Lack of Consensus on the Management of Medial Collateral Ligament Tears in the Setting of Concomitant Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: A Critical Analysis.

¼ There is no clear agreement on the optimal timing or superior type of fixation for medial collateral ligament (MCL) tears in the setting of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury.¼ Anatomic healing of medial knee structures is critical to maintain native knee kinematics, supported by biomechanical studies that demonstrate increased graft laxity and residual valgus rotational instability after ACL reconstruction (ACLR) alone in the setting of concomitant ACL/MCL injury.¼ Historically, most surgeons have favored treating acute combined ACL/MCL tears conservatively with MCL rehabilitation, followed by stress radiographs at 6 weeks after injury to assess for persistent valgus laxity before performing delayed ACLR to allow for full knee range of motion, and reduce the risk of postoperative stiffness and arthrofibrosis.¼ However, with the advancement of early mobilization and aggressive physical therapy protocols, acute surgical management of MCL tears in the setting of ACL injury can have benefits of avoiding residual laxity and further intra-articular damage, as well as earlier return to sport.¼ Residual valgus laxity from incomplete MCL healing at the time of ACLR should be addressed surgically, as this can lead to an increased risk of ACLR graft failure.¼ The treatment of combined ACL/MCL injuries requires an individualized approach, including athlete-specific factors such as level and position of play, timing of injury related to in-season play, contact vs. noncontact sport, and anticipated longevity, as well as consideration of the tear pattern, acuity of injury, tissue quality, and surgeon familiarity with the available techniques.

Risk Factors for Recurrence Following Arthroscopic Bankart Repair - A Systematic.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent instability remains a major source of morbidity following arthroscopic Bankart repair. Many risk factors and predictive tools have been described, but there remains a lack of consensus surrounding individual risk factors and their contribution to outcomes. PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature to identify and quantify risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair. METHODS: A literature search was performed using the PubMed/Medline databases based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were included if they evaluated risk factors for recurrent instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair. RESULTS: Overall, 111 studies were included in the analysis, including a total of 19,307 patients and 2,750 episodes of recurrent instability with 45 risk factors described. Age at operation was reported by 60 studies, with 35 finding increased risk at younger ages. Meta-analysis showed a two-fold recurrence rate of 27.0% (171/634) for patients under 20 years old compared to 13.3% (197/1485) for older patients (p<0.001). Seventeen studies completed multivariable analysis, 13 of which were significant (Odds Ratio 1.3-14.0). Glenoid bone loss was evaluated by 39 studies, with 20 finding an increased risk. Multivariable analysis in 9 studies found OR ranging from 0.7-35.1; 6 were significant. Off-track Hill-Sachs lesions were evaluated in 21 studies (13 significant), with 3 of 4 studies that conducted multivariable analysis finding a significant association with odds ratio of 2.9-8.9 of recurrence. The number of anchors used in repair was reported by 25 studies, with 4 finding increased risk with fewer anchors. Pooled analysis demonstrated a 25.0% (29/156) risk of recurrence with 2 anchors compared to 18.1% (89/491) with 3 or more anchors (p=0.06). Other frequently described risk factors included glenohumeral joint hyperlaxity (46% of studies reporting a significant association), number of preoperative dislocations (31%), contact sport participation (20%), competitive sport participation (46%), patient sex (7%), and concomitant SLAP tear (0%). CONCLUSION: Younger age, glenoid bone loss, and off-track Hill-Sachs lesions, are established risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair. Other commonly reported risk factors included contact and competitive sports participation, number of fixation devices, and patient sex.

Outcomes of Arthroscopic Stabilization for Posterior Shoulder Instability - A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Posterior shoulder instability makes up approximately 10% of all shoulder instability cases and its diagnosis and treatment is less well understood. Recently, however, there has been increased recognition of posterior instability and posterior stabilization. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature to ascertain the outcomes on arthroscopic stabilization of posterior shoulder instability. METHODS: Two independent reviewers conducted a systematic literature search based on PRISMA guidelines, utilizing the MEDLINE database. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported postoperative outcomes for posterior shoulder instability following arthroscopic stabilization. RESULTS: A total of 48 studies met inclusion criteria for review including 2307 shoulders. Majority of patients were male (83.3%), with an average age of 26.1 years and a mean follow-up of 46.8 months. The functional outcome score primarily utilized for postoperative assessment was ASES with an average of 84.77. Overall, 90.9% of patients reported being satisfied with their arthroscopic stabilization. Recurrent instability occurred in 7.4% of patients. The total revision rate was 5.2%. 16.6% of patients reported residual pain postoperatively. The rate of return to play was 86.4% with 68.0% of patients returning to play at the same or higher level of play. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic stabilization of posterior shoulder instability resulted in good outcomes with high patient satisfaction and low rates of recurrent instability, revisions, and residual pain.

