Citations

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.

Purpose To establish international expert consensus on surgical techniques, complications, and rehabilitation protocols for lateral extra‐articular procedures (LEAPs) performed adjunctively with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Methods Fifty‐five knee surgeons from 17 countries on 5 continents completed a 3‐round modified Delphi process. In the final round, 16 statements on LEAP techniques and complications were scored on a 5‐point Likert scale; ≥75% “agree/strongly agree” constituted consensus. When appropriate, strength of recommendation was graded. Statements lacking support were revised until consensus or abandonment. Results Six statements achieved unanimous consensus (100%), 2 had strong consensus (90%‐99.9%), and 3 reached consensus (75%‐89.9%); 4 were removed. Key technical recommendations were as follows: (1) in iliotibial band procedures, the graft strip should pass beneath the lateral collateral ligament; (2) an anatomic technique is mandatory for anterolateral ligament reconstruction; and (3) no single LEAP is clinically superior to another. Unanimous agreement indicated that modern LEAPs do not increase lateral compartment osteoarthritis risk, carry a low complication rate, and do not necessitate changes to rehabilitation or return‐to‐play timelines. Conclusions Consensus defined core surgical principles and confirmed the safety of adding LEAPs to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. When an iliotibial band graft is used, it should be routed deep to the lateral collateral ligament and fixed between 0° and 60° of knee flexion under low tension. For anterolateral ligament reconstruction, femoral fixation should be in full extension at a posterior‐proximal point relative to the lateral epicondyle. Although no single LEAP proved superiority, adherence to these principles permits safe, effective surgery without altering standard rehabilitation or return‐to‐sport protocols and without increasing osteoarthritis risk. Level of Evidence Level V, expert opinion.

Purpose To define expert consensus on whether and how lateral extra‐articular procedures (LEAPs) should accompany anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction to optimize outcomes in ACL‐deficient knees. Methods Fifty‐five knee surgeons from 17 countries on 5 continents completed a 3‐round modified Delphi process. Twenty‐one statements on patient selection for combined ACL reconstruction (ACLR) + LEAPs were graded on 5‐point Likert scales; ≥75% “agree/strongly agree” signified consensus. Strength of recommendation was ranked, and statements failing the threshold were revised or discarded after discussion. Results One statement achieved unanimous agreement (100%): it is strongly recommended to add a LEAP for active patients ≤25 years receiving hamstring‐autograft ACLR to reduce graft failure. Strong consensus (≥90%) supported LEAPs in primary ACLR when grade 3 pivot shift (97.9%), knee hyperextension (97.9%), skeletally immature status (79.5%), revision ACLR (91.5%), return to pivoting sports (93.2%), active patients ≤25 years using nonhamstring grafts (90.7%), grade 3 Lachman test (90%), and when multiple relative risk factors coexist (statement 36, 97.1%). Consensus (75%‐89.9%) favored LEAPs for chronic symptomatic ACL deficiency (86.1%), posterior tibial slope >12° (85.7%), and a history of contralateral ACL injury (88.9%). Eight statements did not reach consensus regarding small‐diameter autografts, female athletes, imaging signs of anterolateral injury (e.g., Segond fracture, lateral femoral‐notch sign), and concomitant meniscal procedures. One statement on LEAPs with primary ACL repair was withdrawn because the project focused on reconstruction. Conclusions International experts strongly recommend adding a LEAP in young active patients undergoing hamstring‐autograft ACLR and in cases of high‐grade rotational or anterior laxity, knee hyperextension, revision surgery, or returning to pivoting sports. Unresolved issues include small graft size, female athletes, imaging findings of rotational instability, and concurrent meniscal procedures, highlighting priorities for future research. Level of Evidence Level V, expert opinion.

