Extract
This update is based on the scientific and investigational activities in the specialty of sports medicine from September 2009 to August 2010. It includes a review of pertinent research and articles published in the three premier journals of our specialty, namely, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume), The American Journal of Sports Medicine, and Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery.
This update is based on the scientific and investigational activities in the specialty of sports medicine from September 2009 to August 2010. It includes a review of pertinent research and articles published in the three premier journals of our specialty, namely, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume), The American Journal of Sports Medicine, and Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery.
Anterior Cruciate Ligament
Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction continues to be the most studied area in sports medicine. The debate continues between the use of double-bundle or single-bundle reconstructions. A recent Level-I clinical study comparing the two techniques demonstrated that the double-bundle technique was associated with better visual analog scale pain scores and less instrumented anterior knee laxity1. There were no significant differences in terms of rotational control and subjective KOOS (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) and IKDC (International Knee Documentation Committee) scores, but the study was limited to a two-year follow-up. A Level-II comparative study demonstrated no significant difference in terms of anterior and rotational stability or clinical outcomes at the time of the two-year follow-up, despite a significant difference in anterior and rotational stability intraoperatively2. Controlled laboratory studies comparing knee kinematics associated with each surgical technique have suggested that there may be some improvement in terms of anterior and rotational knee laxity in association with double-bundle reconstruction as compared with single-bundle reconstruction, but the evidence is inconclusive3-5.
Much of the focus on tunnel placement, during both double-bundle and single-bundle reconstructions, has been on achieving more anatomic placement of the graft, with a goal of simultaneously controlling knee rotation and anterior-to-posterior stability. Most controlled laboratory studies have focused on the placement of the femoral tunnel. Studies in which the traditional transtibial technique has been compared with independent drilling of the femoral tunnel have favored independent drilling as being better able to produce an anatomic graft orientation6-8. The result of independent drilling has been more horizontal placement of the graft, accomplished with use of flexible reamers, precisely placed anteromedial portals, and the use of accessory medial portals9,10. Some studies, however, also have shown that a more horizontal tunnel can produce a shorter tunnel and an increased risk of posterior wall blowout11,12.
Good long-term studies evaluating ACL reconstruction with hamstring autograft as compared with patellar tendon autograft have been published. Three Level-I studies demonstrated no significant difference in terms of subjective outcome scores, osteoarthritis outcome scores, and instrumented laxity at two, eight, and ten years of follow-up13-15. The only difference was greater anterior knee pain in the patellar tendon group.
There remain many options for appropriate fixation of the graft, but this topic continues to be investigated. Long-term studies that have compared biodegradable screws with other forms of fixation have suggested greater tunnel enlargement in association with biodegradable screws but no clinical differences16,17. Researchers are still seeking to elucidate the causes of development of osteoarthritis following ACL reconstruction18. New studies are also evaluating emerging areas, such as ACL primary repair and the use of platelet-rich plasma for ACL reconstruction19,20.
Posterior Cruciate Ligament
Common topics of debate related to posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction are the superiority of double as compared with single-bundle reconstruction and tibial inlay as compared with transtibial graft placement. In one recent study, transtibial single-bundle arthroscopic tibial inlay procedures were compared with double-bundle arthroscopic tibial inlay procedures21. The results suggested that the double-bundle arthroscopic tibial inlay procedure produced better posterior stability but no difference in terms of knee motion or Lysholm scores. In an effort to elucidate the causes of cartilage degeneration following PCL reconstruction, another study was performed to evaluate the kinematics of single-bundle reconstruction22. The investigators found that anteroposterior translation of the tibia and patellar flexion and shift were restored, whereas mediolateral translation and patellar rotation and tilt were not.
Posterolateral Corner, Posteromedial Corner, and Multiligamentous Injury
Recreating normal knee kinematics is the goal in the treatment of posterolateral corner injuries. Two recent studies with intermediate-term follow-up suggested that anatomically based posterolateral corner reconstructions resulted in improved stability and clinical outcomes23,24. Another study suggested that reconstruction is more reliable than repair25. A Level-I study also suggested an improved diagnostic method involving the use of ultrasound to determine which patients would benefit from reconstruction26. Valgus stress radiographs to confirm the diagnosis are favored, whereas anatomic reconstruction of the medial collateral ligament and posteromedial corner injuries, including reconstruction of the posterior oblique ligament, is recommended27,28. A retrospective study of knee dislocation in elite athletes with resulting multiligamentous injury involving both cruciate ligaments and at least one collateral ligament suggested that early, single-stage procedures provide the best outcomes, although only one-third of patients returned to preinjury levels of play29.
Meniscus
The understanding of the role of the meniscus in knee stability and contact forces across the joint continues to improve30,31. The meniscus plays a vital role in both of these areas, and retaining as much meniscus as possible is critical. Meniscal repair, when possible, has been shown to improve outcomes in terms of return to play as well as to minimize osteoarthritis progression in comparison with partial meniscectomy32. Studies continue to demonstrate that meniscal repair with a concomitant ACL reconstruction can provide good results, although more complex tears still have lower likelihood of success33,34. Inside-out meniscal repairs have been the gold standard, but one study suggested that, with concomitant ACL reconstruction, an all-inside technique might achieve similar results35. Laboratory and clinical studies have demonstrated that meniscal transplantation improves knee biomechanics as well as long-term clinical outcomes as compared with those in knees with no meniscus, although some deterioration in clinical outcome has been noted over time36,37.
Patellofemoral Articulation
A systematic review, although it acknowledged potential confounding variables in the studies reviewed, suggested that there are good outcomes for the appropriate patients undergoing medial patellofemoral ligament reconstructions38. A large Level-IV case series also demonstrated good outcomes in patients undergoing the Fulkerson procedure with a lateral release39. Anterior knee pain can be a vexing problem for clinicians. A recent Level-I study showed that the extent of chondromalacia patellae does not correlate with anterior knee pain and that current physical examination techniques for anterior knee pain do not reliably diagnose chondromalacia patellae40. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) may be useful in this setting but can only dependably diagnose more advanced chondromalacia patellae lesions.
Osteotomies
The effect that high tibial osteotomy has on patellar height and tibial slope is an important clinical consideration. Studies have shown that medial opening-wedge osteotomy tends to decrease patellar height and to increase tibial slope, with the opposite being true for lateral closing-wedge osteotomies41,42. The long-term benefit of high tibial osteotomy continues to be documented, with a recent study of patients undergoing medial opening-wedge osteotomy and microfracture for the treatment of arthritic malalignment demonstrating a seven-year survival rate of 91%43.
