Search

Background: Hamstring autograft (HA) is a popular graft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Although multiple studies have demonstrated that increasing the graft diameter decreases the risk of failure or revision surgery, the exact minimum graft diameter remains controversial, with the unofficial standard being 8 mm., Purpose: To evaluate the risk of aseptic revision after HA-ACLR in patients aged ≤25 years, comparing graft diameters of (1) <8 versus ≥8 mm and (2) ≤8 versus >8 mm. A secondary purpose was to determine whether there was a threshold for graft diameter that best identifies patients at a higher risk of aseptic revision., Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3., Methods: A total of 5972 primary HA-ACLRs were identified using data from the ACLR registry of Kaiser Permanente. Propensity score-weighted Cox regression was used to evaluate revision risk for HAs with <8 versus ≥8 mm diameter and with ≤8 versus >8 mm diameter. An effect plot and receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the curve (AUC) analysis were also created to model the probability of revision based on the HA diameter to determine whether there was a specific diameter threshold to minimize revision risk., Results: In the propensity score-weighted Cox model, <8 mm autografts had a higher risk of aseptic revision compared with ≥8 mm autografts (hazard ratio [HR], 1.32 [95% CI, 1.01-1.71]; P  = .039); a higher risk was also observed when comparing ≤8 to >8 mm grafts (HR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.06-1.66]; P  = .015). In receiver operating characteristic analysis, an HA diameter that best identified patients at a higher risk for revision after ACLR could not be identified (AUC, 0.56). However, the adjusted effect plot showed a direct decrease in revision risk with each increasing increment in graft size., Conclusion: A 32% higher risk of revision was observed in smaller graft diameter groups (<8 or ≤8 mm) compared with larger graft sizes (≥8 or >8 mm), regardless of specific diameter cutoff. In a cohort of almost 6000 HA-ACLR, the authors were unable to determine a definitive minimum graft diameter threshold that should be used., Competing Interests: One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: R.M. has received nonconsulting fees from Arthrex and Empire Medical and consulting fees from Arthrex. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from Kaiser Permanente Southern California/Hawaii (reference No. 5691)., (© The Author(s) 2025.)

Background: Osteochondral allograft (OCA) transplantation has evolved into a first-line treatment for large chondral and osteochondral defects, aided by advancements in storage protocols and a growing body of clinical evidence supporting successful clinical outcomes and long-term survivorship. Despite the body of literature supporting OCAs, there still remains controversy and debate in the surgical application of OCA, especially where high-level evidence is lacking., Purpose: To develop consensus among an expert group with extensive clinical and scientific experience in OCA, addressing controversies in the treatment of chondral and osteochondral defects with OCA transplantation., Study Design: Consensus statement., Methods: A focus group of clinical experts on OCA cartilage restoration participated in a 3-round modified Delphi process to generate a list of statements and establish consensus. Questions and statements were initially developed on specific topics that lack scientific evidence and lead to debate and controversy in the clinical community. In-person discussion occurred where statements were not agreed on after 2 rounds of voting. After final voting, the percentage of agreement and level of consensus were characterized. A systematic literature review was performed, and the level of evidence and grade were established for each statement., Results: Seventeen statements spanning surgical technique, graft matching, indications, and rehabilitation reached consensus after the final round of voting. Of the 17 statements that reached consensus, 11 received unanimous (100%) agreement, and 6 received strong (80%-99%) agreement., Conclusion: