Arthroscopic Fractional Lengthening After Total Hip Arthroplasty Results in Improved Patient-Reported Outcomes and Low Rates of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Purpose: To report the clinical outcomes and reoperation rates of arthroscopic and endoscopic iliopsoas release at short-term follow-up after ipsilateral total hip arthroplasty (THA) at 2 separate medical institutions and to evaluate whether demographic and radiographic parameters are associated with postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Methods: Patients with iliopsoas tendinitis in the setting of prior THA who underwent arthroscopic iliopsoas fractional lengthening from 1988 to 2023 at 2 academic institutions were reviewed. Patients were included if they had 12 months of follow-up and underwent evaluation of preoperative anterior acetabular component overhang, surgery satisfaction, postoperative subjective hip flexion strength and anterior groin pain improvement, modified Harris Hip Score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, Tegner activity scale score, visual analog scale (VAS) score, and revision hip arthroplasty. Results: Sixty hips in 58 patients (19 male and 39 female patients) were followed up for a mean of 39.3 months (range, 12.0-105.9 months) postoperatively. Of the patients, 77% reported feeling "much better" or "slightly better," 75% reported improved anterior groin pain, and 60% reported improved subjective hip flexion strength. The surgery satisfaction rating was 7.2 ± 3.3 (scale of 0 to 10). The mean postoperative modified Harris Hip Score, VAS score for pain at rest, VAS score for pain with use, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score were 73.9 ± 19.4, 1.3 ± 2.4, 3.8 ± 2.9, and 71.9 ± 21.9, respectively. Preoperative anterior acetabular component overhang was 3.3 ± 6.5 mm and did not significantly correlate with postoperative PROs (P ≥ .45). The Tegner score improved from 2.5 ± 1.7 preoperatively to 2.9 ± 1.4 postoperatively (P = .0253). Three patients underwent revision arthroplasty at a mean of 25.3 months (range, 11.6-40.4 months) postoperatively, with an acetabular component revision rate of 3.3%. Conclusions: Satisfactory outcomes and low revision arthroplasty rates were observed in patients undergoing arthroscopic iliopsoas lengthening after THA. There was no statistically significant relation between anterior acetabular component overhang and final PROs. Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Early Surgery for Partial Tears of the Ulnar Collateral Ligament May Be More Cost-Effective and Result in Longer Playing Careers Than Nonoperative Management for High-Level Baseball Pitchers: A Decision-Analytic Markov Model-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nonoperative management versus early reconstruction for partial tears of the medial ulnar collateral ligament (MUCL) remains controversial, with the most common treatment options for partial tears consisting of rest, rehabilitation, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), and/or surgical intervention. However, whether the improved outcomes reported for treatments such as MUCL reconstruction (UCLR) or nonoperative management with a series of PRP injections justifies their increased upfront costs remains unknown. PURPOSE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of an initial trial of physical therapy alone, an initial trial of physical therapy plus a series of PRP injections, and early UCLR to determine the preferred cost-effective treatment strategy for young, high-level baseball pitchers with partial tears of the MUCL and with aspirations to continue play at the next level (ie, collegiate and/or professional). STUDY DESIGN: Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: A Markov chain Monte Carlo probabilistic model was developed to evaluate the outcomes and costs of 1000 young, high-level, simulated pitchers undergoing nonoperative management with and without PRP versus early UCLR for partial MUCL tears. Utility values, return to play rates, and transition probabilities were derived from the published literature. Costs were determined based on the typical patient undergoing each treatment strategy at the authors' institution. Outcome measures included costs, acquired playing years (PYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: The mean total costs resulting from nonoperative management without PRP, nonoperative management with PRP, and early UCLR were $22,520, $24,800, and $43,992, respectively. On average, early UCLR produced an additional 4.0 PYs over the 10-year time horizon relative to nonoperative management, resulting in an ICER of $5395/PY, which falls well below the $50,000 willingness-to-pay threshold. Overall, early UCLR was determined to be the preferred cost-effective strategy in 77.5% of pitchers included in the microsimulation model, with nonoperative management with PRP determined to be the preferred strategy in 15% of pitchers and nonoperative management alone in 7.5% of pitchers. CONCLUSION: Despite increased upfront costs, UCLR is a more cost-effective treatment option for partial tears of the MUCL than an initial trial of nonoperative management for most high-level baseball pitchers.

Reconstructing a Patellar Tendon Rupture Neglected for 14 Years When Anatomic Restoration Is Not Possible: A Case Report.

