Purpose: This study aimed to compare the long‐term outcomes of arthroscopic versus mini‐open repair in patients with isolated subscapularis tendon tears.Methods: Google Scholar, PubMed, and Embase databases were searched for studies evaluating isolated subscapularis tears subsequently treated by arthroscopic or mini‐open repair. The inclusion criteria were clinical studies reporting isolated subscapularis lesions treated by arthroscopic or mini‐open repair, a minimum follow‐up of 12 months, and clinical and functional outcomes reported in the study results. Articles not reporting functional outcomes or studies that reported results for anterosuperior rotator cuff tears without a separate analysis of subscapularis tendon tears were excluded. Studies older than 20 years and studies with a minimum follow‐up of less than 12 months were also excluded.Results: A total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria; 8 papers were included in the arthroscopic repair group, and 6 were included in the mini‐open repair group (2 studies reported results for both techniques). The mean age reported was 49.3 years, and 85.1% of patients were male. The dominant limb was involved in 77.6% of the patients, and a traumatic onset of symptoms was verified in 76.3%. The mean time to surgery was 9.6 months. The Constant–Murley score showed positive results for the arthroscopic and mini‐open groups, with mean postoperative values of 84.6 and 82.1, respectively. Promising results were also observed for pain, with a mean of 13.2 (out of 15) points for the arthroscopic group and 11.7 for the mini‐open group. The long head of the biceps was involved in 78% of the patients, and LHB tenodesis or tenotomy were the most common concomitant procedures performed.Conclusions: There was no significant difference in clinical and functional outcomes between open and arthroscopic repair. Moreover, the same complication rates were reported in both treatments, but arthroscopic repair led to less postoperative pain.Level of evidence: IV.

Background: “Windswept” deformity (WSD) consists of a non-frequent condition in which the patient presents a valgus deformity in one knee and a varus deformity in the other. We performed a review of the available literature to aggregate the accessible data on the outcomes of bilateral knee arthroplasty in patients with WSD and to discuss the surgical challenges that this condition might pose. Methods: A systematic review of the literature following the PRISMA guidelines was conducted. The relevant studies between 1979 and 2021 were identified. Four studies with a total of 68 patients were included for analysis. The mean follow-up for varus knees was 3.3 years, 3.1 years for valgus knees. The quality and rigor of the included studies was assessed using the Methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS). Results: All the studies reported improvement in knee function following knee replacement surgery, and a reduction in axial deviation of both knees, with similar results in valgus and varus knees in terms of patient satisfaction. The most relevant data were that unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) allowed for limited axial correction with slightly inferior functional results. Kinematic alignment (KA) allowed for similar results in both knees. Conclusion: The present review shows how satisfactory results can be achieved in both knees in patients with WSD and osteoarthrosis (OA). However, the operating surgeon should be aware of the importance of the implant choice in terms of functional outcomes. In the absence of extra-articular deformities, calipered KA total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can be performed on both knees with good axial correction and functional outcome. Level of evidence: II —Systematic review of cohort studies.

Purpose: The purpose is to verify the intra- and inter-operator reliability of an extramedullary (EM) accelerometer-based smart cutting guide for distal femoral resection during primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The hypothesis of the present study was that the use of the device would result in a good correlation between different operators with a difference between repeated measurements of less than 1°. Methods: Twenty-five not consecutive patients with knee osteoarthritis undergone to primary TKA using an EM inertial-based cutting guide to perform distal femoral resection. In order to assess the agreement in femoral axis definition of the device, two operators performed three time each the manoeuvres necessary to define axis. Inter-rater agreement was evaluated with Bland and Altman agreement test. Intra-rater repeatability was evaluated analysing average results distribution of repeated measurements. Accuracy of the device was evaluated comparing differences between intra-operative device data with final implant alignment measured on post-operative longstanding x-rays using Students’ t test. Results: Agreement between the two operators was statistically significant (p < 0.05) with a bias of − 0.4° (95% CI − 0.6° to − 0.2°). Average difference between cut orientation measured with device and final implant position, measured on x-rays, was 0.2° (95% CI − 1.5° to 1.7°) with no statistical difference between the two measurements. Final implant alignment, measured on x-ray, was 90.2°, with 95% of cases distributed within range 88.0° to 92.0° for varus-valgus and 2.8° and with 95% of cases distributed within range 2.0° to 4.0° for flexion–extension. Conclusions: The EM accelerometer-based smart cutting guide used to perform distal femoral resection during primary TKA demonstrated a good intra- and inter-operator reliability in the present in vivo study.