Rotator Cuff
Multiple systematic reviews of single-row as compared with double-row repairs were conducted during the past year44-47. These studies showed no difference in terms of clinical outcomes, but a double-row repair may provide improved tendon healing and lower retear rates in cases of large and massive tears. One type of double-row repair, the suture bridge technique, has been gaining popularity for the appropriate size and type of tear. Clinical studies involving the use of MRI have demonstrated comparable retear rates and clinical outcomes with this suture technique and other repair techniques48,49. Regardless of repair technique, a recent biomechanical study demonstrated decreased rotator cuff footprint contact area and pressure over time50. Knotless anchors have been increasingly incorporated into repairs. One recent study evaluated suture anchor types and suggested that screw type and subcortical wedging anchors provided better stability than other anchors; this is a particularly important consideration for patients with osteopenia or poor bone quality51.
The size and type of the tear, the chronicity of the injury, and patient-related factors such as age affect rotator cuff healing and clinical outcomes. Large and massive tears that involve the supraspinatus and infraspinatus are at risk for fatty degeneration, so early repair may be recommended, depending on other patient-related factors52. The larger the tear, the less likely the tendon is to heal; however, any repair attempt, even without complete coverage of the tendon footprint, may provide clinical improvement53. Even in older patients, repair can yield tendon healing and can result in functional improvement54. For patients who have unsuccessful rotator cuff repair, all of the above factors affect the likelihood of further healing; however, revision surgery can result in healing and clinical improvement, but with a decreased likelihood of success55,56. Novel methods of augmenting rotator cuff healing following repair are also being studied, such as modulating matrix metalloproteinase pathways and using bone marrow-derived stem cells57-59.
Concomitant pathology makes the treatment of rotator cuff tears can more difficult. A longitudinal study comparing biceps tenodesis with tenotomy during rotator cuff repairs demonstrated only a cosmetic difference but no functional difference60. There continues to be controversy over the treatment of SLAP (superior labral anterior-posterior) tears during rotator cuff repair because of the concern about stiffness; however, one recent study suggested that in the appropriate middle-aged population, the results for concomitant SLAP and rotator cuff repair can be the same as for rotator cuff repair alone61.
Instability
Instability may be more prevalent than previously appreciated. In patients under anesthesia, the ability to subluxate the humeral head over the glenoid rim is common; the evaluation of young patients after traumatic subluxation events without frank dislocation suggests that the level of labral and chondral damage is high; and glenohumeral instability is common in young athletes, including collegiate athletes62-64. The treatment of these conditions continues to be debated, particularly in terms of the timing of surgery. A recent systematic review suggested that there were no differences in terms of recurrence or complication rates between patients undergoing surgery following a primary dislocation as compared with those undergoing surgery following recurrent dislocations; however, the nature of the study did not allow for differentiating the cause of the dislocation65. Arthroscopic repair provides adequate treatment for the majority of unstable shoulders66-68. The most important risk factor for recurrent instability following repair is age (less than twenty to twenty-five years), although male sex, time to surgery, degree of laxity, and Hill-Sachs lesions are also important69,70.
SLAP Lesions
A recent study suggested that some patients will have improvement in functional outcomes and pain control with nonoperative treatment of type-II SLAP tears71. However, half of the study participants ultimately underwent surgery, and overhead throwing athletes were particularly likely to have a failure of nonoperative management. We are not aware of any Level-I studies evaluating arthroscopic repair of type-II SLAP lesions. A recent systematic review of Level-III and IV studies demonstrated that arthroscopic repair is beneficial; however, outcomes in overhead throwing athletes were not as consistent72. Techniques for arthroscopic repair continue to evolve, with a recent study suggesting that knotless suture anchors restore glenohumeral motion with similar strength as simple suture anchor repairs73.
Acromioclavicular Joint
Multiple techniques for the reconstruction of coracoclavicular ligaments have shown success after short and intermediate-term follow-up74-76. Recently, more emphasis has been placed on reconstructing the acromioclavicular joint, with good results being demonstrated in the laboratory setting77,78. The treatment of acromioclavicular separation, however, also is associated with a high rate of complications, so care must be taken when performing any of the repair techniques79,80.
Articular Cartilage Defects
Much of the recent work in this area has focused on autologous chondrocyte implantation or autologous chondrocyte implantation as compared with microfracture, with fewer studies on osteochondral autograft or allograft treatment. Other areas of cartilage repair are also being investigated, such as the use of juvenile chondrocytes81.
Long-term case series have demonstrated the sustained benefit in terms of patient satisfaction and outcome measurements following first-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation82,83. First-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation, however, has been associated with several challenges and a high complication rate related to the technical demands of the procedure, periosteal patch harvest site morbidity, and patch hypertrophy. A recent study demonstrated that the use of a collagen membrane as a patch substitute reduced the reoperation rate84. Currently, no collagen membrane is officially approved by the Food and Drug Administration for use in the United States. Second-generation, or matrix-assisted, autologous chondrocyte implantation involves delivering autologous chondrocytes on a bioabsorbable scaffold. A prospective randomized study in which matrix-assisted autologous chondrocyte implantation was compared with autologous chondrocyte implantation demonstrated improved outcomes at twenty-four months in association with both techniques, but the outcomes were comparable between the two techniques85. Similar to synthetic scaffolds, other biologic scaffolds also have yielded good early results, such as porcine type I/III collagen membrane86. Second-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation currently is not available for use in the United States. An accelerated weight-bearing program and intensive rehabilitation after second-generation autologous chondrocyte implantation leads to good outcomes without jeopardizing the autologous chondrocyte implantation graft87,88.
There is a lack of evidence-based consensus favoring autologous chondrocyte implantation or microfracture; however, a recent study in which characterized chondrocyte implantation was compared with microfracture demonstrated significant clinical improvement at thirty-six months, particularly in patients who received autologous chondrocyte implantation with higher gene profiles89. Other patient-specific factors, such as age, the location of the defect, and the size of the lesion, likely also influence patient outcomes. In a cohort study involving the use of a prospective database, patient age, defect size, and defect location were evaluated three years after microfracture and autologous chondrocyte implantation. Patients who were younger than thirty years and those with medial femoral condylar lesions fared better, whereas defect size did not reliably correlate with clinical outcome90. Both of those studies indicated that early treatment may result in better outcomes. A systematic analysis evaluating factors affecting the rate of return to sports after articular cartilage repair also demonstrated a correlative relationship between earlier repair and return to sports91.
Cartilage Preservation
Investigations pertaining to chondrocyte cell death following exposure to local anesthetic continue. Various anesthetic formulations, including those that contain epinephrine, lidocaine, bupivacaine, and ropivacaine, have been linked to chondrotoxicity92-94. In addition to anesthetic toxicity, the deleterious effects on chondrocytes resulting from high temperature related to radiofrequency probe use and arthroscopic fluid flow have also been highlighted. Irrigation fluid flow rate was found to be the most significant predictor of intra-articular temperature profiles95.
The authors of recent case reports have documented abdominal compartment syndrome following hip arthroscopy and have recommend intraoperative vigilance, careful fluid management, and the performance of capsulotomy and psoas tenotomy at the end of the central compartment arthroscopy to minimize fluid extravasation96,97.
