PURPOSE: To describe the clinical and preclinical research conducted on primary repair of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) during the past 10 years. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Embase was performed for all English-language studies published between 2003 and April 2014 on primary repair of the ACL. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. In the clinical research group, 8 studies (166 patients; age range, 10 to 71 years) met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were largely long-term clinical outcome studies, based on the original cohorts from the 1970s and 1980s, and suggested high failure rates, additional surgery, and revision for instability. A subset of patients, however, achieved good to excellent subjective and objective long-term outcomes. In the preclinical research group, 18 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and were based on an ACL tran model; they suggested that (1) stabilization of the knee with an internal suture strut improved the healing and biomechanical properties of the repaired ACL, (2) 'enhancing' the repair with biological collagen-platelet composite augmentation improved healing and mechanical strength, (3) younger age and skeletal immaturity seem to correlate with improved histologic healing and biomechanical properties, (4) enhanced primary repair of the ACL may reduce post-traumatic osteoarthritis, and (5) the native ACL biomechanically outperformed the repaired ACL. CONCLUSIONS: Although long-term human studies suggest collectively unacceptable outcomes for open primary repair of the ACL, a subset of patients achieved acceptable long-term results. ACL tran model animal studies showed improved healing and biomechanics with primary suture repair stabilization, early intervention, biological augmentation techniques, and younger age. Primary repair of the ACL may be an effective treatment modality for an appropriately selected subset of patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of preclinical and clinical Level IV studies

Introduction: Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common lumbar degenerative disease in the elderly, usually requiring surgery if conservative treatment fails. Microscopic decompressive laminectomy (MDL) and percutaneous endoscopic decompressive laminectomy (PEDL) have been widely used to treat LSS. This study aims to provide a protocol for the evaluation and comparison of the efficacy, safety and applicability between MDL and PEDL. Methods and analysis: We will search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MDL and PEDL for treating LSS from inception to December 2019 in the following databases: PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase and China Biology Medicine. The quality of included studies will be assessed using the risk of bias tool recommended by the Cochrane Handbook 5.2.0. Subsequently, a meta-analysis will be performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Ethics and dissemination: Given the nature of this study, no ethical approval will be required. The protocol will be disseminated via a peer-reviewed journal. Prospero registration number: CRD42020164765.

Background: We know little about how procurement of a high-risk medical device (HRMD) affects clinical practice and outcomes. In health systems in high-income countries, and specifically those that maintain a national arthroplasty registry, procurement decisions are frequently guided by long-term clinical results, with the goal of ensuring at least standard quality of HRMDs. But in countries like Mexico, decision-making is often dominated by lowest acquisition price. We set out to study the impact of procurement for orthopaedic HRMDs on clinical procedures and outcomes. Methods: We based our qualitative study on 59 in-depth interviews with stakeholders from Mexico, Switzerland, Germany, and UK: orthopaedic specialists, government officials, other experts, and social security system managers or administrators. We took a healthcare delivery approach to capturing and comparing factors that affected the regulations of HRMDs and procurement processes, and to understanding connections between procurement and clinical practice. Results: Our findings demonstrate for procurement processes that the three European countries compared to Mexico don't have similar concerns with regards to their procurement processes. Deficiencies of procurement regulations and practices identified from representatives in Mexico were almost absent in European countries. We identified three areas of deficiency: 1) HRMD regulations based on insufficiently robust clinical evidence (mainly noted by European countries); 2) Follow-up on Health Technology Assessments is inadequate (noted by Mexico) and methodology not always good enough (noted by European countries); and, 3) Lowest-acquisition price often guides procurement decisions and thus may not align with needs of clinical procedures (noted by Mexico and some European countries). Conclusions: Procurement processes for orthopaedic HRMDs may have an impact on clinical procedures and outcomes. A favourable approach is one where orthopaedic specialists are parties to the procurement process, and post-market surveillance data informs decision-making. Actors in the procurement process can improve their impact on clinical procedures and outcomes by developing specific strategies that better align the needs of both, procurement and clinical procedures.