Patients Undergoing Revision Hip Arthroscopy Demonstrate Comparable Survivability and Improvement but Worse Postoperative Outcomes Compared to Patients Undergoing Primary Hip Arthroscopy: A Propensity Matched Study at Five-Year Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: To compare mid-term clinical outcomes between patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy (HA) versus revision hip arthroscopy (RHA) for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on 1,862 patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAIS from January 2012 to April 2017. Patients who underwent RHA were propensity matched in a 1:4 ratio by age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and exercise status to patients who underwent primary HA. Preoperative and postoperative radiographs were assessed. Patient-reported outcomes before and at 5 years after surgery, including the Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living subscale (HOS-ADL) and Sports subscale (HOS-SS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), international Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for Pain and Satisfaction, were compared between groups. Minimally clinically important difference and patient-acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) achievement rates were compared using previously published thresholds. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients who underwent RHA (35 female, 16 male; age 36.2 ± 10.2 years; BMI 26.5 ± 5.9) were followed up for 63.9 ± 9.2 months and then propensity matched in a 1:4 ratio by sex, age, and BMI to 204 control patients who underwent primary HA. At midterm follow-up, patients in the RHA cohort had significantly lower scores for HOS-SS (RHA 64.9 ± 32.5 vs HA 75.3 ± 26.2, P = .044), mHHS (RHA 72.2 ± 22.4 vs HA 80.1 ± 18.1, P = .039), and iHOT-12 (RHA 61.4 ± 29.3 vs HA 71 ± 27.6, P = .043) compared to primary HA patients. Rates of achieving PASS were significantly decreased for HOS-SS (RHA 38.3% vs HA 55.4%, P = .039) and iHOT-12 (RHA 41.9% vs HA 59.9%, P = .035) in the RHA cohort. There were no significant differences in rates of conversion to THA or subsequent reoperation on the index hip between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing revision hip arthroscopy demonstrate comparable survivability and magnitude of improvement but may experience worse overall outcome scores and meet thresholds for clinically significant outcomes less often when compared to primary hip arthroscopy patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III; retrospective comparative study.

Revision and Primary Meniscal Allograft Transplantations Provide Clinical Benefit at Mid-Term Follow-Up: A Matched-Cohort Analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes, Reoperations, and Failures.

PURPOSE: To report the mid-term outcomes of patients who underwent revision meniscal allograft transplantation (RMAT) and compare survivorship free from reoperation and failure with a matched cohort of patients who underwent primary meniscal allograft transplantation (PMAT). METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data identified patients who underwent RMAT and PMAT between 1999 and 2017. A cohort of PMAT patients matched at a ratio of 2:1 with respect to age, body mass index, sex, and concomitant procedures served as the control group. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at baseline and at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively were collected. PROMs and the achievement of clinically significant outcomes were analyzed within groups. Graft survivorship free from meniscal reoperation and failure (arthroplasty or subsequent RMAT) was compared between cohorts using log-rank testing. RESULTS: During the study period, 22 RMATs were performed in 22 patients. Of these RMAT patients, 16 met the inclusion criteria (73% follow-up rate). The mean age of RMAT patients was 29.7 ± 9.3 years, and the mean follow-up period was 9.9 ± 4.2 years (range, 5.4-16.8 years). There were no differences between the RMAT cohort and the 32 matched PMAT patients with respect to age (P = .292), body mass index (P = .623), sex (P = .537), concomitant procedures (P ≥ .286), or baseline PROMs (P ≥ .066). The patient acceptable symptomatic state was achieved by the RMAT cohort for the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee score (70%), Lysholm score (38%), and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales (Pain [73%], Symptoms [64%], Sport [45%], Activities of Daily Living [55%], and Quality of Life [36%]). In the RMAT cohort, 5 patients (31%) underwent subsequent reoperation at a mean of 4.7 ± 2.1 years (range, 1.7-6.7 years) and 5 patients met the criteria for failure at a mean of 4.9 ± 2.9 years (range, 1.2-8.4 years). There were no significant differences in survivorship free from reoperation (P = .735) or failure (P = .170) between the RMAT and PMAT cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: At mid-term follow-up, most patients who underwent RMAT achieved the patient acceptable symptomatic state for the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee score and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales of Pain, Symptoms, and Activities of Daily Living. Additionally, there were no differences in survival free from meniscal reoperation or failure between the PMAT and RMAT cohorts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative cohort.

