American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Technology Overview Summary: Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) for Knee Osteoarthritis.

The Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) for Knee Osteoarthritis Technology Overview is based on a systematic review of current scientific and clinical research. Through analysis of the current best evidence, this technology overview seeks to evaluate the efficacy of PRP for patients with knee osteoarthritis. The systematic literature review resulted in 54 articles: 36 high-quality and 18 moderate-quality. The findings of these studies were summarized to present findings on PRP versus control/placebo, acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, corticosteroids, exercise, prolotherapy, autologous conditioned serum, bone marrow aspirate concentrate, hyaluronic acid, and ozone therapy. In addition, the work group highlighted areas that needed additional research when evidence proved lacking on the topic and carefully noted the potential harms associated with an intervention, required resource utilization, acceptability, and feasibility.

AAOS Technology Overview Summary: Concentrated Bone Marrow Aspirate for Knee Osteoarthritis.

The Concentrated Bone Marrow Aspirate (CBMA) for Knee Osteoarthritis Technology Overview is based on a systematic review of current scientific and clinical research. Through analysis of the current best evidence, this technology overview seeks to evaluate the efficacy of CBMA for patients with knee osteoarthritis. The systematic literature review resulted in 12 articles: three high-quality, four moderate-quality, and five low-quality. The findings of these studies were summarized to present findings on CBMA versus placebo and CBMA versus other treatment modalities. In addition, the work group highlighted areas for needed additional research when evidence proved lacking on the topic and carefully noted the potential harms associated with an intervention, required resource utilization, acceptability, and feasibility.

Management of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip in Infants up to Six Months of Age: Intended for Use by General Pediatricians and Referring Physicians.

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has developed the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for the Management of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip in Infants up to Six Months of Age: Intended for Use by General Pediatricians and Referring Physicians. Evidence-based information, in conjunction with the clinical expertise of physicians, was used to develop the criteria to improve patient care and obtain best outcomes while considering the subtleties and distinctions necessary in making clinical decisions. The Management of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip in Infants up to Six Months of Age: Intended for Use by General Pediatricians and Referring Physicians AUC clinical patient scenarios were derived from indications typical of patients presenting with developmental dysplasia of the hip in clinical practice. The 24 patient scenarios and four treatments were developed by the Writing Panel, a group of clinicians who are specialists in this AUC topic. Next, a separate multidisciplinary, Voting Panel (made up of specialists and nonspecialists) rated the appropriateness of treatment of each patient scenario using a 9-point scale to designate a treatment as Appropriate (median rating, 7 to 9), May be Appropriate (median rating, 4 to 6), or Rarely Appropriate (median rating, 1 to 3).

Management of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip in Infants up to Six Months of Age: Intended for Use by Orthopaedic Specialists.

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has developed the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for the Management of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip in Infants up to Six Months of Age: Intended for Use by Orthopaedic Specialists. Evidence-based information, in conjunction with the clinical expertise of physicians, was used to develop the criteria to improve patient care and obtain best outcomes while considering the subtleties and distinctions necessary in making clinical decisions. The Management of Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip in Infants up to Six Months of Age: Intended for Use by Orthopaedic Specialists AUC clinical patient scenarios were derived from indications typical of patients presenting with developmental dysplasia of the hip in clinical practice. The 432 patient scenarios and three treatments were developed by the Writing Panel, a group of clinicians who are specialists in this AUC topic. Next, a separate multidisciplinary, Voting Panel (made up of specialists and nonspecialists) rated the appropriateness of treatment of each patient scenario using a 9-point scale to designate a treatment as Appropriate (median rating, 7 to 9), May be Appropriate (median rating, 4 to 6), or Rarely Appropriate (median rating, 1 to 3).

Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hip.

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has developed the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hip. Evidence-based information, in conjunction with the clinical expertise of physicians, was used to develop the criteria to improve patient care and obtain best outcomes while considering the subtleties and distinctions necessary in making clinical decisions. The Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hip AUC clinical patient scenarios were derived from indications typical of patients presenting with osteoarthritis of the hip in clinical practice. The 270 patient scenarios and 9 treatments were developed by the Writing Panel, a group of clinicians who are specialists in this AUC topic. Next, a separate multidisciplinary, Voting Panel (made up of specialists and nonspecialists) rated the appropriateness of treatment of each patient scenario using a 9-point scale to designate a treatment as Appropriate (median rating, 7 to 9), May Be Appropriate (median rating, 4 to 6), or Rarely Appropriate (median rating, 1 to 3).

Surgical Management of Osteoarthritis of the Knee.

