OBJECTIVE: To determine whether femoral tunnel length (FTL) affects clinical or functional outcomes following primary Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with single-bundle quadriceps tendon autograft, both with and without a patellar bone block.
METHODS: An electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was carried out via OVID. Data pertaining to study characteristics, patient demographics, surgical techniques, femoral tunnel length, and subjective/objective clinical outcomes was abstracted. Studies were stratified into two groups based on FTL; a short femoral tunnel (S-FT) group of ≤25 mm, and a long femoral tunnel (L-FT) group of >25 mm. There was a high degree of heterogeneity between studies, prohibiting meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Seven studies comprising 368 total patients with a mean age of 30.3 years (range: 23.4-34 years) were included for analysis. The S-FT group included 126 patients and the L-FT group 242 patients. Both groups demonstrated statistically significant postoperative improvements across both subjective and objective clinical and functional outcomes. Average complication rates were 11.9% (range: 0%-29%) in the S-FT group and 4.5% (range: 1%-14%) in the L-FT group. Ranges of re-rupture rates were 0%-2% and 0%-3% for the S-FT and L-FT groups, respectively (n.s.).
CONCLUSIONS: Both S-FT and L-FT groups demonstrated comparable postoperative outcomes following primary ACLR with single bundle quadriceps tendon autograft. There were slightly superior, although non-significant, outcomes reported with short femoral tunnel length, however, this may have been confounded by the variation in surgical technique used.
METHODS: IV.

UNASSIGNED: Socket preservation is a surgical procedure aimed at preserving the dimensions of the alveolar bone following tooth extraction. It is performed by filling the extraction socket with bone graft material with or without a barrier membrane. Recently, dentine obtained from extracted teeth has been tried as an autograft for socket preservation. Studies have compared the use of dentin to other bone grafts, however, systematic reviews evaluating the efficacy of dentin for socket preservation are limited. Hence, this systematic review protocol is proposed to generate evidence on the efficacy of dentin as a viable alternative to other bone graft materials for socket preservation.
UNASSIGNED: This systematic review protocol was prepared according to the Methodological Expectations of the Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) guidelines. It will be conducted using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, Epistemonikos, Cochrane Central, and EBSCO databases and clinical trial registries, will be searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies that have used autologous dentin graft (either in particulate/putty, or/matrix form) for socket preservation. The radiographic and clinical assessment of bone and soft tissue healing of the preserved sockets along with patient-related outcomes following surgery will be assessed. The risk of bias assessment of the RCTs and Non-RCTs will be assessed using the \'Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool (ROB II) and ROBINS-I respectively. The certainty of evidence will be assessed by the GRADE approach.
UNASSIGNED: This evidence is important for dental clinicians and the public to make an informed decision when choosing graft material for socket preservation. The extracted teeth are considered biological waste; however, this evidence provides scope for using a less invasive autograft for bone regenerative procedures.
UNASSIGNED: PROSPERO: CRD42021201958 (Registered on 15/02/2021).

BACKGROUND: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is most commonly performed with hamstring tendon (HT) or bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autografts, although the quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft has recently increased in popularity. This systematic review and meta-analysis review compares QT and HT autografts for primary ACLR with a sole focus on randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
METHODS: A prospective protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42023427339). The search included MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science until February 2024. Only comparative RCTs were included. The primary outcome was the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form score. Secondary outcomes included: other validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), objective strength scores, complications, and return to sport and work.
RESULTS: From 2,609 articles identified, seven were included (n = 474 patients). This meta-analysis did not identify a significant difference in post-operative IKDC scores (5 articles; p = 0.73), Lysholm scores (3 studies; p = 0.80) or Tegner activity scales (2 studies; p = 0.98). There were no differences in graft failure rates (4 studies; p = 0.92) or in overall adverse events (4 studies; p = 0.83) at 24 months post-ACLR as per meta-analysis. Donor site morbidity scores were significantly lower in the QT group (MD -4.67, 95% CI -9.29 to -0.05; 2 studies, 211 patients; p = 0.05, I2 = 34%).
CONCLUSIONS: There were no differences between QT and HT in PROMs, graft failure rates or overall complications based on low- to moderate-quality evidence. There may possibly be lower donor site morbidity with the QT autograft, however, the evidence is not sufficient to draw definitive conclusions.

