Analysis of practice patterns and changes for ACL surgery document the past and present, but high quality data should inform the future.

Trends in practice patterns for ACL surgery can give us a real world look at what surgeons are actually doing. When large institutional studies show changing practice patterns over time, we can use that data to help benchmark our own practices. Innovations are inspired by colleagues, published literature, and industry, and not all innovation is positive. A return to independent drilling of the femoral and tibial tunnels reverses a single-incision trend that was less anatomic. While hamstring tendon grafts (HT) are a popular graft choice, HT shows higher revision rates, and high volume surgeons prefer bone-patellar tendon-bone and quadriceps tendon (QT) and autografts in general. Additional data is required to determine the benefit of QT and of lateral extra-articular tenodesis augmentation of ACL reconstruction. While a first step is to identify current practice patterns, the most important step is to study high quality data, to inform surgeons so they can individualize and optimize surgery for their patients.

No difference in revision risk between autologous hamstring graft less than 8 mm versus hybrid graft 8 mm or larger in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Hamstring autograft (HA) is commonly used for primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). However, if the harvested HA is inadequate in diameter, it is often augmented with an allograft tendon, forming a hybrid graft (HY). This study sought to evaluate aseptic revision risk following HA versus HY ACLR. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using data obtained from our healthcare system's ACLR registry. Patients ≤ 25 years of age who underwent primary isolated ACLR were identified (2005-2020). Graft type and diameter size was the primary exposure of interest: < 8 mm HA and ≥ 8 mm HY. A secondary analysis was performed to examine 7 mm HA and 7.5 mm HA vs ≥ 8 mm HY. Propensity score-weighted Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision. RESULTS: The study sample included 1,945 ACLR: 548 ≥ 8 mm HY, 651 7 mm HA, and 672 7.5 mm HA. The crude cumulative aseptic revision probability at 8-years for ≥ 8 mm HY was 9.1%, 11.1% for 7 mm HA, and 11.2% for 7.5 mm HA. In adjusted analysis, no difference in revision risk was observed for < 8 mm HA (hazard ratio [HR] 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-1.82), 7 mm HA (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.71-2.11), or 7.5 mm HA (HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.74-1.82) compared to ≥ 8 mm HY. CONCLUSION: In a US-based cohort of ACLR patients aged ≤ 25 years, we failed to observe any differences in aseptic revision risk for HA < 8 mm compared to HY ≥ 8 mm. Augmentation of a HA as small as 7 mm is not necessary to prevent a revision surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Acute and subacute anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions are associated with a higher risk of revision and reoperation.

PURPOSE: (1) Report concomitant cartilage and meniscal injury at the time of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), (2) evaluate the risk of aseptic revision ACLR during follow-up, and (3) evaluate the risk of aseptic ipsilateral reoperation during follow-up. METHODS: Using a United States integrated healthcare system's ACLR registry, patients who underwent primary isolated ACLR were identified (2010-2018). Multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression was used to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision, with a secondary outcome evaluating ipsilateral aseptic reoperation. Outcomes were evaluated by time from injury to ACLR: acute (< 3 weeks), subacute (3 weeks-3 months), delayed (3-9 months), and chronic (≥ 9 months). RESULTS: The final sample included 270 acute (< 3 weeks), 5971 subacute (3 weeks-3 months), 5959 delayed (3-9 months), and 3595 chronic (≥ 9 months) ACLR. Medial meniscus [55.4% (1990/3595 chronic) vs 38.9% (105/270 acute)] and chondral injuries [40.0% (1437/3595 chronic) vs 24.8% (67/270 acute)] at the time of ACLR were more common in the chronic versus acute groups. The crude 6-year revision rate was 12.9% for acute ACLR, 7.0% for subacute, 5.1% for delayed, and 4.4% for chronic ACLR; reoperation rates a 6-year follow-up was 15.0% for acute ACLR, 9.6% for subacute, 6.4% for delayed, and 8.1% for chronic ACLR. After adjustment for covariates, acute and subacute ACLR had higher risks for aseptic revision (acute HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.07-2.72, p = 0.026; subacute HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.01-1.55, p = 0.040) and aseptic reoperation (acute HR 2.04, 95% CI 1.43-2.91, p < 0.001; subacute HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.11-1.54, p = 0.002) when compared to chronic ACLR. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort study, while more meniscal and chondral injuries were reported for ACLR performed ≥ 9 months after the date of injury, a lower risk of revision and reoperation was observed following chronic ACLR relative to patients undergoing surgery in acute or subacute fashions.