Hip labral tears can be effectively addressed with hip arthroscopy98. In a retrospective review, patient-related factors that negatively influenced recovery after hip labral surgery included Workers’ Compensation status, female sex, the use of pain medications, the presence of a limp, and the presence of lateral labral tears99. In the setting of impingement, short-term follow-up suggests better Harris hip scores with repair than with labral debridement100. For advanced labral tears, reconstruction with use of iliotibial band autograft is a viable option for hips without substantial osteoarthrosis101.
Femoroacetabular impingement is now a well-recognized clinical entity that predisposes an individual to acetabular labral tears, chondral damage, and arthritis. In a computerized tomography study of 100 asymptomatic hip joints, 39% of the hips had at least one morphologic characteristic, such as acetabular retroversion and an aspherical femoral head, that predisposes to femoroacetabular impingement102. Osteoplasty of the femur and acetabulum along with labral pathology can be treated with either an open, an arthroscopic, or a combined approach. In one study, a combined arthroscopic and limited open procedure for femoroacetabular impingement demonstrated improved Harris hip scores, reduced radiographic alpha angles, and symptomatic relief with enhanced overall hip function103. Currently, the evidence is lacking to support one technique over another for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement.
In an effort to identify a chondral defect size threshold at which poor clinical outcomes become more likely, 120 ankles were evaluated after arthroscopic marrow stimulation for the treatment of talar dome lesions104. Patients with defects measuring >150 mm2 on MRI had a significantly higher failure rate, defined by the need for osteochondral transplantation or an American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) score of <80. No correlation was found between outcome and patient age, the duration of symptoms, trauma, associated lesions, or the location of lesions. This information will aid in patient education and treatment planning. A ten-year follow-up study in which autologous chondrocyte implantation for the treatment of talar osteochondritis dissecans lesions was compared with the long-term results of autologous chondrocyte implantation in the knee was recently reported105. The AOFAS score, radiographic assessment, preoperative MRI findings, and MRI with T2 mapping at the time of the latest follow-up were used to evaluate clinical outcomes. The authors concluded that the results of autologous chondrocyte implantation in the ankle are comparable with those in the knee.
One study on lateral ankle instability sought to identify the effects of anterior talofibular ligament injury on in vivo ankle kinematics. Nine patients with chronic lateral ankle instability were evaluated as they stepped on a level surface with kinematic measurements that were made as a function of load. Anterior talofibular ligament deficiency increased anterior translation, internal rotation, and superior translation of the talus106. Lateral ankle instability associated with osteochondritis dissecans lesions of the talus is a common clinical presentation. In a case series, significant improvement in ankle scores at a mean of 7.3 years of follow-up was reported for patients who underwent simultaneous arthroscopic treatment of osteochondritis dissecans lesions and open lateral ankle stabilization107. However, the presence of an osteochondritis dissecans lesion had an overall negative impact on outcomes as compared with isolated lateral ankle stabilization.
There has been continued focus on the use of platelet-rich plasma to treat lateral humeral epicondylitis. In a recent Level-I study, platelet-rich plasma was compared with corticosteroid injection for the treatment of chronic lateral humeral epicondylitis108. The platelet-rich plasma group had significantly better visual analog pain scale and DASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) scores at one year. Of note, the platelet-rich plasma group also showed progressive improvement after treatment in comparison with the corticosteroid group, which initially showed improvement but then showed worsening. The results of nonoperative treatment of biceps tendon ruptures were recently compared with the results for operatively treated historical controls109. Functional outcomes scores and elbow flexion strength were comparable, but supination strength was superior in the operative treatment group.
The optimal rehabilitation program following ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction is a point of controversy. A recent controlled laboratory study evaluated passive range of motion, isometric muscle contraction, and varus-valgus torque in cadaveric elbows in which the ulnar collateral ligament had been reconstructed with use of a docking technique and gracilis tendon graft110. The results demonstrated that full extension was safe in the immediate postoperative period, whereas passive flexion beyond 50°, isometric exercises at >90°, and valgus exercises increased strain on the reconstruction. A study of nineteen patients with osteochondritis dissecans of the elbow who were managed with autologous osteochondral mosaicplasty showed that all but one of the patients were pain-free, had a good or excellent result, and had improved total elbow motion after an average of forty-five months of follow-up111. All but two returned to competitive play. A follow-up MRI study showed that graft incorporation following mosaicplasty occurred around six months postoperatively, and it was suggested that rehabilitation programs begin after this time112.
Chronic loading of the ulnocarpal joint of the wrist can result in degenerative articular disc perforations of the triangular fibrocartilage complex. A recent study investigated the role of apoptotic pathways and ulnar length on the development of these degenerative lesions113. Seventeen patients with degenerative tears underwent arthroscopic debridement of the triangular fibrocartilage complex, with histological and immunohistochemical analysis. Both extrinsic and intrinsic apoptotic pathways were involved in the development of degenerative disc lesions, with fibrocartilage cell loss occurring through the intrinsic pathway in most cases. This information may be useful in the development of treatment options focused on limiting triangular fibrocartilage complex cell loss and degeneration.
Concussion injuries to high-profile athletes have raised awareness for in-game vigilance for and recognition of this injury. Changes in sideline management at all levels of competition include withholding athletes with any concussive symptoms, regardless of severity. The natural history of concussion among Australian football players was described in a prospective cohort study114. Most of the concussed athletes presented with fewer than four clinical symptoms that lasted for less than forty-eight hours; however, nearly 20% of patients had symptoms that lasted for more than seven days. More importantly, the cognitive deficits resulting from the concussion resolved independent of reported symptoms. Clinical features that were associated with prolonged time to return to sports included having more profound initial symptoms, a headache lasting for more than sixty hours, and self-reported fatigue or "fogginess." In addition, the use of computerized performance tests was highlighted as a more sensitive instrument for the detection of cognitive deficits following a concussive event than pencil-and-paper tests. In an evaluation of one such test, ImPACT, the test-retest reliability in collegiate athletes remained stable over a two-year period115.
Over the past year, the editorial staff of The Journal reviewed a large number of recently published research studies related to the musculoskeletal system that received a Level of Evidence grade of I. Over 100 medical journals were reviewed to identify these articles, which all have high-quality study design. In addition to the articles already cited in this Update, six Level-I articles were identified that were relevant to sports medicine. A list of these titles is appended to this review following the standard bibliography. We have provided a brief commentary about each of these articles to help to guide your further reading, in an evidence-based fashion, in this subspecialty area.
Subspecialty certification in sports medicine is under the direction of the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS). The five-year ‘‘grandfather period’’ for any surgeon seeking this certification will expire in 2012. Therefore, applicants are now required to have completed an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited and/or Arthroscopy Association of North America (AANA)-recognized sports medicine fellowship to sit for the examination. A complete list of requirements, including eligible sports medicine cases, is available online at the ABOS web site (http://www.abos.org).