Posterior Shoulder Instability, Part I-Diagnosis, Nonoperative Management, and Labral Repair for Posterior Shoulder Instability-An International Expert Delphi Consensus Statement.

PURPOSE: To establish consensus statements on the diagnosis, nonoperative management, and labral repair for posterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment of posterior shoulder instability was conducted, with 71 shoulder/sports surgeons from 12 countries participating on the basis of their level of expertise in the field. Experts were assigned to 1 of 6 working groups defined by specific subtopics within posterior shoulder instability. Consensus was defined as achieving 80% to 89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90% to 99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. RESULTS: Unanimous agreement was reached on the indications for nonoperative management and labral repair, which include whether patients had primary or recurrent instability, with symptoms/functional limitations, and whether there was other underlying pathology, or patient's preference to avoid or delay surgery. In addition, there was unanimous agreement that recurrence rates can be diminished by attention to detail, appropriate indication and assessment of risk factors, recognition of abnormalities in glenohumeral morphology, careful capsulolabral debridement and reattachment, small anchors with inferior placement and multiple fixation points that create a bumper with the labrum, treatment of concomitant pathologies, and a well-defined rehabilitation protocol with strict postoperative immobilization. CONCLUSIONS: The study group achieved strong or unanimous consensus on 63% of statements related to the diagnosis, nonoperative treatment, and labrum repair for posterior shoulder instability. The statements that achieved unanimous consensus were the relative indications for nonoperative management, and the relative indications for labral repair, as well as the steps to minimize complications for labral repair. There was no consensus on whether an arthrogram is needed when performing advanced imaging, the role of corticosteroids/orthobiologics in nonoperative management, whether a posteroinferior portal is required. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, expert opinion.

Clinical Outcomes in Prospective versus Retrospective Studies on Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The majority of the current literature on arthroscopic Bankart repair is retrospective and discrepancies exist regarding clinical outcomes including recurrent instability and return to play amongst studies of different levels of evidence. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic review of the literature to compare the outcomes of prospective and retrospective studies on arthroscopic Bankart repair. METHODS: A search was performed using the PubMed/Medline database for all studies that reported clinical outcomes on Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability. The search term "Bankart repair" with all results being analyzed via strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Three independent investigators extracted data and scored each included study based on the 10 criteria of the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (CMS) out of 100. A chi-square test was performed to assess if recurrent instability, revision, return to play, and complications are independent of prospective and retrospective studies. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-three studies were included in the analysis with 53 prospective studies and 140 retrospective in design. Encompassing a total of 13,979 patients and 14,019 surgical procedures for Bankart repair for shoulder instability. The rate of re-dislocation in the prospective studies was 8.0% vs. 5.9% in retrospective (p < 0.001). The rate of recurrent subluxation in the prospective studies was 3.4% vs. 2.4% in retrospective (p = 0.004). The rate of revision was higher in retrospective studies at 4.9% vs. 3.9% in prospective studies (p = 0.013) There was no significant difference in terms of overall rate to return to play in prospective and retrospective studies was 90% and 91%, respectively (p=0.548). The overall rate of complications in the prospective cohort was 0.27% and 0.78% in the retrospective studies (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The overall rates of recurrent dislocations, subluxations are higher in prospective studies compared to retrospective studies. However, rates of revision were reportedly higher in retrospective studies. Complications after arthroscopic Bankart repair are rare in both prospective and retrospective studies, and there was no difference in rates of return to play.

Editorial Commentary: Latarjet for Anterior Shoulder Instability Literature Shows Limited Reporting of Outcomes in Female Patients: Female Patients Show Similar Outcomes but Greater Rate of Emergency Department Visits and Possible Greater of Complications.

