Objective:To analyze the effect of long-term care insurance on the incidence of falls in old people with disability, and the modification effect of different living arrangements.Methods:Based on the discharge diagnosis records of the hospitalization in urban residents who applied for long-term care insurance in Chengdu from July 2014 to June 2021, those who received long-term care insurance were selected as the intervention group and those who received no long-term care insurance were selected as the control group, the changes in the incidence of falls before and after the long-term care were analyzed using difference-in-differences method, and the modification effects of different living arrangements were explored using stratified analysis.Results:Long-term care insurance significantly reduced the risk for monthly incidence of falls in older adults [average treatment effects on treated (ATT) = -1.21% (95% CI: -1.82%--0.60%)], and the effect increased over time (ATT=-1.26%, 95% CI: -1.93%--0.59%). Long-term care insurance had a significant effect on reducing the incidence of falls in old people living with spouses/family members (ATT=-0.92%, 95% CI: -1.47%--0.37%) and in nursing facilities/hospitals (ATT=-2.10%, 95% CI: -3.81%--0.40%), but it had no significant effect in those living alone. Conclusions:Long-term care insurance can effectively reduce the incidence of falls in old people with disability, showing a positive effect. Living with family members or in nursing facilities/hospitals has a modification effect of the implementation of long-term care insurance policy. It is necessary to pay attention to key populations in the future and expand the coverage of long-term care insurance.

Objective　To understand the impact of early and timely treatment and initial antiviral treatment regimen on mortality and attrition of antiretroviral therapy. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted using download data on antiretroviral therapy for HIV-infected patients in Liuzhou City, Guangxi Province, from the database of the Basic Information System for AIDS Control and Prevention (BISAC) from 2010 to 2020. The Cox proportional risk regression model was used to analyze the influencing factors of mortality and attrition. Results A total of 15 713 infected patients were included, including 53.4% aged 18-<50 years, 69.4% male, 61.0% farmer, 75.1% CD4 count <350 cells /μL before initial antiviral treatment, the overall mortality rate was 4.30/100 person-years, and the overall attrition was 2.42/100 person-years. The results of Cox regression analysis showed that the influencing factors of mortality were pretreatment CD4 counts of 350-<500 cells/μL(AHR=0.72, 95%CI: 0.63-0.81) and ≥500 cells/μL (AHR= 0.64, 95%CI: 0.55-0.76); duration from diagnosis to initial antiviral treatment 91-180 days (AHR=1.25, 95%CI: 1.08-1.45), 181-365 days (AHR=1.26, 95%CI: 1.08-1.47), and ≥365 days (AHR=1.26, 95%CI: 1.11-1.44); initial antiviral treatment regimens of D4T+3TC+EFV/NVP (AHR=1.47, 95%CI: 1.32-1.63) and AZT/D4T/TDF+3TC+LPV/r (AHR=1.73, 95%CI: 1.50-1.99). Factors affecting attrition were pretreatment CD4 counts of 350-499 cells/μL (AHR=1.32, 95%CI: 1.16-1.50) and ≥500 cells/μL (AHR=1.28, 95%CI: 1.10-1.50); interval from HIV positivity confirmation to initial dosing ≥365 days (AHR=1.21, 95%CI: 1.04-1.40), initial antiviral treatment regimens of TDF+3TC+NVP (AHR=1.32, 95%CI: 1.13-1.55), AZT+3TC+EFV/NVP (AHR=1.43, 95%CI: 1.26-1.62) and AZT/D4T/TDF+3TC+LPV/r (AHR=1.33, 95CI%: 1.06-1.67). Conclusions　Early and timely treatment and the initial antiviral treatment regimen of TDF+3TC+EFV have good efficacy, but attention should be paid to the high risk of attrition of HIV-infected people with high CD4 count before treatment.

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is a standard treatment for ACL injuries, but it has drawbacks of a low rate of return to sports and a high incidence of osteoarthritis. In recent years, research has found that the proximal ACL tissue has a healing potential after injury. For patients who meet the indications for surgical repair, primary repair of ACL can achieve therapeutic effects comparable to ACL reconstruction, showing advantages of smaller trauma and preservation of the original ligament. Therefore, this surgical approach has received renewed attention and adoption, becoming an important supplement to ACL reconstruction. This article reviews the factors leading to the failure of previous open primary repair, and analyzes the current popularity of arthroscopic ACL primary repair. Moreover, it summarizes the surgical indications, repair procedures, rehabilitation, and return to sports of ACL primary repair, hoping to promote the clinical application of this surgical approach.

