Purpose YouTube is increasingly becoming a key source for people to satisfy the need for additional information concerning their medical condition. This study analyses the completeness of accurate information found on YouTube pertaining to hip arthritis. Methods The present study analyzed 133 YouTube videos using the search terms: hip arthritis, hip arthritis symptoms, hip arthritis diagnosis, hip arthritis treatment and hip replacement. Two quality assessment checklists with a scale of 0 to 12 points were developed to evaluate available video content for the diagnosis and the treatment of hip arthritis. Videos were grouped into poor quality (grade 0–3), moderate quality (grade 4–7) and excellent quality (grade 8–12), respectively. Three independent observers assessed all videos using the new grading system and independently scored all videos. Discrepancies regarding the categories were clarified by consensus discussion. For intra-observer reliabilities, grading was performed at two occasions separated by four weeks. Results Eighty-four percent (n = 112) had a poor diagnostic information quality, 14% (n = 19) a moderate quality and only 2% (n = 2) an excellent quality, respectively. In 86% (n = 114), videos provided poor treatment information quality. Eleven percent (n = 15) of videos had a moderate quality and only 3% (n = 4) an excellent quality, respectively. Conclusions The present study demonstrates that YouTube is a poor source for accurate information pertaining to the diagnosis and treatment of hip arthritis. These finding are of high relevance for clinicians as videos are going to become the primary source of information for patients. Therefore, high quality educational videos are needed to further guide patients on the way from the diagnosis of hip arthritis to its proper treatment.

Purpose: Meniscus repair has gained increasing interest over the last two decades as loss of meniscus tissue predisposes to early onset knee arthritis. Although there are many reports of meniscus repair outcome in short‐term studies, data on the long‐term outcome of meniscus repair are still scarce. The purpose of this meta‐analysis was to evaluate the overall failure rate of meniscus repair with a minimum follow‐up of 5 years. Additionally, possible factors influencing meniscus repair outcome were assessed.Methods: PubMed and Scopus were searched for studies of the last 20 years reporting on meniscus repair outcome with a minimum follow‐up of 5 years. The study was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines. The search terms used for this study were ([meniscus OR meniscal] AND repair). Titles and abstracts were evaluated by two authors independently. Using meta package of R (version 3.6.2), random‐effect models were performed to pool failure rates. Subgroup analyses were performed and effect estimates in form of an odds ratio with 95% CIs were established.Results: In total, 12 studies with 864 patients were included. Degenerative tears were excluded in two studies and one study only included traumatic meniscus tears. Other studies did not state whether the cause of meniscus tear was degenerative or traumatic. Studies reporting meniscus repair outcome on root repairs, revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, discoid menisci or ramp lesions were excluded. Revision surgery was used as failure definition in all included studies. The overall failure rate of meniscal repair at a mean follow‐up of 86 months was 19.1%. There was no significant difference in meniscus repair outcome when performed in combination with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction compared to isolated meniscus repair (18.7% vs. 28%; n.s.) or when performed on the lateral meniscus compared to the medial meniscus (19.5% vs. 24.4%; n.s.). There was no significant difference of meniscus repair outcome between vertical/longitudinal tears and bucket‐handle tears (n.s.). Thirty‐six percent of meniscus repair failures occur after the second postoperative year. The only significant finding was that inside‐out repair results in a lower failure rate compared to all‐inside repair (5.6% vs. 22.3%; p = 0.009) at 5 years.Conclusion: The overall meniscus repair failure rate remains nineteen percent in long‐term studies. The cause of failure is poorly documented, and it remains unclear whether failure of the meniscus repair itself or additional adjacent tears lead to revision surgery. Despite the given technical advantages of all‐inside repair devices, this meta‐analysis cannot demonstrate superior outcomes compared to inside‐out or outside‐in repair at 5 years.Level of evidence: IV.

Purpose: The aim of the current study was (1) to provide an overview of common definitions and classification systems of ramp lesions (RL) and (2) to systematically review the available literature with regard to the diagnosis and treatment of RLs in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL)-deficient knees. Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines, MEDLINE and Scopus were searched for articles (1) reporting on acute or chronic ACL injuries, (2) with concomitant medial meniscus injury, (3) located at the posterior meniscocapsular attachment site (and red–red zone). Ex vivo studies, reviews and technical notes were excluded. Results: Twenty-seven studies were included based on the criteria mentioned above. RLs are common in ACL-deficient knees with a prevalence ranging from 9 to 24%. RLs should especially be suspected in younger patients, patients with an increased meniscal slope and in patients with prolonged time from injury to surgery. The sensitivity of MRI for the detection of RLs ranges from 48 to 86% at a specificity of 79–99%. For arthroscopy, RLs are easily missed through standard anterior portals (sensitivity 0–38%). RL repair leads to a significant improvement of subjective knee scores, regardless of the specific fixation technique. For stable RLs, the literature suggests equivalent postoperative stability for trephination and abrasion compared to surgical RL repair. Conclusion: Ramp lesions are frequently missed in ACL-deficient knees on standard arthroscopy with anterior portals only. If a RL is suspected, exploration via an additional posteromedial portal is indicated. In case of instability, RL repair should be performed. Level of evidence: IV.

Purpose Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) can be a surgical treatment option for patients with high expectations regarding the post-operative level of physical activity. A systematic review was undertaken to answer three research questions: (1) is there an improvement of physical activity based on validated activity scores following UKA? (2) What are the sport disciplines and the sport patterns of UKA patients? (3) What are the pre- and post-operative sport participation rates and the return to activity rates of UKA patients? Methods Following the PRISMA guidelines, EMBASE, MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies reporting the level of sport and/or physical activity before and after UKA, and/or included at least one activity score before and after UKA. Results Seventeen studies were identified reporting on 2972 UKAs, of which 89 % were medial UKAs and 92 % were mobile-bearing implants, respectively. Ten studies reported a statistically significant improvement of physical activity following UKA according to the UCLA activity score, the Tegner activity score or the High Activity Arthroplasty Score, respectively. Hiking, cycling and swimming are the most common activities following UKA. Sport participation before the onset of restricting symptoms ranged from 64 to 93 % and slightly decreased by 2–9 % following UKA. The return to activity rate ranged from 87 to 98 %. Conclusion Patients following UKA are physically active according to validated activity scores. A significant increase in low-impact activities and a decrease in high-impact activities after UKA was observed. Patients with a UKA regularly participate in sports; however, sport participation slightly decreased compared to pre-arthritic levels. This systematic review helps physicians to manage the expectations of patients regarding the level of physical activity following UKA. Level of evidence III.