Health-related quality of life does not deteriorate while waiting for anterior cruciate reconstruction.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine how preoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is affected by the duration of the wait time (WT) for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) once a decision is made to proceed with surgery. METHODS: This was a multi-centre prospective cohort study. One hundred and twenty-two patients 14 years of age and above waiting for ACLR completed the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) demographic, current health assessment and subjective knee evaluation (SKF) forms on the day of decision to operate and the day of surgery. Changes in scores were analyzed for the entire cohort, adjusted for WTs and a subset was compared for patients with isolated anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears and ACL tears with concurrent meniscal involvement. Changes in HRQoL scores from the day of the decision to operate to the 9-month postoperative appointments were also assessed. RESULTS: Energy/Fatigue (p < 0.05), Pain (p < 0.05), General Health (p < 0.05) and the IKDC-SKF Score (p < 0.05) significantly increased between the day of the decision to operate and the day of surgery. Only the change in IKDC-SKF score remained significantly higher after adjusting for WT. Baseline HRQoL scores significantly improved by the 9-month postoperative appointment. CONCLUSION: The length of time waiting for ACLR did not adversely influence HRQoL in this study. However, low preoperative HRQoL and the significant improvement in HRQoL of patients followed postoperatively suggest that timely surgery is beneficial for this patient population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Workers' Compensation Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome Experience Worse Mid-Term Outcomes but Similar Return-to-Work: A Propensity-Matched Analysis at 5-Year Follow-Up.

PURPOSE: To investigate mid-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and return-to-work for workers' compensation (WC) patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy (HA) for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) versus propensity-matched, non-WC controls and to determine whether achievement rates of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) differ between these populations. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on WC patients who underwent primary HA for FAIS from 2012 to 2017. WC and non-WC patients were propensity matched on a 1:4 basis by sex, age, and body mass index (BMI). PROs were compared preoperatively and at 5 years postoperatively, employing the Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) and Sports-Specific (HOS-SS) subscales, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), 12-item international Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), and visual analog scales (VAS) for pain and satisfaction. MCID and PASS were calculated using published thresholds for these measures. Preoperative and postoperative radiographs and the presence and timing of return to unrestricted work were evaluated. RESULTS: Forty-three WC patients were successfully matched to 172 non-WC controls and followed for 64.2 ± 7.7 months. WC patients demonstrated lower preoperative scores for all measures (P ≤ .031) and worse HOS-ADL, HOS-SS, and VAS pain scores at 5-year follow-up (P ≤ .021). There were no differences in MCID achievement rates or magnitude of change between preoperative and 5-year postoperative PROs (P ≥ .093); however, WC patients achieved PASS at lower rates for HOS-ADL and HOS-SS (P ≤ .009). 76.7% of WC and 84.3% of non-WC patients returned to work without restrictions (P = .302) at 7.4 ± 4.4 versus 5.0 ± 3.8 months, respectively (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: WC patients undergoing HA for FAIS report worse preoperative pain and function than non-WC patients and experience worse pain, function, and PASS achievement at 5-year follow-up. However, they demonstrate similar MCID achievement and magnitude improvement between preoperative and 5-year postoperative PROs, and return to work without restrictions at a similar rate to non-WC patients, although they may take longer to do so. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Staged Bilateral Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: Index Surgery Patient Reported Outcome Measures Predict Contralateral Surgery Results at 2 Years.

PURPOSE: To determine whether (1) patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores after index hip arthroscopy correlate with PRO scores for the contralateral hip in patients undergoing staged bilateral hip arthroscopy and (2) patients who achieved minimal clinically important difference (MCID) or patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) for the index hip were more likely to achieve MCID or PASS for the contralateral hip. METHODS: Patients who underwent staged bilateral hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome were retrospectively reviewed. PRO scores were prospectively collected at preoperative and 1- and 2-year timepoints. Odds ratios for achievement of MCID and PASS for the contralateral hip given achievement for the index hip were calculated. Improvements from before surgery to 2 years after surgery were correlated between both hips. RESULTS: A total of 143 patients (286 hips) were included in the final analysis. Average time between surgeries was 8.5 months (range, 0.7-57.2). Both hips demonstrated significant improvement (P < .05 for all) in all PROs at 2 years. Achievement of MCID in Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) at the 1-year timepoint for the index hip was predictive of achievement of MCID in HOS-ADL at 2 years for the contralateral hip. Achievement of PASS in all PROs at the 1-year timepoint for the index hip were predictive of achievement of PASS in the equivalent outcome score at the 2-year mark for the contralateral hip. Achievement of MCID or PASS at the 2-year timepoint for the index hip was predictive of achievement of the equivalent outcome at the 2-year timepoint for the contralateral hip. The strongest correlation between improvement in PRO scores for the index and contralateral hips was noted in patients who underwent staged hip arthroscopy within less than 3 months. CONCLUSION: Patients experience significant clinical benefit in both hips after staged bilateral hip arthroscopy. Results from the initial hip arthroscopy at either 1- or 2-year follow-up can be used to predict outcomes on the contralateral side; however, there is a higher degree of predictive value using 2-year results. Average correlations between 2-year PROs on the index and contralateral hips were moderate to strong, regardless of the time between surgeries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Biphasic Interpositional Allograft for Rotator Cuff Repair Augmentation Is Safe in an Ovine Model.

