METHODS: One hundred fifty-three orthopaedic residents were recruited and randomly assigned to either the LAC or CAC. They were allocated 2 practice sessions, with 20 minutes each, to practice 4 given arthroscopic tasks: task 1, transferring objects; task 2, stacking objects; task 3, probing numbers; and task 4, stretching rubber bands. The time taken for participants to complete the given tasks was recorded in 3 separate tests; before practice, immediately after practice, and after a period of 3 months. A comparison of the time taken between both groups to complete the given tasks in each test was measured as the primary outcome.
RESULTS: Significant improvements in time completion were seen in the post-practice test for both groups in all given arthroscopic tasks, each with P < .001. However, there was no significant difference between the groups for task 1 (P = .743), task 2 (P = .940), task 3 (P = .932), task 4 (P = .929), and total (P = .944). The outcomes of the tests (before practice, after practice, and at 3 months) according to repeated measures analysis of variance did not differ significantly between the groups in task 1 (P = .475), task 2 (P = .558), task 3 (P = .850), task 4 (P = .965), and total (P = .865).
CONCLUSIONS: The LAC is equally as effective as the CAC in basic arthroscopic skills training with the advantage of being cost-effective.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In view of the scarcity in commercial arthroscopic devices for trainees, this low-cost device, which trainees can personally own and use, may provide a less expensive and easily available way for trainees to improve their arthroscopic skills. This might also cultivate more interest in arthroscopic surgery among junior surgeons.
METHODS: This is a dual-center randomized controlled trial (RCT). Sixty-nine patients aged 18 to 55 years with International Cartilage Repair Society grade 3 and 4 chondral lesions (size ≥3 cm2) of the knee joint were randomized equally into (1) a control group receiving intra-articular injections of HA plus physiotherapy and (2) an intervention group receiving arthroscopic subchondral drilling into chondral defects and postoperative intra-articular injections of PBSCs plus HA. The coprimary efficacy endpoints were subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)-pain subdomain measured at month 24. The secondary efficacy endpoints included all other KOOS subdomains, Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), and Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue (MOCART) scores.
RESULTS: At 24 months, the mean IKDC scores for the control and intervention groups were 48.1 and 65.6, respectively (P < .0001). The mean for KOOS-pain subdomain scores were 59.0 (control) and 86.0 (intervention) with P < .0001. All other KOOS subdomain, NRS, and MOCART scores were statistically significant (P < .0001) at month 24. Moreover, for the intervention group, 70.8% of patients had IKDC and KOOS-pain subdomain scores exceeding the minimal clinically important difference values, indicating clinical significance. There were no notable adverse events that were unexpected and related to the study drug or procedures.
CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic marrow stimulation with subchondral drilling into massive chondral defects of the knee joint followed by postoperative intra-articular injections of autologous PBSCs plus HA is safe and showed a significant improvement of clinical and radiologic scores compared with HA plus physiotherapy.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, RCT.
METHODS: Search was performed using a MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database, and each of the selected studies was evaluated for methodological quality using a risk of bias (ROB) covering 7 criteria. Clinical and radiological outcomes with more than 5 years of follow-up were evaluated after surgical treatment of DLM. They were analyzed according to the age, follow-up period, kind of surgery, DLM type, and alignment.
RESULTS: Eleven articles (422 DLM cases) were included in the final analysis. Among 7 criteria, 3 criteria showed little ROB in all studies. However, 4 criteria showed some ROB ("Yes" in 63.6% to 81.8%). The minimal follow-up period was 5.5 years (weighted mean follow-up: 9.1 years). Surgical procedures were performed with open or arthroscopic partial central meniscectomy, subtotal meniscectomy, total meniscectomy, or partial meniscectomy with repair. The majority of the studies showed good clinical results. Mild joint space narrowing was reported in the lateral compartment, but none of the knees demonstrated moderate or advanced degenerative changes. Increased age at surgery, longer follow-up period, and subtotal or total meniscectomy could be related to degenerative change. The majority of the complications was osteochondritis dissecans at the lateral femoral condyle (13 cases) and reoperation was performed by osteochondritis dissecans (4 cases), recurrent swelling (2 cases), residual symptom (1 case), stiffness (1 case), and popliteal stenosis (1 case).
CONCLUSIONS: Good clinical results were obtained with surgical treatment of symptomatic DLM. The progression of degenerative change was minimal and none of the knees demonstrated moderate or advanced degenerative changes. Increased age at surgery, longer follow-up period, and subtotal or total meniscectomy were possible risk factors for degenerative changes.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies.
