Clinical evaluation and management of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is one of the most widely researched topics in orthopedic sports medicine, giving providers ample data on which to base their practices. The ACL is also the most commonly treated knee ligament. This study reports on current topics and research in clinical management of ACL injury, starting with evaluation, operative versus nonoperative management, and considerations in unique populations. Discussion of graft selection and associated procedures follows. Areas of uncertainty, rehabilitation, and prevention are the final topics before a reflection on the current state of ACL research and clinical management of ACL injury. Level of evidence V.

Purpose To evaluate the patient-reported and objective functional outcomes of patients undergoing multiple-revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgery. The secondary purpose was to determine failure rates and factors associated with failure, with a focus on posterior tibial slope. Methods All patients who underwent a repeat revision ACL reconstruction with a single surgeon over a 13-year period were identified. Chart data were obtained, including radiographic findings, operative details and findings, and postoperative examination findings. Failure was defined as subjective instability with evidence of graft incompetence on physical examination and MRI. Patients completed the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form (IKDC-SKF) and Tegner Activity Level Scale. Patients who had outcomes scores completed a minimum of 2 years postoperatively were included. Results Fourteen patients were available for follow-up; 12 underwent secondary revision procedures, and 2 underwent tertiary revisions. Three patients (21%) had subsequent failure of the revision graft with mean time to failure of 27 months. Posterior tibial slope was significantly higher in the failures than in the nonfailures (13.3˚; 95% CI 10.1-16.6 versus 10.1˚; 95% CI 6.7-11.4; P = 0.049). Eleven patients completed outcomes measures at a mean of 42 months postoperatively (range 24-79 months). The mean Tegner activity score was 6.3 at follow-up, compared with 8.3 prior to the original ACL injury. The mean IKDC-SKF score was 70 at follow-up. Conclusion Multiple revision ACL reconstruction surgery appears to have reasonable functional outcomes but is associated with a relatively high failure rate. Activity level following repeat revision surgery is diminished compared to the preinjury state, but most patients are able to return to recreational sports. Level of Evidence Therapeutic Study, Level IV.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients aged 40 years and older who underwent meniscal repair or meniscectomy. All patients aged 40 and older who underwent a meniscal repair at a single institution from 2006 to 2017 were included. Meniscal repair cases were matched with a meniscectomy control group in a 1:3 ratio, selected for an equal proportion of concomitant ACL reconstruction in each group. PROMs, collected at a minimum follow‐up of 24 months, included International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Evaluation Form (IKDC), Marx activity scale, and a patient satisfaction scale. The primary outcome was IKDC score, which was compared between groups using a Mann–Whitney U test. Rate of failure, defined as repeat ipsilateral knee surgery or surgeon report of failure, was reported. Thirty‐five meniscal repair patients and 131 meniscectomy patients were identified; 28 (80.0%) and 67 (51.1%) completed all PROMs with mean follow‐up of 4.9 and 5.2 years, respectively. The mean age was 48.5 ± 7.0 years in the meniscal repair cohort and 52.8 ± 7.1 years in the meniscectomy cohort (p = 0.009). Concomitant ACL reconstruction was present in 46.4% and 49.3% of the meniscal repair and meniscectomy cohorts, respectively (n.s.). The median IKDC score was 78 (IQR 66, 87) in the repair cohort and 77 (IQR 56, 86) in the meniscectomy cohort (n.s.). The median Marx activity scale was 3.5 (IQR 0, 8) in the repair cohort and 3.0 (IQR 0, 9) in the meniscectomy cohort (n.s.). Over 85% of both groups were satisfied or very satisfied with no between‐group differences (n.s.). In patients aged 40 years and older, patient‐reported outcomes at an average of 5 years postoperatively were satisfactory and similar in patients undergoing meniscal repair and meniscectomy, indicating that age alone should not be a contraindication to meniscal repair. Level of evidence: Level III.

Climate change has been increasingly recognized in the healthcare sector over recent years, with global implications in infrastructure, economics, and public health. As a result, a growing field of study examines the role of healthcare in contributing to environmental sustainability. These analyses commonly focus on the environmental impact of the operating room, due to extensive energy and resource utilization in surgery. While much of this literature has arisen from other surgical specialties, several environmental sustainability studies have begun appearing in the field of orthopaedic surgery, consisting mostly of waste audits and, less frequently, more comprehensive environmental life cycle assessments. The present study aims to review this limited evidence. The results suggest that methods to reduce the environmental impact of the operating room include proper selection of anesthetic techniques that have a smaller carbon footprint, minimization of single use instruments, use of minimalist custom-design surgical packs, proper separation of waste, and continuation or implementation of recycling protocols. Future directions of research include higher-level studies, such as comprehensive life cycle assessments, to identify more opportunities to decrease the environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery. Climate change and environmental sustainability are topics of increasing importance and visibility in the public eye. Their presence in health care are growing but still nascent. 1 Health care is one of the largest sectors in the United States, and surgery is a particularly resourceintensive field within medicine. 2 In orthopaedic surgery, limited high-level evidence exists to guide best practices in reducing the field's environmental impact and associated carbon emissions. This review first provides context for the current state of climate change and environmental sustainability. Next, evidence is reviewed regarding environmental sustainability within the overall healthcare system, the operating room in particular, and finally orthopaedic surgery. A final discussion centers on the possible future directions for research into how the field of orthopaedic surgery may decrease