PURPOSE: To perform a preclinical histologic assessment of a biphasic acellular interpositional cancellous allograft in an ovine model of rotator cuff repair (RCR) designed to better understand its safety profile and effects on tendon healing after RCR. METHODS: Thirty skeletally mature sheep with clinically normal shoulders with an artificially created degenerative infraspinatus tendon tear were randomized to control and treatment groups. Animals were euthanized at 3 weeks, 6 weeks, and 12 weeks. After gross dissection, rotator cuff specimens were fixed with formalin and polymerized for sectioning and staining. Blinded histologic scores evaluated inflammatory cell infiltrates, signs of degradation, particulate debris, collagen arrangement, neovascularization, and enthesis qualitative measures. RESULTS: There were no treatment specimens that exhibited histologic signs of a significant infection, inflammatory infiltrate, or foreign body reaction such as granuloma or fibrous capsule formation. Histologic scores in all categories were not significantly different at all time points, including the primary end point mean cumulative inflammatory score (control: 3.66 ± 1.21 vs treated: 4.33 ± 1.51, P = .42), when comparing the treatment and control RCR groups. In general, the degree of tendon healing and host tissue response was essentially equivalent between the 2 groups with observation of low overall levels of inflammation and progressive improvements in collagen organization, reduced tenocyte activity, and fibrocartilaginous enthesis reformation. CONCLUSIONS: This histologic study demonstrated the use of a biphasic interpositional allograft for RCR augmentation in an ovine model does not generate an inflammatory response or foreign body reaction. Use of the biphasic interpositional allograft resulted in a histological profile that was essentially equivalent to that of a standard RCR at 3-, 6-, and 12-week postoperative timepoints. These findings suggest that a biphasic interpositional allograft is safe for further clinical investigation in humans before broader clinical application. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Patch augmentation of RCR is a popular technique that has shown clinical success in improving the likelihood of a successful repair in patients at elevated risk for retear. Newer augmentation technologies are being developed to address the biology at the interface between the bone and soft tissue where failure typically occurs.

Effects of Blood Flow Restriction Therapy for Muscular Strength, Hypertrophy, and Endurance in Healthy and Special Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Blood flow restriction (BFR) training is an increasingly applied tool with potential benefits in muscular hypertrophy, strength, and endurance. This study investigates the effectiveness of BFR training relative to other forms of training on muscle strength, hypertrophy, and endurance. DATA SOURCES: We performed systematic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed and assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. MAIN RESULTS: We included 53 randomized controlled trials with 31 included in meta-analyses. For muscular strength comparing low-intensity BFR (LI-BFR) training with high-intensity resistance training (HIRT), the pooled mean difference (MD) for 1 repetition maximum was 5.34 kg (95% CI, 2.58-8.09; P < 0.01) favoring HIRT. When comparing LI-BFR training with HIRT for torque, the MD was 6.35 N·m (95% CI, 0.5-12.3; P = 0.04) also favoring HIRT. However, comparing LI-BFR with low-intensity resistance training (LIRT) for torque, there was a MD of 9.94 N·m (95% CI, 5.43-14.45; P < 0.01) favoring BFR training. Assessing muscle hypertrophy, the MD in cross-sectional area was 0.96 cm2 (95% CI, 0.21-1.7; P = 0.01) favoring pooled BFR training compared with nonocclusive training. Assessing endurance, V̇o2 maximum demonstrated a greater mean increase of 0.37 mL/kg/min (95% CI, -0.97 to 3.17; P = 0.64) in BFR endurance training compared with endurance training alone. CONCLUSION: Blood flow restriction training produced increases in muscular strength, hypertrophy, and endurance. Comparing LI-BFR training with HIRT, HIRT was a significantly better training modality for increasing muscle hypertrophy and strength. However, LI-BFR was superior when compared with a similar low-intensity protocol. Blood flow restriction training is potentially beneficial to those unable to tolerate the high loads of HIRT; however, better understanding of its risk to benefit ratio is needed before clinical application. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 1.

