Suture Anchor-Based Quadriceps Tendon Repair May Result in Improved Patient-Reported Outcomes but Similar Failure Rates Compared to the Transosseous Tunnel Technique.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare failure rates and patient-reported outcomes between transosseus (TO) suture and suture anchor (SA) quadriceps tendon repairs. METHODS: Following institutional review board approval, patients who underwent primary repair for quadriceps tendon rupture with TO or SA techniques between January 2009 and August 2018 were identified from an institutional database and retrospectively reviewed. Patients were contacted for satisfaction (1-10 scale), current function (0-100 scale), failure (retear), and revision surgeries; International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS) were also collected to achieve a minimum of 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients (34 SA, 30 TO) were available by phone or e-mail at a mean of 4.81 ± 2.60 years postoperatively. There were 10 failures, for an overall failure rate of 15.6%. Failure incidence did not significantly differ between treatment groups (P = .83). Twenty-seven patients (47% of nonfailed patients) had completed patient-reported outcomes. The SA group reported higher subjective function (SA: 90 [85-100] vs TO: 85 [60-93], 95% CI of difference: -19.9 to -2.1 × 10-5, P = .042), final IKDC (79.6 [50.0-93.6] vs 62.1 [44.3-65.5], 95% CI of difference: -33.0 to -0.48, P = .048), KOOS Pain (97.2 [84.7-97.2] vs 73.6 [50.7-88.2], 95% CI of difference: -36.1 to -3.6 × 10-5, P = .037), Quality of Life (81.3 [56.3-93.8] vs 50.0 [23.4-56.3], 95% CI of difference: -50.0 to -6.2, P = .026), and Sport (75.0 [52.5-90.0] vs 47.5 [31.3-67.5], 95% CI of the difference: -45.0 to -4.1 × 10-5, P = .048). CONCLUSIONS: There is no significant difference in failure rate between transosseus and suture anchor repairs for quadriceps tendon ruptures (P = .83). Most failures occur secondary to a traumatic reinjury within the first year postoperatively. Despite the lack of difference in failure rates, at final follow-up, patients who undergo suture anchor repair may report significantly greater subjective function and final IKDC, KOOS Pain, Quality of Life, and Sport scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective cohort study.

PROMIS physical function and pain perform poorly psychometrically in patients undergoing medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the validity, floor and ceiling effects, and dimensionality of PROMIS Physical Function (PF) and Pain compared to legacy patient reported outcome (PRO) measures in patients undergoing medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction. METHODS: Patients who underwent MPFL reconstruction between 2018 to 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperatively, patients completed the IKDC, VR-12, Kujala, SF-12, KOOS JR, PROMIS PF and Pain surveys. Inter-survey convergence was assessed with Spearman correlations. Psychometric analysis included investigations of inter-survey convergent validity, intra-survey floor and ceiling effects, and Rasch analyses with person-item fit and iterative question elimination model fit testing. RESULTS: A total of 76 patients (mean age: 22.6 ± 8.4 years) who completed preoperative surveys were included (compliance: 91.7-96.2%). Preoperatively, age was significantly associated with both PROMIS PF (coefficient: - 0.291, P = 0.005) and Pain scores (coefficient: 0.294, P = 0.002). PROMIS PF had a Very Good correlation with IKDC and PROMIS Pain had a Very Good correlation with KOOS JR. Other correlations ranged from Poor to Good. No significant floor or ceiling effects were observed for any PRO. On iterative question elimination Rasch modelling, only two questions from PROMIS PF remained after 6 rounds of elimination while PROMIS Pain had no questions remaining after 3 rounds of elimination. CONCLUSION: Preoperative PROMIS PF and Pain provided only Fair to Good correlations with most legacy PROs. Although no significant floor and ceiling effects were observed, PROMIS PF and Pain did not perform well psychometrically in this population of patients undergoing MPFL reconstruction. These results suggest PROMIS questionnaires should be used with caution in this population, especially if used in isolation, when discussing clinical expectations with patients. The authors recommend continued use of legacy PROs specific to assessment of patellar instability and function that have established validity in patellar instability populations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Biomechanical Properties and Kinematics of Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.