It has been reported that use of the Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability increased 250% from 2008 to 2019. With this increase in use, it is imperative to minimize complications. At present, most literature focuses on male patients, with scant evidence regarding female patients. Outcomes are similar when female with male patients are compared, but female patients have greater postoperative visits to the emergency department than male patients, which requires specific attention during the postoperative period. In addition, the literature reporting complications in female versus male patients after Latarjet is conflicting; some studies show similar rates of complications, whereas other studies show greater rates of adverse events in female patients. Previous consensus statements recommended (1) careful dissection; (2) identification of the musculocutaneous and axillary nerves; (3) prevention of overlateralization of the graft; (4) the use of tranexamic acid to reduce blood loss; (5) accurate screw placement; and (6) careful preparation of the glenoid neck and coracoid to reduce rates of nonunion or delayed union.

Posterior Shoulder Instability Part II - Glenoid Bone-Grafting, Glenoid Osteotomy, and Rehabilitation/Return to Play - An International Expert Delphi Consensus Statement.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements on glenoid bone-grafting, glenoid osteotomy, rehabilitation, return to play, and follow-up for posterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment of posterior shoulder instability was conducted, with 71 shoulder/sports surgeons from 12 countries participating based on their level of expertise in the field. Experts were assigned to one of 6 working groups defined by specific subtopics within posterior shoulder instability. Consensus was defined as achieving 80-89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90-99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. RESULTS: All of the statements relating to rehabilitation, return to play, and follow-up achieved consensus. There was unanimous consensus that the following criteria should be considered: restoration of strength, range of motion, proprioception, and sport-specific skills, with a lack of symptoms. There is no minimum time point required to return to play. Collision athletes and military athletes may take longer to return because of their higher risk for recurrent instability, and more caution should be exercised in clearing them to return to play, with elite athletes potentially having different considerations in returning to play. The relative indications for revision surgery are symptomatic apprehension, multiple recurrent instability episodes, further intra-articular pathologies, hardware failure, and pain. CONCLUSION: The study group achieved strong or unanimous consensus on 59% of statements. Unanimous consensus was reached regarding the criteria for return to play, collision/elite athletes having different considerations in return to play, indications for revision surgery, and imaging only required as routine for those with glenoid bone-grafting/osteotomies at subsequent follow-ups. There was no consensus on optimal fixation method for a glenoid bone-block, the relative indications for glenoid osteotomy, whether fluoroscopy is required or if the labrum should be concomitantly repaired. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V Expert Opinion.

Return to Duty in Military Servicemembers After High Tibial Osteotomy Not Associated With Preoperative Radiographic Parameters : A Retrospective Analysis.

Background: Evidence on return to sports/work after high tibial osteotomy (HTO) is limited, especially in a young, high-demand population. Purpose: To (1) identify whether preoperative knee pathology or intraoperative correction was associated with successful return to duty (RTD) and (2) assess whether postoperative complications and reoperation were associated with failure to RTD. Study Design: Case series; Level of Evidence, 4. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of a consecutive series of patients in the Military Health System aged 18 to 55 years with medial compartment osteoarthritis who underwent HTO between 2003 and 2018. Concomitant meniscal and cartilage procedures were included, while cases with concomitant ligamentous procedures were excluded. The inclusion criteria were as follows: active-duty military status, minimum 2-year follow-up, preoperative knee radiographs, and pre- and postoperative long-leg alignment radiographs. Preoperative Kellgren-Lawrence grades and pre- and postoperative hip-knee-ankle angles were measured. The primary outcome was RTD. Failure was defined as knee-related medical separation from the military or conversion to total knee arthroplasty. The secondary outcome was reoperation. Results: A total of 55 HTOs were performed in 50 patients who met the inclusion criteria, with a mean age of 39 years old (range, 22.8-55 years). The mean follow-up was 5 years (range, 2.1-10.7 years). Ten knees (18.2%) failed HTO (1 conversion to total knee arthroplasty, 9 medical separations), 15 additional knees (27.3%) had permanent activity restrictions, and 30 knees (54.5%) returned to duty without restrictions. Reoperation occurred in 36.4% of knees and was associated with medical separation (P = .039). Younger age was associated with medical separation (P = .003) and permanent restrictions (P = .006). Patients with a postoperative varus deformity of >5° were more likely to undergo medical separation (P = .023). Conclusion: In a young, high-demand population, HTO succeeded in returning 54.5% of knees to full duty without restriction despite 36.4% of knees requiring reoperation. Residual varus deformity or reoperation was associated with lower RTD rates. No association was identified between RTD and preoperative osteoarthritis grading or deformity.