The outcomes of this study led to the establishment of consensus statements that provide guidance on surgical and perioperative management of OCAs. The findings also provided insights on topics requiring more research or high-quality studies to further establish consensus and provide stronger evidence., Competing Interests: One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: S.G. has received education payments from Arthrex and Goode Surgical, consulting fees from JRF, and honoraria from JRF and Vericel. D.G.J. has received education payments from Arthrex; consulting fees from Acumed, Amniox Medical, Aastrom BioSciences, and Medical Device Business Services; speaking fees from Aastrom BioSciences and Linvatec; honoraria from Flexion, Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation, and Vericel; and hospitality payments form Aesculap and Zimmer Biomet. J.D.P. has received education payments from Pylant Medical. D.C.C. has received consulting fees from Arthrosurface and DePuy, honoraria from JRF, and hospitality payments from Steelhead Surgical. W.D.B. has received consulting fees from Arthrex, Encore Medical, JRF, DePuy/Medical Device Business Services, and Orthalign; has received royalties from DePuy, Smith & Nephew, and Zimmer Biomet; and has stock/stock options in Orthalign. B.J.C. has received education payments from Medwest; consulting fees from Acumed, Aesculap Biologics, Anika Therapeutics, Arthrex, Bioventus, Flexion Therapeutics, Geistlich Pharma, Smith & Nephew, Vericel, and Zimmer Biomet; speaking fees from Arthrex and Lifenet Health; hospitality payments from GE Healthcare; honoraria from Vericel; and royalties from Arthrex and DJO. J.F. has received education payments from Crossroads Orthopedics; consulting fees from Aastrom Biosciences, Aesculap, Arthrex, Collagen Matrix, Exactech, DePuy, Organogenesis, and RTI Surgical; nonconsulting fees from Arthrex and Vericel; honoraria from JRF and Vericel; royalties from DePuy and Organogenesis; and hospitality payments from Skeletal Kinetics. J.E.F. has received education payments from Peerless Surgical, Linvatec, and Zimmer Biomet and consulting and nonconsulting fees from Smith & Nephew. A.H.G. has received consulting fees from Aastrom, Flexion, JRF, Smith & Nephew, and Vericel; nonconsulting fees from Aastrom and LifeNet Health; honoraria from Fidia Pharma, JRF, and Vericel; and royalties from Organogenesis. A.J.K. has received grant support from Exactech; consulting fees from Arthrex, JRF, and Responsive Arthroscopy; honoraria from JRF, MTF, and Vericel; and royalties from Arthrex. C.L. has received consulting fees from Aastrom, Sanofi-Aventis, Vericel, and Zimmer Biomet; nonconsulting fees from Aesculap, Arthrosurface, and Vericel; and honoraria from Arthrosurface, JRF, and Vericel. B.R.M. has received education payments from Arthrex; consulting fees from Arthrex, BioMarin Pharmaceutical, DePuy, and Exactech; and nonconsulting fees from Arthrex. P.R.M. has received hospitality payments from Arthrex. R.M. has received education payments from Arthrex and SportsTek Medical, nonconsulting fees from Arthrex, and royalties from Zimmer Biomet. T.S.M. has received education support from Arthrex and consulting fees and honoraria from JRF. M.T.P. has received consulting fees, speaking fees, and royalties from Arthrex; royalties from Arthrosurface; honoraria from Flexion; and consulting fees and honoraria from JRF. S.A.R. has received consulting fees from Flexion Therapeutics, nonconsulting fees from Smith & Nephew, honoraria from Fidia Pharma, and royalties from Zimmer Biomet. E.D.S. has received education payments from Arthrex and hospitality payments from Axogen and Liberty Surgical. C.J.W. has received consulting fees and nonconsulting fees from Smith & Nephew, royalties from Arthrosurface, and hospitality payments from Arthrex and Stryker. R.J.W. has received education payments, nonconsulting fees, consulting fees, and royalties from Arthrex. A.B.Y. has received education payments from Arthrex and Medwest, consulting fees from Aastrom Biosciences and Olympus, and honoraria from JRF. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto., (© The Author(s) 2021.)