Femoral-tibial fixation affects risk of revision and reoperation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring autograft.

PURPOSE: Newer fixation devices for hamstring (HS) autograft have been introduced over the years, yet the impact of these devices on ACLR outcomes requiring surgical intervention remains unclear. We sought to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision and reoperation after HS autograft ACLR according to various femoral-tibial fixation methods. METHODS: A cohort study was conducted using the Kaiser Permanente ACLR Registry. Primary isolated unilateral ACLR patients who received a HS autograft were identified (2007-2014). Fixation devices were categorized as crosspin, interference, suspensory, or combination (defined as more than one fixation device used on the same side) and femoral-tibial fixation groups used in more than 500 ACLR were evaluated. Cox proportional-hazard regression was used to evaluate the association between femoral-tibial fixation method and outcomes while adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: 6,593 primary ACLR were included. Four femoral-tibial fixation groups had more than 500 ACLR: suspensory-interference (n = 3004, 45.6%), interference-interference (n = 1659, 25.2%), suspensory-combination (n = 1103, 16.7%), and crosspin-interference (n = 827, 12.5%). After adjusting for covariates, revision risk was lower for crosspin-interference (HR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.29-0.65) and interference-interference (HR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.41-0.95) methods compared to the suspensory-interference. In contrast, reoperation risk was higher for crosspin-interference (HR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.37-3.32) and suspensory-combination (HR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.04-2.69) methods compared to suspensory-interference. CONCLUSIONS: ACLR using HS autograft appears to have the lowest risk of aseptic revision when crosspin or interference fixation is used on the femoral side and is coupled with an interference screw on the tibial side. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Is Anesthesia Technique Associated With a Higher Risk of Mortality or Complications Within 90 Days of Surgery for Geriatric Patients With Hip Fractures?

BACKGROUND: Postoperative mortality and complications after geriatric hip fracture surgery remain high despite efforts to improve perioperative care for these patients. One factor of particular interest is anesthetic technique, but prior studies on this are limited by sample selection, competing risks, and incomplete followup. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Among older patients undergoing surgery for hip fracture, does 90-day mortality differ depending on the type of anesthesia received? (2) Do 90-day emergency department returns and hospital readmissions differ based on anesthetic technique after geriatric hip fracture repairs? (3) Do 90-day Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) outcomes differ according to anesthetic techniques used during hip fracture surgery? METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study on geriatric patients (65 years or older) with hip fractures between 2009 and 2014 using the Kaiser Permanente Hip Fracture Registry. A total of 1995 (11%) of the surgically treated patients with hip fracture were excluded as a result of missing anesthesia information. The final study sample consisted of 16,695 patients. Of these, 2027 (12%) died and 98 (< 1%) terminated membership during followup, which were handled as competing events and censoring events, respectively. Ninety-day mortality, emergency department returns, hospital readmission, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), myocardial infarction (MI), and pneumonia were evaluated using multivariable competing risk proportional subdistribution hazard regression according to type of anesthesia technique: general anesthesia, regional anesthesia, or conversion from regional to general. Of the 16,695 patients, 58% (N = 9629) received general anesthesia, 40% (N = 6597) received regional anesthesia, and 2.8% (N = 469) patients were converted from regional to general. RESULTS: Compared with regional anesthesia, patients treated with general anesthesia had a higher likelihood of overall 90-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.35; p < 0.001); however, when stratified by before and after hospital discharge but within 90 days of surgery, this higher risk was only observed during the inpatient stay (HR, 3.83; 95% CI, 3.18-4.61; p < 0.001); no difference was observed after hospital discharge (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.94-1.16; p = 0.408). Patients undergoing conversion from regional to general also had a higher overall mortality risk compared with those undergoing regional anesthesia (HR, 1.34; 95% CI 1.04-1.74; p = 0.026), but this risk was only observed during their inpatient stay (HR, 6.84; 95% CI, 4.21-11.11; p < 0.001) when stratifying by before and after hospital discharge. Patients undergoing general anesthesia had a higher risk for all-cause readmission when compared with regional anesthesia (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19; p = 0.026). No differences according to anesthesia type were observed for risk of 90-day AHRQ outcomes, including DVT/PE, MI, and pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: We found the use of general anesthesia and conversion from regional to general anesthesia were associated with a higher risk of mortality during the in-hospital stay compared with regional anesthetic techniques, but this higher risk did not persist after hospital discharge. We also found general anesthesia to be associated with a higher risk of all-cause readmission compared with regional, but no other differences were observed in risk for complications. Our findings suggest regional anesthetic techniques may be preferred when possible in this patient population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Patient demographic and surgical characteristics in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a description of registries from six countries.