Objective:To compare the arthroscopic primary repair versus reconstruction for proximal anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears by a meta analysis.Methods:A comprehensive computer search was performed in China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Data, Pubmed, Web of Since, The Cochrane Library for studies comparing primary ACL repair and ACL reconstruction published before August, 2023. A meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software to compare the surgical failure rate in repair of proximal ACL tears, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm score, patient satisfaction score of visual analogue scale (VAS), positive rate of Lachman test, and side-to-side difference in anterior tibial translation.Results:Included in this meta analysis were 8 articles (4 randomized controlled trials and 4 cohort studies) involving 217 eligible patients undergoing primary ACL repair and 187 eligible patients undergoing ACL reconstruction. The follow-up duration for the cases in the literature ranged from 12 to 28 months. The meta analysis showed that the short-term side-to-side difference in anterior tibial translation in the primary ACL repair group was significantly larger than that in the ACL reconstruction group ( MD=0.75, 95% CI: 0.33 to 1.16, P<0.001). However, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in IKDC score, Lysholm score, positive rate in the Lachman test, VAS patient satisfaction score, or surgical failure rate ( P>0.05). Conclusions:Compared with ACL reconstruction, arthroscopic primary ACL repair may lead to similar functional recovery and clinical outcomes in the early postoperative period (12 to 28 months). However, caution should be exercised against primary ACL repair because it is related to greater asymptomatic knee laxity.

The anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is one of the most crucial components to maintain knee joint stability and also the most vulnerable structure during knee-related sports activities. ACL injuries often cause knee instability, difficulty in returning to sports, and secondary degenerative knee disease. Although using autograft to reconstruct the ACL is currently a popular choice in clinical settings, it has drawbacks such as limited autograft source, donor site morbidity and delayed return to sports. Ligament advanced reinforcement system (LARS) artificial ligament possesses unique advantages such as wide availability, no donor-site morbidity, and early recovery, avoiding the problems associated with autograft reconstruction of ACL, and it has drawn increasing attention in recent years. In this paper, the authors reviewed the characteristics of LARS artificial ligament and its application in ACL reconstruction, so as to provide reference for clinical treatment of ACL injuries.

Rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is one of the most frequent forms of knee sports injuries. Nowadays, ACL reconstruction is commonly performed to help patients restore their rotational stability. However, in patients with high risk factors, the risk of ACL reconstruction failure remains high, primarily because of continuous postoperative anterolateral rotational instability. This rotational instability after ACL reconstruction has prompted researchers to focus on the anterolateral complex of the knee, such as iliotibial tract and anterolateral ligament (ALL). Among them, ALL has remained largely unappreciated for more than a century since its discovery in 1879. Even though it is still controversial, most studies in recent years have supported the anterolateral ligament as an independent ligament and a crucial anatomical component for preserving the rotational stability of the knee joint. Although augmentation of the anterolateral complex has experienced twists and turns, the anatomic ALL reconstruction, which can be performed minimally invasively and has a low risk of complications and minimal injury, is reappearing as a key strategy to address this problem. Currently, the majority of scholars believe that the need for combined ALL reconstruction during ACL reconstruction should be taken into account when there is severe rotational instability present, such as high-grade pivot shift test preoperatively, ACL revision surgery, and high requirements for rotational stability, such as age less than 25 years and the need to participate in pivoting sports. The corresponding suggested criteria are also put forth in the authoritative consensus of both domestic and foreign sources. However, the surgical indications chosen by different experts based on their individual experiences are not all consistent. Due to conflicting reports on the actual impact of ALL reconstruction on improving rotational stability and whether it will excessively restrict knee's internal rotation function, there is still much debate among researchers regarding whether ALL reconstruction and ACL reconstruction should be combined. Currently, there are two main reconstruction techniques: ALL single bundle reconstruction and Y-construct ALL double bundle reconstruction. Y-construct ALL double bundle reconstruction has a better ability to restore the original anatomy and is recommended in the consensus, but there is still a lack of randomized controlled trials between the two techniques. Therefore, the combination of ALL reconstruction at the time of ACL reconstruction has been clinically started in recent years for patients who are susceptible to failure after ACL reconstruction, which also raises many controversies.

Rupture of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is one of the most common sports injuries of the knee, which may cause limitation of motor function and degeneration of the knee, seriously affecting patients' living quality. Currently, arthroscopic ACL reconstruction (ACLR) has been identified as the gold standard for ACL rupture. In an effort to further increase surgical accuracy and decrease surgical trauma so as to promotes quick recovery, all-inside ACLR has gained increasing attention in recent years. All-inside ACLR is as effective as traditional reconstruction, but it has benefits such as the preservation of tendons, preservation of bone mass, reduction of postoperative pain, prevention of synovial fluid leakage, expansion of the tendon-bone healing area, avoidance of complications related to extrusion screws, and suitability for children and adolescents. However, applying of numerous novel techniques for all-inside ACLR increases the learning curve, operating time, and cost. Besides, improper bone tunnel fabrication and graft fixation may lead to the widening of the bone tunnel, affecting the surgical effect. Therefore, in order to provide a theoretical foundation for further promoting the clinical application of this technique, this article reviews the development, evolution, and clinical outcomes of this technique as well as its advantages and disadvantages.