The application deadline for the 2012 examination is March 15, 2012. It must include case lists, required documents, and fees. Eligible candidates will be mailed their scheduling/admission permits in August 2012, and the examination will be administered on November 1, 2012, at Prometric Technology Centers nationwide. The application materials will be available at the ABOS web site. The American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) and American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) review course for subspecialty certification in orthopaedic sports medicine will be held in August 2012, in Chicago, Illinois, and information on this course can be found at the AOSSM web site (http://www.sportsmed.org). Applications for the 2012 examination are available online beginning in August 2011.
Sports medicine remains the most popular orthopaedic surgery fellowship. The match process continues to receive positive reviews from fellowship applicants and program directors alike.
The STOP (Sports Trauma and Overuse Prevention) Sports Injuries Program was conceived by the AOSSM in 2007. The initiative is aimed at reducing trauma and overuse injuries in young athletes and is supported by many national not-for-profit organizations. As described on the STOP web site, it is an outreach program to raise awareness and to provide education on injury reduction in young athletes. Multimedia educational materials for distribution to athletes, parents, coaches, or other health-care providers can be ordered from the STOP web site at http://www.stopsportsinjuries.org/resources.aspx, via email at info@stopsportsinjuries.org, or via telephone at 1-847-655-8660.
The seventy-ninth Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons will be held on February 7 through 11, 2012, in San Francisco, California, with Specialty Day being held on February 11, 2012. The Annual Meeting of the AANA will be held on May 17 through 20, 2012, in Orlando, Florida. The Annual Meeting of the AOSSM will be held on July 7 through 11, 2011, in San Diego, California.
Aglietti
P;
Giron
F;
Losco
M;
Cuomo
P;
Ciardullo
A;
Mondanelli
N. Comparison between single-and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective, randomized, single-blinded clinical trial. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:25-34.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Song
EK;
Oh
LS;
Gill
TJ;
Li
G;
Gadikota
HR;
Seon
JK. Prospective comparative study of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using the double-bundle and single-bundle techniques. Am J Sports Med
. 2009;37:1705-11.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Kondo
E;
Merican
AM;
Yasuda
K;
Amis
AA. Biomechanical comparisons of knee stability after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction between 2 clinically available transtibial procedures: anatomic double bundle versus single bundle. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:1349-58.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Seon
JK;
Gadikota
HR;
Wu
JL;
Sutton
K;
Gill
TJ;
Li
G. Comparison of single-and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions in restoration of knee kinematics and anterior cruciate ligament forces. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:1359-67.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Tsai
AG;
Wijdicks
CA;
Walsh
MP;
Laprade
RF. Comparative kinematic evaluation of all-inside single-bundle and double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a biomechanical study. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:263-72.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Kopf
S;
Forsythe
B;
Wong
AK;
Tashman
S;
Anderst
W;
Irrgang
JJ;
Fu
FH. Nonanatomic tunnel position in traditional transtibial single-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction evaluated by three-dimensional computed tomography. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2010;92:1427-31.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Miller
MD;
Gerdeman
AC;
Miller
CD;
Hart
JM;
Gaskin
CM;
Golish
SR;
Clancy
WG
Jr. The effects of extra-articular starting point and transtibial femoral drilling on the intra-articular aperture of the tibial tunnel in ACL reconstruction. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:707-12.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Steiner
ME;
Battaglia
TC;
Heming
JF;
Rand
JD;
Festa
A;
Baria
M. Independent drilling outperforms conventional transtibial drilling in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med
. 2009;37:1912-9.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Basdekis
G;
Abisafi
C;
Christel
P. Effect of knee flexion angle on length and orientation of posterolateral femoral tunnel drilled through anteromedial portal during anatomic double-bundle anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy
. 2009;25:1108-14.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Silver
AG;
Kaar
SG;
Grisell
MK;
Reagan
JM;
Farrow
LD. Comparison between rigid and flexible systems for drilling the femoral tunnel through an anteromedial portal in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Arthroscopy
. 2010;26:790-5.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Bedi
A;
Raphael
B;
Maderazo
A;
Pavlov
H;
Williams
RJ
3rd. Transtibial versus anteromedial portal drilling for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a cadaveric study of femoral tunnel length and obliquity. Arthroscopy
. 2010;26:342-50.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Chang
CB;
Yoo
JH;
Chung
BJ;
Seong
SC;
Kim
TK. Oblique femoral tunnel placement can increase risks of short femoral tunnel and cross-pin protrusion in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:1237-45.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Barenius
B;
Nordlander
M;
Ponzer
S;
Tidermark
J;
Eriksson
K. Quality of life and clinical outcome after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using patellar tendon graft or quadrupled semitendinosus graft: an 8-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:1533-41.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Holm
I;
Oiestad
BE;
Risberg
MA;
Aune
AK. No difference in knee function or prevalence of osteoarthritis after reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament with 4-strand hamstring autograft versus patellar tendon-bone autograft: a randomized study with 10-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:448-54.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Taylor
DC;
DeBerardino
TM;
Nelson
BJ;
Duffey
M;
Tenuta
J;
Stoneman
PD;
Sturdivant
RX;
Mountcastle
S. Patellar tendon versus hamstring tendon autografts for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a randomized controlled trial using similar femoral and tibial fixation methods. Am J Sports Med
. 2009;37:1946-57.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Jagodzinski
M;
Geiges
B;
von Falck
C;
Knobloch
K;
Haasper
C;
Brand
J;
Hankemeier
S;
Krettek
C;
Meller
R. Biodegradable screw versus a press-fit bone plug fixation for hamstring anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a prospective randomized study. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:501-8.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Stener
S;
Ejerhed
L;
Sernert
N;
Laxdal
G;
Rostgård-Christensen
L;
Kartus
J. A long-term, prospective, randomized study comparing biodegradable and metal interference screws in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction surgery: radiographic results and clinical outcome. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:1598-605.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Keays
SL;
Newcombe
PA;
Bullock-Saxton
JE;
Bullock
MI;
Keays
AC. Factors involved in the development of osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament surgery. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:455-63.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Joshi
SM;
Mastrangelo
AN;
Magarian
EM;
Fleming
BC;
Murray
MM. Collagen-platelet composite enhances biomechanical and histologic healing of the porcine anterior cruciate ligament. Am J Sports Med