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: Understanding interactions between multiple risk factors for shoulder and elbow injuries in Major League Baseball (MLB) pitchers is important to identify potential avenues by which risk can be reduced while minimizing impact on player performance. Purpose: To apply a novel game theory–based approach to develop a machine-learning model predictive of next-season shoulder and elbow injuries in MLB pitchers and use this model to understand interdependencies and interaction effects between the most important risk factors. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Pitcher demographics, workload measures, pitch-tracking metrics, and injury data between 2017 and 2022 were used to construct a database of MLB pitcher-years, where each item in the database corresponded to a pitcher's information and metrics for that year. An extreme gradient boosting machine-learning model was trained to predict next-season shoulder and elbow injuries utilizing Shapley additive explanation values to quantify feature importance as well as interdependencies and interaction effects between predictive variables. Results: A total of 3808 pitcher-years were included in this analysis; 606 (15.9%) of these involved a shoulder or elbow injury resulting in placement on the MLB injured list. Of the >65 candidate features (including workload, demographic, and pitch-tracking metrics), the most important contributors to predicting shoulder/elbow injury were increased: pitch velocity (all pitch types), utilization of sliders (SLs), fastball (FB) spin rate, FB horizontal movement, and player age. The strongest game theory interaction effects were that higher FB velocity did not alter a younger pitcher's predicted risk of shoulder/elbow injury versus older pitchers, risk of shoulder/elbow injury increased with the number of high-velocity pitches thrown (regardless of pitch type and in an additive fashion), and FB velocity <95 mph (<152.9 kph) demonstrated strong negative interaction effects with higher SL percentage, suggesting that the overall predicted risk of injury for pitchers throwing a high number of SLs could be attenuated by lower FB velocity. Conclusion: Pitch-tracking metrics were substantially more predictive of future injury than player demographics and workload metrics. There were many significant game theory interdependencies of injury risk. Notably, the increased risk of injury that was conferred by throwing with a high velocity was even further magnified if the pitchers were also older, threw a high percentage of SLs, and/or threw a greater number of pitches.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to radiographically assess changes in 1) patellar height, 2) anterior tibial translation (ATT), and 3) posterior tibial slope following supratubercle ACW-PTO and to compare changes in patellar height to a cohort of medial opening proximal tibial osteotomies (MOW-PTO). Methods: Patients who underwent supratubercle ACW-PTO by a single surgeon from July 2019-February 2023 were included. Institutional Review Board approval was obtained for this study. Radiographic assessment at four time points (preoperative, postoperative day 1, 3 months and 6 months) of patellar height (via the Caton Dechamps and Insall Salvati ratios), posterior tibial slope, and anterior tibial translation of the lateral tibial plateau relative to the lateral femoral condyle was completed. A comparison cohort of patients undergoing MOW-PTO was included for comparison of patellar height. Results: Patellar height averages ( n=16) after ACW-PTO using the Caton-Deschamps ratio (Figure 1) demonstrated a significant increase in patellar height on postoperative day 1 ( p=0.004), but were not significantly different at 3 and 6 months postoperatively (Table 2). Conversely, averages of patellar height after MOW-PTO ( n=28) demonstrated no difference on postoperative day 1, but then was significantly decreased by 6 months postoperatively ( p=0.005) (Table 1). There was a significant difference between the closing and opening-wedge cohorts when comparing the difference in patellar height using the CD ratio between preoperative and 6 months ( p=0.011). Anterior tibial translation in the ACW-PTO cohort was significantly decreased by an average of 9.0 mm from preoperative to postoperative values ( p<<0.001) (Figure 2). Posterior tibial slope in the ACW-PTO cohort was significantly decreased by an average of 11.8° from preoperative to postoperative values ( p<<0.001). Conclusions: Supratubercle ACW-PTO performed for ACL failure in the setting of increased tibial slope did not induce significant changes in patellar height postoperatively. Furthermore, following ACW-PTO there was a significant decrease in anterior tibial translation and posterior tibial slope.

Background: Nonoperative management versus early reconstruction for partial tears of the medial ulnar collateral ligament (MUCL) remains controversial, with the most common treatment options for partial tears consisting of rest, rehabilitation, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and/or surgical intervention. However, whether the improved outcomes reported for treatments such as MUCL reconstruction (UCLR) or nonoperative management with a series of PRP injections justifies their increased upfront costs remains unknown. Purpose: To compare the cost-effectiveness of an initial trial of physical therapy alone, an initial trial of physical therapy plus a series of PRP injections, and early UCLR to determine the preferred cost-effective treatment strategy for young, high-level baseball pitchers with partial tears of the MUCL and with aspirations to continue play at the next level (ie, collegiate and/or professional). Study Design: Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A Markov chain Monte Carlo probabilistic model was developed to evaluate the outcomes and costs of 1000 young, high-level, simulated pitchers undergoing nonoperative management with and without PRP versus early UCLR for partial MUCL tears. Utility values, return to play rates, and transition probabilities were derived from the published literature. Costs were determined based on the typical patient undergoing each treatment strategy at the authors’ institution. Outcome measures included costs, acquired playing years (PYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: The mean total costs resulting from nonoperative management without PRP, nonoperative management with PRP, and early UCLR were $22,520, $24,800, and $43,992, respectively. On average, early UCLR produced an additional 4.0 PYs over the 10-year time horizon relative to nonoperative management, resulting in an ICER of $5395/PY, which falls well below the $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Overall, early UCLR was determined to be the preferred cost-effective strategy in 77.5% of pitchers included in the microsimulation model, with nonoperative management with PRP determined to be the preferred strategy in 15% of pitchers and nonoperative management alone in 7.5% of pitchers. Conclusion: Despite increased upfront costs, UCLR is a more cost-effective treatment option for partial tears of the MUCL than an initial trial of nonoperative management for most high-level baseball pitchers.

