Iliotibial Band Lengthening: An Arthroscopic Surgical Technique

Iliotibial (IT) band syndrome is a common cause of lateral knee pain in runners and cyclists. Many can be treated nonoperatively; however, some may require surgical lengthening of their IT band to achieve optimal pain relief and a return to preinjury level of activity. Several studies have been published detailing surgical lengthening procedures and satisfactory outcomes after these procedures. However, it is important to continue to improve on and optimize outcomes. We present our arthroscopic IT band–lengthening procedure

Patella Footprint Technique—A Surgical Method for Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction

Recurrent patella instability is a common condition that may potentiate substantial knee dysfunction resulting in loss of time from work and sports. There are numerous factors that contribute to recurrent patella instability including tearing of the medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL), shallow trochlea, valgus alignment, externally rotated tibia tubercle, ligamentous laxity, elevated Q angle, and increased tibial tuberosity trochlear groove distance. Reconstruction of the MPFL has been shown to restore patella stability where concomitant pathology is within acceptable limits. Major complications include recurrence from inadequate MPFL reconstruction or failure to address other pathology, patella femoral pain from over constrained MPFL or unaddressed cartilage defects to the patella femoral compartment, or patella fracture. This technique provides a reproducible method of restoring patella stability through MPFL reconstruction while minimizing stress risers in the patella by using suture anchor fixation that creates a ligamentous footprint instead of tendon healing into a socket on the patella

Arthroscopic Piriformis Release—A Technique for Sciatic Nerve Decompression

Various techniques for piriformis muscle release have been published previously. However, it is imperative we continue to improve on existing techniques as well as develop new ones that may further optimize outcomes. Therefore, we aimed to describe an endoscopic technique for the release of the piriformis muscle in those with symptoms of sciatic nerve compression. Using the posterolateral portal, we are able to perform a complete release of the piriformis from the greater trochanter and the piriformis fossa with care to protect the external rotators and the sciatic nerve. It is our belief that this technique can be easily replicated by practitioners who read this technical note

Arthroscopic Chondral Defect Repair With Extracellular Matrix Scaffold and Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate

Chondral defects of the knee are prevalent and often encountered during arthroscopic procedures. Despite the limited healing potential of chondral defects, several treatment options have been proposed. However, microfracture, osteochondral autograft (or allograft) transfer, autologous chondrocyte implantation, and matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation are all associated with their respective shortcomings. As such, the optimal treatment for chondral defects of the knee remains unclear. Recently, many authors have advocated treating chondral defects with biological therapies and scaffold-based treatments. Bone marrow aspirate concentrate, a cell-based injection, has gained particular attention because of its differentiation capacity and potential role in tissue regeneration. In addition, scaffold cartilage treatments have emerged and reached clinical practice. BioCartilage is one form of scaffold, which consists of extracellular matrix, and has been claimed to promote the regeneration of hyaline-like cartilage. This article presents our technique of arthroscopic chondral defect repair using BMAC and BioCartilage

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field