Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty Versus Standard Manual Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine whether robotic total knee arthroplasty (R-TKA) demonstrated evidence of improvement in minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in early (<4 weeks) and intermittent (4-8 month) patient-reported outcomes compared with manual total knee arthroplasty (M-TKA). METHODS: A prospectively collected database was reviewed of 1160 consecutive patients undergoing R-TKA or M-TKA from December 2017 to October 2019. Primary outcomes consisted of Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS-JR) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global Health Measures of Physical Health (PH) and Mental Health (MH). Statistical analysis included MCID via the distribution method. RESULTS: Univariate analysis demonstrated conflicting results for early MCID achievement favoring M-TKA (4-week KOOS-JR, P = .03) for the multisurgeon cohort, but favored R-TKA (4-week Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-PH, P = .04) in the single-surgeon analysis, and the remaining outcome scores were similar. Ultimately, multivariate analysis demonstrated similar 4-week and 6-month MCID achievement in all measures. Lower preoperative scores consistently achieved MCID at a higher rate in M-TKA, although in R-TKA, the higher baseline scores improved at a rate comparable with those with lower scores in all but the short-term postoperative KOOS-JR. CONCLUSION: R-TKA demonstrated comparable MCID achievement to M-TKA across the larger cohort. Single-surgeon comparison did show some early benefit. Confounding variables such as surgical technique, implant fixation, and responsiveness of an outcome measure may be as important as simply what tools are used during surgery. Such granular data should be sought out in future studies.

Game Utilization and Performance Following RTP From ACL Reconstruction Does not Influence a Subsequent Second ACL Injury in National Football League Players.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate differences in game utilization or performance following primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction between National Football League (NFL) players with and without a second ACL injury. METHODS: NFL players who underwent ACL reconstruction between 2013 and 2017 were identified. Players were classified as having one injury ("tear") or having later sustained a subsequent second (reinjury or contralateral) ACL injury ("retear"). Players were excluded if they tore their ACL prior to the NFL, did not return to play (RTP), did not play the season before injury, or had concomitant injuries. Demographic characteristics, game utilization statistics, and season approximate value (SAV) performance metrics were recorded. Statistical analysis compared data after RTP from primary ACL reconstruction (seasons +1, +2, and +3) relative to the season before injury (season -1) between cohorts using mean differences and relative percentages. RESULTS: Analysis included a total of 45 players, 32 in the "tear" group and 13 in the "retear" group. Demographics, level of play, and time to RTP after primary ACL reconstruction did not differ between the groups (P > .05). Tear and retear groups demonstrated similar utilization and performance metrics the season prior to injury (-1) and the 3 seasons following RTP (season of injury is "0"). Both groups had a similar decrease (relative percentage) in games played and started, snap counts, and SAV during the 3 seasons following RTP compared to baseline (P > .05). The draft pick position was correlated with the relative percentage of games started the first season after RTP (r = .6, P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Game utilization and performance metrics following ACL reconstruction were not associated with a subsequent second ACL injury. Players with a higher draft pick position were more likely to return to the starting lineup following primary ACL reconstruction. Ultimately, player game utilization and performance following primary ACL reconstruction is not predictive of a subsequent second ACL injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective case-control study.