American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons SLAP/Biceps Anchor Study Group evidence review: pathoanatomy and diagnosis in clinically significant labral injuries.

Glenoid superior biceps-labral pathology diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes are an evolving area of shoulder surgery. Historically, described as superior labrum anterior posterior (SLAP) tears, these lesions were identified as a source of pain in throwing athletes. Diagnosis and treatments applied to these SLAP lesions resulted in less than optimal outcomes in some patients and a prevailing sense of confusion. The purpose of this paper is to perform a reappraisal of the anatomy, examination, imaging, and diagnosis by the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons/SLAP biceps study group. We sought to capture emerging concepts and suggest a more unified approach to evaluation and identify specific needs for future research.

Variations in subpectoral biceps tenodesis locations do not impact clinical outcomes.

Background: Biceps tenodesis is a common treatment for pathologies involving the long head of the biceps brachii. Given variations in surgical approach, focus has been placed on the location of the tenodesis to maintain appropriate length-tension relationship. The purpose of this study is to assess for variations in the tunnel placement in subpectoral biceps tenodesis procedures and correlation of tunnel position with patient-reported outcomes. Methods: This is a retrospective case series of outcomes as a function of tunnel location with open subpectoralis biceps tenodesis. The location of the biceps tenodesis tunnel was measured on postoperative Grashey radiographs. Correlation between the tenodesis tunnel and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) was assessed. Results: 31 patients were included in the study with an average follow-up of 17 months. The overall tunnel position from the superior edge of the greater tuberosity ranged from 4.20 cm to 12.61 cm, with an average of 7.46 cm. Final ASES score and VAS were 84.5 and 1.2, respectively. There was only weak correlation between both ASES score and tunnel position (r = -0.12) and VAS and tunnel position (r = -0.23). Discussion: Subpectoralis biceps tenodesis continues to be a viable treatment option for biceps and superior labral pathology. There remains no consensus on tenodesis location, and this study found no significant difference between tunnel location and patient-reported outcomes. Therefore, it is likely that a range of tenodesis locations exists in which favorable clinical results are achieved, explaining the numerous recommendations on tunnel placement.

Arthroscopic bursectomy for recalcitrant trochanteric bursitis after hip arthroplasty.

This study evaluated the use of arthroscopic bursectomy for pain relief in patients with trochanteric bursitis after hip arthroplasty. In this retrospective case series of 12 patients undergoing arthroscopic treatment of recalcitrant trochanteric bursitis after hip arthroplasty, outcomes were assessed via phone interview with a numeric pain rating scale from 1 to 10 and were compared with preoperative pain ratings. Patients were asked the percentage of time they had painless hip function and whether they would have the surgery again. At an average 36-month follow-up (range, 4-85 months), the average numeric pain scale rating improved from 9.3 to 3.3. At an average of 62% of the time, patients had painless use of the hip. Ten of 12 patients in the study felt the pain relief gained was substantial enough to warrant having procedure again. In these patients, arthroscopic bursectomy was a viable option for patients with recalcitrant bursitis after hip arthroplasty.

Percutaneous Ultrasound-Guided Tenotomy of the Iliotibial Band for Trochanteric Pain Syndrome: A Longitudinal Observational Study With One-Year Durability Results.

