Alberto Grassi

Prof. Alberto Grassi


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

16Years (2011-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
10 May 2017 in Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
AGAlberto Grassi
Alberto Grassi
CKChristopher Kim
Christopher Kim
GMGiulio Maria Marcheggiani Muccioli
Giulio Maria Marcheggiani Muccioli
SZStefano Zaffagnini
Stefano Zaffagnini
AAAnnunziato Amendola
Annunziato Amendola
When anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction fails, a revision procedure may be performed to improve knee function, correct instability, and allow return to activities. The results of revision ACL reconstruction have been reported to produce good but inferior patient-reported and objective outcomes compared with primary ACL reconstruction, but the degree to which this is the case varies widely among published studies and may be influenced by heterogeneity of patients, techniques, and endpoints assessed. For those reasons, a systematic review may provide important insights.

19 July 2019 in Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
TCThe ESSKA Arthroscopy Committee
The ESSKA Arthroscopy Committee
AGAlberto Grassi
Alberto Grassi
JZJuan Pablo Zicaro
Juan Pablo Zicaro
MCMatias Costa-Paz
Matias Costa-Paz
KSKristian Samuelsson
Kristian Samuelsson
VCVincenzo Condello
Vincenzo Condello

21 November 2018 in Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
AGAlberto Grassi
Alberto Grassi
AAAnnunziato Amendola
Annunziato Amendola
KSKristian Samuelsson
Kristian Samuelsson
ESEleonor Svantesson
Eleonor Svantesson
MRMatteo Romagnoli
Matteo Romagnoli
SZStefano Zaffagnini
Stefano Zaffagnini
Background: There is no consensus on the optimal technique for repairing an acute Achilles tendon rupture. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the complications, subjective outcomes, and functional results between minimally invasive surgery and open repair of an Achilles tendon rupture. Methods: A systematic literature search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EBSCOhost, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing minimally invasive surgery and open repair of acute Achilles tendon ruptures. A meta-analysis was performed, while bias and the quality of the evidence were rated according to the Cochrane Database questionnaire and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. The meta-analysis was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: Eight studies, with 182 patients treated with minimally invasive surgery and 176 treated with open repair, were included. The meta-analysis showed a significantly decreased risk ratio (RR) of 0.21 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.10 to 0.40, p = 0.00001) for overall complications and 0.15 (95% CI = 0.05 to 0.46, p = 0.0009) for wound infection after minimally invasive surgery. Patients treated with minimally invasive surgery were more likely to report good or excellent subjective results (RR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.04 to 1.33, p = 0.009). No differences between groups were found with respect to reruptures, sural nerve injury, return to preinjury activity level, time to return to work, or ankle range of motion. The overall quality of evidence was generally low because of a substantial risk of bias, heterogeneity, indirectness of outcome reporting, and evaluation of a limited number of patients. Conclusions: There was a significantly decreased risk of postoperative complications, especially wound infection, when acute Achilles tendon rupture was treated with minimally invasive surgery compared with open surgery. Patients treated with minimally invasive surgery were significantly more likely to report a good or excellent subjective outcome. Current evidence is associated with high heterogeneity and a considerable risk of bias. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

25 January 2017 in European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
AGAlberto Grassi
Alberto Grassi
SSStephen Paul Smiley
Stephen Paul Smiley
TSTommaso Roberti di Sarsina
Tommaso Roberti di Sarsina
CSCecilia Signorelli
Cecilia Signorelli
GMGiulio Maria Marcheggiani Muccioli
Giulio Maria Marcheggiani Muccioli
SZStefano Zaffagnini
Stefano Zaffagnini

