There were comparable or inferior results for females compared with males in all outcomes analyzed. No statistically significant sex difference was identified in most of the objective parameters. However, subjective and functional outcomes, including Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, and ability to return to sports, have been shown to be poorer in females.

Purpose Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important measures of success after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and being able to predict their improvements could enhance preoperative decision-making. Our study aims to compare the predictive performance of machine learning (ML) algorithms and preoperative PROM thresholds in predicting minimal clinically important diference (MCID) attainment at 2 years after TKA. Methods Prospectively collected data of 2840 primary TKA performed between 2008 and 2018 was extracted from our joint replacement registry and split into a training set (80%) and test set (20%). Using the training set, ML algorithms were developed using patient demographics, comorbidities and preoperative PROMs, whereas the optimal preoperative threshold was determined using ROC analysis. Both methods were used to predict MCID attainment for the SF-36 PCS, MCS and WOMAC at 2 years postoperatively, with predictive performance evaluated on the independent test set. Results ML algorithms and preoperative PROM models performed similarly in predicting MCID for the SF-36 PCS (AUC: 0.77 vs 0.74), MCS (AUC: 0.95 vs 0.95) and WOMAC (AUC: 0.89 vs 0.88). For each outcome, the most important predictor of MCID attainment was the patient's preoperative PROM score. ROC analysis also identiied optimal preoperative threshold values of 33.6, 54.1 and 72.7 for the SF-36 PCS, MCS and WOMAC, respectively. Conclusion ML algorithms did not perform signiicantly better than preoperative PROM thresholds in predicting MCID attainment after TKA. Future research should routinely compare the predictive ability of ML algorithms with existing methods and determine the type of clinical problems which may beneit the most from it. Level of evidence II.

The current review aims to compare the outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in the female population after patellar-tendon-bone and hamstring grafts. The review was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. All original randomized controlled trials and prospective cohort studies that compared clinical outcomes after female ACL reconstruction using hamstring versus patellar-tendon-bone grafts were included. All clinical outcomes reported by three or more studies were included. Fifteen publications, with 948 female patients, were included. Most outcomes were reported to have no significant graft differences by all studies that reported the outcome. These included all the outcomes for objective knee scores (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] objective knee score), neuromuscular testing (quadriceps strength, hamstring strength, and single hop test), graft rupture or failure, and subjective knee scores (Lysholm score and IKDC subjective knee score). The pivot shift test, flexion deficit, and presence of crepitus were also reported to have no significant graft differences by all studies. Some studies reported a significant difference in anteroposterior laxity (Lachman's test and instrumented laxity), range of motion deficits (extension deficit), and sports and activity level (Tegner score). However, these statistically significant differences were noted to be clinically insignificant due to the normal population variation or standard error of measurement of these tools of evaluation. Patients reconstructed with patellar-tendon-bone grafts have a higher risk of kneeling pain. There was no significant difference in the incidence of crepitus. Most of the outcomes following female ACL reconstructions showed no clinically and statistically significant difference when either patellar-tendon-bone or hamstring autograft was used. These included outcomes for anteroposterior laxity, objective knee scores, neuromuscular testing, graft rupture or failure, subjective knee scores, sports and activity level, and crepitus. This a level II study.