Minimal Important Clinical Difference Values Are Not Uniformly Valid in the Active Duty Military Population Recovering from Shoulder Surgery.

BACKGROUND: There are multiple methods for calculating the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold, and previous reports highlight heterogeneity and limitations of anchor-based and distribution-based analyses. The Warfighter Readiness Survey assesses the perception of a military population's fitness to deploy and may be used as a functional index in anchor-based MCID calculations. The purpose of the current study in a physically demanding population undergoing shoulder surgery was to compare the yields of two different anchor-based methods of calculating MCID for a battery of PROMs, a standard receiver operator curve (ROC) -based MCIDs and baseline-adjusted ROC MCIDs. METHODS: All service members enrolled prospectively in a multicenter database with prior shoulder surgery that completed pre- and postoperative PROMs at a minimum of 12 months were included. The PROMs battery included Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES), Patient Reported Outcome Management Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF), PROMIS Pain Interference (PI), and the Warfighter Readiness survey. Standard anchor-based and baseline-adjusted ROC MCIDs were employed to determine if the calculated MCIDs were both statistically and theoretically valid (95% confidence interval either completely negative or positive). RESULTS: There were 117 patients (136 operations) identified, comprised of 83% males with a mean age of 35.7 ± 10.4 years and 47% arthroscopic labral repair/capsulorrhaphy. Using the standard, anchor-based ROC MCID calculation, the area under the curve (AUC) for SANE, ASES, PROMIS PF, and PROMIS PI were greater than 0.5 (statistically valid). For ASES, PROMIS PF, and PROMIS PI, the calculated MCID 95% CI all crossed 0 (theoretically invalid). Using the baseline-adjusted ROC MCID calculation, the MCID estimates for SANE, ASES, and PROMIS PI were both statistically and theoretically valid if the baseline score was less than 70.5, 69, and 65.7. CONCLUSION: When MCIDs were calculated and anchored to the results of standard, anchor-based MCID, a standard ROC analysis did not yield statistically or theoretically valid results across a battery of PROMs commonly used to assess outcomes after shoulder surgery in the active duty military population. Conversely, a baseline-adjusted ROC method was more effective at discerning changes across a battery of PROMs among the same cohort.

Glenohumeral morphological predictors of recurrent shoulder instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate glenohumeral morphological features on a magnetic resonance arthrogram (MRA) to determine risk factors for recurrence of anterior shoulder instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR). METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent ABR between 2012 and 2017 was performed to identify patients who had recurrence of instability following stabilisation (Group 1). These were pair-matched in a 2:1 ratio for age, gender and sport with a control (Group 2) who underwent ABR without recurrence. Preoperative MRAs were evaluated for risk factors for recurrence, with glenoid bone loss and Hill-Sachs lesions also measured. Multilinear and multilogistic regression models were used to evaluate factors affecting recurrence. RESULTS: Overall, 72 patients were included in this study, including 48 patients without recurrence and 24 patients with recurrent instability. There was a significant difference between the two groups in mean glenoid bone loss (Group 1: 7.3% vs. Group 2: 5.7%, p < 0.0001) and the rate of off-track Hill-Sachs lesions (Group 1: 20.8% vs. Group 2: 0%, p = 0.0003). Of the variables analysed in logistic regression, increased glenoid anteversion (p = 0.02), acromioclavicular (AC) degeneration (p = 0.03) and increased Hill-Sachs width were associated with increased risk of failure. Increased chondral version (p = 0.01) and humeral head diameter in the anteriorposterior view were found to be protective and associated with a greater likelihood of success. CONCLUSION: Glenoid anteversion was a risk factor for recurrent instability, whereas increased chondral version and humeral head diameter were associated with higher rates of success following ABR. Glenoid bone loss, presence of an off-track Hill-Sachs lesion, increased Hill-Sachs width and AC degeneration were also associated with failure. These findings should be used by surgeons to stratify risk for recurrence following ABR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Editorial Commentary: At Present, ChatGPT Cannot Be Relied Upon to Answer Patient Questions and Requires Physician Expertise to Interpret Answers for Patients.