Effect of a Postoperative Multimodal Opioid-Sparing Protocol vs Standard Opioid Prescribing on Postoperative Opioid Consumption After Knee or Shoulder Arthroscopy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In arthroscopic knee and shoulder surgery, there is growing evidence that opioid-sparing protocols may reduce postoperative opioid consumption while adequately addressing patients' pain. However, there are a lack of prospective, comparative trials evaluating their effectiveness. Objective: To evaluate the effect of a multimodal, opioid-sparing approach to postoperative pain management compared with the current standard of care in patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder or knee surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial was performed at 3 clinical sites in Ontario, Canada, and enrolled 200 patients from March 2021 to March 2022 with final follow-up completed in April 2022. Adult patients undergoing outpatient arthroscopic shoulder or knee surgery were followed up for 6 weeks postoperatively. Interventions: The opioid-sparing group (100 participants randomized) received a prescription of naproxen, acetaminophen (paracetamol), and pantoprazole; a limited rescue prescription of hydromorphone; and a patient educational infographic. The control group (100 participants randomized) received the current standard of care determined by the treating surgeon, which consisted of an opioid analgesic. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was postoperative oral morphine equivalent (OME) consumption at 6 weeks after surgery. There were 5 secondary outcomes, including pain, patient satisfaction, opioid refills, quantity of OMEs prescribed at the time of hospital discharge, and adverse events at 6 weeks all reported at 6 weeks after surgery. Results: Among the 200 patients who were randomized (mean age, 43 years; 73 women [38%]), 193 patients (97%) completed the trial; 98 of whom were randomized to receive standard care and 95 the opioid-sparing protocol. Patients in the opioid-sparing protocol consumed significantly fewer opioids (median, 0 mg; IQR, 0-8.0 mg) than patients in the control group (median, 40.0 mg; IQR, 7.5-105.0; z = -6.55; P < .001). Of the 5 prespecified secondary end points, 4 showed no significant difference. The mean amount of OMEs prescribed was 341.2 mg (95% CI, 310.2-372.2) in the standard care group and 40.4 mg (95% CI, 39.6-41.2) in the opioid-sparing group (mean difference, 300.8 mg; 95% CI, 269.4-332.3; P < .001). There was no significant difference in adverse events at 6 weeks (2 events [2.1%] in the standard care group vs 3 events [3.2%] in the opioid-sparing group), but more patients reported medication-related adverse effects in the standard care group (32% vs 19%, P = .048). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients who underwent arthroscopic knee or shoulder surgery, a multimodal opioid-sparing postoperative pain management protocol, compared with standard opioid prescribing, significantly reduced postoperative opioid consumption over 6 weeks. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04566250.