BACKGROUND: Upper lateral hip pain is a common complaint in adults and is referred to as greater trochanteric pain syndrome (GTPS) and is more prevalent among older women. This is a debilitating condition that could result in lower physical activity and quality of life, and higher unemployment rate. GTPS is a clinical diagnosis, and many cases improve with conservative medical management (CMM). However, there is still a gap between patients not responding to CMM and those who are not good surgical candidates. Thus, percutaneous ultrasound tenotomy (PUT) may be a valuable treatment option to limit this gap. OBJECTIVES: Demonstration of the one-year pain and functional outcomes, including sit to stand. SETTING: Academic tertiary care medical center. METHODS: Forty-eight consecutive patients with refractory trochanteric pain due to iliotibial band (ITB) tendinopathy. Fifty-six hips were treated; 8 patients underwent bilateral procedures. Electronic medical record review of consecutive patients who underwent ITB TENEX® was performed at Montefiore Medical Center from December 2019 to December 2021. Institutional guidelines recommended TENEX® for greater trochanteric pain refractory to conservative treatment and ultrasound (US) confirmed ITB tendinopathy (hypoechogenicity or thickened tendon > 6 mm). Pain level, as well as sit-to-stand, side-lying, and walking tolerance levels were evaluated at baseline preprocedure visit and one-year visit. Follow-up was performed by independent practitioners and corroborated by chart review. RESULTS: Numeric Rating Scale (NRS-11) improved by 4 points across all patients. Seventy percent of patients endorsed pain relief at one-year visit. Median preprocedure NRS-11 was 9. The reported median NRS-11at one year was 5 (Wilcoxon signed rank NRS-11 demonstrated a Z score of -6.042 with P < 0.001). One-year analysis among all patients revealed 57%, 78%, and 66% improvement in side-lying, sit-to-stand, and walking tolerance levels, respectively. LIMITATIONS: We believe that our results must be confirmed with a randomized control trial with a control arm and more patients included. CONCLUSIONS: PUT of the ITB using the TENEX® tissue remodeling device could be a safe and effective treatment for ITB tendinopathy-associated GTPS.

Meniscal and Articular Cartilage Predictors of Outcome After Revision ACL Reconstruction: A 6-Year Follow-up Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Meniscal and chondral damage is common in the patient undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. PURPOSE: To determine if meniscal and/or articular cartilage pathology at the time of revision ACL surgery significantly influences a patient's outcome at 6-year follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction were prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Data collection included baseline demographics, surgical technique, pathology, treatment, and scores from 4 validated patient-reported outcome instruments: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Marx Activity Rating Scale. Patients were followed up at 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of outcome instruments. Regression analysis assessed the meniscal and articular cartilage pathology risk factors for clinical outcomes 6 years after revision ACL reconstruction. RESULTS: An overall 1234 patients were enrolled (716 males, 58%; median age, 26 years). Surgeons reported the pathology at the time of revision surgery in the medial meniscus (45%), lateral meniscus (36%), medial femoral condyle (43%), lateral femoral condyle (29%), medial tibial plateau (11%), lateral tibial plateau (17%), patella (30%), and trochlea (21%). Six-year follow-up was obtained on 79% of the sample (980/1234). Meniscal pathology and articular cartilage pathology (medial femoral condyle, lateral femoral condyle, lateral tibial plateau, trochlea, and patella) were significant drivers of poorer patient-reported outcomes at 6 years (IKDC, KOOS, WOMAC, and Marx). The most consistent factors driving outcomes were having a medial meniscal excision (either before or at the time of revision surgery) and patellofemoral articular cartilage pathology. Six-year Marx activity levels were negatively affected by having either a repair/excision of the medial meniscus (odds ratio range, 1.45-1.72; P≤ .04) or grade 3-4 patellar chondrosis (odds ratio, 1.72; P = .04). Meniscal pathology occurring before the index revision surgery negatively affected scores on all KOOS subscales except for sports/recreation (P < .05). Articular cartilage pathology significantly impaired all KOOS subscale scores (P < .05). Lower baseline outcome scores, higher body mass index, being a smoker, and incurring subsequent surgery all significantly increased the odds of reporting poorer clinical outcomes at 6 years. CONCLUSION: Meniscal and chondral pathology at the time of revision ACL reconstruction has continued significant detrimental effects on patient-reported outcomes at 6 years after revision surgery.

Returning to Activity After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision Surgery: An Analysis of the Multicenter Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision Study (MARS) Cohort at 2 Years Postoperative.

