Background: Failure of repair of large and massive rotator cuff tears is a challenging problem within orthopaedics. Poor tendon tissue and vascularity are known causes for failure of rotator cuff repairs. Purpose: To assess the safety, outcomes, and healing rates when large and massive rotator cuff repairs are augmented with a bioinductive collagen scaffold patch in a proof-of-principle design. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Twenty-three patients undergoing repair of full-thickness large (2-tendon) or massive (3-tendon) rotator cuff tears augmented with a bioinductive collagen patch were enrolled in a prospective single-arm proof-of-principle study. No partial repairs were performed, and a complete rotator cuff repair was successfully achieved in each case. Sixteen patients underwent revision rotator cuff repairs versus 7 primary repairs. Safety was determined by any implant-related adverse event. A single magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan was utilized to confirm tendon healing and thickness at a minimum of 6 months postoperatively. Postoperative ultrasound (US) was used in office by the treating surgeon to assess tendon thickness at 3-, 6-, 12-, and 24-month intervals. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores were collected at final follow-up. Results: Overall, a 96% (22 of 23) healing rate was confirmed on US and MRI. However, incidence of treatment clinical failure was 9% (2 of 23), as 1 patient’s tendon healed but eventually underwent additional surgery. There were no adverse events attributed to the implant reported. Final US rotator cuff thickness was 7.28 ± 0.85 mm (mean ± SD), and final MRI rotator cuff thickness was 5.13 ± 1.06 mm. The mean ASES score at final follow-up was 82.87 ± 16.68 (range, 53.33-100). Conclusion: No complications attributed to the implant were reported, and new tendon formation was apparent on US and MRI, with relatively high healing rates at 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopic application of this bioinductive collagen scaffold when combined with rotator cuff repair is a safe and effective treatment for healing of large and massive rotator cuff repairs.

No abstract

Background: Medial epicondylitis (ME) is characterized as an overuse injury resulting in pathological alterations of the common flexor tendon at the elbow. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has recently become of interest in the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions as an alternative to operative management. Purpose: To compare the outcomes of recalcitrant type 1 ME after treatment with either PRP or surgery. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: To compare the 2 methods of treatment, we performed a retrospective review of 33 patients diagnosed with type 1 ME from 2006 to 2016 with a minimum clinical follow-up of 1 year who had failed an initial nonoperative treatment program of injections, medication, topical creams, and/or physical therapy. Overall, 15 patients were treated with a series of 2 leukocyte-rich PRP injections, and 18 patients were treated with surgery. Outcome measures included time to pain-free status, time to full range of motion (ROM), the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and the Oxford Elbow Score (OES). Each patient had at least 1-year follow-up. They were then contacted by telephone to determine final scores at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Unsuccessful outcomes were determined by the Nirschl grading system and failure to reach pain-free status, achieve baseline ROM, or return to previous activity. Results: The mean final follow-up was 3.9 years. A statistically significant improvement was noted in both time to full ROM (42.3 days for PRP vs 96.1 days for surgery; P < .01) and time to pain-free status (56.2 days for PRP vs 108.0 days for surgery; P < .01). Successful outcomes were observed in 80% of patients treated with PRP and 94% of those treated operatively ( P = .37). No significant difference was found in return-to-activity rates, overall successful outcomes, MEPS scores, or OES scores. Conclusion: In this case series, the use of PRP showed clinically similar outcomes to those of surgery in recalcitrant type 1 ME. PRP can be considered as an alternative to surgery in the treatment of recurrent ME, with an earlier time to full ROM and time to pain-free status compared with surgery.

Background:Various techniques have been described for surgical treatment of recalcitrant medial epicondylitis (ME). No single technique has yet to be proven the most effective.Purpose:To evaluate the clinical outcomes of a double-row repair for ME.Study Design:Case series; Level of evidence, 4.Methods:A retrospective review was performed on 31 consecutive patients (33 elbows) treated surgically for ME with a minimum clinical follow-up of 2 years. All patients were initially managed nonoperatively with anti-inflammatories, steroid injections, topical creams, and physical therapy. Outcome measures at final follow-up included visual analog scale (VAS) scores (scale, 0-10), time to completely pain-free state, time to full range of motion (FROM), Mayo Elbow Performance Scores (MEPS), and Oxford Elbow Scores (OES). Patients were contacted by telephone to determine current functional outcomes, pain, activity, functional limitations, and MEPS/OES. Successful and unsuccessful outcomes were determined by the Nirschl grading system.Results:The mean clinical and telephone follow-up periods were 2.3 and 3.6 years, respectively, and 31 of 33 (94%) elbows were found to have a successful outcome. The mean VAS improvement was 4.9 points, from 5.8 preoperatively to 0.9 postoperatively (P < .001). The mean MEPS and OES at final follow-up were 95.1 and 45.3, respectively. The mean time to pain-free state and time to FROM were 87.4 and 96 days, respectively. Unlike prior studies, no difference in outcome was found between those with and without ulnar neuritis preoperatively (P = .67).Conclusion:A double-row repair is effective in decreasing pain and improving the overall function for recalcitrant ME. Uniquely, the presence of preoperative ulnar neuritis was associated with higher patient-reported preoperative pain scores but not with poor outcomes using this protocol.

Background: The effect of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) augmentation for meniscal repair (MR) is unclear, as current evidence is limited to small, mostly nonrandomized studies. Purpose: To systematically review the literature to evaluate the efficacy and safety of MR with PRP augmentation. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify studies (level of evidence 1-3) that compared the clinical efficacy of MR performed with versus without PRP. The search phrase used was platelet-rich plasma meniscus. Patients were assessed based on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, the Lysholm score, the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, and treatment failure. Results: We identified 6 studies (2 studies with level 1 evidence; 4 studies with level 3 evidence) that met inclusion criteria, for a total of 309 patients undergoing MR with PRP (mean age, 31.9 years) and 445 patients without PRP augmentation (mean age, 29.6 years). The mean follow-up was 32.8 months (range, 12-72 months). Overall, 17.0% of PRP patients experienced MR failure compared with 22.1% of non-PRP patients. No differences in VAS, Lysholm, or subjective IKDC scores were found between groups except in 1 study, in which postoperative subjective IKDC scores were significantly better in the PRP group ( P < .01). Another study found significantly better postoperative WOMAC scores among PRP patients, and 2 studies found significantly better KOOS subscores among PRP patients. Conclusion: There are a limited number of high-quality studies comparing outcomes and healing rates between patients undergoing MR with versus without PRP augmentation. Based on the available evidence, patients undergoing MR with PRP augmentation experience similar clinical outcomes at midterm follow-up when compared with conventional MR, and additional studies are needed to determine the efficacy of MR augmented with PRP.