HYPOTHESIS: Medial MAT would improve anteroposterior stability, and lateral MAT would improve rotational stability.
STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.
METHOD: We retrospectively investigated 31 cases of MAT after a previous total or nearly total meniscectomy and ACL reconstruction between November 2008 and June 2017. Cases were divided into medial (16 cases) and lateral (15 cases) MAT groups. The patients were assessed preoperatively and at the 2-year follow-up.
RESULTS: In the medial MAT group, the International Knee Documentation Committee, Lysholm, Lysholm instability, and Tegner scores improved significantly at the 2-year follow-up, and there were also significant improvements in the anterior drawer, Lachman, and pivot-shift tests. In the lateral MAT group, the Lysholm and Tegner scores improved significantly at the 2-year follow-up, as had the anterior drawer and Lachman tests but not the pivot-shift test. The medial MAT group showed significant improvement in side-to-side difference on Telos stress radiographs, from 6.5 mm (preoperatively) to 3.6 mm (2-year follow-up) (P = .001), while the lateral MAT group showed no significant change. There was no progression of arthritis in either group.
CONCLUSION: Medial MAT improved not only anteroposterior stability but also rotational stability in the meniscus-deficient ACL-reconstructed knee. Lateral MAT showed improvements in the anterior drawer and Lachman tests but not in the pivot-shift test or side-to-side difference on Telos stress radiographs in meniscus-deficient ACL-reconstructed knees. Instability and pain are indications for MAT in meniscus-deficient ACL-reconstructed knees.
PURPOSE: (1) To present the evidence of platelet-rich plasma injection in the treatment of hamstring injuries, (2) evaluate the "best-case scenario" in dichotomous outcomes, and (3) evaluate the "worst-case scenario" in dichotomous outcomes.
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: Two authors systematically reviewed the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, with any discrepancies resolved by mutual consensus. The level of evidence was assessed per the criteria of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine and the quality of evidence by the Coleman Methodology Score. Meta-analysis by fixed effects models was used if heterogeneity was low (I2 < 25%) and random effects models if heterogeneity was moderate to high (I2≥ 25%). P values