BACKGROUND: Patients with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision report lower outcome scores on validated knee questionnaires postoperatively compared to cohorts with primary ACL reconstruction. In a previously active population, it is unclear if patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are associated with a return to activity (RTA) or vary by sports participation level (higher level vs. recreational athletes). HYPOTHESES: Individual RTA would be associated with improved outcomes (ie, decreased knee symptoms, pain, function) as measured using validated PROs. Recreational participants would report lower PROs compared with higher level athletes and be less likely to RTA. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: There were 862 patients who underwent a revision ACL reconstruction (rACLR) and self-reported physical activity at any level preoperatively. Those who did not RTA reported no activity 2 years after revision. Baseline data included patient characteristics, surgical history and characteristics, and PROs: International Knee Documentation Committee questionnaire, Marx Activity Rating Scale, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. A binary indicator was used to identify patients with same/better PROs versus worse outcomes compared with baseline, quantifying the magnitude of change in each direction, respectively. Multivariable regression models were used to evaluate risk factors for not returning to activity, the association of 2-year PROs after rACLR surgery by RTA status, and whether each PRO and RTA status differed by participation level. RESULTS: At 2 years postoperatively, approximately 15% did not RTA, with current smokers (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.3; P = .001), female patients (aOR = 2.9; P < .001), recreational participants (aOR = 2.0; P = .016), and those with a previous medial meniscal excision (aOR = 1.9; P = .013) having higher odds of not returning. In multivariate models, not returning to activity was significantly associated with having worse PROs at 2 years; however, no clinically meaningful differences in PROs at 2 years were seen between participation levels. CONCLUSION: Recreational-level participants were twice as likely to not RTA compared with those participating at higher levels. Within a previously active cohort, no RTA was a significant predictor of lower PROs after rACLR. However, among patients who did RTA after rACLR, approximately 20% reported lower outcome scores. Most patients with rACLR who were active at baseline improved over time; however, patients who reported worse outcomes at 2 years had a clinically meaningful decline across all PROs.

Descriptive Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With and Without Tunnel Bone Grafting.

BACKGROUND: Lytic or malpositioned tunnels may require bone grafting during revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR) surgery. Patient characteristics and effects of grafting on outcomes after rACLR are not well described. PURPOSE: To describe preoperative characteristics, intraoperative findings, and 2-year outcomes for patients with rACLR undergoing bone grafting procedures compared with patients with rACLR without grafting. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A total of 1234 patients who underwent rACLR were prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Baseline revision and 2-year characteristics, surgical technique, pathology, treatment, and patient-reported outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and Marx Activity Rating Scale [Marx]) were collected, as well as subsequent surgery information, if applicable. The chi-square and analysis of variance tests were used to compare group characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 159 patients (13%) underwent tunnel grafting-64 (5%) patients underwent 1-stage and 95 (8%) underwent 2-stage grafting. Grafting was isolated to the femur in 31 (2.5%) patients, the tibia in 40 (3%) patients, and combined in 88 patients (7%). Baseline KOOS Quality of Life (QoL) and Marx activity scores were significantly lower in the 2-stage group compared with the no bone grafting group (P≤ .001). Patients who required 2-stage grafting had more previous ACLRs (P < .001) and were less likely to have received a bone-patellar tendon-bone or a soft tissue autograft at primary ACLR procedure (P≤ .021) compared with the no bone grafting group. For current rACLR, patients undergoing either 1-stage or 2-stage bone grafting were more likely to receive a bone-patellar tendon-bone allograft (P≤ .008) and less likely to receive a soft tissue autograft (P≤ .003) compared with the no bone grafting group. At 2-year follow-up of 1052 (85%) patients, we found inferior outcomes in the 2-stage bone grafting group (IKDC score = 68; KOOS QoL score = 44; KOOS Sport/Recreation score = 65; and Marx activity score = 3) compared with the no bone grafting group (IKDC score = 77; KOOS QoL score = 63; KOOS Sport/Recreation score = 75; and Marx activity score = 7) (P≤ .01). The 1-stage bone graft group did not significantly differ compared with the no bone grafting group. CONCLUSION: Tunnel bone grafting was performed in 13% of our rACLR cohort, with 8% undergoing 2-stage surgery. Patients treated with 2-stage grafting had inferior baseline and 2-year patient-reported outcomes and activity levels compared with patients not undergoing bone grafting. Patients treated with 1-stage grafting had similar baseline and 2-year patient-reported outcomes and activity levels compared with patients not undergoing bone grafting.