ChatGPT is designed to provide accurate and reliable information to the best of its abilities based on the data input and knowledge available. Thus, ChatGPT is being studied as a patient information tool. This artificial intelligence (AI) tool has been shown to frequently provide technically correct information but with limitations. ChatGPT provides different answers to similar questions based on the prompts, and patients may not have expertise in prompting ChatGPT to elicit a best answer. (Prompting large language models has been shown to be a skill that can improve.) Of greater concern, ChatGPT fails to provide sources or references for its answers. At present, ChatGPT cannot be relied upon to address patient questions; in the future, ChatGPT will improve. Today, AI requires physician expertise to interpret AI answers for patients.

Type V superior labrum anterior to posterior repair: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to systematically review the evidence in the literature to ascertain the functional outcomes, recurrence rates, and subsequent revision rates following type V superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) repair. METHODS: Two independent reviewers performed a literature search based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, utilizing the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library Databases. Studies were included if they had clinical outcomes on the patients undergoing type V SLAP repair. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). A P value of <.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: Our review found 13 studies, including 451 shoulders meeting our inclusion criteria. The majority of patients were males (89.3%), with an average age of 25.9 years (range 15-58) and a mean follow-up of 53.8 months. The Rowe score was the most utilized functional outcome score, with a weighted mean of 88.5. Additionally, the mean Constant score was 91.0, the mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 88.3, the mean subjective shoulder value score was 85.5%, and the mean visual analog scale pain score was 1.2. The overall rate of return to play was 84.8%, with 80.2% returning to the same level of play. The overall reoperation rate was 6.1%, with a recurrent dislocation rate of 8.2%. In the studies comparing type V SLAP and isolated Bankart repair, there were statistically insignificant differences in visual analog scale pain scores (mean difference; 0.15, 95% confidence interval, -0.13 to 0.44, I2 = 0%, P = .29) and recurrence rates (risk ratio; 1.38, 95% confidence interval, 0.88-2.15, I2 = 0%, P = .16). CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic repair of type V SLAP tears results in excellent functional outcomes, with high return to play rates in athletes. There are low rates of reoperations and recurrent dislocations. Additionally, in comparison to an isolated Bankart repair, SLAP repair does not increase recurrence rates or postoperative pain.

Bone Marrow Stimulation for Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Bone marrow stimulation (BMS) has been proposed to augment healing at the time of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) by creating several bone marrow vents in the footprint of the rotator cuff, allowing mesenchymal stem cells, platelets, and growth factors to cover the area as a "crimson duvet." PURPOSE: To perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the outcomes after BMS and a control for those undergoing ARCR. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: A literature search of 3 databases was performed based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. RCTs comparing BMS and a control for ARCR were included. Clinical outcomes were compared, and a P value <.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 7 RCTs with 576 patients were included. Overall, 18.8% of patients treated with BMS and 21.0% of patients treated with a control had a retear (I2 = 43%; P = .61). With BMS, the mean Constant score was 88.2, and with the control, the mean Constant score was 86.7 (P = .12). Additionally, there was no significant difference in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (94.3 vs 93.2, respectively; P = .31) or visual analog scale score (0.9 vs 0.9, respectively; P = .89). CONCLUSION: The level 1 evidence in the literature did not support BMS as a modality to improve retear rates or clinical outcomes after ARCR.

