Higher odds of meniscectomy compared with meniscus repair in a young patient population with increased neighbourhood disadvantage.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of demographic and socioeconomic factors on the management of isolated meniscus tears in young patients and to identify trends in surgical management of meniscus tears based on surgeon volume. METHODS: Data from a large healthcare system on patients aged 14-44 years who underwent isolated meniscus surgery between 2016 and 2022 were analysed. Patient demographics, socioeconomic factors and surgeon volume were recorded. Patient age was categorised as 14-29 years and 30-44 years old. Area Deprivation Index (ADI), a measure of neighbourhood disadvantage with increased ADI corresponding to more disadvantage, was grouped as <25th, 25-75th and >75th percentile. Multivariate comparisons were made between procedure groups while univariate comparisons were made between surgeon groups. RESULTS: The study included 1552 patients treated by 84 orthopaedic surgeons. Older age and higher ADI were associated with higher odds of undergoing meniscectomy. Patients of older age and with non-private insurance were more likely to undergo treatment by a lower-volume knee surgeon. Apart from the year 2022, higher-volume knee surgeons performed significantly higher rates of meniscus repair compared with lower-volume knee surgeons. When controlling for surgeon volume, higher ADI remained a significant predictor of undergoing meniscectomy over meniscus repair. CONCLUSION: Significant associations exist between patient factors and surgical choices for isolated meniscus tears in younger patients. Patients of older age and with increased neighbourhood disadvantage were more likely to undergo meniscectomy versus meniscus repair. While higher-volume knee surgeons favoured meniscus repair, a growing trend of meniscus repair rates was observed among lower-volume knee surgeons. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective cohort study, level III.

Formal Radiologist Interpretations of Intraoperative Spine Radiographs Have Low Clinical Value.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical relevance, usefulness, and financial implications of intraoperative radiograph interpretation by radiologists in spine surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Due to rising health care costs, spine surgery is under scrutiny to maximize value-based care. Formal radiographic analysis remains a potential source of unnecessary health care costs, especially for intraoperative radiographs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was performed on all adult elective spine surgeries at a single institution between July 2020 and July 2021. Demographic and radiographic data were collected, including intraoperative localization and post-instrumentation radiographs. Financial data were obtained through the institution's price estimator. Radiographic characteristics included time from radiographic imaging to completion of radiologist interpretation report, completion of radiologist interpretation report before the conclusion of surgical procedure, clinical relevance, and clinical usefulness. Reports were considered clinically relevant if the spinal level of the procedure was described and clinically useful if completed before the conclusion of the procedure and deemed clinically relevant. RESULTS: Four hundred eighty-one intraoperative localization and post-instrumentation radiographs from 360 patients revealed a median delay of 128 minutes between imaging and completion of the interpretive report. Only 38.9% of reports were completed before the conclusion of surgery. There were 79.4% deemed clinically relevant and only 33.5% were clinically useful. Localization reports were completed more frequently before the conclusion of surgery (67.2% vs. 34.4%) but with lower clinical relevance (90.1% vs. 98.5%) and clinical usefulness (60.3% vs. 33.6%) than post-instrumentation reports. Each patient was charged $32 to $34 for the interpretation fee, cumulating a minimum total cost of $15,392. CONCLUSIONS: Formal radiographic interpretation of intraoperative spine radiographs was of low clinical utility for spine surgeons. Institutions should consider optimizing radiology workflows to improve timeliness and clinical relevance or evaluate the necessity of reflexive consultation to radiology for intraoperative imaging interpretation to ensure that value-based care is maximized during spine surgeries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Revision Rates After Primary Allograft ACL Reconstruction by Allograft Tissue Type in Older Patients.

Background: While there is extensive literature on the use of allograft versus autograft in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, there is limited clinical evidence to guide the surgeon in choice of allograft tissue type. Purpose: To assess the revision rate after primary ACL reconstruction with allograft and to compare revision rates based on allograft tissue type and characteristics. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients who underwent primary allograft ACL reconstructions at a single academic institution between 2015 and 2019 and who had minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Exclusion criteria were missing surgical or allograft tissue type data. Demographics, operative details, and subsequent surgical procedures were collected. Allograft details included graft tissue type (Achilles, bone-patellar tendon-bone [BTB], tibialis anterior or posterior, semitendinosus, unspecified soft tissue), allograft category (all-soft tissue vs bone block), donor age, irradiation duration and intensity, and chemical cleansing process. Revision rates were calculated and compared by allograft characteristics. Results: Included were 418 patients (age, 39 ± 12 years; body mass index, 30 ± 9 kg/m2). The revision rate was 3% (11/418) at a mean follow-up of 4.9 ± 1.4 years. There were no differences in revision rate according to allograft tissue type across Achilles tendon (3%; 3/95), BTB (5%; 3/58), tibialis anterior or posterior (3%; 5/162), semitendinosus (0%; 0/46), or unspecified soft tissue (0%; 0/57) (P = .35). There was no difference in revision rate between all-soft tissue versus bone block allograft (6/283 [2%] vs 5/135 [4%], respectively; P = .34). Of the 51% of grafts with irradiation data, all grafts were irradiated, with levels varying from 1.5 to 2.7 Mrad and 82% of grafts having levels of <2.0 Mrad. There was no difference in revision rate between the low-dose and medium-to high-dose irradiation cohorts (4% vs 6%, respectively; P = .64). Conclusion: Similarly low (0%-6%) revision rates after primary ACL reconstruction were seen regardless of allograft tissue type, bone block versus all-soft tissue allograft, and sterilization technique in 418 patients with mean age of 39 years. Surgeons may consider appropriately processed allograft tissue with or without bone block when indicating ACL reconstruction in older patients.

Low-Volume Surgeons Use Allograft in Younger Patients and Show Greater Rates of Revision Following Primary Allograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Compared With High-Volume Surgeons.

Purpose: To determine whether surgeon volume affects revision rate following primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with allograft and to determine whether surgeon volume impacts allograft tissue type used. Methods: All patients aged 14 years or older who underwent primary allograft ACLR at a large hospital system between January 2015 to December 2019 with minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Patients with double-bundle ACLR, multiligament reconstruction, and absent allograft type data were excluded. Surgeon volume was categorized as 35 or more ACLR/year for high-volume surgeons and less than 35 ACLR/year for low-volume surgeons. Revision was defined as subsequent ipsilateral ACLR. Patient characteristics, operative details, allograft type, and revision ACLR rates were retrospectively collected. Revision rate and allograft type were analyzed based on surgeon volume. Results: A total of 457 primary allograft ACLR cases (mean age: 38.8 ± 12.3 years) were included. Low-volume surgeons experienced greater revision rates (10% vs 5%, P = .04) and used allograft in a younger population (37.6 vs 40.0 years old, P = .03) than high-volume surgeons. Subgroup analysis of the total cohort identified a significantly increased failure rate in patients <25 years old compared with ≥25 years old (30% vs 4%, P < .001). Allograft type selection varied significantly between surgeon volume groups, with low-volume surgeons using more bone-patellar tendon-bone (P < .001) and less semitendinosus allograft (P = .01) than high-volume surgeons. No differences in revision rate were observed based on allograft type (P = .71). Conclusions: There was a greater revision rate following primary allograft ACLR among low-volume surgeons compared with high-volume surgeons. Low-volume surgeons also used allograft in a younger population than did high-volume surgeons. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective comparative prognostic trial.