Background: Cartilage lesions of the patellofemoral joint constitute a frequent abnormality. Patellofemoral conditions are challenging to treat because of complex biomechanics and morphology., Purpose: To develop a consensus statement on the functional anatomy, indications, donor graft considerations, surgical treatment, and rehabilitation for the management of large chondral and osteochondral defects in the patellofemoral joint using a modified Delphi technique., Study Design: Consensus statement., Methods: A working group of 4 persons generated a list of statements related to the functional anatomy, indications, donor graft considerations, surgical treatment, and rehabilitation for the management of large chondral and osteochondral defects in the patellofemoral joint to form the basis of an initial survey for rating by a group of experts. The Metrics of Osteochondral Allografts (MOCA) expert group (composed of 28 high-volume cartilage experts) was surveyed on 3 occasions to establish a consensus on the statements. In addition to assessing agreement for each included statement, experts were invited to propose additional statements for inclusion or to suggest modifications of existing statements with each round. Predefined criteria were used to refine statement lists after each survey round. Statements reaching a consensus in round 3 were included within the final consensus document., Results: A total of 28 experts (100% response rate) completed 3 rounds of surveys. After 3 rounds, 36 statements achieved a consensus, with over 75% agreement and less than 20% disagreement. A consensus was reached in 100.00% of the statements relating to functional anatomy of the patellofemoral joint, 88.24% relating to surgical indications, 100.00% relating to surgical technical aspects, and 100.00% relating to rehabilitation, with an overall consensus of 95.5%., Conclusion: This study established a strong expert consensus document relating to the functional anatomy, surgical indications, donor graft considerations for osteochondral allografts, surgical technical aspects, and rehabilitation concepts for the management of large chondral and osteochondral defects in the patellofemoral joint. Further research is required to clinically validate the established consensus statements and better understand the precise indications for surgery as well as which techniques and graft processing/preparation methods should be used based on patient- and lesion-specific factors., Competing Interests: One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: J.C. has received research support and consulting fees from Arthrex, Conmed, and Smith & Nephew. B.B.H. has received research support from Arthrex and educational support from Arthrex and Elite Orthopaedics. A.B.Y. has received research support from Arthrex, Orthogenesis, Medwest, and Vericel; educational support from Arthrex, Medwest, and Smith & Nephew; and consulting fees from Aastrom Biosciences, JRF Ortho, Olympus, PatientIQ, Smith & Nephew, and Sparta Biomedical. J.F. has received consulting fees from Osiris Therapeutics, Zimmer Biomet, ISTO Technologies, Ceterix Orthopaedics, Biomet, Genzyme, MedShape, and Sanofi-Aventis; has received speaking fees from Arthrex and Zimmer Biomet; has received royalties from Arthrex, DePuy, Organogenesis, Springer, and Thieme Medical Publishers; and has stock/stock options in MedShape and Ortho Regenerative Technologies. W.D.B. has received consulting fees from Arthrex, DePuy, Insight Medical, JRF Ortho, OrthAlign, and Smith & Nephew; has received royalties from DePuy, Smith & Nephew, and Zimmer Biomet; and has stock/stock options in Insight Medical, Moximed, and OrthAlign. B.J.C. has received research support from Aesculap/B. Braun, Arthrex, and Regentis Biomaterials; has received educational support from Medwest; has received consulting fees from Acumed, Anika Therapeutics, Arthrex, Bioventus, Flexion Therapeutics, Geistlich Pharma, Genzyme, Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Regentis Biomaterials, Smith & Nephew, Vericel, and Zimmer Biomet; has received speaking fees from Arthrex, Carticept Medical, LifeNet Health, and Pacira Pharmaceuticals; has received hospitality payments from GE Healthcare; has received royalties from Arthrex, DJO, Elsevier, and Operative Techniques in Sports Medicine; and has stock/stock options in BandGrip, Ossio, and Regentis Biomaterials. D.C.C. has received research support from Histogenics, JRF Ortho, Moximed, and Zimmer Biologics and consulting fees from Arthrosurface, DePuy, Histogenics, JRF Ortho, and Moximed. J.E.F. has received research support from Arthrex and Smith & Nephew; educational support from Linvatec, Peerless Surgical, and Zimmer Biomet; and consulting fees and speaking fees from Smith & Nephew. A.G. has received research support from Aesculap/B. Braun, Arthrex, DePuy, Eupraxia Pharmaceuticals, Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation, Ossur, and Smith & Nephew; consulting fees from Collagen Solutions, Olympus, Ossur, and Smith & Nephew; speaking