OBJECTIVE: Findings from individual anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) registry studies are impactful, but how various registries from different countries compare with different patient populations and surgical techniques has not been described. We sought to describe six ACLR registry cohorts to understand variation across countries. METHODS: Five European registries and one US registry participated. For each registry, all primary ACLR registered between registry establishment through 31December 2014 were identified. Descriptive statistics included frequencies, proportions, medians and IQRs. Revision incidence rates following primary ACLR were computed. RESULTS: 101 125 ACLR were included: 21 820 in Denmark, 300 in Luxembourg, 17 556 in Norway, 30 422 in Sweden, 2972 in the UK and 28 055 in the US. In all six cohorts, males (range: 56.8%-72.4%) and soccer injuries (range: 14.1%-42.3%) were most common. European countries mostly used autografts (range: 93.7%-99.7%); allograft was most common in the US (39.9%). Interference screw was the most frequent femoral fixation in Luxembourg and the US (84.8% and 42.9%), and suspensory fixation was more frequent in the other countries (range: 43.9%-75.5%). Interference was the most frequent tibial fixation type in all six cohorts (range: 64.8%-98.2%). Three-year cumulative revision probabilities ranged from 2.8% to 3.7%. CONCLUSIONS: Similarities in patient demographics and injury activity were observed between all cohorts of ACLR. However, graft and fixation choices differed. Revision rates were low. This work, including >100 000 ACLR, is the most comprehensive international description of contemporary practice to date.

Efficacy of Prophylactic Antibiotics in Simple Knee Arthroscopy.

PURPOSE: To determine the association between the use of preoperative antibiotics and the risk of postoperative infection after simple knee arthroscopy. METHODS: The electronic medical records of a large integrated health care organization were used to identify patients who underwent simple knee arthroscopy between 2007 and 2012. Patient demographics, potential infection risk factors, and antibiotic administration data were extracted. Simple knee arthroscopy included debridement, meniscectomy, meniscus repair, synovectomy, microfracture, and lateral release. Complex knee arthroscopy, septic knees, and cases involving fractures were excluded. Deep infection was defined as a positive synovial fluid culture or signs and symptoms of infection and gross pus in the knee. Superficial infection was defined as clinical signs of infection localized to a portal site and treatment with an antibiotic. RESULTS: Of 40,810 simple knee arthroscopies, 32,836 (80.5%) received preoperative antibiotics and 7,974 (19.5%) did not. There were 25 deep infections in the antibiotic group (0.08%) and 11 in the no-antibiotics group (0.14%) (risk ratio = 0.55, 95% confidence interval: 0.27 to 1.12, P = .10). There were 134 superficial infections in the antibiotic group (0.41%) and 32 in the no-antibiotics group (0.40%) (risk ratio = 1.01, 95% confidence interval: 0.29 to 1.49, P = .93). CONCLUSIONS: In our large sample of patients who underwent simple knee arthroscopy, there was no association between preoperative antibiotic use and postoperative deep or superficial infection rates at the 95% confidence level (P = .05). There was an association between preoperative antibiotic use and a decreased deep infection rate at the P = .10 level. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series.

A comparison of revision and rerupture rates of ACL reconstruction between autografts and allografts in the skeletally immature.