METHODS: Embase, Embase Classic, and MEDLINE were searched on August 7, 2015, December 23, 2016, and March 11, 2018, for factors associated with PROMs and failure rates after arthroscopic meniscal repair. We excluded studies that (1) were non-English language, (2) did not use human patients, (3) were nonclinical, (4) did not analyze for factors that predicted PROMs or failure rates, and (5) were below Level IV evidence. Studies were graded into higher and lower quality using the Downs and Black scale.
RESULTS: A total of 34 articles met our criteria, and 32 were graded. We identified 16 articles as higher quality. Among higher-quality studies, factors that significantly predicted reduced failure rates were concurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) (n = 6) and reduced tear complexity (n = 4). Factors that did not significantly impact failure rates were side of repair (n = 8), sex (n = 7), time from injury to surgery (n = 7), age (n = 7), rim width (n = 6), and tear length (n = 5). Factors predicting better PROMs were time from injury to surgery of less than 3 months (n = 1), Outerbridge scores below grade 3 or 4 (n = 2), and reduced varus alignment (n = 2). Factors that did not significantly impact PROMs were equipment used (n = 3) and concurrent ACLR (n = 1).
CONCLUSIONS: Factors affecting failure rates and PROMs after arthroscopic meniscal repair were identified. However, more and higher-quality studies supported concurrent ACLR and less complex tears as predictors of lower failure rates. PROMs were negatively affected by a longer time from injury to surgery, higher Outerbridge scores, and greater varus alignment before surgery.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II to IV studies.
METHODS: Ten healthy subjects (aged 19-44 years) received 3 consecutive daily doses of filgrastim followed by an apheresis harvest of mononuclear cells on a fourth day. In a clean room, the apheresis product was prepared for cryopreservation and processed into 4 mL aliquots. Sterility and qualification testing were performed pre-processing and post-processing at multiple time points out to 2 years. Eight samples were shipped internationally to validate cell transport potential. One sample from all participants was cultured to test proliferative potential with colony forming unit (CFU) assay. Five samples, from 5 participants were tested for differentiation potential, including chondrogenic, adipogenic, osteogenic, endoderm, and ectoderm assays.
RESULTS: Fresh aliquots contained an average of 532.9 ± 166. × 106 total viable cells/4 mL vial and 2.1 ± 1.0 × 106 CD34+ cells/4 mL vial. After processing for cryopreservation, the average cell count decreased to 331.3 ± 79. × 106 total viable cells /4 mL vial and 1.5 ± 0.7 × 106 CD34+ cells/4 mL vial CD34+ cells. Preprocessing viability averaged 99% and postprocessing 88%. Viability remained constant after cryopreservation at all subsequent time points. All sterility testing was negative. All samples showed proliferative potential, with average CFU count 301.4 ± 63.9. All samples were pluripotent.
CONCLUSIONS: Peripheral blood stem cells are pluripotent and can be safely harvested/stored with filgrastim, apheresis, clean-room processing, and cryopreservation. These cells can be stored for 2 years and shipped without loss of viability.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This method represents an accessible stem cell therapy in development to augment cartilage repair.
METHODS: The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database were systematically searched. The inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) English articles, (2) noncomparative study or relevant study reporting clinical and/or stability results, and (3) timing of the ACL reconstruction as a primary objective. Study type, level of evidence, randomization method, exclusion criteria, number of cases, age, sex, timing of ACL reconstruction, follow-up, clinical outcomes, stability outcomes, and other relevant findings were recorded. Statistical analysis of the Lysholm scores and KT-1000 arthrometer measurements after early and delayed ACL reconstruction was performed using R version 3.3.1.
RESULTS: Seven articles were included in the final analysis. There were 6 randomized controlled trials and 1 Level II study. Pooled analysis was performed using only Level I studies. All studies assessed the timing of ACL reconstruction as a primary objective. The definition of early ranged broadly from 9 days to 5 months and delayed ranged from 10 weeks to >24 months, and there was an overlap of the time intervals between some studies. The standard timing of the delayed reconstruction was around 10 weeks from injury in the pooled analysis. After pooling of data, clinical result was not statistically different between groups (I2: 47%, moderate level of heterogeneity). No statistically significant difference was observed in the KT-1000 arthrometer measurements between groups (I2: 76.2%, high level of heterogeneity) either.
CONCLUSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis performed using currently available high-quality literature provides relatively strong evidence that early ACL reconstruction results in good clinical and stability outcomes. Early ACL reconstruction results in comparable clinical and stability outcomes compared with delayed ACL reconstruction.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, a systematic review and meta-analysis of Level I and II studies.
Please provide feedback to Administrator (firstname.lastname@example.org)