Perioperative nonopioid analgesia reduces postoperative opioid consumption in knee arthroscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The opioid epidemic has prompted an emphasis on investigating opioid-sparing alternatives for pain management following knee arthroscopy. This review evaluated the effects of perioperative nonopioid adjunct analgesia on postoperative opioid consumption and pain control in patients undergoing knee arthroscopy. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using the following databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, MEDLINE, and SCOPUS. Prospective comparative studies assessing the efficacy of various perioperative nonopioid analgesic strategies in patients undergoing knee arthroscopy were included. Twenty-five studies (n = 2408) were included. RESULTS: Pre-emptive nonopioid pain medications demonstrated a reduction in cumulative postoperative oral morphine equivalent (OME) consumption by 11.8 mg (95% CI - 18.3, - 5.4, p ≤ 0.0001) and VAS pain scores by 1.5 (95% CI - 2.3, - 0.7, p < 0.001) at 24 h compared to placebo. Postoperative nonopioid pain medications significantly reduced cumulative postoperative OME consumption by 9.7 mg (95% CI - 14.4, - 5.1, p < 0.001) and VAS pain scores by 1.0 (95% CI - 1.354, - 0.633, p < 0.001) at 24 h compared to placebo. Saphenous nerve blocks significantly reduced cumulative postoperative OME consumption by 6.5 mg (95% CI - 10.3, - 2.6, p = 0.01) and VAS pain scores by 0.8 (- 1.4, - 0.3, p = 0.03) at 24 h compared to placebo. Both preoperative patient education and postoperative cryotherapy reduced postoperative opioid consumption. CONCLUSION: Perioperative nonopioid pharmacotherapy, saphenous nerve blocks, and cryotherapy for patients undergoing knee arthroscopy significantly reduce opioid consumption and pain scores when compared to placebo at 24 h postoperatively. These interventions should be considered in efforts to reduce opioid consumption in patients undergoing knee arthroscopy. More research is needed to determine which interventions can reduce pain outside of the immediate postoperative period and the potential synergistic effects of combining interventions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Press-fit fixation in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction yields low graft failure and revision rates: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Press-fit fixation is a hardware-free technique in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The purpose of this review was to quantitatively assess the risk profile and outcomes of press-fit fixation and provide an update on its effectiveness compared to more standard fixation techniques of ACLR. METHODS: The electronic databases PUBMED, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched on March 26, 2020 for therapeutic randomized controlled trials (RCT) addressing press-fit fixation for primary ACLR. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation tool was used to assess the quality for randomized studies. A meta-analysis with a random-effects model was used to pool applicable outcomes data. RESULTS: A total of six eligible RCTs were included in this review. There were 292 patients (72.9% male) with a mean age of 28.8 ± 3.8 years and a mean follow-up of 81.3 ± 88.3 months that underwent press-fit ACLR on the femoral, tibial or both tunnels. Femoral fixation techniques included press-fit fixation (96.6%) and cross-pin fixation (3.4%). Tibial fixation techniques included press-fit (37.0%), staples (28.1%), interference screws (21.2%) and abarticular post-screws (13.7%). Graft options included bone-patellar tend--bone autografts (73.6%) and semitendinosus and gracilis tendon autograft (26.4%). Significant improvements (p < 0.05) from baseline to follow-up were found for clinical outcomes. Significantly less postoperative bone tunnel enlargement (p < 0.05) was found with tibial press-fit fixation when compared to biodegradable screws. The overall complication rate was 13.3%. There were no significant differences in complication rates [odds ratio = 0.84 (95%CI 0.43-1.66); p = n.s.] (I2 = 0%) between patients undergoing femoral press-fit fixation and femoral metal interference screw fixation. CONCLUSION: The overall graft failure and revision rates with press-fit ACLR were low. There were no significant differences in complication rates between patients undergoing femoral press-fit and femoral metal interference screw fixation. Included studies found that patients undergoing press-fit fixation for ACLR had significant improvements in functional outcome scores postoperatively and had significantly reduced postoperative bone tunnel enlargement compared to patients undergoing bioabsorbable fixation. Thus, early evidence suggests that press-fit fixation appears to be a good option for patients undergoing ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Surgical stabilization of pediatric anterior shoulder instability yields high recurrence rates: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the surgical techniques, indications outcomes and complications for pediatric patients (≤ 19 years old) undergoing shoulder stabilization procedures for anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched from data inception to March 14, 2019 for articles addressing surgery for pediatric patients with anterior shoulder instability. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) tool was used to assess the quality of included studies. RESULTS: Overall 24 studies, with a total of 688 patients (696 shoulders) and a mean age of 16.6 ± 2.5 years met inclusion criteria. Mean follow-up was 49 ± 26 months. The majority (59%) of studies only offered shoulder stabilization procedures to patients with more than one shoulder dislocation, however, three studies reported operating on pediatric patients after first time dislocations. Of the included patients 525 had arthroscopic Bankart repair (78%), 75 had open Bankart repair (11%), 34 had modified Bristow (5%), and 26 had Latarjet (4%) procedures. The overall complication rate was 26%. Patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair experienced the highest recurrence rate of 24%. There were no significant differences in recurrent instability (n.s.) or loss of external rotation (n.s.) in pediatric patients treated with arthroscopic Bankart repair compared to open Latarjet. Patients had a 95% rate of return to sport at any level (i.e. preinjury level or any level of play) postoperatively (95%). CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric patients are at high risk of recurrent instability after surgical stabilization. The majority of pediatric patients with anterior shoulder instability were treated with arthroscopic Bankart repair. Most studies recommend surgical stabilization only after more than one dislocation. However, given the high rates of recurrence with non-operative management, it may be reasonable to perform surgery at a first-time dislocation, particularly in those with other risk factors for recurrence. With the current evidence and limited sample sizes, it is difficult to directly compare the surgical interventions and their post-operative efficacy (i.e. re-dislocation rates or range of motion). There was an overall high rate of return to sport after surgical stabilization at final follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

The Role of Deltoid Ligament Repair in Ankle Fractures With Syndesmotic Instability: A Systematic Review.