fees from Conmed Linvatec, Ossur, and Smith & Nephew; and royalties from Smith & Nephew. A.H.G. has received research support from JRF Ortho and Vericel; consulting fees from Aesculap, Geistlich Pharma, Genzyme, JRF Ortho, Moximed, Smith & Nephew, and Vericel; speaking fees from Aastrom Biosciences, LifeNet Health, and Vericel; and royalties from Organogenesis. S.G. has received educational support from Arthrex and Goode Surgical and honoraria from Vericel. A.E.G. has received consulting fees, speaking fees, and royalties from Zimmer Biomet and has stock/stock options in Intellijoint Surgical. D.G.J. has received research support from Genzyme and Sanofi-Aventis; has received educational support from Arthrex; has received consulting fees from Aastrom Biosciences, Acumed, Amniox Medical, DePuy/Medical Device Business Services, Flexion, Genzyme, Vericel, and Zimmer Biomet; has received speaking fees from Arthrex, Conmed Linvatec, Flexion, Genzyme, Mitek, Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation, TissueTech, Vericel, and Zimmer Biomet; and is a board or committee member of the Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation. A.J.K. has received research support from Aesculap/B. Braun, Arthrex, Ceterix Orthopaedics, and Histogenics; has received consulting fees from Arthrex, DePuy, JRF Ortho, and Vericel; has received speaking fees from Arthrex; and is a board or committee member of the Musculoskeletal Transplant Foundation. C.L. has received honoraria from Arthrosurface; consulting fees from Aastrom Biosciences, Genzyme, JRF Ortho, Samumed, Sanofi-Aventis, Vericel, and Zimmer Biomet; and speaking fees from Vericel. B.R.M. has received consulting fees from Arthrex, BioMarin Pharmaceutical, DePuy, and Exactech; speaking fees from Arthrex; and royalties from Arthrex. R.M. has received research support from Arthrex and DJO, has received educational support from Arthrex, has received speaking fees from Arthrex, has received royalties from Zimmer Biomet, and has stock/stock options in AlignMed. T.S.M. has received research support from JRF Ortho, educational support from Arthrex, consulting fees from JRF Ortho and MicroAire Surgical Instruments, and speaking fees from JRF Ortho. J.D.P. has received research support from Ossur, Sanofi-Aventis, and Vericel; consulting fees from JRF Ortho; and speaking fees from DePuy. M.T.P. has received consulting fees from Arthrex and JRF Ortho (AlloSource), speaking fees from Arthrex, and royalties from Arthrex and SLACK. S.A.R. has received consulting fees from Flexion, has received speaking fees from Smith & Nephew, has received honoraria from Fidia Pharma, has received royalties from Zimmer Biomet, and has stock/stock options in Ortho Regenerative Technologies. O.S. has received research support from DePuy and consulting fees from Zimmer Biomet. S.L.S. has received consulting fees and research support from Arthrex Inc; is a paid consultant for Ceterix Orthopaedics, CONMED Linvatec, Flexion Therapeutics, GLG Consulting, JRF Ortho, Moximed, Olympus, Vericel, Linvatec, and RTI Surgical; has received hospitality payments from Linvatec and Smith & Nephew; and has received a grant (indirect) from DJO. E.D.S. has received research support from CartiHeal, Fidia Pharma, and NuTech; consulting fees from Arthrex, Fidia Pharma, Flexion, JRF Ortho, Organogenesis, Smith & Nephew, and Vericel; speaking fees from Arthrex, Organogenesis, and Vericel; and royalties from Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers. C.J.W. has received consulting fees from Arthrosurface and Smith & Nephew and speaking fees from Arthrex, Arthrosurface, and Smith & Nephew. R.J.W. has received research support from Histogenics; has received consulting fees from Arthrex, JRF Ortho, and Lipogems; has received speaking fees from Arthrex; has received royalties from Arthrex; and has stock/stock options in CyMedica Orthopedics, Gramercy Extremity Orthopedics, Pristine Surgical, and RecoverX. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

Background: Controversy exits regarding performing a tenotomy versus a tenodesis of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT)., Purpose: To evaluate the complications after arthroscopic tenotomy of the LHBT and characterize the incidence of cosmetic deformity, cramping, subjective weakness, and continued anterior shoulder pain (ASP). Additionally, to identify patient-related factors that may predispose a patient to these complications., Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3., Methods: Records of patients who underwent an arthroscopic LHBT tenotomy at an integrated health care system under the care of 55 surgeons were retrospectively reviewed. Exclusion criteria included LHBT tenodesis, arthroplasty, neoplastic, or fracture surgery; age younger than 18 years; incomplete documentation of physical examination; or incomplete operative reports. Characteristic data, concomitant procedures, LHBT morphology, and postoperative complications were recorded. Patients with and without postoperative