Association Between Graft Choice and 6-Year Outcomes of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in the MARS Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Although graft choice may be limited in the revision setting based on previously used grafts, most surgeons believe that graft choice for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is an important factor related to outcome. HYPOTHESIS: In the ACL revision setting, there would be no difference between autograft and allograft in rerupture rate and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 6-year follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Patients who had revision surgery were identified and prospectively enrolled in this cohort study by 83 surgeons over 52 sites. Data collected included baseline characteristics, surgical technique and pathology, and a series of validated PRO measures. Patients were followed up at 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of PRO instruments. Incidence of additional surgery and reoperation because of graft failure were also recorded. Multivariable regression models were used to determine the predictors (risk factors) of PROs, graft rerupture, and reoperation at 6 years after revision surgery. RESULTS: A total of 1234 patients including 716 (58%) men were enrolled. A total of 325 (26%) underwent revision using a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autograft; 251 (20%), soft tissue autograft; 289 (23%), BTB allograft; 302 (25%), soft tissue allograft; and 67 (5%), other graft. Questionnaires and telephone follow-up for subsequent surgery information were obtained for 809 (66%) patients, while telephone follow-up was only obtained for an additional 128 patients for the total follow-up on 949 (77%) patients. Graft choice was a significant predictor of 6-year Marx Activity Rating Scale scores (P = .024). Specifically, patients who received a BTB autograft for revision reconstruction had higher activity levels than did patients who received a BTB allograft (odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.25-2.94). Graft rerupture was reported in 5.8% (55/949) of patients by their 6-year follow-up: 3.5% (16/455) of patients with autografts and 8.4% (37/441) of patients with allografts. Use of a BTB autograft for revision resulted in patients being 4.2 times less likely to sustain a subsequent graft rupture than if a BTB allograft were utilized (P = .011; 95% CI, 1.56-11.27). No significant differences were found in graft rerupture rates between BTB autograft and soft tissue autografts (P = .87) or between BTB autografts and soft tissue allografts (P = .36). Use of an autograft was found to be a significant predictor of having fewer reoperations within 6 years compared with using an allograft (P = .010; OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.87). CONCLUSION: BTB and soft tissue autografts had a decreased risk in graft rerupture compared with BTB allografts. BTB autografts were associated with higher activity level than were BTB allografts at 6 years after revision reconstruction. Surgeons and patients should consider this information when choosing a graft for revision ACL reconstruction.

Rate of infection following revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and associated patient- and surgeon-dependent risk factors: Retrospective results from MOON and MARS data collected from 2002 to 2011.

Infection is a rare occurrence after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR). Because of the low rates of infection, it has been difficult to identify risk factors for infection in this patient population. The purpose of this study was to report the rate of infection following rACLR and assess whether infection is associated with patient- and surgeon-dependent risk factors. We reviewed two large prospective cohorts to identify patients with postoperative infections following rACLR. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, history of diabetes, and graft choice were recorded for each patient. The association of these factors with postoperative infection following rACLR was assessed. There were 1423 rACLR cases in the combined cohort, with 9 (0.6%) reporting postoperative infections. Allografts had a higher risk of infection than autografts (odds ratio, 6.8; 95% CI, 0.9-54.5; p = .045). Diabetes (odds ratio, 28.6; 95% CI, 5.5-149.9; p = .004) was a risk factor for infection. Patient age, sex, BMI, and smoking status were not associated with risk of infection after rACLR.

Outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in patients aged 70 years or older.

PURPOSE: To evaluate outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in patients aged 70 years or older. METHODS: We identified 44 consecutive patients aged 70 years or older undergoing primary all-arthroscopic repair of symptomatic full-thickness tears of the rotator cuff. A minimum 2-year follow-up was performed by an independent examiner including range of motion and dynamometer strength testing, and shoulder functional outcome scores including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Simple Shoulder Test score, and pain score on a visual analog scale were determined. Paired t tests were performed to compare preoperative and postoperative measures. Postoperative Constant-Murley scores were normalized with scores from age- and sex-matched healthy individuals. RESULTS: Of the patients, 39 (88.6%) were available for follow-up evaluation, with a mean age of 75.3 ± 4.2 years (range, 70.1 to 89.8 years) and a mean follow-up of 36.1 ± 9.9 months (range, 24.3 to 59.4 months). The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score improved from 45.8 ± 16.6 (mean ± SD) to 87.5 ± 14.4 at final follow-up (P < .0001). The Simple Shoulder Test score improved from 3.9 ± 2.3 to 9.8 ± 2.5 (P < .0001). The pain score on the visual analog scale improved from 4.6 ± 2.2 to 0.5 ± 0.9 (P < .0001), and forward elevation increased from 114.8° ± 42.0° to 146.2° ± 33.2° (P = .0012). Mean age- and sex-matched normalized Constant-Murley scores ranged from 88.3% to 97.2% of normal in men and 81.7% to 88.8% of normal in women. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair provides significant improvement in pain and function in carefully selected patients aged 70 years or older with symptomatic full-thickness rotator cuff tears and has a low complication rate. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Tenotomy for Gluteal Tendinopathy.