. 2009;37:2401-10.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Nin
JR;
Gasque
GM;
Azcarate
AV;
Beola
JD;
Gonzalez
MH. Has platelet-rich plasma any role in anterior cruciate ligament allograft healing?Arthroscopy
. 2009;25:1206-13.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Kim
SJ;
Kim
TE;
Jo
SB;
Kung
YP. Comparison of the clinical results of three posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction techniques. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2009;91:2543-9.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Gill
TJ;
Van de Velde
SK;
Wing
DW;
Oh
LS;
Hosseini
A;
Li
G. Tibiofemoral and patellofemoral kinematics after reconstruction of an isolated posterior cruciate ligament injury: in vivo analysis during lunge. Am J Sports Med
. 2009;37:2377-85.[CrossRef][PubMed]
LaPrade
RF;
Johansen
S;
Agel
J;
Risberg
MA;
Moksnes
H;
Engebretsen
L. Outcomes of an anatomic posterolateral knee reconstruction. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2010;92:16-22.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Rios
CG;
Leger
RR;
Cote
MP;
Yang
C;
Arciero
RA. Posterolateral corner reconstruction of the knee: evaluation of a technique with clinical outcomes and stress radiography. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:1564-74.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Levy
BA;
Dajani
KA;
Morgan
JA;
Shah
JP;
Dahm
DL;
Stuart
MJ. Repair versus reconstruction of the fibular collateral ligament and posterolateral corner in the multiligament-injured knee. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:804-9.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Sekiya
JK;
Swaringen
JC;
Wojtys
EM;
Jacobson
JA. Diagnostic ultrasound evaluation of posterolateral corner knee injuries. Arthroscopy
. 2010;26:494-9.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Coobs
BR;
Wijdicks
CA;
Armitage
BM;
Spiridonov
SI;
Westerhaus
BD;
Johansen
S;
Engebretsen
L;
Laprade
RF. An in vitro analysis of an anatomical medial knee reconstruction. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:339-47.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Laprade
RF;
Bernhardson
AS;
Griffith
CJ;
Macalena
JA;
Wijdicks
CA. Correlation of valgus stress radiographs with medial knee ligament injuries: an in vitro biomechanical study. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:330-8.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Hirschmann
MT;
Iranpour
F;
Muller
W;
Friederich
NF. Surgical treatment of complex bicruciate knee ligament injuries in elite athletes: what long-term outcome can we expect?Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:1103-9.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Bedi
A;
Kelly
NH;
Baad
M;
Fox
AJ;
Brophy
RH;
Warren
RF;
Maher
SA. Dynamic contact mechanics of the medial meniscus as a function of radial tear, repair, and partial meniscectomy. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2010;92:1398-408.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Musahl
V;
Citak
M;
O'Loughlin
PF;
Choi
D;
Bedi
A;
Pearle
AD. The effect of medial versus lateral meniscectomy on the stability of the anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knee. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:1591-7.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Stein
T;
Mehling
AP;
Welsch
F;
von Eisenhart-Rothe
R;
Jäger
A. Long-term outcome after arthroscopic meniscal repair versus arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for traumatic meniscal tears. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:1542-8.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Krych
AJ;
Pitts
RT;
Dajani
KA;
Stuart
MJ;
Levy
BA;
Dahm
DL. Surgical repair of meniscal tears with concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in patients 18 years and younger. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:976-82.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Tachibana
Y;
Sakaguchi
K;
Goto
T;
Oda
H;
Yamazaki
K;
Iida
S. Repair integrity evaluated by second-look arthroscopy after arthroscopic meniscal repair with the FasT-Fix during anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:965-71.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Choi
NH;
Kim
TH;
Victoroff
BN. Comparison of arthroscopic medial meniscal suture repair techniques: inside-out versus all-inside repair. Am J Sports Med
. 2009;37:2144-50.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Spang
JT;
Dang
AB;
Mazzocca
A;
Rincon
L;
Obopilwe
E;
Beynnon
B;
Arciero
RA. The effect of medial meniscectomy and meniscal allograft transplantation on knee and anterior cruciate ligament biomechanics. Arthroscopy
. 2010;26:192-201.[CrossRef][PubMed]
van der Wal
RJ;
Thomassen
BJ;
van Arkel
ER. Long-term clinical outcome of open meniscal allograft transplantation. Am J Sports Med
. 2009;37:2134-9.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Buckens
CF;
Saris
DB. Reconstruction of the medial patellofemoral ligament for treatment of patellofemoral instability: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:181-8.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Tjoumakaris
FP;
Forsythe
B;
Bradley
JP. Patellofemoral instability in athletes: treatment via modified Fulkerson osteotomy and lateral release. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:992-9.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Pihlajamäki
HK;
Kuikka
PI;
Leppänen
VV;
Kiuru
MJ;
Mattila
VM. Reliability of clinical findings and magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of chondromalacia patellae. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2010;92:927-34.[CrossRef][PubMed]
LaPrade
RF;
Oro
FB;
Ziegler
CG;
Wijdicks
CA;
Walsh
MP. Patellar height and tibial slope after opening-wedge proximal tibial osteotomy: a prospective study. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:160-70.[CrossRef][PubMed]
El-Azab
H;
Glabgly
P;
Paul
J;
Imhoff
AB;
Hinterwimmer
S. Patellar height and posterior tibial slope after open- and closed-wedge high tibial osteotomy: a radiological study on 100 patients. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:323-9.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Sterett
WI;
Steadman
JR;
Huang
MJ;
Matheny
LM;
Briggs
KK. Chondral resurfacing and high tibial osteotomy in the varus knee: survivorship analysis. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:1420-4.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Duquin
TR;
Buyea
C;
Bisson
LJ. Which method of rotator cuff repair leads to the highest rate of structural healing? A systematic review. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:835-41.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Nho
SJ;
Slabaugh
MA;
Seroyer
ST;
Grumet
RC;
Wilson
JB;
Verma
NN;
Romeo
AA;
Bach
BR
Jr. Does the literature support double-row suture anchor fixation for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair? A systematic review comparing double-row and single-row suture anchor configuration. Arthroscopy
. 2009;25:1319-28.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Saridakis
P;
Jones
G. Outcomes of single-row and double-row arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2010;92:732-42.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Wall
LB;
Keener
JD;
Brophy
RH. Clinical outcomes of double-row versus single-row rotator cuff repairs. Arthroscopy
. 2009;25:1312-8.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Cho
NS;
Yi
JW;
Lee
BG;
Rhee
YG. Retear patterns after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: single-row versus suture bridge technique. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:664-71.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Voigt
C;
Bosse
C;
Vosshenrich
R;
Schulz
AP;
Lill
H. Arthroscopic supraspinatus tendon repair with suture-bridging technique: functional outcome and magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:983-91.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Mazzocca
AD;
Bollier
MJ;
Ciminiello
AM;
Obopilwe
E;
DeAngelis
JP;
Burkhart
SS;
Warren
RF;
Arciero
RA. Biomechanical evaluation of arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs over time. Arthroscopy