UNASSIGNED: Several approaches to surgical techniques and graft types exist in posterolateral corner (PLC) reconstruction. The literature lacks knowledge regarding outcomes after autograft versus allograft reconstruction for PLC injuries.
UNASSIGNED: To comprehensively review the current literature on PLC reconstruction and compare outcomes between autograft and allograft tissues.
UNASSIGNED: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.
UNASSIGNED: The PubMed and Scopus online databases were searched with the terms \"PLC,\"\"posterolateral knee,\"\"posterolateral corner,\" and \"reconstruction\" in varying combinations. Patient characteristics, graft type, graft failure, surgical techniques, functional outcome scores, and varus laxity on stress radiographs were reviewed and compared between PLC reconstruction with autografts versus allografts.
UNASSIGNED: Included were 22 studies comprising 33 cohorts: 16 autografts (n = 280 knees) and 17 allografts (336 knees). There were 69 isolated PLC reconstructions (58 allografts and 11 autografts) and 493 multiligament reconstructions (269 autografts and 224 allografts). There was no difference in the mean patient age (30.5 vs 33.5 years, respectively; P = .11) or mean follow-up (39.5 vs 37.7 months, respectively; P = .68) between the autograft and allograft groups. There was no evidence to suggest a difference in graft failures between graft types (pooled mean autograft vs allograft: 0.44 vs 0.41 failures; P = .95). There was a significant difference in the mean postoperative Lysholm scores for autografts versus allografts (89.6 vs 85.5, respectively; P = .04). There was no difference between the cohorts in preoperative or postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores or postoperative varus laxity.
UNASSIGNED: Our review and meta-analysis indicated no significant differences in graft failure rates or objective outcomes after PLC reconstruction based on graft type alone. There was a significant difference in postoperative Lysholm scores in favor of the autograft group and no significant difference in IKDC subjective scores.

The hamstring tendon (HT) autograft is currently the most widely utilised autograft option for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, recent studies endorse the peroneus longus tendon (PLT) autograft as a viable alternative. To evaluate this, we systematically reviewed randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the efficacy of PLT against HT autografts. Our search encompassed Cochrane, Embase, OVID, PubMed, and Scopus databases for RCTs comparing outcomes of PLT and HT autografts in ACL reconstruction. Primary outcomes included Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores, while secondary outcomes involved American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores, graft diameters and donor-site complications. Statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4 (Cochrane Collaboration) and heterogeneity was assessed with I2 statistics. 683 patients from 6 RCTs were included, with 338 (49.5%) patients treated with PLT autografts. Follow-up ranged from 12 to 30 months. Despite lower preoperative Lysholm scores in the PLT group, no significant differences were observed at 6 and 12 months. Although preoperative and 6-month IKDC scores were lower in the PLT group, no significant differences were found at 12 and 24 months. AOFAS scores showed no significant preoperative difference, but slightly lower scores were noted in the PLT group at 12 or 24 months. There was no significant difference in graft diameter, while donor-site complications were fewer in the PLT group. In summary, the PLT autograft is a promising and non-inferior alternative to the HT autograft, demonstrating equivalent outcomes in patient-reported knee and ankle metrics, comparable graft diameters and fewer donor-site complications.

UNASSIGNED: The timing of return to work (RTW) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) is a less studied milestone compared with return to sports.
UNASSIGNED: To systematically review the rate and postoperative timing of RTW after ACLR.
UNASSIGNED: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.
UNASSIGNED: This study was conducted in accordance with the 2020 PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Ovid databases for clinical studies reporting RTW after ACLR, and 806 studies were identified in August 2022. A quality assessment was performed using the Methodological Index of Nonrandomized Studies (MINORS) grading system. The following data were extracted from studies: study characteristics, cohort demographics, ACLR technique, concomitant meniscal and/or cartilage procedures, preoperative patient-reported outcomes, rates of RTW, and days required for RTW after ACLR.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 13 studies met inclusion criteria, totaling 1791 patients (86.4% male). Wide variability was observed in the methodological quality of the assessed studies (MINORS score range, 8-17). Hamstring tendon (HT) autograft was used in 76.8% (n = 1377; mean age, 30.5 years old), allograft in 17.1% (n = 308; mean age, 33.1 years old), the ligament advanced reinforcement system in 2.5% (n = 46; mean age, 33.2 years old), bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft in 2% (n = 36; mean age, 28.5 years old), and quadriceps tendon autograft in 1.3% (n = 24; mean age, 24.1 years old). Among the included patients, 99.1% (n = 1781) reported successful RTW after surgery. The mean time to RTW was 84.2 days (range, 31.4-107.1 days) for HT and 69.5 days (range, 49-56.6 days) for allograft.
UNASSIGNED: While data regarding work intensity before and after ACL injury were absent, our study results suggested that patients most often RTW within 90 days of surgery. Patients with allograft ACLR may RTW earlier than patients undergoing ACLR with HT autograft.