Background: While the biomechanical properties of the native medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) have been well studied, there is no comprehensive summary of the biomechanics of MPFL reconstruction (MPFLR). An accurate understanding of the kinematic properties and functional behavior of current techniques used in MPFLR is imperative to restoring native biomechanics and improving outcomes. Purpose: To provide a comprehensive review of the biomechanical effects of variations in MPFLR, specifically to determine the effect of graft choice and reconstruction technique. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: A systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A total of 32 studies met inclusion criteria: (1) using ≥8 human cadaveric specimens, (2) reporting on a component of MPFLR, and (3) having multiple comparison groups. Results: Gracilis, semitendinosus, and quadriceps grafts demonstrated an ultimate load to failure (N) of 206.2, 102.8, and 190.0 to 205.0 and stiffness (N/mm) of 20.4, 8.5, and 21.4 to 33.6, respectively. Single-bundle and double-bundle techniques produced an ultimate load to failure (N) of 171 and 213 and stiffness (N/mm) of 13.9 and 17.1, respectively. Anchors placed centrally and superomedially in the patella produced the smallest degree of length changes throughout range of motion in contrast to anchors placed more proximally. Sutures, suture anchors, and transosseous tunnels all produced similar ultimate load to failure, stiffness, and elongation data. Femoral tunnel malpositioning resulted in significant increases in contact pressures, patellar translation, tilt, and graft tightening or loosening. Low tension grafts (2 N) most closely restored the patellofemoral contact pressures, translation, and tilt. Graft fixation angles variably and inconsistently altered contact pressures, and patellar translation and tilt. Conclusion: Data demonstrated that placement of the MPFLR femoral tunnel at the Schöttle point is critical to success. Femoral tunnel diameter should be ≥2 mm greater than graft diameter to limit graft advancement and overtensioning. Graft fixation, regardless of graft choice or fixation angle, is optimally performed under minimal tension with patellar fixation at the medial and superomedial patella. However, lower fixation angles may reduce graft strain, and higher fixation angles may exacerbate anisometry and length changes if femoral tunnel placement is nonanatomic.

The Effect of Intraoperative Prone Position on Psoas Morphology and Great Vessel Anatomy: Consequences for Prone Lateral Approach to the Lumbar Spine.

BACKGROUND: This study sought to quantify radiographic differences in psoas morphology, great vessel anatomy, and lumbar lordosis between supine and prone intraoperative positioning to optimize surgical planning and minimize the risk of neurovascular injury. METHODS: Measurements on supine magnetic resonance imaging and prone intraoperative computed tomography with O-arm from L2 to L5 levels included the anteroposterior and mediolateral proximity of the psoas, aorta, inferior vena cava (IVC), and anterior iliac vessels to the vertebral body. Psoas transverse and longitudinal diameters, psoas cross-sectional area, total lumbar lordosis, and segmental lordosis were assessed. RESULTS: Prone position produced significant psoas lateralization, especially at more caudal levels (P < 0.001). The psoas drifted slightly anteriorly when prone, which was non-significant, but the magnitude of anterior translation significantly decreased at more caudal segments (P = 0.038) and was lowest at L5 where in fact posterior retraction was observed (P = 0.032). When prone, the IVC (P < 0.001) and right iliac vein (P = 0.005) migrated significantly anteriorly, however decreased anterior displacement was seen at more caudal levels (P < 0.001). Additionally, the IVC drifted significantly laterally at L5 (P = 0.009). Mean segmental lordosis significantly increased when prone (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Relative to the vertebral body, the psoas demonstrated substantial lateral mobility when prone, and posterior retraction specifically at L5. IVC and right iliac vein experienced significant anterior mobility-particularly at more cephalad levels. Prone position enhanced segmental lordosis and may be critical to optimizing sagittal restoration.

Trends in Lateral Retinacular Release from 2010 to 2017.