26 March 2021 in Sensors
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
SPStefano Di Paolo
Stefano Di Paolo
Nicola Francesco LopomoNicola Francesco Lopomo
Nicola Francesco Lopomo
FVFrancesco Della Villa
Francesco Della Villa
GPGabriele Paolini
Gabriele Paolini
GFGiulio Figari
Giulio Figari
SZStefano Zaffagnini
Stefano Zaffagnini
The aim of the present study was to quantify joint kinematics through a wearable sensor system in multidirectional high-speed complex movements used in a protocol for rehabilitation and return to sport assessment after Anterior Cruciate Ligament (ACL) injury, and to validate it against a gold standard optoelectronic marker-based system. Thirty-four healthy athletes were evaluated through a full-body wearable sensor (MTw Awinda, Xsens) and a marker-based optoelectronic (Vicon Nexus, Vicon) system during the execution of three tasks: drop jump, forward sprint, and 90° change of direction. Clinically relevant joint angles of lower limbs and trunk were compared through Pearson’s correlation coefficient (r), and the Coefficient of Multiple Correlation (CMC). An excellent agreement (r > 0.94, CMC > 0.96) was found for knee and hip sagittal plane kinematics in all the movements. A fair-to-excellent agreement was found for frontal (r 0.55–0.96, CMC 0.63–0.96) and transverse (r 0.45–0.84, CMC 0.59–0.90) plane kinematics. Movement complexity slightly affected the agreement between the systems. The system based on wearable sensors showed fair-to-excellent concurrent validity in the evaluation of the specific joint parameters commonly used in rehabilitation and return to sport assessment after ACL injury for complex movements. The ACL professionals could benefit from full-body wearable technology in the on-field rehabilitation of athletes.

27 September 2018 in Joints
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
AGAlberto Grassi
Alberto Grassi
Christian CarulliChristian Carulli
Christian Carulli
Massimo InnocentiMassimo Innocenti
Massimo Innocenti
MMMassimiliano Mosca
Massimiliano Mosca
SZStefano Zaffagnini
Stefano Zaffagnini
SCSIGASCOT Arthroscopy Committee
SIGASCOT Arthroscopy Committee
The purpose of this study was to analyze national surveys of orthopaedic surgeons on anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction to determine their preferences related to the preferred graft, femoral tunnel positioning, fixation and tensioning methods, antibiotic and anti-thromboembolic prophylaxis, and use of tourniquet and drains. A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was performed. Inclusion criteria were surveys of ACL reconstruction trends and preferences published in the past 5 years (2011–2016), involving members of national societies of orthopaedics. Information regarding survey modalities, population surveyed, graft choice both in the general or in the athletic population, surgical technique, fixation, use of antibiotic, tourniquet, drains, and anti-thromboembolic prophylaxis was extracted. Eight national surveys were included from Europe (three), North or Latin America (three), and Asia (two). Overall, 7,420 questionnaires were sent, and 1,495 participants completed the survey (response rate ranging from 16 to 76.6%). All surveys reported the hamstring tendon (HT) autograft as the preferred graft, ranging from 45 to 89% of the surveyed population, followed by bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) graft (2–41%) and allograft (2–17%). Only two surveys focusing on graft choice in athletic population underlined how in high-demand sportive population the graft choices changes in favor of BPTB. Single-bundle reconstruction was the preferred surgical technique in the four surveys that investigated this issue. Five surveys were in favor of anteromedial (AM) portal and two in favor of trans-tibial technique. Suspension devices for femoral fixation were the preferred choice in all but one survey, while interference screws were the preferred method for tibial fixation. The two surveys that investigated graft tensioning were in favor of manual tensioning. The use of tourniquet, antibiotics, drains, and anti-thromboembolic prophylaxis were vaguely reported. A trend toward the preference of HT autograft was registered in all the surveys; however, sport participation has been highlighted as an important variable for increased use of BPTB. Single-bundle reconstruction with AM portal technique and suspension femoral fixation and screws fixation for the tibia seem the preferred solution. Other variables such as tensioning, antibiotic, anti-thromboembolic prophylaxis, tourniquet use, and drains were investigated scarcely among the surveys; therefore, no clear trends could be delineated. This is a Level V, systematic review of expert opinion study.