PURPOSE: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions (ACLRs) in skeletally immature patients are increasing. The purpose of this study is to describe the demographics, graft usage, revision, and re-operation rates in skeletally immature ACLRs in the Kaiser Permanente healthcare system. METHODS: Skeletally immature patients (<17.0 years old with open physes) were identified using the Kaiser Permanente ACLR registry. Multi-ligament reconstructions and physeal-sparing ACLRs were excluded. Aseptic revision and same-knee re-operation were the outcomes of interest. Exposure of interest was graft type; bone-patellar-tendon-bone (BPTB) autograft, hamstring autograft, and any type of allograft. Age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and race were evaluated as confounders. Cox proportional hazard models stratified by surgeon were used to analyse the risk of revision and re-operation. RESULTS: A total of 534 primary ACLR cases were evaluated with a mean follow-up of 2.9 years. The majority were hamstring autografts (n = 388, 72.7%), male (n = 339, 63.9%), and White (n = 232, 43.4%). Median age was 14.9 years, and median BMI was 21.9 kg/m(2). There were 44 (8.2%) aseptic revisions and 48 (9.0%) same-knee re-operations. The incidence rate for revision was BPTB autograft 5.5%, hamstring autograft 7.5%, and allograft 13.2%. After adjusting for confounders and surgeon clustering effect, the risk of aseptic revision and revision between allograft and hamstring autograft did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: Graft selection differs in skeletally immature patients with a preponderance of surgeries being performed with hamstring tendon autografts. High revision rates were identified for all graft types used, though differences in revision rates across different graft types did not reach statistical significance. Surgeons should be aware of high rates of revision in this skeletally immature young population, although type of graft used did not appear to make a difference. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Injury pathology at the time of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction associations with self-assessment of knee function.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of preoperative Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and structural injuries reported at the time of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Three medical centers in California. PARTICIPANTS: Primary ACLRs (N = 636) performed between January 2009 and June 2010. INDEPENDENT VARIABLES: The 5 KOOS subscales: pain, other symptoms, activities of daily living (ADL), function in sport and recreation (Sport/Rec), and quality of life (QoL). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Associated injuries (cartilage, medial meniscus, lateral meniscus, other ligaments), identified at the time of ACLR. RESULTS: Sixty-eight percent of the cohort was male and the median age was 26 years. No gender differences in KOOS were observed. No KOOS differences were observed by race, except in Sport/Rec. Younger patients reported higher KOOS. Pain and ADL scores were not associated with any concurrent injury. A 10-point increase in KOOS symptoms subscale was associated with 22% higher likelihood of isolated ACL, 13% lower likelihood of medial meniscus injury, and 10% lower likelihood of lateral meniscus. A 10-point increase in the KOOS Sport/Rec subscale score was associated with 8% higher likelihood of isolated ACL and 9% lower likelihood of medial meniscus injury. A 10-point increase in the KOOS QoL subscale was associated with 15% lower likelihood of medial meniscus injury. CONCLUSIONS: Weak associations between the symptoms, Sports/Rec, and QoL subscales and structural injuries at ACLR were observed. The KOOS and its subscales are not useful as indicators of the pattern or severity of preoperative injury of patients presenting for ACLR.

Risk of Revision and Reoperation After Quadriceps Tendon Autograft ACL Reconstruction Compared With Patellar Tendon and Hamstring Autografts in a US Cohort of 21,973 Patients.

BACKGROUND: The use of quadriceps tendon (QT) autografts has increased in the past 10 years. However, there remains a dearth of large studies examining the effects of graft selection on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) that includes QT grafts. PURPOSE: To evaluate the risk of subsequent surgical outcomes, including revision and reoperation, for a large cohort of patients with primary ACLR according to autograft selection. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Data from a US health care system ACLR registry were used to conduct a cohort study. Primary isolated autograft ACLRs were identified (2012-2021). The exposure of interest was autograft type: QT, bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB), and hamstring tendon (HT). Multivariable Cox regression models were used to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision (defined as a subsequent surgery where removal and replacement of the original graft for noninfectious reasons was required) and risk of aseptic reoperation (defined as any subsequent surgery for noninfectious reasons where the graft was left intact) according to autograft selection. RESULTS: The study sample comprised 21,973 ACLRs performed by 290 surgeons at 53 hospitals. QT, BPTB, and HT autografts were used in 1103 (5.0%), 9519 (43.3%), and 11,351 (51.7%) ACLRs, respectively. In adjusted models, no significant differences were observed in revision risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06; 95% CI, 0.60-1.89; P = .837) or reoperation risk (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.70-1.43; P = .993) within 4 years of follow-up when comparing QT ACLR with BPTB ACLR. Additionally, no differences in 4-year revision (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.34-1.12; P = .111) or reoperation (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.85-1.80; P = .262) risks were observed when comparing QT ACLR with HT ACLR. HT ACLRs were noted to have a higher risk of revision (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.25-1.84; P < .001) compared with BPTB ACLRs but a lower risk of reoperation (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.98; P = .024). CONCLUSION: In this large multicenter study using data from an ACLR registry, the authors found no difference in the risk of revision or reoperation when QT was compared with BPTB or HT autograft with the numbers available, but they did find a 1.5 times higher risk of revision when HT autograft was compared with BPTB autograft. Surgeons may use this information when choosing the appropriate graft for ACLR in their patients.

Improvements in Quality, Safety and Costs Associated with Use of Implant Registries Within a Health System.