Acute Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Performed Within 10 Days of Injury Does Not Increase Risk of Postoperative Arthrofibrosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) remains a controversial topic. Previous reviews have demonstrated that there are no differences between early and delayed ACLR; however, these studies have been limited by heterogeneous definitions of acute ACL injury. PURPOSE: To evaluate postoperative patient functional outcomes and risk for arthrofibrosis after acute arthroscopic ACLR performed ≤10 days after injury. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using multiple medical databases. Inclusion criteria were studies that evaluated postoperative range of motion outcomes for patients undergoing ACLR ≤10 days after initial ACL injury. For included comparative studies comparing patient groups undergoing ACLR ≤10 days and patients undergoing "delayed" ACLR after ≥3 weeks of initial injury, quantitative analysis was performed to assess for differences in postoperative arthrofibrosis, reoperation rates, and patient-reported outcomes between groups. DerSimonian-Laird binary random-effects models were constructed to quantitatively describe the association between the ACLR time period and patient outcomes by generating effect estimates in the form of odds ratios with 95% CIs. Qualitative analysis was performed to describe variably reported patient outcomes and the risk of arthrofibrosis after ACLR for noncomparative studies. RESULTS: Screening yielded 6 full-text articles with 448 patients who underwent ACLR (296 ACLR <10 days, 152 ACLR >3 weeks), with a pooled mean age of 28.1 years. For studies amenable to quantitative analysis, there were no significant differences between ACLR performed ≤10 days and ACLR performed at the 3-week point or after in terms of postoperative stiffness (3 studies; odds ratio, 1.27; P = .508), Tegner scores (2 studies; mean difference, -0.056; P = .155), or reoperation for stiffness (3 studies; odds ratio, 0.869; P = .462). The overall incidence of postoperative arthrofibrosis after 12 months of follow-up was 11 of 296 (3.7%) for ACLRs performed ≤10 days versus 6 of 152 (3.9%) for those performed at the 3-week point or after. CONCLUSION: ACLR performed ≤10 days after the inciting injury does not increase the risk of postoperative arthrofibrosis and demonstrates similar patient-reported outcomes compared with ACLR performed at the 3-week point or after.

Surgical Treatment of Focal Chondral Lesions of the Knee in the Military Population: Current and Future Therapies.

INTRODUCTION: Chondral and osteochondral defects of the knee are common injuries in the military population that have a significant impact on readiness. Definitive treatment of these injuries is challenging since cartilage has a limited capacity for self-repair and regeneration. Management is particularly challenging in military patients who maintain a higher level of activity similar to athletes. Existing surgical techniques have variable results and often long recovery times, sparking the development of several new innovative technologies to return service members back to duty more quickly and effectively after cartilage injury. The purpose of this article is to review the current and future surgical treatments for chondral and osteochondral knee lesions and their relevance in managing these injuries in the military. METHODS: In this review article, we describe the current treatments for chondral and osteochondral defects of the knee, reporting on outcomes in military populations. We explore emerging treatment modalities for cartilage defects, reporting innovations, stage of research, and current data. Published results of each treatment option in military populations are reviewed throughout the article. RESULTS: This review includes 12 treatments for chondral lesions. Of these therapies, four are considered synthetic and the remaining are considered regenerative solutions. Regenerative therapies tend to perform better in younger, healthier populations with robust healing capacity. Success of treatment depends on lesions and patient characteristics. Nearly all modalities currently available in the USA were successful in improving patients from presurgical function in the short (<6 months) term, but the long-term efficacy is still challenged. Upcoming technologies show promising results in clinical and animal studies that may provide alternative options desirable for the military population. CONCLUSIONS: The current treatment options for cartilage lesions are not entirely satisfactory, usually with long recovery times and mixed results. An ideal therapy would be a single procedure that possesses the ability to enable a quick return to activity and duty, alleviate pain, provide long-term durability, and disrupt the progression of osteoarthritis. Evolving technologies for cartilage lesions are expanding beyond currently available techniques that may revolutionize the future of cartilage repair.

Evaluation High-Quality of Information from ChatGPT (Artificial Intelligence-Large Language Model) Artificial Intelligence on Shoulder Stabilization Surgery.