BACKGROUND: Gluteal tendinopathy is a common cause of lateral hip pain. Percutaneous ultrasonic tenotomy (PUT) has been used successfully for the treatment of tendinopathy of the elbow, knee, and ankle, but its use in the hip has not been described. PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of PUT in patients who did not respond to nonsurgical management of gluteal tendinopathy. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A total of 29 patients with gluteal tendinopathy (mean age, 62 years) who did not respond to nonsurgical treatment were enrolled in this prospective study and underwent ultrasound-guided PUT in an outpatient setting. Patients with a history of ipsilateral hip surgery were excluded. All patients initially underwent magnetic resonance imaging or a computed tomography arthrogram demonstrating tendinopathy and/or partial tearing of the gluteus minimus or medius tendon or both tendons. Outcomes were assessed with a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, the Harris Hip Score evaluation, and the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) before the procedure and at subsequent follow-up visits or by telephone interviews at 3 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, and final follow-up (range, 18-30 months). RESULTS: The mean final follow-up was at 22 months postoperatively. At final follow-up, VAS scores had improved from a preprocedural mean ± SD of 5.86 ± 1.73 to 2.82 ± 2.22 (P < .01). Harris Hip Scores improved from a preprocedural mean of 60.03 ± 10.86 to 77.47 ± 14.34 (P < .01). Total SF-12 scores improved from a mean of 29.93 ± 5.39 (51% optimal) to 34.41 ± 4.88 (64% optimal) (P < .01). No complications were reported. At final follow-up, when asked whether they would have the procedure again, 15 patients replied "yes definitely," 3 replied "yes probably," 3 replied "maybe," 1 replied "likely not," and 2 replied "definitely not." There were 3 patients who eventually had hip abductor tendon repair, and their PUT procedures were considered failures. CONCLUSION: PUT is an effective treatment, with good results for patients with gluteal tendinopathy.

Meniscal Repair in the Setting of Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Results From the MARS Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Meniscal preservation has been demonstrated to contribute to long-term knee health. This has been a successful intervention in patients with isolated tears and tears associated with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. However, the results of meniscal repair in the setting of revision ACL reconstruction have not been documented. PURPOSE: To examine the prevalence and 2-year operative success rate of meniscal repairs in the revision ACL setting. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: All cases of revision ACL reconstruction with concomitant meniscal repair from a multicenter group between 2006 and 2011 were selected. Two-year follow-up was obtained by phone and email to determine whether any subsequent surgery had occurred to either knee since the initial revision ACL reconstruction. If so, operative reports were obtained, whenever possible, to verify the pathologic condition and subsequent treatment. RESULTS: In total, 218 patients (18%) from 1205 revision ACL reconstructions underwent concurrent meniscal repairs. There were 235 repairs performed: 153 medial, 48 lateral, and 17 medial and lateral. The majority of these repairs (n = 178; 76%) were performed with all-inside techniques. Two-year surgical follow-up was obtained on 90% (197/218) of the cohort. Overall, the meniscal repair failure rate was 8.6% (17/197) at 2 years. Of the 17 failures, 15 were medial (13 all-inside, 2 inside-out) and 2 were lateral (both all-inside). Four medial failures were treated in conjunction with a subsequent repeat revision ACL reconstruction. CONCLUSION: Meniscal repair in the revision ACL reconstruction setting does not have a high failure rate at 2-year follow-up. Failure rates for medial and lateral repairs were both <10% and consistent with success rates of primary ACL reconstruction meniscal repair. Medial tears underwent reoperation for failure at a significantly higher rate than lateral tears.

Combined arthroscopic repair of a type IV SLAP tear and Bankart lesion.

