ObjectivesTo investigate the association between generalised joint hypermobility (GJH) and ACL injury risk. Secondary aims involved evaluating associations between GJH and postoperative outcome (including graft-failure risk, knee laxity and patient-reported outcome). Furthermore, we aimed to compare the performance of different grafts in patients with GJH.MethodsDatabases MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched, including 2760 studies. Two reviewers independently screened studies for eligibility. A modified version of the MINORS score was applied for quality appraisal. Studies assessing GJH while reporting the risk of ACL injury and/or postoperative outcome were included.ResultsTwenty studies were included, using several different methods to determine GJH. There was consistent evidence showing that GJH is a risk factor for unilateral ACL injury in males, while in females, the results were conflicting. There was limited evidence associating GJH with increased knee laxity 5 years postoperatively. There was consistent evidence of inferior postoperative patient-reported outcome in patients with GJH. Moreover, there was limited yet consistent evidence indicating that patellar-tendon autografts are superior to hamstring-tendon autografts in patients with GJH in terms of knee laxity and patient-reported outcome. There was insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regarding the outcomes of bilateral ACL injury and graft failure.ConclusionsIn men, GJH was associated with an increased risk of unilateral ACL injury. Moreover, GJH was associated with greater postoperative knee laxity and inferior patient-reported outcome. Based on the available evidence, a patellar-tendon autograft appears to be superior to a hamstring-tendon autograft in patients with GJH. However, the included studies were heterogeneous and there is a need for consensus in the assessment of GJH within sports medicine.

Background Injuries to the hamstring muscles are among the most common in sports and account for significant time loss. Despite being so common, the injury mechanism of hamstring injuries remains to be determined. Purpose To investigate the hamstring injury mechanism by conducting a systematic review. Study design A systematic review following the PRISMA statement. Methods A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library. Studies 1) written in English and 2) deciding on the mechanism of hamstring injury were eligible for inclusion. Literature reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, conference abstracts, book chapters and editorials were excluded, as well as studies where the full text could not be obtained. Results Twenty-six of 2372 screened original studies were included and stratified to the mechanism or methods used to determine hamstring injury: stretch-related injuries, kinematic analysis, electromyography-based kinematic analysis and strength-related injuries. All studies that reported the stretch-type injury mechanism concluded that injury occurs due to extensive hip flexion with a hyperextended knee. The vast majority of studies on injuries during running proposed that these injuries occur during the late swing phase of the running gait cycle. Conclusion A stretch-type injury to the hamstrings is caused by extensive hip flexion with an extended knee. Hamstring injuries during sprinting are most likely to occur due to excessive muscle strain caused by eccentric contraction during the late swing phase of the running gait cycle. Level of evidence Level IV

Background Intraoperative hypotension increases 30-day mortality and the risks of myocardial injury and acute renal failure. Patients with inadequate volume reserve before the induction of anesthesia are highly exposed. The identification of latent hypovolemia is therefore crucial. Ultrasonographic measurement of the inferior vena cava collapsibility index (IVCCI) is able to detect volume responsiveness in circulatory shock. No current evidence is available regarding whether preoperative measurement of the IVCCI could identify patients at high risk for hypotension associated with general anesthesia. Methods A total of 102 patients undergoing elective general surgery under general anesthesia with standardized propofol induction were recruited for this prospective observational study. The IVCCI was measured under spontaneous breathing. A collapsing (IVCCI≧50%) (CI+) and a noncollapsing (CI-) group were formed. Immediate postinduction changes in systolic and mean blood pressure were compared. The performance of the IVCCI as a diagnostic tool for predicting hypotension (systolic pressure < 90 mmHg or a ≥ 30% drop from the baseline) was evaluated by ROC curve analysis. Results A total of 83 patients were available for analysis, with 20 in the CI+ and 63 in the CI- group, we excluded 19 previously eligible patients due to inadequate visualization of the IVC (7 cases), lack of adherence to the protocol (8 cases), missing data (2 cases) or change in anesthesiologic management (2 cases). The mean decrease in systolic pressure in the CI+ group was 53.8 ± 15.3 compared to 35.8 ± 18.1 mmHg in CI- patients ( P = 0.0001). The relative mean arterial pressure change medians were 34.1% (IQR 23.2–43.0%) and 24.2% (IQR 17.2–30.2%), respectively ( P = 0.0029). The ROC curve analysis for IVCCI showed an AUC of 64.8% (95% CI 52.1–77.5%). The selected 50% level of the IVCCI had a sensitivity of only 45.5% (95% CI 28.1–63.7%), but the specificity was high at 90.0% (78.2–96.7%). The positive predictive value was 75.0% (95% CI 50.9–91.3%), and the negative predictive value was 71.4% (95% CI 58.7–82.1%). Conclusion In spontaneously breathing preoperative noncardiac surgical patients, preoperatively detected IVCCI≧50% can predict postinduction hypotension with high specificity but low sensitivity. Despite moderate performance, IVCCI is an easy, noninvasive and attractive option to identify patients at risk and should be explored further. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12871-019-0809-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) represents an intra-articular structure composed of two distinct bundles. Considering the anterior and posterior meniscofemoral ligaments, a total of four ligamentous fibre bundles of the posterior knee complex act synergistically to restrain posterior and rotatory tibial loads. Injury mechanisms associated with high-energy trauma and accompanying injury patterns may complicate the diagnostic evaluation and accuracy. Therefore, a thorough and systematic diagnostic workup is necessary to assess the severity of the PCL injury and to initiate an appropriate treatment approach. Since structural damage to the PCL occurs in more than one third of trauma patients experiencing acute knee injury with hemarthrosis, background knowledge for management of PCL injuries is important. In Part 1 of the evidence-based update on management of primary and recurrent PCL injuries, the anatomical, biomechanical, and diagnostic principles are presented. This paper aims to convey the anatomical and biomechanical knowledge needed for accurate diagnosis to facilitate subsequent decision-making in the treatment of PCL injuries.Level of evidence V.

No abstract