Aims. The value of core decompression (CD) in the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH) remains controversial. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether CD combined with other treatments could improve the clinical and radiological outcomes of ONFH patients compared with CD alone. Methods. We searched the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases until June 2020. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and clinical controlled trials (CCTs) comparing CD alone and CD combined with other measures (CD + cell therapy, CD + bone grafting, CD + porous tantalum rod, etc.) for the treatment of ONFH were considered eligible for inclusion. The primary outcomes of interest were Harris Hip Score (HHS), ONFH stage progression, structural failure (collapse) of the femoral head, and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA). The pooled data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.3 software. Results. A total of 20 studies with 2,123 hips were included (CD alone = 768, CD combined with other treatments = 1,355). The combination of CD with other therapeutic interventions resulted in a higher HHS (mean difference (MD) = 6.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.10 to 10.83, p = 0.004) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score (MD = −10.92, 95% CI = -21.41 to -4.03, p = 0.040) and a lower visual analogue scale (VAS) score (MD = −0.99, 95% CI = -1.56 to -0.42, p < 0.001) than CD alone. For the rates of disease stage progression, 91 (20%) progressed in the intervention group compared to 146 (36%) in the control group (odds ratio (OR) = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.16 to 0.64, p = 0.001). In addition, the intervention group had a more significant advantage in delaying femoral head progression to the collapsed stage (OR = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.17 to 0.61, p < 0.001) and reducing the odds of conversion to THA (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.55, p < 0.001) compared to the control group. There were no serious adverse events in either group. Subgroup analysis showed that the addition of cell therapy significantly improved clinical and radiological outcomes compared to CD alone, and this approach appeared to be more effective than other therapies, particularly in precollapse (stage I to II) ONFH patients. Conclusion. There was marked heterogeneity in the studies. There is a trend towards improved clinical outcomes with the addition of stem cell therapy to CD. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(7):445–458

Aims. The success of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) depends on osseointegration at the graft-tunnel interface and intra-articular ligamentization. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review of clinical and preclinical studies that evaluated biological augmentation of graft healing in ACLR. . Materials and Methods. In all, 1879 studies were identified across three databases. Following assessment against strict criteria, 112 studies were included (20 clinical studies; 92 animal studies). . Results. Seven categories of biological interventions were identified: growth factors, biomaterials, stem cells, gene therapy, autologous tissue, biophysical/environmental, and pharmaceuticals. The methodological quality of animal studies was moderate in 97%, but only 10% used clinically relevant outcome measures. The most interventions in clinical trials target the graft-tunnel interface and are applied intraoperatively. Platelet-rich plasma is the most studied intervention, but the clinical outcomes are mixed, and the methodological quality of studies was suboptimal. Other biological therapies investigated in clinical trials include: remnant-augmented ACLR; bone substitutes; calcium phosphate-hybridized grafts; extracorporeal shockwave therapy; and adult autologus non-cultivated stem cells. Conclusion. There is extensive preclinical research supporting the use of biological therapies to augment ACLR. Further clinical studies that meet the minimum standards of reporting are required to determine whether emerging biological strategies will provide tangible benefits in patients undergoing ACLR. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:271–84

This systematic review examines the current literature regarding surgical techniques for restoring articular cartilage in the hip, from the older microfracture techniques involving perforation to the subchondral bone, to adaptations of this technique using nanofractures and scaffolds. This review discusses the autologous and allograft transfer systems and the autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis (AMIC) technique, as well as a summary of the previously discussed techniques, which could become common practice for restoring articular cartilage, thus reducing the need for total hip arthroplasty. Using the British Medical Journal Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (BMJ GRADE) system and Grade system. Comparison of the studies discussed shows that microfracture has the greatest quantity and quality of research, whereas the newer AMIC technique requires more research, but shows promise.

Cite this article: W. E. Hotham, A. Malviya. A systematic review of surgical methods to restore articular cartilage in the hip. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:336–342. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.75.BJR-2017-0331.