Lesions of the superior labrum can be a source of significant shoulder pain and disability. SLAP (superior labrum anterior-posterior) tears have been classified into many different types. A type IV SLAP tear is a bucket-handle tear of the superior labrum with extension into the biceps tendon. This relatively uncommon SLAP tear, if present, has been shown to be frequently associated with other pathology including Bankart lesions. We present an arthroscopic technique for combined repair of a type IV SLAP tear and Bankart lesion. Steps include initial reduction of the bucket-handle portion of the superior labral injury, repair of the anterior-inferior labral detachment, and, finally, repair of the superior labrum and biceps tendon split.

Evaluation and treatment of acute and chronic injuries to the capsular ligaments of the knee.

Injury to the capsular ligaments of the knee commonly occurs in conjunction with cruciate ligament injury. An untreated grade III sprain can lead to recurrent meniscal injury, failure of cruciate ligament reconstruction, and arthrosis. Careful clinical examination is necessary to identify injuries to discrete ligaments and estimate the severity of injuries not discernable on imaging studies. A classification system of capsular injury is useful to link the diagnosis to a treatment algorithm. Anatomically based surgical procedures for acute and chronic sprains of the posteromedial, anterolateral, and posterolateral capsular structures have been proven in long-term outcome studies. The goal is to restore the anatomy by repair (for an acute sprain) or capsular shift (for a chronic sprain), rather than to substitute extra-articular tendon routing.

Predictors of Patient-Reported Outcomes at 2 Years After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are a valid measure of results after revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Revision ACL reconstruction has been documented to have worse outcomes when compared with primary ACL reconstruction. Understanding positive and negative predictors of PROs will allow surgeons to modify and potentially improve outcome for patients. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose was to describe PROs after revision ACL reconstruction and test the hypothesis that patient- and technique-specific variables are associated with these outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction were identified and prospectively enrolled by 83 surgeons over 52 sites. Data included baseline demographics, surgical technique and pathology, and a series of validated PRO instruments: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and Marx Activity Rating Scale. Patients were followed up at 2 years and asked to complete the identical set of outcome instruments. Multivariate regression models were used to control for a variety of demographic and surgical factors to determine the positive and negative predictors of PRO scores at 2 years after revision surgery. RESULTS: A total of 1205 patients met the inclusion criteria and were successfully enrolled: 697 (58%) were male, with a median cohort age of 26 years. The median time since their most recent previous ACL reconstruction was 3.4 years. Two-year questionnaire follow-up was obtained from 989 patients (82%). The most significant positive predictors of 2-year IKDC scores were a high baseline IKDC score, high baseline Marx activity level, male sex, and having a longer time since the most recent previous ACL reconstruction, while negative predictors included having a lateral meniscectomy before the revision ACL reconstruction or having grade 3/4 chondrosis in either the trochlear groove or the medial tibial plateau at the time of the revision surgery. For KOOS, having a high baseline score and having a longer time between the most recent previous ACL reconstruction and revision surgery were significant positive predictors for having a better (ie, higher) 2-year KOOS, while having a lateral meniscectomy before the revision ACL reconstruction was a consistent predictor for having a significantly worse (ie, lower) 2-year KOOS. Statistically significant positive predictors for 2-year Marx activity levels included higher baseline Marx activity levels, younger age, male sex, and being a nonsmoker. Negative 2-year activity level predictors included having an allograft or a biologic enhancement at the time of revision surgery. CONCLUSION: PROs after revision ACL reconstruction are associated with a variety of patient- and surgeon-related variables. Understanding positive and negative predictors of PROs will allow surgeons to guide patient expectations as well as potentially improve outcomes.