. 2010;26:592-9.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Pietschmann
MF;
Gülecyüz
MF;
Fieseler
S;
Hentschel
M;
Rossbach
B;
Jansson
V;
Müller
PE. Biomechanical stability of knotless suture anchors used in rotator cuff repair in healthy and osteopenic bone. Arthroscopy
. 2010;26:1035-44.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Kim
HM;
Dahiya
N;
Teefey
SA;
Keener
JD;
Galatz
LM;
Yamaguchi
K. Relationship of tear size and location to fatty degeneration of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2010;92:829-39.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Yoo
JC;
Ahn
JH;
Koh
KH;
Lim
KS. Rotator cuff integrity after arthroscopic repair for large tears with less-than-optimal footprint coverage. Arthroscopy
. 2009;25:1093-100.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Charousset
C;
Bellaïche
L;
Kalra
K;
Petrover
D. Arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears: is there tendon healing in patients aged 65 years or older?Arthroscopy
. 2010;26:302-9.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Keener
JD;
Wei
AS;
Kim
HM;
Paxton
ES;
Teefey
SA;
Galatz
LM;
Yamaguchi
K. Revision arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: repair integrity and clinical outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2010;92:590-8.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Piasecki
DP;
Verma
NN;
Nho
SJ;
Bhatia
S;
Boniquit
N;
Cole
BJ;
Nicholson
GP;
Romeo
AA. Outcomes after arthroscopic revision rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:40-6.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Mazzocca
AD;
McCarthy
MB;
Chowaniec
DM;
Cote
MP;
Arciero
RA;
Drissi
H. Rapid isolation of human stem cells (connective tissue progenitor cells) from the proximal humerus during arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:1438-47.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Gulotta
LV;
Kovacevic
D;
Montgomery
S;
Ehteshami
JR;
Packer
JD;
Rodeo
SA. Stem cells genetically modified with the developmental gene MT1-MMP improve regeneration of the supraspinatus tendon-to-bone insertion site. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:1429-37.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Bedi
A;
Fox
AJ;
Kovacevic
D;
Deng
XH;
Warren
RF;
Rodeo
SA. Doxycycline-mediated inhibition of matrix metalloproteinases improves healing after rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:308-17.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Koh
KH;
Ahn
JH;
Kim
SM;
Yoo
JC. Treatment of biceps tendon lesions in the setting of rotator cuff tears: prospective cohort study of tenotomy versus tenodesis. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:1584-90.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Forsythe
B;
Guss
D;
Anthony
SG;
Martin
SD. Concomitant arthroscopic SLAP and rotator cuff repair. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2010;92:1362-9.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Jia
X;
Ji
JH;
Petersen
SA;
Freehill
MT;
McFarland
EG. An analysis of shoulder laxity in patients undergoing shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2009;91:2144-50.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Owens
BD;
Agel
J;
Mountcastle
SB;
Cameron
KL;
Nelson
BJ. Incidence of glenohumeral instability in collegiate athletics. Am J Sports Med
. 2009;37:1750-4.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Owens
CB;
Nelson
BJ;
Duffey
ML;
Mountcastle
SB;
Taylor
DC;
Cameron
KL;
Campbell
S;
DeBerardino
TM. Pathoanatomy of first-time, traumatic, anterior glenohumeral subluxation events. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2010;92:1605-11.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Grumet
RC;
Bach
BR
Jr;
Provencher
MT. Arthroscopic stabilization for first-time versus recurrent shoulder instability. Arthroscopy
. 2010;26:239-48.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Baker
CL
3rd;
Mascarenhas
R;
Kline
AJ;
Chhabra
A;
Pombo
MW;
Bradley
JP. Arthroscopic treatment of multidirectional shoulder instability in athletes: a retrospective analysis of 2-to 5-year clinical outcomes. Am J Sports Med
. 2009;37:1712-20.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Boileau
P;
Richou
J;
Lisai
A;
Chuinard
C;
Bicknell
RT. The role of arthroscopy in revision of failed open anterior stabilization of the shoulder. Arthroscopy
. 2009;25:1075-84.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Tokish
JM;
McBratney
CM;
Solomon
DJ;
Leclere
L;
Dewing
CB;
Provencher
MT. Arthroscopic repair of circumferential lesions of the glenoid labrum. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2009;91:2795-802.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Porcellini
G;
Campi
F;
Pegreffi
F;
Castagna
A;
Paladini
P. Predisposing factors for recurrent shoulder dislocation after arthroscopic treatment. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2009;91:2537-42.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Voos
JE;
Livermore
RW;
Feeley
BT;
Altchek
DW;
Williams
RJ;
Warren
RF;
Cordasco
FA;
Allen
AA. Prospective evaluation of arthroscopic Bankart repairs for anterior instability. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:302-7.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Edwards
SL;
Lee
JA;
Bell
JE;
Packer
JD;
Ahmad
CS;
Levine
WN;
Bigliani
LU;
Blaine
TA. Nonoperative treatment of superior labrum anterior posterior tears: improvements in pain, function, and quality of life. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:1456-61.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Gorantla
K;
Gill
C;
Wright
RW. The outcome of type II SLAP repair: a systematic review. Arthroscopy
. 2010;26:537-45.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Uggen
C;
Wei
A;
Glousman
RE;
ElAttrache
N;
Tibone
JE;
McGarry
MH;
Lee
TQ. Biomechanical comparison of knotless anchor repair versus simple suture repair for type II SLAP lesions. Arthroscopy
. 2009;25:1085-92.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Boileau
P;
Old
J;
Gastaud
O;
Brassart
N;
Roussanne
Y. All-arthroscopic Weaver-Dunn-Chuinard procedure with double-button fixation for chronic acromioclavicular joint dislocation. Arthroscopy
. 2010;26:149-60.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Salzmann
GM;
Walz
L;
Buchmann
S;
Glabgly
P;
Venjakob
A;
Imhoff
AB. Arthroscopically assisted 2-bundle anatomical reduction of acute acromioclavicular joint separations. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:1179-87.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Yoo
JC;
Ahn
JH;
Yoon
JR;
Yang
JH. Clinical results of single-tunnel coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction using autogenous semitendinosus tendon. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:950-7.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Freedman
JA;
Adamson
GJ;
Bui
C;
Lee
TQ. Biomechanical evaluation of the acromioclavicular capsular ligaments and reconstruction with an intramedullary free tissue graft. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:958-64.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Michlitsch
MG;
Adamson
GJ;
Pink
M;
Estess
A;
Shankwiler
JA;
Lee
TQ. Biomechanical comparison of a modified Weaver-Dunn and a free-tissue graft reconstruction of the acromioclavicular joint complex. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:1196-203.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Kippe
MA;
Demetropoulos
CK;
Baker
KC;
Jurist
KA;
Guettler
JH. Failure of coracoclavicular artificial graft reconstructions from repetitive rotation. Arthroscopy
. 2009;25:975-82.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Turman
KA;
Miller
CD;
Miller
MD. Clavicular fractures following coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction with tendon graft: a report of three cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2010;92:1526-32.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Adkisson
HD. 4th, Martin JA, Amendola RL, Milliman C, Mauch KA, Katwal AB, Seyedin M, Amendola A, Streeter PR, Buckwalter JA. The potential of human allogeneic juvenile chondrocytes for restoration of articular cartilage. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:1324-33.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Moseley