BACKGROUND: Clinical quality registries (CQRs) are intended to enhance quality, safety, and cost reduction using real-world data for a self-improving health system. Starting in 2001, Kaiser Permanente established several medical device CQRs as a quality improvement initiative. This report examines the contributions of these CQRs on improvement in health outcomes, changes in clinical practice, and cost-effectiveness over the past 20 years. METHODS: Eight implant registries were instituted with standardized collection from the electronic health record and other institutional data sources of patient characteristics, medical comorbidities, implant attributes, procedure details, surgical techniques, and outcomes (including complications, revisions, reoperations, hospital readmissions, and other utilization measures). A rigorous quality control system is in place to improve and maintain the quality of data. Data from the Implant Registries form the basis for multiple quality improvement and patient safety initiatives to minimize variation in care, promote clinical best practices, facilitate recalls, perform benchmarking, identify patients at risk, and construct reports about individual surgeons. RESULTS: Following the inception of the Implant Registries, there was an observed (1) reduction in opioid utilization following orthopedic procedures, (2) reduction in use of bone morphogenic protein during lumbar fusion allowing for cost savings, (3) reduction in allograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and subsequent decrease in organizationwide revision rates, (4) cost savings through expansion of same-day discharge programs for joint arthroplasty, (5) increase in the use of cement fixation in the hemiarthroplasty treatment of hip fracture, and (6) organizationwide discontinuation of an endograft device associated with a higher risk for adverse outcomes following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. CONCLUSION: The use of Implant Registries within our health system, along with clinical leadership and organizational commitment to a learning health system, was associated with improved quality and safety outcomes and reduced costs. The exact mechanisms by which such registries affect health outcomes and costs require further study.

An Interrupted Time Series Analysis Measuring the Impact of Research and Education on Clinical Practice: Decreasing Allograft Use in Young Patients Using a Registry to Track Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: We sought to evaluate whether allograft utilization for primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) within our health-care system changed following the implementation of an allograft reduction intervention and whether revision rates within the health-care system changed following the initiation of the intervention. METHODS: We conducted an interrupted time series study using data from Kaiser Permanente's ACL Reconstruction Registry. In our study, we identified 11,808 patients who were ≤21 years of age and underwent primary ACLR from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2017. The pre-intervention period (15 quarters) was January 1, 2007, through September 30, 2010, and the post-intervention period (29 quarters) was October 1, 2010, through December 31, 2017. Poisson regression was used to evaluate trends over time in 2-year revision rates according to the quarter in which the primary ACLR was performed. RESULTS: Allograft utilization increased pre-intervention from 21.0% in 2007 Q1 to 24.8% in 2010 Q3. Utilization decreased post-intervention from 29.7% in 2010 Q4 to 2.4% in 2017 Q4. The quarterly 2-year revision rate increased from 3.0 to 7.4 revisions per 100 ACLRs pre-intervention and decreased to 4.1 revisions per 100 ACLRs by the end of the post-intervention period. Poisson regression found an increasing 2-year revision rate over time pre-intervention (rate ratio [RR], 1.03 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.00 to 1.06] per quarter) and a decreasing rate over time post-intervention (RR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.92 to 0.99]). CONCLUSIONS: In our health-care system, we saw a decrease in allograft utilization following the implementation of an allograft reduction program. During the same period, a decrease in the ACLR revision rate was observed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Association Between Graft Type and Risk of Repeat Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Cohort Study of 1747 Patients.

BACKGROUND: With an increasing number of primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions (ACLRs), the burden of revision ACLR (rACLR) has also increased. Graft choice for rACLR is complicated by patient factors and the remaining available graft options. PURPOSE: To examine the association between graft type at the time of rACLR and the risk of repeat rACLR (rrACLR) in a large US integrated health care system registry while accounting for patient and surgical factors at the time of revision surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Data from the Kaiser Permanente ACLR registry were used to identify patients who underwent a primary isolated ACLR between 2005 and 2020 and then went on to have rACLR. Graft type used at rACLR, classified as autograft versus allograft, was the exposure of interest. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate the risk of rrACLR, with ipsilateral and contralateral reoperation as secondary outcomes. Models included factors at the time of the rACLR (age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, staged revision, femoral fixation, tibial fixation, femoral tunnel method, lateral meniscal injury, medial meniscal injury, and cartilage injury) and a factor from the primary ACLR (activity at injury) as covariates. RESULTS: A total of 1747 rACLR procedures were included. The crude cumulative rrACLR incidence at 8-year follow-up was 13.9% for allograft and 6.0% for autograft. Cumulative ipsilateral reoperation incidence at 8-year follow-up was 18.3% for allograft and 18.9% for autograft; contralateral reoperation cumulative incidence was 4.3% for allograft and 6.8% for autograft. With adjustment for covariates, a 70% lower risk for rrACLR was observed for autograft compared with allograft (hazard ratio [HR], 0.30; 95% CI, 0.18-0.50; P < .0001). No differences were observed for ipsilateral reoperation (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.73-1.51; P = .78) or contralateral reoperation (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.60-2.97; P = .48). CONCLUSION: The use of autograft at rACLR was associated with a 70% lower risk of rrACLR compared with allograft in this cohort from the Kaiser Permanente ACLR registry. When accounting for all reoperations outside of rrACLR after rACLR, the authors found no significant difference in risk between autograft and allograft. To minimize the risk of rrACLR, surgeons should consider using autograft for rACLR when possible.