Relationship Between Sports Participation After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction and 2-Year Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) revision cohorts continually report lower outcome scores on validated knee questionnaires than primary ACL cohorts at similar time points after surgery. It is unclear how these outcomes are associated with physical activity after physician clearance for return to recreational or competitive sports after ACL revision surgery. HYPOTHESES: Participants who return to either multiple sports or a singular sport after revision ACL surgery will report decreased knee symptoms, increased activity level, and improved knee function as measured by validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and compared with no sports participation. Multisport participation as compared with singular sport participation will result in similar increased PROMs and activity level. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A total of 1205 patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction were enrolled by 83 surgeons at 52 clinical sites. At the time of revision, baseline data collected included the following: demographics, surgical characteristics, previous knee treatment and PROMs, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) questionnaire, Marx activity score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). A series of multivariate regression models were used to evaluate the association of IKDC, KOOS, WOMAC, and Marx Activity Rating Scale scores at 2 years after revision surgery by sports participation category, controlling for known significant covariates. RESULTS: Two-year follow-up was obtained on 82% (986 of 1205) of the original cohort. Patients who reported not participating in sports after revision surgery had lower median PROMs both at baseline and at 2 years as compared with patients who participated in either a single sport or multiple sports. Significant differences were found in the change of scores among groups on the IKDC (P < .0001), KOOS-Symptoms (P = .01), KOOS-Sports and Recreation (P = .04), and KOOS-Quality of Life (P < .0001). Patients with no sports participation were 2.0 to 5.7 times more likely than multiple-sport participants to report significantly lower PROMs, depending on the specific outcome measure assessed, and 1.8 to 3.8 times more likely than single-sport participants (except for WOMAC-Stiffness, P = .18), after controlling for known covariates. CONCLUSION: Participation in either a single sport or multiple sports in the 2 years after ACL revision surgery was found to be significantly associated with higher PROMs across multiple validated self-reported assessment tools. During follow-up appointments, surgeons should continue to expect that patients who report returning to physical activity after surgery will self-report better functional outcomes, regardless of baseline activity levels.

Posterolateral corner injury of the knee: evaluation and management.

Posterolateral corner injury, an increasingly recognized entity, is commonly associated with concomitant ligament disruptions. Prompt recognition is critical for several reasons. Missed posterolateral corner injuries increase the failure rates for both anterior and posterior cruciate ligament reconstructions. Also, untreated posterolateral corner injuries lead to chronic disability. Acute (ie, immediate) surgical intervention results in superior outcomes compared with chronic (ie, late) reconstruction. Although no universal classification system has been adopted, attention to both varus and rotational stability is critical. Multiple options exist for posterolateral corner reconstruction, although recent trends have shifted toward anatomic reconstruction techniques.

Risk Factors and Predictors of Significant Chondral Surface Change From Primary to Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A MOON and MARS Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Articular cartilage health is an important issue following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and primary ACL reconstruction. Factors present at the time of primary ACL reconstruction may influence the subsequent progression of articular cartilage damage. HYPOTHESIS: Larger meniscus resection at primary ACL reconstruction, increased patient age, and increased body mass index (BMI) are associated with increased odds of worsened articular cartilage damage at the time of revision ACL reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Subjects who had primary and revision data in the databases of the Multicenter Orthopaedics Outcomes Network (MOON) and Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) were included. Reviewed data included chondral surface status at the time of primary and revision surgery, meniscus status at the time of primary reconstruction, primary reconstruction graft type, time from primary to revision ACL surgery, as well as demographics and Marx activity score at the time of revision. Significant progression of articular cartilage damage was defined in each compartment according to progression on the modified Outerbridge scale (increase ≥1 grade) or >25% enlargement in any area of damage. Logistic regression identified predictors of significant chondral surface change in each compartment from primary to revision surgery. RESULTS: A total of 134 patients were included, with a median age of 19.5 years at revision surgery. Progression of articular cartilage damage was noted in 34 patients (25.4%) in the lateral compartment, 32 (23.9%) in the medial compartment, and 31 (23.1%) in the patellofemoral compartment. For the lateral compartment, patients who had >33% of the lateral meniscus excised at primary reconstruction had 16.9-times greater odds of progression of articular cartilage injury than those with an intact lateral meniscus ( P < .001). For the medial compartment, patients who had <33% of the medial meniscus excised at the time of the primary reconstruction had 4.8-times greater odds of progression of articular cartilage injury than those with an intact medial meniscus ( P = .02). Odds of significant chondral surface change increased by 5% in the lateral compartment and 6% in the medial compartment for each increased year of age ( P ≤ .02). For the patellofemoral compartment, the use of allograft in primary reconstruction was associated with a 15-fold increased odds of progression of articular cartilage damage relative to a patellar tendon autograft ( P < .001). Each 1-unit increase in BMI at the time of revision surgery was associated with a 10% increase in the odds of progression of articular cartilage damage ( P = .046) in the patellofemoral compartment. CONCLUSION: Excision of the medial and lateral meniscus at primary ACL reconstruction increases the odds of articular cartilage damage in the corresponding compartment at the time of revision ACL reconstruction. Increased age is a risk factor for deterioration of articular cartilage in both tibiofemoral compartments, while increased BMI and the use of allograft for primary ACL reconstruction are associated with an increased risk of progression in the patellofemoral compartment.