Purpose To develop a machine learning model capable of identifying subscapularis tears before surgery based on imaging and physical examination findings. Methods Between 2010 and 2020, 202 consecutive shoulders underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair by a single surgeon. Patient demographics, physical examination findings (including range of motion, weakness with internal rotation, lift/push‐off test, belly press test, and bear hug test), and imaging (including direct and indirect signs of tearing, biceps status, fatty atrophy, cystic changes, and other similar findings) were included for model creation. Results Sixty percent of the shoulders had partial or full thickness tears of the subscapularis verified during surgery (83% of these were upper third). Using only preoperative imaging‐related parameters, the XGBoost model demonstrated excellent performance at predicting subscapularis tears (c‐statistic, 0.84; accuracy, 0.85; F1 score, 0.87). The top 5 features included direct signs related to the presence of tearing as evidenced on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (changes in tendon morphology and signal), as well as the quality of the MRI and biceps pathology. Conclusions In this study, machine learning was successful in predicting subscapularis tears by MRI alone in 85% of patients, and this accuracy did not decrease by isolating the model to the top features. The top five features included direct signs related to the presence of tearing as evidenced on MRI (changes in tendon morphology and signal), as well as the quality of the MRI and biceps pathology. Last, in advanced modeling, the addition of physical examination or patient characteristics did not make a significant difference in the predictive ability of this model. Level of Evidence Level III, diagnostic case‐control study.

AbstractPurposeExternal validation of machine learning predictive models is achieved through evaluation of model performance on different groups of patients than were used for algorithm development. This important step is uncommonly performed, inhibiting clinical translation of newly developed models. Machine learning analysis of the Norwegian Knee Ligament Register (NKLR) recently led to the development of a tool capable of estimating the risk of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision (https://swastvedt.shinyapps.io/calculator_rev/). The purpose of this study was to determine the external validity of the NKLR model by assessing algorithm performance when applied to patients from the Danish Knee Ligament Registry (DKLR).MethodsThe primary outcome measure of the NKLR model was probability of revision ACL reconstruction within 1, 2, and/or 5 years. For external validation, all DKLR patients with complete data for the five variables required for NKLR prediction were included. The five variables included graft choice, femur fixation device, KOOS QOL score at surgery, years from injury to surgery, and age at surgery. Predicted revision probabilities were calculated for all DKLR patients. The model performance was assessed using the same metrics as the NKLR study: concordance and calibration.ResultsIn total, 10,922 DKLR patients were included for analysis. Average follow‐up time or time‐to‐revision was 8.4 (± 4.3) years and overall revision rate was 6.9%. Surgical technique trends (i.e., graft choice and fixation devices) and injury characteristics (i.e., concomitant meniscus and cartilage pathology) were dissimilar between registries. The model produced similar concordance when applied to the DKLR population compared to the original NKLR test data (DKLR: 0.68; NKLR: 0.68–0.69). Calibration was poorer for the DKLR population at one and five years post primary surgery but similar to the NKLR at two years.ConclusionThe NKLR machine learning algorithm demonstrated similar performance when applied to patients from the DKLR, suggesting that it is valid for application outside of the initial patient population. This represents the first machine learning model for predicting revision ACL reconstruction that has been externally validated. Clinicians can use this in‐clinic calculator to estimate revision risk at a patient specific level when discussing outcome expectations pre‐operatively. While encouraging, it should be noted that the performance of the model on patients undergoing ACL reconstruction outside of Scandinavia remains unknown.Level of evidenceIII.