CASE: This case highlights the utility and outcomes of an Achilles tendon bone-block allograft in reconstructing the patellar tendon of a 44-year-old man in the setting of a high-riding, irreducible patella after a chronic patellar tendon rupture of 14 years. CONCLUSION: In cases of a neglected patellar tendon rupture with an irreducible high-riding patella, an Achilles tendon bone-block allograft can provide the length and tissue necessary to reconstruct the extensor mechanism. Although reconstruction may not be anatomic, patients can still experience great subjective and objective functional improvement with restoration of the extensor mechanism even after delayed reconstruction.

Machine learning can accurately predict risk factors for all-cause reoperation after ACLR: creating a clinical tool to improve patient counseling and outcomes.

PURPOSE: Identifying predictive factors for all-cause reoperation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction could inform clinical decision making and improve risk mitigation. The primary purposes of this study are to (1) determine the incidence of all-cause reoperation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, (2) identify predictors of reoperation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using machine learning methodology, and (3) compare the predictive capacity of the machine learning methods to that of traditional logistic regression. METHODS: A longitudinal geographical database was utilized to identify patients with a diagnosis of new anterior cruciate ligament injury. Eight machine learning models were appraised on their ability to predict all-cause reoperation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Model performance was evaluated via area under the receiver operating characteristics curve. To explore modeling interpretability and radiomic feature influence on the predictions, we utilized a game-theory-based method through SHapley Additive exPlanations. RESULTS: A total of 1400 patients underwent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with a mean postoperative follow-up of 9 years. Two-hundred and eighteen (16%) patients experienced a reoperation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, of which 6% of these were revision ACL reconstruction. SHapley Additive exPlanations plots identified the following risk factors as predictive for all-cause reoperation: diagnosis of systemic inflammatory disease, distal tear location, concomitant medial collateral ligament repair, higher visual analog scale pain score prior to surgery, hamstring autograft, tibial fixation via radial expansion device, younger age at initial injury, and concomitant meniscal repair. Pertinent negatives, when compared to previous studies, included sex and timing of surgery. XGBoost was the best-performing model (area under the receiver operating characteristics curve of 0.77) and outperformed logistic regression in this regard. CONCLUSIONS: All-cause reoperation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction occurred at a rate of 16%. Machine learning models outperformed traditional statistics and identified diagnosis of systemic inflammatory disease, distal tear location, concomitant medial collateral ligament repair, higher visual analog scale pain score prior to surgery, hamstring autograft, tibial fixation via radial expansion device, younger age at initial injury, and concomitant meniscal repair as predictive risk factors for reoperation. Pertinent negatives, when compared to previous studies, included sex and timing of surgery. These models will allow surgeons to tabulate individualized risk for future reoperation for patients undergoing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Predictors of success following single-stage revision shoulder arthroplasty: results at a mean of five year follow-up in one hundred and twelve patients.

PURPOSE: The objective was to determine factors associated with a successful outcome at a minimum of two years after revision of a failed shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of revision shoulder arthroplasties performed over a ten year period and collected patient-reported outcome data and re-revision data. A successful outcome was defined by improvement greater than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the Simple Shoulder Test (SST). RESULTS: One hundred twelve patients with average follow-up of five years were included. Improvement of VAS pain scores (6.6 ± 2.3 to 2.9 ± 2.6) and SST scores (2.7 ± 2.6 to 6.6 ± 3.3) were significant (p < 0.001). Males were more likely to have a successful outcome than females (p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Two-thirds of patients experienced clinically significant improvement at a minimum of two years after revision shoulder arthroplasty. Male sex was the strongest independent predictor of a successful outcome.