JB
Jr;
Anderson
AF;
Browne
JE;
Mandelbaum
BR;
Micheli
LJ;
Fu
F;
Erggelet
C. Long-term durability of autologous chondrocyte implantation: a multicenter, observational study in US patients. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:238-46.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Peterson
L;
Vasiliadis
HS;
Brittberg
M;
Lindahl
A. Autologous chondrocyte implantation: a long-term follow-up. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:1117-24.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Gomoll
AH;
Probst
C;
Farr
J;
Cole
BJ;
Minas
T. Use of a type I/III bilayer collagen membrane decreases reoperation rates for symptomatic hypertrophy after autologous chondrocyte implantation. Am J Sports Med
. 2009;37:20S-3S.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Zeifang
F;
Oberle
D;
Nierhoff
C;
Richter
W;
Moradi
B;
Schmitt
H. Autologous chondrocyte implantation using the original periosteum-cover technique versus matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:924-33.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Niemeyer
P;
Lenz
P;
Kreuz
PC;
Salzmann
GM;
Südkamp
NP;
Schmal
H;
Steinwachs
M. Chondrocyte-seeded type I/III collagen membrane for autologous chondrocyte transplantation: prospective 2-year results in patients with cartilage defects of the knee joint. Arthroscopy
. 2010;26:1074-82.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Della Villa
S;
Kon
E;
Filardo
G;
Ricci
M;
Vincentelli
F;
Delcogliano
M;
Marcacci
M. Does intensive rehabilitation permit early return to sport without compromising the clinical outcome after arthroscopic autologous chondrocyte implantation in highly competitive athletes?Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:68-77.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Wondrasch
B;
Zak
L;
Welsch
GH;
Marlovits
S. Effect of accelerated weight-bearing after matrix-associated autologous chondrocyte implantation on the femoral condyle on radiographic and clinical outcome after 2 years: a prospective, randomized controlled pilot study. Am J Sports Med
. 2009;37:88S-96S.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Saris
DB;
Vanlauwe
J;
Victor
J;
Almqvist
KF;
Verdonk
R;
Bellemans
J;
Luyten
FP. Treatment of symptomatic cartilage defects of the knee: characterized chondrocyte implantation results in better clinical outcome at 36 months in a randomized trial compared with microfracture. Am J Sports Med
. 2009;37:10S-9S.[CrossRef][PubMed]
de Windt
TS;
Bekkers
JE;
Creemers
LB;
Dhert
WJ;
Saris
DB. Patient profiling in cartilage regeneration: prognostic factors determining success of treatment for cartilage defects. Am J Sports Med
. 2009;37:58S-62S.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Mithoefer
K;
Hambly
K;
Della Villa
S;
Silvers
H;
Mandelbaum
BR. Return to sports participation after articular cartilage repair in the knee: scientific evidence. Am J Sports Med
. 2009;37:167S-76S.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Chu
CR;
Coyle
CH;
Chu
CT;
Szczodry
M;
Seshadri
V;
Karpie
JC;
Cieslak
KM;
Pringle
EK. In vivo effects of single intra-articular injection of 0.5% bupivacaine on articular cartilage. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2010;92:599-608.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Dragoo
JL;
Korotkova
T;
Kim
HJ;
Jagadish
A. Chondrotoxicity of low pH, epinephrine, and preservatives found in local anesthetics containing epinephrine. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:1154-9.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Grishko
V;
Xu
M;
Wilson
G;
Pearsall
AW. 4th. Apoptosis and mitochondrial dysfunction in human chondrocytes following exposure to lidocaine, bupivacaine, and ropivacaine. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2010;92:609-18.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Zoric
BB;
Horn
N;
Braun
S;
Millett
PJ. Factors influencing intra-articular fluid temperature profiles with radiofrequency ablation. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2009;91:2448-54.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Fowler
J;
Owens
BD. Abdominal compartment syndrome after hip arthroscopy. Arthroscopy
. 2010;26:128-30.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Ladner
B;
Nester
K;
Cascio
B. Abdominal fluid extravasation during hip arthroscopy. Arthroscopy
. 2010;26:131-5.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Byrd
JW;
Jones
KS. Hip arthroscopy in athletes: 10-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med
. 2009;37:2140-3.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Lee
HH;
Klika
AK;
Bershadsky
B;
Krebs
VE;
Barsoum
WK. Factors affecting recovery after arthroscopic labral debridement of the hip. Arthroscopy
. 2010;26:328-34.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Larson
CM;
Giveans
MR. Arthroscopic debridement versus refixation of the acetabular labrum associated with femoroacetabular impingement. Arthroscopy
. 2009;25:369-76.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Philippon
MJ;
Briggs
KK;
Hay
CJ;
Kuppersmith
DA;
Dewing
CB;
Huang
MJ. Arthroscopic labral reconstruction in the hip using iliotibial band autograft: technique and early outcomes. Arthroscopy
. 2010;26:750-6.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Kang
AC;
Gooding
AJ;
Coates
MH;
Goh
TD;
Armour
P;
Rietveld
J. Computed tomography assessment of hip joints in asymptomatic individuals in relation to femoroacetabular impingement. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:1160-5.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Clohisy
JC;
Zebala
LP;
Nepple
JJ;
Pashos
G. Combined hip arthroscopy and limited open osteochondroplasty for anterior femoroacetabular impingement. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2010;92:1697-706.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Choi
WJ;
Park
KK;
Kim
BS;
Lee
JW. Osteochondral lesion of the talus: is there a critical defect size for poor outcome?Am J Sports Med
. 2009;37:1974-80.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Giannini
S;
Battaglia
M;
Buda
R;
Cavallo
M;
Ruffilli
A;
Vannini
F. Surgical treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talus by open-field autologous chondrocyte implantation: a 10-year follow-up clinical and magnetic resonance imaging T2-mapping evaluation. Am J Sports Med
. 2009;37:112S-8S.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Caputo
AM;
Lee
JY;
Spritzer
CE;
Easley
ME;
DeOrio
JK;
Nunley
JA
2nd;
DeFrate
LE. In vivo kinematics of the tibiotalar joint after lateral ankle instability. Am J Sports Med
. 2009;37:2241-8.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Gregush
RV;
Ferkel
RD. Treatment of the unstable ankle with an osteochondral lesion: results and long-term follow-up. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:782-90.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Peerbooms
JC;
Sluimer
J;
Bruijn
DJ;
Gosens
T. Positive effect of an autologous platelet concentrate in lateral epicondylitis in a double-blind randomized controlled trial: platelet-rich plasma versus corticosteroid injection with a 1-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:255-62.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Freeman
CR;
McCormick
KR;
Mahoney
D;
Baratz
M;
Lubahn
JD. Nonoperative treatment of distal biceps tendon ruptures compared with a historical control group. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2009;91:2329-34.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Bernas
GA;
Ruberte Thiele
RA;
Kinnaman
KA;
Hughes
RE;
Miller
BS;
Carpenter
JE. Defining safe rehabilitation for ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction of the elbow: a biomechanical study. Am J Sports Med
. 2009;37:2392-400.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Iwasaki
N;
Kato
H;
Ishikawa
J;
Masuko
T;
Funakoshi
T;
Minami
A. Autologous osteochondral mosaicplasty for osteochondritis dissecans of the elbow in teenage athletes. J Bone Joint Surg Am.