complications-including cosmetic deformity, subjective weakness, continued ASP, and cramping-were analyzed by age, sex, dominant arm, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, workers' compensation status, and intraoperative LHBT morphology to identify risk factors for developing these postoperative complications., Results: A total of 192 patients who underwent LHBT tenotomy were included in the final analysis. Tenotomy was performed with concomitant shoulder procedures in all but 1 individual. The mean ± SD patient age was 60.6 ± 9.5 years, and 55% were male. The overall complication rate was 37%. The most common postoperative complications include cosmetic (Popeye) deformity (14.1%), subjective weakness (10.4%), cramping (10.4%), and continued postoperative ASP over the bicipital groove (7.8%). Every 10-year increase in age was associated with 0.52 (95% CI, 0.28-0.94) times the odds of continued ASP and 0.59 (95% CI, 0.36-0.98) times the odds of cramping pain. Male patients had 3.9 (95% CI, 1.4-10.8) times the odds of cosmetic (Popeye) deformity. Patients who had active workers' compensation claims had 12.5 (95% CI, 2.4-63.4) times the odds of having continued postoperative ASP. Tenotomy on the dominant arm, BMI, and active smoking status demonstrated no statistically significant association with postoperative complications., Conclusion: Patients experiencing complications after tenotomy were significantly younger and more likely to be male and to have a workers' compensation injury. LHBT tenotomy may best be indicated for elderly patients, female patients, and those without active workers' compensation claims., Competing Interests: One or more of the authors declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: R.M. has received research support from Arthrex and the Joint Restoration Foundation; grant support from DJO; educational support from Arthrex; royalties from Zimmer Biomet, Thieme, and Wolters Kluwer; and honoraria from Arthrex. C.M. has received grant support from Arthrex and educational support from Smith & Nephew and Pylant Medical. R.K.A. has received research support from Accumed, Trimmed, and Arthrex and has stock/stock options in Zimmer Biomet, Stryker, Medtronic, and Axogen. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto., (© The Author(s) 2020.)

Background: Acellular dermal matrices (ADMs) have been used in the treatment of shoulders with massive rotator cuff tears (MRCTs). Despite clinical improvement, correlation of clinical findings with ADM integrity on imaging has not been investigated., Hypothesis: The pain in shoulders with MRCTs is partially due to bone-to-bone contact between the tuberosity and acromion. Coverage of the tuberosity with an intact graft or a graft that is torn in a way that the tuberosity remains covered will act as an interpositional tissue, preventing bone-to-bone contact and leading to clinical improvement., Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4., Methods: Between 2006 and 2016, a total of 25 shoulders with MRCTs underwent a procedure with an ADM. Pre- and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) results, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Hamada grade, and Goutallier classification were reviewed. A postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was obtained in 22 (88%) shoulders. The status of the graft was divided into the following categories: type I, intact graft; type II, graft tear with tuberosity covered; and type III, graft tear with tuberosity uncovered (bare)., Results: The mean patient age was 61 years (range, 49-73 years), and the mean follow-up was 25.6 months (range, 10-80 months). Mean length from surgery to postoperative MRI was 13.9 months (range, 6-80 months). The graft was torn in 59% (13/22 shoulders). Significant improvements were found in VAS and ASES scores (7 vs 0.7 and 32.6 vs 91.2, respectively; P < .01) for type I grafts and in VAS and ASES scores (8.1 vs 1.3 and 26.3 vs 84.6, respectively; P < .01) for type II grafts. No difference was found in postoperative VAS and ASES (0.7 vs 1.3 and 91.2 vs 84.6, respectively; P = .8) between type I and type II grafts. No improvement was seen in VAS (7.3 vs 5.7; P = .2) or ASES (30.6 vs 37.2; P = .5) for type III grafts., Conclusion: MRI appearance of the graft has a significant impact on functional outcomes. Patients with an intact graft or a graft tear leaving the tuberosity covered have lower pain and higher functional scores than those in whom the torn graft leaves the tuberosity uncovered., Competing Interests: One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: R.M. has received royalties from Wolters Kluwer, Thieme, and Zimmer Biomet; honoraria from Arthrex; research support from Arthrex, the Joint Restoration Foundation, and DJO Global; and has stock/stock options in Alignmed. M.A.S. has received educational support from DePuy/Synthes and hospitality payments from Acumed. A.S. has received consulting fees from Tornier. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.