Revision of total shoulder arthroplasty to hemiarthroplasty: results at mean 5-year follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Although there is a trend to manage failed anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties (aTSA) with revision to a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, such revisions can be complicated by difficulties in baseplate fixation, instability, and acromial stress fractures. Some cases of failed aTSA may be safely revised to a hemiarthroplasty (HA). The objectives of this study were to report patient-reported outcomes after conversion from aTSA to HA and assess patient and shoulder characteristics associated with a successful outcome. METHODS: Patients who underwent revision from aTSA to HA between 2009 and 2018 were contacted. Patient demographics, surgical history, intraoperative findings, and microbiology results were collected. Patient-reported outcomes were collected with minimum 2-year follow-up. Preoperative radiographic characteristics were reviewed for component positioning and component loosening. Patients with a clinically significant improvement exceeding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) were compared with those patients who did not improve past the MCID. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients underwent conversion from aTSA to HA with a mean follow-up of 4.5 ± 1.8 years. Intraoperative glenoid or humeral component loosening was found in all 29 patients. Pain improved in 25 of 30 patients (87%), and mean pain scores improved from 6.2 ± 2.3 to 3.1 ± 2.4 (P < .001). SST scores improved from 4.1 ± 3.1 to 7.3 ± 3.2 (P < .001), and 18 of 29 patients (62%) had improvement above the SST MCID threshold of 2.4. The mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score at the latest follow-up was 64 ± 19, and the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score was 65 ± 23. Twenty-two of 29 (76%) patients were satisfied with the procedure. Four patients (14%) required conversion to total shoulder arthroplasty-2 to anatomic and 2 to reverse. An additional 3 patients (10%) had a revision HA performed. No significant differences in patient or shoulder characteristics were found in those patients who improved greater than the MCID of the SST compared patients who improved less than the MCID of the SST. Fifty-nine percent of patients had ≥2 positive cultures with the same bacteria, and 82% of these were with Cutibacterium. Seven of 8 patients (88%) with a loose humeral component had ≥2 positive cultures with the same bacteria. DISCUSSION: Component loosening is a common failure mode after aTSA. Revision to HA can improve pain and patient-reported outcomes in most patients.

Risk factors for secondary meniscus tears can be accurately predicted through machine learning, creating a resource for patient education and intervention.

PURPOSE: This study sought to develop and internally validate a machine learning model to identify risk factors and quantify overall risk of secondary meniscus injury in a longitudinal cohort after primary ACL reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: Patients with new ACL injury between 1990 and 2016 with minimum 2-year follow-up were identified. Records were extensively reviewed to extract demographic, treatment, and diagnosis of new meniscus injury following ACLR. Four candidate machine learning algorithms were evaluated to predict secondary meniscus tears. Performance was assessed through discrimination using area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC), calibration, and decision curve analysis; interpretability was enhanced utilizing global variable importance plots and partial dependence curves. RESULTS: A total of 1187 patients underwent ACLR; 139 (11.7%) experienced a secondary meniscus tear at a mean time of 65 months post-op. The best performing model for predicting secondary meniscus tear was the random forest (AUROC = 0.790, 95% CI: 0.785-0.795; calibration intercept = 0.006, 95% CI: 0.005-0.007, calibration slope = 0.961 95% CI: 0.956-0.965, Brier's score = 0.10 95% CI: 0.09-0.12), and all four machine learning algorithms outperformed traditional logistic regression. The following risk factors were identified: shorter time to return to sport (RTS), lower VAS at injury, increased time from injury to surgery, older age at injury, and proximal ACL tear. CONCLUSION: Machine learning models outperformed traditional prediction models and identified multiple risk factors for secondary meniscus tears after ACLR. Following careful external validation, these models can be deployed to provide real-time quantifiable risk for counseling and timely intervention to help guide patient expectations and possibly improve clinical outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Early ACLR and Risk and Timing of Secondary Meniscal Injury Compared With Delayed ACLR or Nonoperative Treatment: A Time-to-Event Analysis Using Machine Learning.

BACKGROUND: Surgical and nonoperative management of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries seek to mitigate the risk of knee instability and secondary meniscal injury. However, the associated risk and timing of secondary meniscal tears have not been completely elucidated. PURPOSE: To compare risk and timing of secondary meniscal injury between patients receiving nonoperative management, delayed ACL reconstruction (ACLR), and early ACLR using a machine learning survival analysis. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A geographic database was used to identify and review records of patients with a diagnosis of ACL rupture between 1990 and 2016 with minimum 2-year follow-up. Patients undergoing ACLR were matched 1:1 with nonoperatively treated controls. Rate and time to secondary meniscal tear were compared using random survival forest algorithms; independent models were developed and internally validated for predicting injury-free duration in both cohorts. Performance was measured using out-of-bag c-statistic, calibration, and Brier score. Model interpretability was enhanced using global variable importance and partial dependence curves. RESULTS: The study included 1369 patients who underwent ACLR and 294 patients who had nonoperative treatment. After matching, no significant differences in rates of secondary meniscal tear were found (P = .09); subgroup analysis revealed the shortest periods of meniscal survival in patients undergoing delayed ACLR. The random survival forest algorithm achieved excellent predictive performance for the ACLR cohort, with an out-of-bag c-statistic of 0.80 and a Brier score of 0.11. Significant variables for risk of meniscal tear for the ACLR cohort included time to return to sports or activity ≤350 days, time to surgery ≥50 days, age at injury ≤40 years, and high-impact or rotational landing sports, whereas those in the nonoperative cohort model included time to RTS ≤200 days, visual analog scale pain score >3 at consultation, hypermobility, and noncontact sports. CONCLUSION: Delayed ACLR demonstrated the greatest long-term risk of meniscal injury compared with nonoperative treatment or early ACLR. Risk factors for decreased meniscal survival after ACLR included increased time to surgery, shorter time to return to sports or activity, older age at injury, and involvement in high-impact or rotational landing sports. Pending careful external validation, these models may be deployed in the clinical space to provide real-time insights and enhance decision making.

