Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) is a well-established surgical procedure, but it may not always restore complete rotational knee stability. Interest is increasing in anterolateral complex (ALC) procedures, lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) and anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR), in association with ACLR to overcome this problem. The better ALC procedure, LET or ALLR, remains controversial to date. Purpose: To analyze the patient-reported outcome measures and ACL reinjury rate after ACLR with an ALC procedure compared with after isolated ACLR, as well as to analyze the clinical results and graft failure rate of the LET group versus the ALLR group. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flowchart was used to conduct a comprehensive search of 5 databases: Scopus, MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Only randomized controlled trials were included. Eligible articles were classified according to the levels of evidence of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. A methodological quality assessment of randomized controlled trials was performed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool. The present systematic review and meta-analysis was registered on PROSPERO. Results: A total of 14 clinical trials were included in the final analysis, with 1830 patients. Isolated ACLR or a combined procedure with LET or ALLR was performed, with several characteristics described, including the surgical technique, additional torn knee structures and their management, graft failure, complications, clinical outcomes, clinical and instrumental examinations to assess knee stability, and postoperative protocols. Regarding clinical outcomes, pivot-shift tests and reduced graft failure, a significant difference was found in the superiority of the combined ACLR associated with the ALC procedure compared with an isolated ACLR ( P < .05). No statistically significant difference was found between the 2 ALC procedures. Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis reported on the importance of combined ACLR and ALC procedures in patients with a high-grade rotational laxity, as both procedures, LET or ALLR, without superiority of one over the other, are associated with improved pivot-shift tests, patient-reported outcome measures, and reduced graft failure rates.

While anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R) has been considered the gold standard for ACL tears, renewed interest in ACL repair has emerged. This review aims to examine the current knowledge regarding ACL repair. A comprehensive literature search was conducted on the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase databases, focusing on the most recent studies up to January 2024. Arthroscopic ACL repair has several advantages, such as resulting in a natural ligament with proprioceptive properties, preservation, and donor graft comorbidity absence. Several ACL repair surgical procedures have been developed thanks to the advancement in new fixation devices. The current literature showed that when performed on a suitable patient with the appropriate lesion type, corresponding to the proximal third with good tissue quality, ACL repair leads to satisfactory outcomes. Despite the benefits of ACL repair with promising results, ACL-R remains the gold standard for ACL lesions. There is still a lack of literature analyzing long-term outcomes; large series with homogenous populations and types of lesions are lacking. Based on the current evidence, further research and higher-quality studies investigating ACL repair will be necessary.

Purpose: Meniscal extrusion alters joint biomechanics and accelerates cartilage degeneration, contributing to the progression of knee osteoarthritis (OA). Meniscal centralization techniques aim to reposition the meniscus, addressing extrusion and restoring load distribution. This systematic review aims to evaluate meniscal centralization's clinical and radiological outcomes, hypothesizing its efficacy in treating symptomatic meniscal extrusion with minimal complications.Methods: This review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023484353). Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, Science Direct and Scopus. Studies reporting clinical and/or radiological outcomes of meniscal centralization with ≥24 months of follow‐up were included. Data on demographics, surgical techniques, patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs), imaging findings and complications were extracted. Methodological quality was assessed using the ROBINS‐I tool, and heterogeneity was evaluated via the I² statistic.Results: Four studies (113 patients, mean follow‐up: 24–35 months) met inclusion criteria. Arthroscopic meniscal centralization with suture anchors significantly improved PROMs, including International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) scores, demonstrating symptom relief and functional recovery. Lysholm scores improved from 46.0 to 96.5, KOOS pain from 47.4 to 88.9, and IKDC from 51.8 to 75.8 (p < 0.05 for all). Imaging showed reduced meniscal extrusion and improved joint space width. Complications were minimal, though one study reported a 26.9% failure rate due to incomplete healing and OA progression. Rehabilitation protocols allowed return to full activity within 4–6 months.Conclusions: Meniscal centralization effectively reduces extrusion, improves clinical outcomes, and restores knee function with minimal complications. However, further long‐term and comparative studies are needed to validate these findings and refine surgical indications.Level of Evidence: Level IV.

Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are one of the most worrying complications orthopedic surgeons could face; thus, methods to prevent them are evolving. Apart from systemic antibiotics, targeted strategies such as local antimicrobial coatings applied to prosthetics have been introduced. This narrative review aims to provide an overview of the main antimicrobial coatings available in arthroplasty orthopedic surgery practice. The search was performed on the PubMed, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and EMBASE databases, focusing on antimicrobial-coated devices used in clinical practice in the arthroplasty world. While silver technology has been widely adopted in the prosthetic oncological field with favorable outcomes, recently, silver associated with hydroxyapatite for cementless fixation, antibiotic-loaded hydrogel coatings, and iodine coatings have all been employed with promising protective results against PJIs. However, challenges persist, with each material having strengths and weaknesses under investigation. Therefore, this narrative review emphasizes that further clinical studies are needed to understand whether antimicrobial coatings can truly revolutionize the field of PJIs.

Introduction: Implant removal in orthopedics and traumatology is still a controversial topic. Benefits and drawbacks lead to relative indications, mainly depending on patients’ demands and surgeons’ perspectives. This study aims to report the current attitudes and practices of Italian surgeons who participated in a survey. Materials and Methods: An online-based questionnaire of 25 items was distributed to all the members of the Italian Society of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology (SIOT) regarding their indications, usual practices, and complications encountered with hardware removal in upper and lower limbs. The survey was open from July 2024 to October 2024. Exclusion and inclusion criteria were applied. Results: Five hundred answers were received. While implant removal is primarily achieved in symptomatic patients, in the case of asymptomatic patients, it is not routinely performed, with a slightly higher tendency of removal in those aged 16–40 years old. These tendencies were registered both for the upper and lower limbs, with more reticence in hardware removal in the upper limbs. 96% of respondents declared the lack of hospital guidelines regarding this kind of surgery. The most feared intraoperative complications during the removal concerned screw stripping and implant breakage, with only 0.6% of respondents reporting no intraoperative difficulties. While patient discomfort and avoidance of future complications were the main indications for removal, postoperative complications occurred as wound scarring concerns, persistence of symptoms and bleeding. Despite not being considered a “procedure for the resident”, when residents were specifically questioned, in 76% of cases they felt self-confident ≥ 7 on a scale from 1 to 10. Lastly, according to 62% of the respondents, titanium implants are more difficult to remove than stainless steel ones. Conclusion: This survey describes a general tendency to not routinely remove implants, even in younger patients in the lower and especially upper limbs, unless in case of symptoms. Hardware removal could evolve from a simple procedure into a more complex surgery due to intraoperative technical difficulties. A lack of universal policy and guidelines exists throughout the Italian territory.

Obesity is a primary global health concern that negatively affects the outcomes of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). To mitigate complications, both cemented and uncemented fixation techniques have been considered. However, there remains no consensus in the literature regarding the optimal fixation method for obese patients despite the renewed interest in uncemented fixation. This systematic review aims to compare the survival rates, causes of failure, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between cemented TKA (cTKA) and uncemented TKA (uTKA) in the obese population. A comprehensive literature search was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines across five databases-PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Medline, and Cochrane-focusing on studies directly comparing cTKA and uTKA in obese patients. The ROBINS-I tool was used to assess the risk of bias, while the PRISMA flow diagram guided the study selection process based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO. Four retrospective studies encompassing 1622 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the final qualitative analysis. Among these, 50 % of patients underwent uTKA, with three studies exclusively analyzing individuals with at least class II obesity (BMI ≥35 kg/m²). All four studies reported higher rates of aseptic loosening in the cemented fixation group. However, only two studies demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in implant survival, reduced aseptic loosening, and lower revision rates with cementless fixation in the short-to mid-term follow-up. Regarding clinical outcomes, only one study reported a significant improvement in Knee Society Score (KSS) function, range of motion (ROM), and pain scores in the cementless group compared to the cemented group, particularly in the subgroup analysis of posterior-stabilized constrained TKA. This systematic review suggests that in obese patients, particularly those with BMI ≥35 kg/m², cementless fixation offers comparable or superior implant survival rates and lower rates of aseptic loosening compared to cemented fixation in the short-to mid-term follow-up. Furthermore, cementless fixation may provide similar or enhanced clinical outcomes in this high-risk and growing patient population.