Objective:To compare the clinical efficacy of arthroscopic all-inside technique versus full-tibial tunnel technique for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.Methods:Literature on all-inside versus full-tibial tunnel for ACL reconstruction was retrieved from databases including China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, Full-text Database of Chinese Medical Journals, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from their establishment to February 2023. Meta-analysis was performed on the included studies. Random effects model was used if heterogeneity was large, while fixed effects model was used if heterogeneity was small.Results:A total of 13 studies with 511 cases in the all-inside group and 465 cases in the full-tibial tunnel group were included in the meta-analysis, with a mean follow-up of 6-25.8 months. Meta-analysis showed that the graft diameter [ MD=0.42, 95% CI (0.11, 0.73), P=0.007] and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective score [ MD=1.11, 95% CI (0.36, 1.86), P=0.004] of the all-inside group was larger than full-tibial tunnel group, and the tibial tunnel widening of the all-inside group was less than full-tibial tunnel group [ MD=-1.70, 95% CI (-2.38, -1.01), P<0.001]. There were no significant differences in IKDC objective score [ OR=1.09, 95% CI (0.67, 1.78), P=0.730], Lysholm score [ MD=0.99, 95% CI (-0.08, 2.05), P=0.070], Tegner activity score [ MD=-0.01, 95% CI (-0.48, 0.45), P=0.950], bilateral knee anterior laxity difference [ MD=0.32, 95% CI (-0.22, 0.86), P=0.250], negative rate of pivot shift test [ OR=0.80, 95% CI (0.33, 1.91), P=0.610], graft re-rupture rate [ OR=0.76, 95% CI (0.34, 1.74), P=0.524] and return to sport rate [ OR=1.56, 95% CI (0.85, 2.86), P=0.150]. Conclusion:All-inside ACL reconstruction provides satisfactory efficacy. Compared with full-tibial tunnel technique, it has the advantages of larger graft diameter and less tibial tunnel widening, with no difference in joint function within 2 years postoperatively.

OBJECTIVE: To review the research progress of meniscus repair in recent years, in order to provide help for the clinical decision-making of meniscus injury treatment. METHODS: The domestic and foreign literature related to meniscal repair in recent years was extensively reviewed to summarize the reasons for the prevalence of meniscal repair, surgical indications, various repair methods and long-term effectiveness, the need to deal with mechanical structural abnormalities, biological enhancement repair technology, rehabilitation treatment, and so on. RESULTS: In order to delay the occurrence of osteoarthritis, the best treatment of meniscus has undergone an important change from partial meniscectomy to meniscal repair, and the indications for meniscal repair have been expanding. The mid- and long-term effectiveness of different meniscal repair methods are ideal. During meniscus repair, the abnormality of lower limb force line and meniscus protrusion should be corrected at the same time. There are controversies about the biological enhancement technology to promote meniscus healing and rehabilitation programs, which need further study. CONCLUSION Meniscal repair can restore the normal mechanical conduction of lower limbs and reduce the incidence of traumatic osteoarthritis, but the poor blood supply and healing ability of meniscal tissue bring difficulties to meniscal repair. Further development of new biological enhanced repair technology and individualized rehabilitation program and verification of its effectiveness will be an important research direction.
Humans ; Menisci, Tibial/surgery* ; Knee Joint/surgery* ; Meniscectomy/methods* ; Lower Extremity ; Osteoarthritis

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is a common sports injury of the knee joint, which can lead to knee instability, dyskinesia and secondary traumatic osteoarthritis, which seriously affects the quality of life of patients. As it is difficult to self-heal after ACL injury, arthroscopic ACL reconstruction is commonly used as a clinical treatment to restore knee stability and motion function. However, more and more studies have found that bone tunnel enlargement is common after ACL reconstruction. A variety of biological (such as immunological rejection, local inflammation) and mechanical (such as offset bone tunnel positioning, improper graft fixation, and aggressive rehabilitation) factors are considered to be important causes of bone tunnel enlargement. It is still controversial whether the enlargement of bone tunnels affects clinical outcomes, but most researchers believe that the enlargement of bone tunnels is detrimental to the creation of bone tunnels and the fixation of grafts in revision surgery. Therefore, minimizing postoperative bone tunnel enlargement has positive clinical implications. The existing methods mainly include the selection of autografts, the use of independent bone tunnel positioning technology, modified bone tunnel drilling method, the use of remnant preservation technique and all-inside technique, the development of progressive individualized rehabilitation programs, and biological methods such as platelet-rich plasma and autogenous periosteum wrapping graft to enhance graft tendon-bone healing. This article reviews the causes and countermeasures of bone tunnel enlargement after ACL reconstruction to provide theoretical basis and help reduce or avoid bone tunnel enlargement after ACL reconstruction.