mice) analyses to obtain baseline data for the native ACL. Results: Histological analysis demonstrated healing by formation of fibrovascular tissue at the tendon-bone interface. Immunohistochemical analysis showed a positive expression of proteins in the Indian hedgehog, Wnt, and parathyroid hormone-related protein (PTHrP) pathways. There was minimal Sox-9 expression. Gene-expression analysis showed an initial increase in markers of tissue repair and turnover, followed by a subsequent decline. Mean failure force and stiffness of the native ACL were 5.60 N and 3.44 N/mm, respectively. Mean failure force and stiffness were 1.29 N and 2.28 N/mm, respectively, in Group 2 and were 1.79 N and 2.59 N/mm, respectively, in Group 3, with 12 of 14 failures in these study groups occurring by tunnel pull-out. Conclusions: The spatial and temporal pattern of expression of signaling molecules that direct embryologic insertion-site formation was not adequate to restore the structure and composition of the native insertion site. Clinical Relevance: Development of a murine model to study ACL reconstruction will allow the use of transgenic animals to investigate the cellular, molecular, and biomechanical aspects of tendon-to-bone healing following ACL reconstruction, ultimately suggesting methods to improve healing in patients.

Background: Following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, the mechanical loading of the tissues has a significant impact on tendon-to-bone healing. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of the timing of the initiation of mechanical loading on healing of a tendon graft in a bone tunnel. Methods: ACL reconstruction using a flexor tendon autograft was performed in 56 mice randomized to 4 groups with differing times to initiation of postoperative mechanical loading: (1) immediate, (2) 5 days, (3) 10 days, or (4) 21 days following surgery. An external fixator was placed across the knee at the time of surgery and removed when mechanical loading was scheduled to commence. Following removal of the external fixator, animals were permitted free, unrestricted cage activity. All mice were killed on postoperative day 28, and tendon-to-bone healing was assessed by biomechanical testing, microcomputed tomography (micro-CT), and histological analysis. Results: The mean failure force (and standard deviation) of the reconstructed ACL at the time of sacrifice was highest for Group 2 (3.29 ± 0.68 N) compared with Groups 1, 3, and 4 (p = 0.008). Micro-CT bone volume fraction was greatest for Group 2 in the femoral tunnel (p = 0.001), tibial tunnel (p = 0.063), and both bones (p < 0.001). Similarly, histological analysis demonstrated a narrower scar tissue interface and increased direct contact at the tendon-bone interface (p = 0.012) for Group 2. Conclusions: Following ACL reconstruction, a defined period of immobilization without weight-bearing appears to improve biomechanical strength of the healing tendon-bone interface, while prolonged periods without mechanical load and motion decrease the ultimate load to failure in this murine model. Clinical Relevance: The ideal period of restricted weight-bearing and motion following ACL reconstruction remains undefined. In a murine model, improved healing was noted for animals immobilized for a brief period of 5 days. This work may serve as an initial step in determining the ideal time period in a clinical population.

Background: Quantitative magnetic resonance (qMR) can be used to measure macromolecules in tissues and is a potential method of observing early cartilage changes in the development of posttraumatic osteoarthritis. Hypothesis/Purpose: We hypothesized that specific patient and surgical factors affecting cartilage matrix composition after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) can be detected using T1ρ and T2 relaxation times. Our purpose was to demonstrate this ability in a multicenter feasibility study. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A total of 54 patients who underwent ACLR underwent bilateral MRI at baseline before surgery and 6 months postoperatively. Operative findings were recorded. T1ρ and T2 relaxation times were calculated for 6 cartilage regions: the medial femur, lateral femur, medial tibia, lateral tibia, patella, and trochlea. A paired t test compared relaxation times at baseline and 6 months, univariate regression identified regions that influenced patient-reported outcome measures, and analysis of covariance was used to determine the surgical factors that resulted in elevated relaxation times at 6 months. Results: The injured knee had significantly prolonged T1ρ and T2 relaxation times in the tibiofemoral compartment at baseline and 6 months but had shorter values in the patellofemoral compartment compared with the uninjured knee. Prolonged T1ρ and T2 times at 6 months were noted for both the injured and uninjured knees. At 6 months, prolongation of T1ρ and T2 times in the tibial region was associated with lower patient-reported outcome measures. ACLR performed within 30 days of injury had significantly shorter T1ρ times in the tibial regions, and lateral meniscal tears treated with repair had significantly shorter T1ρ times than those treated with excision. Conclusion: Prolonged relaxation times in multiple regions demonstrate how the injury affects the entire joint after an ACL tear. Changes observed in the uninjured knee may be caused by increased loading during rehabilitation, especially in the patellofemoral articular cartilage and distal femur. Relaxation times in the tibial regions may be predictive of patient symptoms at 6 months. These same regions are affected by surgical timing as early as 30 days after injury, but this may partially be reflective of the severity of the preoperative injury and the choice of treatment of meniscal tears.