Intraoperative findings and procedures in culturally and geographically different patient and surgeon populations: an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction registry comparison between Norway and the USA.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patient and implant registries are important clinical tools in monitoring and benchmarking quality of care. For comparisons amongst registries to be valid, a common data set with comparable definitions is necessary. In this study we compared the patients in the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry (NKLR) and the Kaiser Permanente Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Registry (KP ACLRR) with regard to intraarticular findings, procedures, and graft fixation characteristics reported by the operating surgeon for both primary and revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions (ACLRs). METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional comparison of the NKLR and KP ACLRR cohorts registered between 2005 and 2010. Aggregate-level data including patient characteristics (age, sex, and laterality), meniscal and cartilage injury patterns and corresponding treatment procedures, choice of graft, and fixation characteristics (type and component material) were shared between registries. Descriptive analyses were then conducted. RESULTS: During the study period, 11,217 ACLRs were registered in the NKLR and 11,050 were registered in the KP ACLRR. In the NKLR, hamstring autograft was used more (68% vs. 30%) for primary ACLRs and allograft was used less (0.2% vs. 41%) than in the KP ACLRR. The KP ACLRR reports more meniscal tears among both primary and revision ACLRs (63% and 50% vs. 49% and 36%). The NKLR reports less use of biodegradable fixation devices. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline findings between the NKLR and the KP ACLRR were congruent regarding patient characteristics and most injury patterns, adding to the evidence that comparisons and collaborations between these registries will provide generalizable information to the international orthopedic community. The variation in the treatment, including graft and implant selection and meniscus procedures, between the 2 registries provides opportunities to explore the impact of treatment choices on the outcomes of ACLRs.

Optimizing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Individualizing the decision-making process using data from the Kaiser Permanente ACLR Registry: 2018 OREF award paper.

Despite years of study, controversy remains regarding the optimal graft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), suggesting that a single graft type is not ideal for all patients. A large community based ACLR Registry that collects prospective data is a powerful tool that captures information and can be analyzed to optimize surgery for individual patients. The studies highlighted in this paper were designed to optimize and individualize ACLR surgery and have led to changes in surgeon behavior and improvements in patient outcomes. Kaiser Permanente (KP) is an integrated health care system with 10.6 million members and more than 50 hospitals. Every KP member who undergoes an ACLR is entered into the Registry, and prospectively monitored. The Registry uses a variety of feedback mechanisms to disseminate Registry findings to the ACLRR surgeons and appropriately influence clinical practices and enhance quality of care. Allografts were found to have a 3.0 times higher risk of revision than bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autografts. Allograft irradiation >1.8 Mrad, chemical graft processing, younger patients, BPTB allograft, and male patients were all associated with a higher risk of revision surgery. By providing feedback to surgeons, overall allograft use has decreased by 27% and allograft use in high-risk patients ≤21 years of age decreased 68%. We have identified factors that influence the outcomes of ACLR. Statement of Clinical Significance: We found that information derived from an ACLR Registry and shared with the participating surgeons directly decreased the use of specific procedures and implants associated with poor outcomes.