2009;91:2359-66.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Iwasaki
N;
Kato
H;
Kamishima
T;
Minami
A. Sequential alterations in magnetic resonance imaging findings after autologous osteochondral mosaicplasty for young athletes with osteochondritis dissecans of the humeral capitellum. Am J Sports Med
. 2009;37:2349-54.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Unglaub
F;
Thomas
SB;
Kroeber
MW;
Dragu
A;
Fellenberg
J;
Wolf
MB;
Horch
RE. Apoptotic pathways in degenerative disk lesions in the wrist. Arthroscopy
. 2009;25:1380-6.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Makdissi
M;
Darby
D;
Maruff
P;
Ugoni
A;
Brukner
P;
McCrory
PR. Natural history of concussion in sport: markers of severity and implications for management. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:464-71.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Schatz
P. Long-term test-retest reliability of baseline cognitive assessments using ImPACT. Am J Sports Med
. 2010;38:47-53.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Raviraj
A;
Anand
A;
Kodikal
G;
Chandrashekar
M;
Pai
S. A comparison of early and delayed arthroscopically-assisted reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament using hamstring autograft. J Bone Joint Surg Br.
2010;92:521-6.One hundred and five consecutive patients with ACL injuries associated with grade-1 and 2 chondral and/or low-grade meniscal tears were randomized to early treatment (less than two weeks after the injury) or delayed treatment (more than four to six weeks after the injury) with ACL reconstruction with use of autogenous quadrupled hamstring graft. No competitive athletes were included in the study. No significant difference was found between the groups in terms of the Lysholm score, Tegner activity score, or range of motion. Stability and KT-1000 arthrometer testing also showed no significant difference between the study groups. This study demonstrates that early and late ACL reconstruction can result in similar functional outcomes.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Endele
D;
Jung
C;
Becker
U;
Bauer
G;
Mauch
F. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with and without computer navigation: a clinical and magnetic resonance imaging evaluation 2 years after surgery. Arthroscopy
. 2009;25:1067-74.This prospective, randomized controlled trial included forty patients, with twenty patients being assigned to a computer navigation group and twenty being assigned to a manual navigation group. All patients underwent patellar tendon autograft ACL reconstruction with press-fit fixation. At the time of the two-year follow-up, radiographs and MRI showed no difference between the groups in terms of tibial or femoral tunnel placement. No significant difference was identified between the groups in terms of functional outcomes. This study showed that equivalent tunnel placement and clinical results can be achieved with both computer and manual navigation for ACL reconstruction.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Biau
DJ;
Katsahian
S;
Kartus
J;
Harilainen
A;
Feller
JA;
Sajovic
M;
Ejerhed
L;
Zaffagnini
S;
Röpke
M;
Nizard
R. Patellar tendon versus hamstring tendon autografts for reconstructing the anterior cruciate ligament: a meta-analysis based on individual patient data. Am J Sports Med.
2009;37:2470-8.A meta-analysis of individual patient data from six randomized clinical trials involving 423 patients was performed. In all studies, the patients were randomized to ACL reconstruction with use of either patellar tendon autograft or hamstring tendon autograft. Knee instability, defined as a positive pivot-shift, was the primary outcome measure. A positive Lachman test was the secondary outcome. Patellar tendon ACL reconstruction was associated with a decreased risk of a positive pivot-shift test postoperatively (adjusted odds ratio, 0.46; p = 0.016). Positive pivot-shift was more common in female patients and younger patients (p = 0.0170). Functional outcome in relation to knee stability was not a variable in the analysis. This study provides valuable information for surgeons when educating patients about ACL reconstruction technique options and expected stability outcomes.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Shen
C;
Jiang
SD;
Jiang
LS;
Dai
LY. Bioabsorbable versus metallic interference screw fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arthroscopy.
2010;26:705-13.The authors of this study performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials comparing bioresorbable fixation with metallic screw fixation for single-bundle ACL reconstruction. Outcomes were analyzed in terms of the infection rate, knee joint effusion, the Lysholm score, the International Knee Documentation Committee final score, the pivot-shift test, and KT-1000/KT-2000 arthrometer measurements. Graft choice was ignored in this meta-analysis. No significant differences in knee joint stability or knee joint function were found between bioabsorbable and metallic interference screws. Bioresorbable screws were associated with an increased prevalence of knee joint effusion. This study demonstrates that bioresorbable and metallic screw fixation for ACL reconstruction can result in similar acceptable outcomes.[CrossRef][PubMed]
Ibrahim
SA;
Hamido
F;
Al Misfer
AK;
Mahgoob
A;
Ghafar
SA;
Alhran
H. Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using autologous hamstring double bundle graft compared with single bundle procedures. J Bone Joint Surg Br.
2009;91:1310-5.Two hundred and eighteen ACL-deficient knees were randomized into four groups. Patients either underwent double-bundle ACL reconstruction, single-bundle reconstruction with an EndoButton, single-bundle reconstruction with RigidFix cross pins, or single-bundle reconstruction with bioabsorbable TransFix II for femoral fixation. Tibial fixation with use of a bioabsorbable Intrafix interference screw was used across all four groups. After an average duration of follow-up of twenty-nine months, there were no differences across the four groups in terms of injury and range of movement and Lysholm knee scores. Double-bundle reconstruction demonstrated significantly better results on pivot-shift testing (p = 0.002). KT-1000 arthrometer measurements were better for the double-bundle technique as compared with the single-bundle technique. Furthermore, the double-bundle technique demonstrated improved Lachman and anterior drawer testing outcomes. The double-bundle technique also demonstrated less laxity in comparison with all single-bundle techniques. Of note, all knees were improved following ACL reconstruction as compared with the preoperative functional status. This article demonstrates superior postoperative examination results for double-bundle as compared with single-bundle ACL reconstruction with use of hamstring autograft but no differences in terms of subjective outcome scores.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Goldman
EF;
Jones
DE. Interventions for preventing hamstring injuries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev.
2010;1:.The authors of this study performed a systematic review of the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (to December 2008), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, 2008, Issue 4), MEDLINE and other databases (to December 2008), reference lists, and clinical trials registers to assess the effects of interventions used to prevent hamstring injuries. Seven randomized controlled trials including 1919 patients were included. After review and analysis, the authors concluded that there is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of interventions used to prevent hamstring injury.