PURPOSE: To analyze the quality and readability of information regarding shoulder stabilization surgery available using an online AI software (ChatGPT), using standardized scoring systems, as well as to report on the given answers by the AI. METHODS: An open AI model (ChatGPT) was used to answer 23 commonly asked questions from patients on shoulder stabilization surgery. These answers were evaluated for medical accuracy, quality, and readability using The JAMA Benchmark criteria, DISCERN score, Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score (FRES) & Grade Level (FKGL). RESULTS: The JAMA Benchmark criteria score was 0, which is the lowest score, indicating no reliable resources cited. The DISCERN score was 60, which is considered a good score. The areas that open AI model did not achieve full marks were also related to the lack of available source material used to compile the answers, and finally some shortcomings with information not fully supported by the literature. The FRES was 26.2, and the FKGL was considered to be that of a college graduate. CONCLUSIONS: There was generally high quality in the answers given on questions relating to shoulder stabilization surgery, but there was a high reading level required to comprehend the information presented. However, it is unclear where the answers came from with no source material cited. It is important to note that the ChatGPT software repeatedly references the need to discuss these questions with an orthopaedic surgeon and the importance of shared discussion making, as well as compliance with surgeon treatment recommendations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As shoulder instability is an injury that predominantly affects younger individuals who may use the Internet for information, this study shows what information patients may be getting online.

Majority of Studies Show Similar Rates of Return to Play After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair or Latarjet Procedure: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the current evidence in the literature to compare return to play following arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet procedure for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A literature search was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Comparative studies reporting return to play following arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet procedure were included. Return to play was compared, with all statistical analysis performed using Review Manager, Version 5.3. RESULTS: Nine studies with 1,242 patients (mean age: 15-30 years) were included. The rate of return to play was 61% to 94.1% among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 72% to 96.8% in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure. Two studies (Bessiere et al. and Zimmerman et al.) found a significant difference in favor of the Latarjet procedure (P < .05 for both, I2 = 37%). The rate of return to play at preinjury level was 9% to 83.8% among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 19.4% to 80.6% in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure, with no study finding a significant difference (P > .05 for all, I2 = 0%). The mean time of return to play was 5.4 to 7.3 months among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 5.5 to 6.2 months in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure, with no study finding a significant difference (P > .05 for all, I2 = 39%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the majority of studies showed no significant difference in rates of return to play or timing following arthroscopic Bankart repair or open Latarjet procedure. Furthermore, no study has found a significant difference in rate of return to play at pre-injury level, or rate of return to play among collision athletes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level I-III studies.

Complications following arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Complications are rare after arthroscopic Bankart repair, and as a result, there is a lack of guidance over rates of complications that can be used to consent patients. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the literature to assess the complications after arthroscopic Bankart repair, other than recurrent instability. METHODS: A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Clinical studies reporting on the complications after arthroscopic Bankart repair were included. RESULTS: A total of 194 studies were included in the analysis, with 13,979 patients and 14,019 shoulders undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair. The overall complication rate was 0.67%, with frozen shoulder being the most common complication occurring in 0.32%. Persistent pain occurred in 0.17%. The rates of nerve, hardware, and wound complications were 0.07%, 0.05%, and 0.03%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The arthroscopic Bankart repair has a very low rate of complications. Frozen shoulder and persistent pain are the most frequently encountered complications.

Similar outcomes between biceps tenodesis and SLAP repair for SLAP tears in younger patients - A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to systematically review the comparative studies in the literature to ascertain if biceps tenodesis or superior-labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) repair results in superior clinical outcomes in the treatment of type II SLAP tears in patients under 40. METHODS: A systematic search of articles in Pubmed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library databases was carried out according to the PRISMA guidelines. Cohort studies comparing biceps tenodesis to repair in type II SLAP tears in patients under 40 were included. Clinical outcomes were extracted including return to play, reoperations, ASES, and VAS for pain. All statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager. A p-value of <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: Five studies were included. Biceps tenodesis resulted in comparable rates of return to play compared to SLAP repair (78.5% vs 67.7%, p â€‹= â€‹0.33), and there was no significant difference in return to play in overhead athletes (83.6% vs 74%, p â€‹= â€‹0.82). There was no significant difference in ASES score (87.2 vs 86.2, p â€‹= â€‹0.27) or VAS score for pain (1.8 vs 2.1, p â€‹= â€‹0.48). There was no significant difference in re-operation rates (2.9% vs 10.8%, p â€‹= â€‹0.22). CONCLUSION: This study found that biceps tenodesis has no significant difference in rates of return to play in athletes, as well as in functional outcome scores and rates of revision surgery in younger patients compared to SLAP repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Systematic review of Level III studies.