Oral and IV Antibiotic Administration After Single-Stage Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty: Study of Survivorship and Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients without Clear Preoperative or Intraoperative Infection.

BACKGROUND: Following revision shoulder arthroplasty, postoperative antibiotics are selected before the results of intraoperative cultures become available. We determined infection-free survival, revision-free survival, complications, and patient-reported outcomes for patients selected to receive oral or intravenous (IV) antibiotics after revision arthroplasty. METHODS: This study included 92 patients who had revision shoulder arthroplasty. IV antibiotics were administered if the surgeon had a high index of suspicion for infection, and oral antibiotics were given if there was a low suspicion. Antibiotic therapy was modified based on intraoperative culture results. Patient-reported outcomes and adverse events were documented at a mean of 4.1 years. RESULTS: In selecting antibiotic therapy, surgeons correctly predicted the presence or absence of multiple positive cultures of specimens from the revision surgery in 72% of the 92 cases. Subsequent re-revision surgery was required in 17 (18%) of the patients; 8 of these 17 patients had ≥2 positive cultures at re-revision. Patients who initially received IV antibiotics and those who initially received oral antibiotics had similar revision-free (p = 0.202) and infection-free (p = 0.155) survivorship. Patients requiring a change from oral to IV antibiotics based on positive cultures had similar survivorship compared with those initially treated with IV antibiotics. The IV and oral antibiotic groups had similar postoperative Simple Shoulder Test (SST), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and satisfaction scores. Patients receiving IV antibiotics had a higher rate of antibiotic-related adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Post-revision antibiotic therapy was associated with an infection-free survival rate of 91% at a mean of >4 years of follow-up. Infection-free survival, revision-free survival, and patient-reported outcomes were similar in high-risk patients placed on IV antibiotics and low-risk patients placed on oral antibiotics. Further study is needed to define the indications for IV or oral antibiotics after revision arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The Use and Adverse Effects of Oral and Intravenous Antibiotic Administration for Suspected Infection After Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: When performing revision shoulder arthroplasty, surgeons do not have access to the results of intraoperative culture specimens and will administer empiric antibiotics to cover for the possibility of deep infection until the culture results are finalized. The purpose of this study was to report the factors associated with the initiation, modification, and adverse events of 2 different postoperative antibiotic protocols in a series of revision shoulder arthroplasties. METHODS: In this study, 175 patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty were treated with either a protocol of intravenous (IV) antibiotics if there was a high index of suspicion for infection or a protocol of oral antibiotics if the index of suspicion was low. Antibiotics were withdrawn if cultures were negative and were modified as indicated if the cultures were positive. Antibiotic course, modification, and adverse effects to antibiotic administration were documented. RESULTS: On univariate analysis, factors significantly associated with the initiation of IV antibiotics were male sex (p < 0.001), history of infection (p < 0.001), intraoperative humeral loosening (p = 0.003), and membrane formation (p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, male sex (p = 0.003), history of infection (p = 0.003), and membrane formation (p < 0.001) were found to be independent predictors of the initiation of IV antibiotics. On the basis of preoperative and intraoperative characteristics, surgeons anticipated the culture results in 75% of cases, and modification of antibiotic therapy was required in 25%. The modification from oral to IV antibiotics due to positive culture results was made significantly more often in male patients (p < 0.001). Adverse effects of antibiotic administration occurred in 19% of patients. The rates of complications were significantly lower in the patients treated with oral antibiotics and a shorter course of antibiotics (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Complications associated with antibiotic administration after revision shoulder arthroplasty are not infrequent and are more common in patients whose initial protocol is IV antibiotics. Further study is needed to balance the effectiveness and risks of post-revision antibiotic treatment given the frequency of antibiotic-related complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.