Association Between Anteromedial Portal Versus Tibial Tunnel Drilling and Meniscal Reoperation Risk Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) provides functional stability to an injured knee. While multiple techniques can be used to drill the femoral tunnel during ACLR, a single technique has yet to be proven as clinically superior. One marker of postoperative functional stability is subsequent meniscal tears; a lower risk of subsequent meniscal surgery could be expected with improved knee stability. PURPOSE: To determine if there is a meniscal protective effect when using an anteromedial portal (AMP) femoral tunnel drilling technique versus transtibial (TT) drilling. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Data from Kaiser Permanente's ACLR registry were used to identify patients who had a primary isolated ACLR between 2009 and 2018; those with previous surgery in the index knee and meniscal pathology at the time of ACLR were excluded. The exposure of interest was TT (n = 2711) versus AMP (n = 5172) drilling. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate the risk of a subsequent ipsilateral meniscal reoperation with adjustment for age, sex, femoral fixation, and graft choice. We observed a shift in surgeon practice from the TT to AMP over the study time frame; therefore, the relationship between technique and surgeon experience on meniscal reoperation was evaluated using an interaction term in the model. RESULTS: At the 9-year follow-up, the crude cumulative meniscal reoperation probability for AMP procedures was 7.76%, while for TT it was 5.88%. After adjustment for covariates, we observed a higher risk for meniscal reoperation with AMP compared with TT (hazard ratio [HR], 1.53; 95% CI, 1.05-2.23). When stratifying by surgeon experience, this adverse association was observed for patients who had their procedure performed by surgeons with less AMP experience (no previous AMP ACLR: HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.84-1.91) while a protective association was observed for patients who had their procedure with more experienced surgeons (40 previous AMP ACLRs: HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.92). CONCLUSION: Drilling the femoral tunnel via the AMP was associated with a higher risk of subsequent meniscal surgery compared with TT drilling. However, when AMP drilling was used by surgeons experienced with the technique, a meniscal protective effect was observed.

Temporal Trends in Deep Surgical Site Infections After Six Orthopaedic Procedures Over a 12-year Period Within a US-based Healthcare System.

INTRODUCTION: Centers of excellence and bundled payment models have driven perioperative optimization and surgical site infection (SSI) prevention with decolonization protocols and antibiotic prophylaxis strategies. We sought to evaluate time trends in the incidence of deep SSI and its causative organisms after six orthopaedic procedures in a US-based integrated healthcare system. METHODS: We conducted a population-level time-trend study using data from Kaiser Permanente's orthopaedic registries. All patients who underwent primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), elective total hip arthroplasty (THA), hip fracture repair, shoulder arthroplasty, and spine surgery were identified (2009 to 2020). The annual incidence of 90-day deep SSI was identified according to the National Healthcare Safety Network/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines with manual chart validation for identified infections. Poisson regression was used to evaluate annual trends in SSI incidence with surgical year as the exposure of interest. Annual trends in overall incidence and organism-specific incidence were considered. RESULTS: The final study sample was composed of 465,797 primary orthopaedic procedures. Over the 12-year study period, a decreasing trend in deep SSI was observed for ACLR and hip fracture repair. Although there was variation in incidence rates for specific operative years for TKA, elective THA, shoulder arthroplasty, and spine surgery, no consistent decreasing trends over time were found. Decreasing rates of Staphylococcus aureus infections over time after hip fracture repair, shoulder arthroplasty, and spine surgery and decreasing trends in antibiotic resistance after elective THA and spine surgery were also observed. Increasing trends of polymicrobial infections were observed after TKA and Cutibacterium acnes after elective THA. CONCLUSIONS: The overall incidence of deep SSI after six orthopaedic procedures was rare. Decreasing SSI rates were observed for ACLR and hip fracture repair within our US-based healthcare system. Polymicrobial infections after TKA and Cutibacterium acnes after elective THA warrant closer surveillance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Screw and Sheath Tibial Fixation Associated With a Higher Likelihood of Deep Infection After Hamstring Graft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Hamstring autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions (ACLRs) have exhibited higher infection rates compared with bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autograft. The reason for this observed difference is unclear, warranting investigation. PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between tibial fixation, either with or without a sheath and screw construct, and the risk of deep infection after hamstring autograft ACLR, using BPTB autograft as a reference group for comparison. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Using the Kaiser Permanente ACLR Registry, we identified all primary isolated, unilateral, single-bundle ACLRs with a BPTB or hamstring autograft (January 1, 2008, to September 30, 2016). The exposure groups included the following: (1) BPTB ACLR, (2) hamstring ACLR using a screw and sheath construct for tibial fixation (HS with screw and sheath), and (3) hamstring ACLR using a method other than a screw and sheath construct for tibial fixation (HS without screw and sheath). We used logistic regression to evaluate the likelihood of 90-day postoperative deep infection using BPTB autograft as the reference group and adjusting for age, sex, and body mass index. The number needed to be exposed (NNE) was calculated. RESULTS: Of 15,671 ACLRs, 6745 (43.0%) used a BPTB graft, 2852 (18.2%) used HS with screw and sheath tibial fixation, and 6074 (38.8%) used HS without screw and sheath tibial fixation. There were 38 (0.2%) 90-day deep infections: 11 (0.2%) for BPTB, 14 (0.5%) for HS with screw and sheath, and 13 (0.2%) for HS without screw and sheath. Staphylococcus aureus for the BPTB group and Staphylococcus epidermidis in both hamstring groups were the most common infecting organisms. HS with screw and sheath had a higher likelihood of 90-day deep infection compared with BPTB ACLR (odds ratio [OR], 2.87; 95% CI, 1.29-6.38). We failed to observe a difference for HS without screw and sheath compared with BPTB ACLR (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.54-2.77). The NNE was 330 and 2701 for HS with and HS without screw and sheath, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although the overall infection rate after ACLR is low, the higher likelihood of infections when sheath and screw combined are used for tibial fixation of a hamstring autograft ACLR should be a consideration when this procedure is performed.