OBJECTIVE: The role of interbodies in lumbar arthrodesis has been insufficiently supported by evidence, impacting clinical decision-making and occasionally insurance coverage. This study aimed to compare clinical and radiological outcomes between lumbar arthrodesis with a synthetic interbody spacer (cage) versus structural bone graft alone (autograft or allograft) in patients with degenerative spine disease.
METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify studies directly comparing outcomes of lumbar interbody arthrodesis with and without interbody cage use. The outcomes of individual studies were synthesized in meta-analyses using random-effects models.
RESULTS: Twenty studies with 1508 patients (769 with an interbody cage and 739 without an interbody cage) were included. Interbody cage placement was associated with a significantly greater increase in disc height after surgery (4.0 mm vs 3.4 mm, p < 0.01). There was a significantly greater reduction of back pain (visual analog scale [VAS] score) in cases in which an interbody cage was used (5.4 vs 4.7, p = 0.03). Fusion rates were 5.5% higher in the cage group (96.3% vs 90.8%) and reached statistical significance (p = 0.03). No statistically significant differences were identified between the two groups regarding all-cause reoperation rates, complication rates, or improvement in Oswestry Disability Index score or leg pain (VAS score).
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that implantation of an interbody cage is associated with higher rates of fusion, more effective maintenance of disc height, and greater improvement of back pain. This study underlines the clinical value of interbody cages in lumbar arthrodesis for patients with degenerative spine disease.

The surgical treatment of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries dates back over 100 years from the present day [2022]. While open repair of the torn ACL was popularized in the early 1900s, the first ACL reconstructions utilized the fascia lata as a graft and other extra-articular stabilizing techniques. The first free tendon graft reported for ACL reconstructions was the quadriceps tendon (QT) in the 1930s, followed by the hamstrings tendon (HT), and then the patellar tendon. With improved understanding of the ACL anatomy and biomechanics and the invention of the arthroscope, ACL reconstruction evolved from open procedures to arthroscopic. Similarly, with the help of many surgeon-scientists who reported patient outcomes following ACL reconstruction with various techniques, graft choice evolved with the hamstrings and patellar tendon grafts becoming the dominant and preferred choice of both surgeons and patients. In present day, we see a resurgence of one of the original grafts reported, the QT, as well as primary ACL repair. Future research will result in continued advancements of ACL surgical techniques and graft harvesting, which will allow the orthopedic community (including patients and surgeons) to benefit from such innovations and advanced technologies.

UNASSIGNED: Medial collateral ligament (MCL) reconstruction (MCLR) is performed after failed nonoperative treatment or high-grade MCL injury with associated valgus instability.
UNASSIGNED: To evaluate clinical outcomes after MCLR with autograft versus allograft.
UNASSIGNED: Systematic review, Level of evidence, 4.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The authors conducted a search of the PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases to identify studies comparing outcomes of MCLR with autograft versus allograft. Studies were included if they evaluated clinical outcomes after MCLR using autograft and/or allograft. Any study that included concomitant knee ligament injury other than the anterior cruciate ligament injury was excluded. A quality assessment was performed using the modified Coleman Methodology Score.
UNASSIGNED: The initial search identified 746 studies, 17 of which met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. The studies included 307 patients: 151 (49.2%) patients received autografts, and 156 (50.8%) received allografts. The most used autograft was the semitendinosus tendon (136 grafts; 90.1% of specified allografts), and the only allograft used was the Achilles tendon (110 grafts; 100% of specified autografts). The mean follow-up of the studies was 25.6 months. Postoperative pain (Lysholm scores) ranged from 82.9 to 94.8 in patients receiving autografts and 87.5 to 93 in patients receiving allografts. Postoperative range of motion was full in 8 of 15 (53.3%) patients receiving autografts compared with 82 of 93 (88.2%) patients receiving allografts. Five of the 151 (3.3%) patients who had MCLR with autografts had complications such as infection, instability, and prominent screws. Two of the 156 (1.3%) MCLRs with allografts developed complications of prominent screws and nonhealing incisions.
UNASSIGNED: MCLR with either autografts or allografts leads to improved patient-reported, radiographic, and clinical outcomes. Patient-reported postoperative pain was similar in patients receiving either graft type. Other outcomes were difficult to compare between graft types because of nonstandardized reporting and a lack of pre- and postoperative measurements. Therefore, there is no evidence of significantly improved outcomes in the use of either autograft or allograft with MCLR.

Varus knees with associated cartilage pathologies are not uncommon scenarios that present to orthopaedic surgeons. There is no agreement on the ideal management of varus knees with concomitant cartilage pathology. Through a literature review, the authors tried to answer three main questions: On October 2022, OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, and COCHRANE databases were searched. Clinical studies reporting on clinical, radiologic, or macroscopic cartilage regeneration following either isolated knee osteotomy or concomitant osteotomy and a cartilage procedure were reviewed. Despite controversies, the literature demonstrated favourable outcomes of combined knee osteotomy and a cartilage procedure in patients with substantial deformity and cartilage defects. Isolated high tibial osteotomy may induce cartilage regeneration in several scenarios and severities of concomitant malalignment and cartilage defects. There are recommendations that knee osteotomy should be added to a cartilage procedure when an extra-articular deformity of > 5° is detected. Some studies report good outcomes for combining a knee osteotomy with cartilage grafting, but they lack a control group of isolated osteotomy. There is still scarce of evidence on the influence of osteotomies on cartilage regeneration and the outcomes of concomitant osteotomy and different cartilage procedures vs isolated osteotomies. With advanced statistical evaluation (artificial intelligence, machine learning) of big datasets, more answers and better results will be delivered.