Physiologic Preoperative Knee Hyperextension Is a Predictor of Failure in an Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision Cohort: A Report From the MARS Group.

BACKGROUND: The occurrence of physiologic knee hyperextension (HE) in the revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) population and its effect on outcomes have yet to be reported. Hypothesis/Purpose: The prevalence of knee HE in revision ACLR and its effect on 2-year outcome were studied with the hypothesis that preoperative physiologic knee HE ≥5° is a risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft rupture. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Patients undergoing revision ACLR were identified and prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Study inclusion criteria were patients undergoing single-bundle graft reconstructions. Patients were followed up at 2 years and asked to complete an identical set of outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, WOMAC, and Marx Activity Rating Scale) as well as provide information regarding revision ACL graft failure. A regression model with graft failure as the dependent variable included age, sex, graft type at the time of the revision ACL surgery, and physiologic preoperative passive HE ≥5° (yes/no) to assess these as potential risk factors for clinical outcomes 2 years after revision ACLR. RESULTS: Analyses included 1145 patients, for whom 2-year follow-up was attained for 91%. The median age was 26 years, with age being a continuous variable. Those below the median were grouped as "younger" and those above as "older" (age: interquartile range = 20, 35 years), and 42% of patients were female. There were 50% autografts, 48% allografts, and 2% that had a combination of autograft plus allograft. Passive knee HE ≥5° was present in 374 (33%) patients in the revision cohort, with 52% being female. Graft rupture at 2-year follow-up occurred in 34 cases in the entire cohort, of which 12 were in the HE ≥5° group (3.2% failure rate) and 22 in the non-HE group (2.9% failure rate). The median age of patients who failed was 19 years, as opposed to 26 years for those with intact grafts. Three variables in the regression model were significant predictors of graft failure: younger age (odds ratio [OR] = 3.6; 95% CI, 1.6-7.9; P = .002), use of allograft (OR = 3.3; 95% CI, 1.5-7.4; P = .003), and HE ≥5° (OR = 2.12; 95% CI, 1.1-4.7; P = .03). CONCLUSION: This study revealed that preoperative physiologic passive knee HE ≥5° is present in one-third of patients who undergo revision ACLR. HE ≥5° was an independent significant predictor of graft failure after revision ACLR with a >2-fold OR of subsequent graft rupture in revision ACL surgery. Registration: NCT00625885 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Arthroscopic bursectomy for recalcitrant trochanteric bursitis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective study was to evaluate the arthroscopic treatment of trochanteric bursitis in patients who have not responded to nonoperative treatment. METHODS: Thirty patients were enrolled in this study to evaluate the results of arthroscopic bursectomy. Outcomes were assessed by use of a visual analog pain scale, Harris Hip Score, Short Form 36 Health Survey, and additional specific hip function questions. Patients were given the self-administered outcome questionnaires before surgery and at subsequent follow-up visits. Of the patients, 25 were available for a mean follow-up of 26.1 months (range, 13.8 to 41 months). RESULTS: Pain scores on the visual analog scale improved from a preoperative mean of 7.2 (0, no pain; 10, worst pain) to a postoperative mean of 3.1 at final follow-up (P = .0001). Mean Harris Hip Scores improved from a mean of 51 preoperatively to 77 at follow-up (P = .0001). Improvements were also noted in the physical component summary scores of the Short Form 36. The mean physical function score improved from 33.6 preoperatively to 54 at follow-up (P = .022), and in the pain category, the mean score improved from 28.7 to 51.5 (P = .001). One postoperative complication occurred, a seroma that required repeat surgery. One patient had a failed arthroscopic bursectomy and subsequently underwent open bursectomy with resolution of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic bursectomy appears to be an effective option for recalcitrant trochanteric bursitis and is a viable alternative to open bursectomy. In this prospective study patients had good pain relief and improved function compared with their preoperative status. Improvements in a patient's status are usually evident by 1 to 3 months after surgery and appear to be lasting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.