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has developed Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for Surgical Management of Osteoarthritis of the Knee. Evidence-based information, in conjunction with the clinical expertise of physicians, was used to develop the criteria to improve patient care and obtain best outcomes while considering the subtleties and distinctions necessary in making clinical decisions. The Surgical Management of Osteoarthritis of the Knee AUC clinical patient scenarios were derived from indications of patients under consideration for surgical treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee as well as from current evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and supporting literature to identify the appropriateness of the three treatments. The 864 patient scenarios and 3 treatments were developed by the writing panel, a group of clinicians who are specialists in this AUC topic. Next, a separate, multidisciplinary, voting panel (made up of specialists and nonspecialists) rated the appropriateness of treatment of each patient scenario using a 9-point scale to designate a treatment as Appropriate (median rating, 7 to 9), May Be Appropriate (median rating, 4 to 6), or Rarely Appropriate (median rating, 1 to 3).

Management of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) has developed Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for Management of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. Evidence-based information, in conjunction with the clinical expertise of physicians, was used to develop the criteria to improve patient care and obtain best outcomes while considering the subtleties and distinctions necessary in making clinical decisions. To provide the evidence foundation for this AUC, the AAOS Evidence-Based Medicine Unit provided the writing panel and voting panel with the 2016 AAOS Clinical Practice Guideline titled Management of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline. The Management of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome AUC clinical patient scenarios were derived from indications typical of patients with suspected carpal tunnel syndrome in clinical practice, as well as from current evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and supporting literature to identify the appropriateness of treatments. The 135 patient scenarios and 6 treatments were developed by the writing panel, a group of clinicians who are specialists in this AUC topic. Next, a separate, multidisciplinary, voting panel (made up of specialists and nonspecialists) rated the appropriateness of treatment of each patient scenario using a 9-point scale to designate a treatment as Appropriate (median rating, 7 to 9), May Be Appropriate (median rating, 4 to 6), or Rarely Appropriate (median rating, 1 to 3).

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury Prevention Programs.

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has developed Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury prevention programs. Evidence-based information, in conjunction with the clinical expertise of physicians, was used to develop the criteria to improve patient care and obtain best outcomes while considering the subtleties and distinctions necessary in making clinical decisions. The clinical patient scenarios presented in the AUC document ACL Injury Prevention Programs were derived from indications typical of patients who commonly present with ACL injuries in clinical practice as well as from current evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and supporting literature. The 48 patient scenarios and 1 treatment were developed by the Writing Panel, a group of clinicians who are specialists in this AUC topic. Next, a separate, multidisciplinary Voting Panel made up of specialists and nonspecialists rated the appropriateness of treatment of each patient scenario using a 9-point scale to designate a treatment as Appropriate (median rating, 7 to 9), May Be Appropriate (median rating, 4 to 6), or Rarely Appropriate (median rating, 1 to 3).

Management of Patients with Orthopaedic Implants Undergoing Dental Procedures.

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, in collaboration with the American Dental Association, has developed Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for the Management of Patients with Orthopaedic Implants Undergoing Dental Procedures. Evidence-based information, in conjunction with the clinical expertise of physicians, was used to develop the criteria to improve patient care and obtain best outcomes while considering the subtleties and distinctions necessary in making clinical decisions. The Management of Patients with Orthopaedic Implants Undergoing Dental Procedures AUC clinical patient scenarios were derived from indications of patients with orthopaedic implants presenting for dental procedures, as well as from current evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and supporting literature to identify the appropriateness of the use of prophylactic antibiotics. The 64 patient scenarios and 1 treatment were developed by the writing panel, a group of clinicians who are specialists in this AUC topic. Next, a separate, multidisciplinary, voting panel (made up of specialists and nonspecialists) rated the appropriateness of treatment of each patient scenario using a 9-point scale to designate a treatment as Appropriate (median rating, 7 to 9), May Be Appropriate (median rating, 4 to 6), or Rarely Appropriate (median rating, 1 to 3).

Postoperative Rehabilitation of Low Energy Hip Fractures in the Elderly.

Evidence-based information, in conjunction with the clinical expertise of physicians, was used to develop the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) document Postoperative Rehabilitation of Low Energy Hip Fractures in the Elderly to improve patient care and obtain the best outcomes while considering the subtleties and distinctions necessary in making clinical decisions. The AUC clinical patient scenarios were derived from patient indications that typically accompany hip fractures, as well as from current evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and supporting literature. The 72 patient scenarios and 10 treatments were developed by the Writing Panel, a group of clinicians who are specialists in this AUC topic. A separate, multidisciplinary Voting Panel made up of specialists and nonspecialists rated the appropriateness of treatment of each patient scenario using a 9-point scale to designate a treatment as Appropriate (median rating, 7 to 9), May Be Appropriate (median rating, 4 to 6), or Rarely Appropriate (median rating, 1 to 3).

Treatment of Hip Fractures in the Elderly.