Ankle fractures are the fourth most common fracture requiring surgical management. The deltoid ligament is a primary ankle stabilizer against valgus forces. It is frequently ruptured in ankle fractures; however, there is currently no consensus regarding repair. A systematic database search was conducted with Medline, PubMed, and Embase for relevant studies discussing patients with ankle fractures involving deltoid ligament rupture and repair. Screening, quality assessment, and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate. Data extracted included pain, range of motion (ROM), function, medial clear space (MCS), syndesmotic malreduction, and complications. After screening, 9 eligible studies from 1990 to 2018 were included (N = 508). Compared to nonrepair groups, deltoid ligament repair patients had lower syndesmotic malreduction rates (0%-9% vs 20%-35%, p ≤ .05), fewer implant removals (5.8% vs 41% p ≤ .05), and longer operating time by 16-20 minutes (p ≤ .05). There was no significant difference for pain, function, ROM, MCS, and complication rate (p ≤ .05). In conclusion, deltoid ligament repair offers lower syndesmotic malreduction rates and reduced re-operation rates for hardware removal in comparison to trans-syndesmotic screws. Repair groups demonstrated equivalent or better outcomes for pain, function, ROM, MCS, and complication rates. Other newer syndesmotic fixation methods such as suture-button fixation require further evaluation when compared to the outcomes of deltoid ligament repair. A randomized control trial is required to further examine the outcomes of ankle fracture patients who undergo deltoid ligament repair versus trans-syndesmotic screw fixation.

The PRECISION Survey: Preferences of Physicians Regarding Ultrasound-Guided Intra-Articular Injections.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this survey study were to: (1) determine practice patterns, (2) assess beliefs and attitudes toward ultrasound-guided intra-articular injections (UGIIs), (3) identify barriers to the use of UGII, and (4) determine any differences in beliefs and attitudes based on age or specialty. METHODS: A survey was developed using a focus group including physicians who perform intra-articular injections of the knee, shoulder, and/or hip. After validation by the focus group, the final survey (28 questions) was e-mailed to members of the Canadian Academy of Sport and Exercise Medicine (N = 632). RESULTS: A total of 168 responses were received (26.6%). Nearly half of respondents rarely/never had access to UGII equipment (48.5%), and over half did not have adequate training in UGIIs (56.8%-68.8%). About half of respondents agreed that UGII improves accuracy in knee injections (50.9%); only 35.4% agreed there was evidence to support UGII over non-ultrasound-guided intra-articular injections (NGIIs) of the knee. Physicians younger than 50 years were significantly more likely to use UGII for the knee and hip if they had better access to equipment (P < 0.0005 for both); they were more likely to use UGII for the knee if it was less time-consuming (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of respondents are not using UGII for the knee or shoulder. Physicians may overestimate their accuracy in performing NGIIs. The biggest barriers to UGII were identified as: (1) inadequate training; (2) lack of access to equipment; and (3) lack of time. Younger physicians seem more open to adopting UGII if barriers are addressed.

How Useful Is the Flexion-Adduction-Internal Rotation Test for Diagnosing Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Clinicians use the flexion, adduction, and internal rotation (FADIR) test in the diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). However, the diagnostic utility of this test remains unclear. The purpose of this review was to determine the utility of the FADIR test in diagnosing FAI. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched using relevant key terms and study screening was performed in duplicate. Patient demographics, diagnostic imaging, and summary measures (eg sensitivity, specificity, etc.) of the FADIR test in patients with FAI were recorded. MAIN RESULTS: Eight studies of levels III (87.5%) and IV (12.5%) evidence were included. Four hundred fifty-two patients (622 hips) with a mean age of 27.0 ± 9.0 were examined. Alpha (75.1%) and/or center-edge (26.8%) angles were used to diagnose hips with FAI. X-ray (78.9%), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (16.2%), and computed tomography (CT) (4.8%) were used to confirm the diagnosis of FAI. The sensitivity when confirmed by x-ray, MRI, or CT was 0.08 to 1, 0.33 to 1 and 0.90, respectively. The specificity when confirmed by x-ray and MRI was 0.11 and 1, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although the overall utility of the FADIR test in diagnosing FAI remains unclear given its moderate sensitivity and specificity, it may be a useful screening tool for FAI because of its low risk. Clinicians should consider the variability in sensitivity and specificity values reported and the low quality of literature available. Future studies should use large sample sizes and consistent radiographic measurements to better understand the usefulness of this physical examination maneuver in diagnosing FAI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, Systematic Review of Level III and IV studies.

