The Kujala, Fulkerson, Larsen and Lysholm questionnaires have been demonstrated to be reliable and sensitive in assessing patients with patellofemoral pathology. The purpose of this study is to translate and cross-culturally adapt into Italian the English versions of the Kujala, Fulkerson, Larsen and Lysholm questionnaires, and undertake reliability and validity evaluations of the Italian versions of these scores in patients with patellofemoral pathology. The cross-cultural adaptation process was carried out following the simplified Guillemin criteria. The questionnaires were administered to 63 patients with either patellar instability or painful patella syndrome. To assess the validity of the questionnaires, they were compared with the Oxford knee score. The questionnaires were administered to a subsample of 33 patients 5 days later to assess test–retest reliability. The interclass coefficient correlation was 0.96 for the Kujala score, 0.92 for the Larsen score, 0.96 for the Lysholm score, 0.94 for the Fulkerson score (P < 0.01), and 0.83 for the Oxford score. Pearson’s correlation was0.96 between the Kujala and Oxford scores, 0.90 between the Larsen and Oxford scores, 0.94 between the Lysholm and Oxford score, and 0.93 between the Fulkerson and Oxford scores. Responsiveness, calculated by standardized response mean, was 1.2, and effect size was 1.4. The Italian versions of the Kujala, Larsen, Lysholm and Fulkerson scoring systems were shown to be equivalent to their English versions and demonstrated good validity, reliability and responsiveness to surgical treatment of patellofemoral pathology. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first attempt to adapt four of the most common patellofemoral-specific scoring scales to the Italian language. Level II.

Background: Anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR) or lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) has been used more frequently in conjunction with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in recent years. However, there are still concerns that these procedures may lead to complications such as overconstraint of the lateral compartment, stiffness, infections, tunnel convergence, and other intra- and postoperative complications because of increased surgical time and the need for additional procedures. Hypothesis/Purpose: The lateral extra-articular procedure will reduce the failure rate of reconstructed ACLs without increasing the number of complications. The purpose was to compare the complication and graft reinjury rates of 2 main anterolateral complex procedure categories described in the literature—LET and ALLR with isolated ACLR. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RTCs); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: The methodology followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were searched on March 15, 2024, to identify RTCs comparing isolated ACLR with ACLR + LET or ALLR. The methodological index for nonrandomized studies was employed for the quality evaluation. Complications and graft reinjury rates were recorded and meta-analyzed from all included studies. Results: The initial search yielded 1411 articles. Seventeen studies that included the complication rates (5 in the ALLR group and 12 in the LET group) were included in the review. No significant differences were found in the incidence of complications between the ACLR and ACLR + ALLR groups (Mantel-Haenszel [M-H], 1.20 [95% CI, 0.05-29.30]; P = .91) or between the ACLR and ACLR + LET groups (M-H, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.05-2.98]; P = .36). Significant differences were observed in the failure rate between the ACLR + ALLR group (M-H, 6.78 [95% CI, 1.98-23.22]; P = .002) and the ACLR + LET group (M-H, 3.14 [95% CI, 1.96- 5.04]; P < .00001). Conclusion: Adding a lateral extra-articular procedure, regardless of the surgical technique, can reduce the failure rate without increasing the number of complications at the mid-term follow-up. Study Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42023458354).

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the validity and informational value of TikTok content about epicondylitis. The hypothesis tested herein was that TikTok video content would not provide adequate and valid information. Methods: The term “epicondylitis” was used as a keyword to comprehensively search for TikTok videos, and the first 100 videos that were retrieved were subsequently included for analysis. The duration, number of likes, number of shares and number of views were recorded for each video. Furthermore, the videos were categorized on the basis of their source (medical doctor, physiotherapist, or private user), type of information (physical therapy, anatomy, clinical examination, etiopathogenesis, patient experience, treatment, or other), video content (rehabilitation, education, or patient experience/testimony), and the presence of music or voice. Assessments of video content quality and reliability were conducted using the DISCERN tool, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and the Global Quality Score (GQS). Results: A total of 100 videos were included in the analysis: 78 (78.0%) were published by physiotherapists, 18 were published by medical doctors (18.0%), and 4 were published by private users (4.0%). Most of the information pertained to physical therapy (75; 75.0%) and most of the content was about rehabilitation (75; 75.0%). The mean length of the videos was 42.51 ± 24.75 seconds; the mean number of views was 193,207.78 ± 1,300,853.86; and the mean number of comments, likes, and shares were 22.43 ± 62.54, 1578.52 ± 8333.11, and 149.87 ± 577.73, respectively. The mean DISCERN score, JAMA score, and GQS were 18.12 ± 5.73, 0.80 ± 0.53, and 1.30 ± 0.52, respectively. Videos posted by medical doctors/private users had higher scores (p < 0.05) than videos posted by physiotherapists. Videos that focused on education or patient experience had higher scores (p < 0.05) than videos based on rehabilitation. Conclusions: TikTok can be an unreliable source of information regarding epicondylitis treatment. It is common to find nonphysicians who share medical advice on the platform, with medical treatments demonstrating the weakest level of supporting evidence. Elbow surgeons should advise their patients that treatment recommendations from TikTok may not align with established guidelines. Level of Evidence: Level IV—Cross-sectional study.