Revision Risk of Soft Tissue Allograft Versus Hybrid Graft After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: When a harvested hamstring autograft is deemed by the surgeon to be of inadequate diameter, the options include using the small graft, using another autograft from a different site, augmenting with an allograft (hybrid graft), using a different configuration of the graft (eg, 5- or 6-stranded), or abandoning the autograft and using allograft alone. A small graft diameter is associated with a higher revision risk, and using another autograft site includes added harvest-site morbidity; therefore, use of a hybrid graft or an allograft alone may be appealing alternative options. Revision risk for hybrid graft compared with soft tissue allograft is not known. PURPOSE: To evaluate the risk for aseptic revision surgery after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using a soft tissue allograft compared with ACLR using a hybrid graft in patients 25 years and younger. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Data from a health care system's ACLR registry were used to identify primary isolated unilateral ACLRs between 2009 and 2016 using either a hybrid graft (hamstring autograft with soft tissue allograft) or a soft tissue allograft alone. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate risk for aseptic revision after ACLR according to graft used after adjustment for age, allograft processing, tunnel drilling technique, and region where the primary ACLR was performed. RESULTS: The cohort included 2080 ACLR procedures; a hybrid graft was used for 479 (23.0%) ACLRs. Median follow-up time was 3.4 years (interquartile range, 1.8-5.1 years). The crude 2-year aseptic revision probability was 5.4% (95% CI, 4.3%-6.7%) for soft tissue allograft ACLR and 3.8% (95% CI, 2.3%-6.4%) for hybrid graft ACLR. After adjustment for covariates, soft tissue allograft ACLR had a higher risk of aseptic revision during follow-up compared with hybrid graft ACLR (hazard ratio, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.21-3.31; P = .007). CONCLUSION: Soft tissue allografts had a 2-fold higher risk of aseptic revision compared with hybrid graft after ACLR. Future studies evaluating the indications for using hybrid grafts and the optimal hybrid graft diameter is needed.

Clinical Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: Panther Symposium ACL Injury Clinical Outcomes Consensus Group.

A stringent outcome assessment is a key aspect of establishing evidence-based clinical guidelines for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury treatment. To establish a standardized assessment of clinical outcome after ACL treatment, a consensus meeting including a multidisciplinary group of ACL experts was held at the ACL Consensus Meeting Panther Symposium, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, in June 2019. The aim was to establish a consensus on what data should be reported when conducting an ACL outcome study, what specific outcome measurements should be used, and at what follow-up time those outcomes should be assessed. The group reached consensus on 9 statements by using a modified Delphi method. In general, outcomes after ACL treatment can be divided into 4 robust categories: early adverse events, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), ACL graft failure/recurrent ligament disruption, and clinical measures of knee function and structure. A comprehensive assessment after ACL treatment should aim to provide a complete overview of the treatment result, optimally including the various aspects of outcome categories. For most research questions, a minimum follow-up of 2 years with an optimal follow-up rate of 80% is necessary to achieve a comprehensive assessment. This should include clinical examination, any sustained reinjuries, validated knee-specific PROs, and health-related quality of life questionnaires. In the midterm to long-term follow-up, the presence of osteoarthritis should be evaluated. This consensus paper provides practical guidelines for how the aforementioned entities of outcomes should be reported and suggests the preferred tools for a reliable and valid assessment of outcome after ACL treatment.