All-epiphyseal anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction produces good functional outcomes and low complication rates in pediatric patients: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To assess the literature on indications, outcomes, and complications in pediatric patients undergoing all-epiphyseal (AE) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). METHODS: PubMed, Medline, and Embase were searched for literature evaluating AE ACLR in pediatric patients. All included studies were assessed for quality using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). Descriptive statistics are presented where applicable. RESULTS: Overall, 17 studies comprising 545 patients, with a mean age of 12.0 ± 1.2 (range 8-19) met the inclusion criteria. The graft choices in this systematic review included hamstring tendon autografts (75.4%, n = 403), quadriceps tendon autograft (6.2%, n = 33), Achilles tendon allograft (3.6%, n = 19) and posterior tibialis tendon allograft in one patient (0.2%, n = 1). Time of return-to-sport ranged from 8 to 22 months. Postoperative subjective IKDC scores were above 90 points. The rate of return-to-sport after AE ACLR was 93.2% (n = 219/235) and 77.9% (n = 142/183) of patients returned to sport at pre-injury level. The overall complication rate was 9.8% (n = 53/545) with the most common complication being ACL re-rupture (5.0%; n = 27/545). Only 1.5% (n = 8/545) of patients demonstrated growth disturbances. CONCLUSION: Overall, the AE ACLR technique can achieve good postoperative functional outcomes while notably minimizing the incidence of primary issue of physeal disruption and potential associated leg-length discrepancies. AE ACLR should be considered in pediatric patients with at least 2 years of skeletal growth remaining based on radiographic bone age to minimize the impact of growth-related complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV (Systematic Review of Level III and IV evidence).

The repair of horizontal cleavage tears yields higher complication rates compared to meniscectomy: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Horizontal cleavage tears of the meniscus (HCTs) are primarily degenerative in nature, and, however, can be the result of trauma. Such tears account for 12-35% of all tear patterns and can be treated by partial meniscectomy or arthroscopic repair. The purpose of this review was to systematically assess the outcomes and complications for patients undergoing the surgical treatment of HCTs. METHODS: This review has been conducted according to the guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. The electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched from data inception to December 30, 2018 for articles addressing the surgical treatment of HCTs. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies was used to assess study quality. Data are presented descriptively. RESULTS: Overall, 23 studies were identified, comprising of 702 patients (708 knees) with a mean age of 36.6 ± 9.9 years and a mean follow-up of 33.6 ± 19.6 months. The majority of patients were treated with a partial meniscectomy (59.0%), followed by repair (32.8%) and total meniscectomy (8.2%). Both meniscectomy and repair patients had improvements which surpassed minimal clinically important differences with regard to clinical (e.g. pain, function, daily living) and radiographic outcomes. The overall complication rate was 5.1%, primarily involving patients undergoing meniscal repair (12.9% of all knees undergoing a repair). CONCLUSION: Although meniscal repair theoretically may provide improvement in biomechanical loading, patients undergoing repair had higher complication rates than those undergoing partial meniscectomy. Clinicians should consider the available implants in determining which tear patterns to repair and future studies with long-term follow-up are needed to investigate complications (e.g. secondary meniscal procedures) as well as the potential for delay in the development of osteoarthritis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.