Historically, lateral retinacular release (LRR) procedures have been utilized in the treatment of a variety of patellofemoral disorders, including lateral patellar instability. However, in the past decade, there has been an increasing awareness of the importance of the lateral stabilizers in patellar stability, as well as the complications of LRR, such as recurrent medial patellar instability. The purpose of this study was to investigate current trends in LRR procedures from 2010 through 2017 using a large national database. The American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database was queried for arthroscopic LRR procedures (the Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] code, 29873) from 2010 to 2017. The number and incidence of lateral release procedures, both isolated and nonisolated, were analyzed and separated into cohorts for analysis. Age and gender of the LRR cohort was investigated and compared with all other orthopaedic procedures during the same time period in the NSQIP database. In addition, concomitant procedures and associated International Classification of Disease-9th Revision (ICD-9) and ICD-10th Revision (ICD-10) codes were analyzed over time and between LRR groups. From 2010 to 2017, 3,117 arthroscopic LRRs were performed. The incidence for LRR was 481.9 per 100,000 orthopaedic surgeries in 2010 and significantly decreased to 186.9 per 100,000 orthopaedic surgeries in 2017 (p < 0.01). LRR was more commonly performed in females (66%) and 58% of patients were under 44 years of age. In addition, LRR was most commonly performed with a concomitant meniscectomy (36%), synovectomy (19%), or microfracture (13%), and for a diagnosis of pain (22%). The overall incidence of LRR procedures significantly decreased from 2010 to 2017. LRRs were more commonly performed in younger, female patients for a diagnosis of pain with the most common concomitant procedure being meniscectomy, synovectomy, or microfracture.

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Substantial Clinical Benefit, and Patient-Acceptable Symptomatic State after Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction.

Purpose: To define the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB) and patient-acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFLR) and to investigate the role of preoperative, demographic, and intraoperative variables for predicting achievement of these thresholds. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used a prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing primary MPFLR between August 2015 and December 2019. PROMs included the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), KOOS joint replacement (JR), and Kujala. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods were used to calculate the MCID, SCB, and PASS. Regression analyses were performed to identify prognosticators for achievement of clinically significant thresholds. Results: 139 patients met inclusion criteria (mean age: 21.7± 8.2 years). At 6 months, the MCID values were 8.3 (KOOS-Pain) and 8.5/13.5 (Kujala); SCB values were 1.4 (KOOS-Pain) and 43.7 (KOOS-QOL); and PASS values were 64.9 (IKDC), 83.3 (KOOS-Symptom), 76.8 (KOOS-Pain), 91.2 (KOOS-ADL), 47.5 (KOOS-Sport), 40.6 (KOOS-QOL), and 78.1 (KOOS-JR). At 1 year, the MCID values were 4.2 (KOOS-Pain), 7.2 (KOOS-ADL), 12.4 (KOOS-QOL) and 25.2 (KOOS-JR); SCB were 23.6 (IKDC), 4.2 (KOOS-Symptom), 19.7 (KOOS-Pain), 6.5 (KOOS-ADL), 55.0 (KOOS-Sport), 6.3 (KOOS-QOL), and 19.6/25.2 (KOOS-JR); and PASS were 65.5 (IKDC), 80.4 (KOOS-Symptom), 84.7 (KOOS-Pain), 99.3 (KOOS-ADL), 57.5 (KOOS-Sport), 53.1 (KOOS-QOL), and 76.3 (KOOS-JR). In regression analysis, greater age, body mass index, and preoperative PROMs were negative prognosticators for achieving clinically significant thresholds. Conversely, male gender increased the likelihood of achieving PASS for Kujala at 6 months and KOOS-ADL at 1 year. Conclusions: This study established thresholds for the MCID, SCB, and PASS at 6 months and 1 year after MPFLR, providing physicians an evidence-based method to advise patients and assess outcomes with this surgery. Older patients and those with higher preoperative outcome scores are less likely to report improvement and satisfaction with MPFLR, while male patients are more likely to report some satisfaction. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study (diagnosis).