Evidence-based information, in conjunction with the clinical expertise of physicians, was used to develop the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) document Treatment of Hip Fractures in the Elderly to improve patient care and obtain optimal outcomes while considering the subtleties and distinctions necessary in making clinical decisions. The AUC clinical patient scenarios were derived from indications typical of patients commonly presenting with hip fractures in clinical practice, as well as from current evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and supporting literature. The 30 patient scenarios and 6 treatments were developed by the Writing Panel, a group of clinicians who are specialists in this AUC topic. A separate, multidisciplinary Voting Panel made up of specialists and nonspecialists rated the appropriateness of treatment of each patient scenario using a 9-point scale to designate a treatment as Appropriate (median rating, 7 to 9), May Be Appropriate (median rating, 4 to 6), or Rarely Appropriate (median rating, 1 to 3).

Treatment of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries.

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has developed the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) document Treatment of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries. Evidence-based information, in conjunction with the clinical expertise of physicians, was used to develop the criteria to improve patient care and obtain the best outcomes while considering the subtleties and distinctions necessary in making clinical decisions. The AUC clinical patient scenarios were derived from patient indications that generally accompany an anterior cruciate ligament injury, as well as from current evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and supporting literature. The 56 patient scenarios and 8 treatments were developed by the Writing Panel, a group of clinicians who are specialists in this AUC topic. Lastly, a separate, multidisciplinary Voting Panel (made up of specialists and nonspecialists) rated the appropriateness of treatment of each patient scenario using a 9-point scale to designate a treatment as Appropriate (median rating, 7 to 9), May Be Appropriate (median rating, 4 to 6), or Rarely Appropriate (median rating, 1 to 3).

Management of Pediatric Supracondylar Humerus Fractures With Vascular Injury.

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has developed the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) document Management of Pediatric Supracondylar Humerus Fractures With Vascular Injury. Evidence-based information, in conjunction with the clinical expertise of physicians, was used to develop the criteria to improve patient care and obtain the best outcomes while considering the subtleties and distinctions necessary in making clinical decisions. The AUC clinical patient scenarios were derived from patient indications that generally accompany a pediatric supracondylar humerus fracture with vascular injury, as well as from current evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and supporting literature. The 6 patient scenarios and 18 treatments were developed by the Writing Panel, a group of clinicians who are specialists in this AUC topic. Next, the Review Panel, a separate group of volunteer physicians, independently reviewed these materials to ensure that they were representative of patient scenarios that clinicians are likely to encounter in daily practice. Finally, the multidisciplinary Voting Panel (made up of specialists and nonspecialists) rated the appropriateness of treatment of each patient scenario using a 9-point scale to designate a treatment as Appropriate (median rating, 7 to 9), May Be Appropriate (median rating, 4 to 6), or Rarely Appropriate (median rating, 1 to 3).

Management of Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Femoral Condyle.

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has developed the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) document Management of Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Femoral Condyle. Evidence-based information, in conjunction with the clinical expertise of physicians, was used to develop the criteria to improve patient care and obtain the best outcomes while considering the subtleties and distinctions necessary in making clinical decisions. The AUC clinical patient scenarios were derived from patient indications that generally accompany osteochondritis dissecans of the femoral condyle, as well as from current evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and supporting literature. The 64 patient scenarios and 12 treatments were developed by the Writing Panel, a group of clinicians who are specialists in this AUC topic. Lastly, a separate, multidisciplinary Voting Panel (made up of specialists and nonspecialists) rated the appropriateness of treatment of each patient scenario using a 9-point scale to designate a treatment as Appropriate (median rating, 7 to 9), May Be Appropriate (median rating, 4 to 6), or Rarely Appropriate (median rating, 1 to 3).

Management of Pediatric Supracondylar Humerus Fractures.

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons has developed Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) on the Management of Pediatric Supracondylar Humerus Fractures (PSHF). Evidence-based information, in conjunction with the clinical expertise of physicians, was used to develop the criteria to improve patient care and obtain the best outcomes while considering the subtleties and distinctions necessary in making clinical decisions. The PSHF AUC clinical patient scenarios were derived from patient indications that generally accompany a PSHF as well as from current evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and supporting literature. The 220 patient scenarios and 14 treatments were developed by the Writing Panel, a group of clinicians who are specialists in this AUC topic. Next, the Review Panel, a separate group of volunteer physicians, independently reviewed these materials to ensure that they were representative of patient scenarios that clinicians are likely to encounter in daily practice. Finally, the multidisciplinary Voting Panel (made up of specialists and nonspecialists) rated the appropriateness of treatment of each patient scenario using a 9-point scale to designate a treatment as Appropriate (median rating, 7 to 9), May Be Appropriate (median rating, 4 to 6), or Rarely Appropriate (median rating, 1 to 3).