Stemless anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Stemless anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is used in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the shoulder joint and other degenerative shoulder diseases. It has several proposed advantages over stemmed TSA including increased bone preservation, decreased operative time, and easier removal at revision. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) to retrieve all relevant studies. RESULTS: The literature search yielded 1417 studies, of which 22 were included in this review, with 962 patients undergoing stemless TSA. Stemless TSA led to significant improvements in range of motion and functional scores in all included studies. Meta-analysis of comparative studies between stemless and stemmed TSA identified no significant differences in postoperative Constant scores (mean difference [MD], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], -3.29 to 5.81 points; P = .59) or complication rates (odds ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 0.71-4.54; P = .22). Stemless TSA resulted in a significantly shorter operative time compared with stemmed TSA (MD, -15.03 minutes; 95% CI, -23.79 to -6.26 minutes; P = .0008). Stemless TSA also resulted in significantly decreased intraoperative blood loss compared with stemmed TSA (MD, -96.95 mL; 95% CI, -148.53 to -45.36 mL; P = .0002). CONCLUSION: Stemless anatomic TSA resulted in similar functional outcomes and complication rates to stemmed TSA with decreased operative time and lower blood loss. Further research is required to investigate the long-term durability of the stemless implant.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in the younger patient (≤65 years): a systematic review.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) in patients aged ≤65 years. MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed were searched for relevant studies from database inception to September 18, 2018. All studies that evaluated RTSA in patients aged ≤65 years were included. Two independent reviewers screened all studies and performed a quality assessment. In the total of 6 studies reviewed, 245 participants underwent RTSA, with the most common indications being failed rotator cuff repair and rotator cuff tear arthropathy. Postoperative functional outcomes indicated a significant level of improvement across all reported outcomes at a mean follow-up of 49 months (range, 19-140 months) (P < .05). The pooled mean complication rate was 18% (n = 44/245), and this higher rate may be due to 36% of patients undergoing an RTSA for a failed arthroplasty procedure and the inclusion of older studies that lacked modern implants and techniques. Although there is a significant improvement in functional outcomes at midterm follow-up for RTSA in the patients aged ≤65 years, the pooled complication rates are high. However, the results of this systematic review are limited because of the heterogenous patient population undergoing surgery for various indications, including revision arthroplasty. Long-term studies and registry data are required using current modern techniques and implants to provide an accurate assessment of outcomes following RTSA in a young patient population.

Influence of Graft Source on Postoperative Activity and Joint Laxity in Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical and functional outcomes of allograft and autograft reconstruction in patients with posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) deficiency. METHODS: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were used to identify all relevant articles. Clinical outcomes including International Knee Documentation Committee, Tegner, and Lysholm scores; joint laxity; and posterior tibial displacement were evaluated. RESULTS: Among the 145 unique articles identified during the title screening, 25 studies published between 2002 and 2016 with a combined population of 900 patients were deemed eligible for inclusion in the review. Of the 900 patients, 603 were treated with autograft and 297 were treated with allograft PCL reconstruction. Five of the included studies directly compared autograft and allograft PCL reconstruction. Most studies found postoperative functional outcomes and joint laxity to improve postoperatively regardless of graft source. With only 1 exception, the included comparative studies found no significant postoperative difference in any of the functional outcome scores between patients treated with allograft and those treated with autograft. Two comparative studies found autograft reconstruction to result in significantly less posterior laxity than in the allograft group, whereas 2 comparative studies found no significant difference in posterior laxity between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: PCL reconstruction results in improved functional outcome scores and joint laxity regardless of graft source. Current studies suggest there is no significant difference in postoperative functional outcomes between patients treated with autograft and those treated with allograft. Patients treated with autograft have donor-site morbidity that is not associated with allograft reconstruction. Some evidence suggests that autograft reconstruction may result in reduced posterior laxity relative to allograft reconstruction. The magnitude of this finding, however, may not be clinically significant. Our review found that decision making based on the current literature is at high risk of potential bias. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.

Indications and outcomes of simultaneous high tibial osteotomy and ACL reconstruction.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to systematically review the existing literature reporting surgical outcomes of simultaneous high tibial osteotomy (HTO) and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in anterior cruciate ligament deficient (ACLD) knees. METHODS: This study was conducted per the methods of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention, with findings reported per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed were searched for relevant studies and pertinent data was extracted. Studies reporting post-operative outcomes following simultaneous HTO and ACLR in ACLD knees were included. RESULTS: The search identified 515 studies, of which 18 (n = 516) were included. The mean MINORS scores for non-comparative and comparative studies were 11.6 ± 1.34 and 17.3 ± 1.9, respectively. Simultaneous HTO and ACLR resulted in improved functional subjective patient outcomes across a variety of scales. Simultaneous HTO and ACLR was effective in correcting varus angulation, with the post-operative mechanical angle ranging from 0.3° valgus to 7.7° valgus. The reported complication rate ranged from 0 to 23.5%. Across six studies, a total of 13 (6.5%) patients required revision HTO; while across four studies, 20 (17.5%) patients had failure of the ACL graft, with one receiving revision ACLR. CONCLUSIONS: Combined HTO and ACLR may be indicated in patients with ACLD knees with varus angulation. This systematic review found that the combined surgery resulted in significant improvement in post-operative functional subjective outcomes. However, it remains unclear if HTO with ACLR is superior to ALCR or HTO alone due to the lack of comparative studies. Overall, HTO with ACLR was found to have low rates of complications, re-ruptures, and need for revision surgery. This review found that patients continued to have progression of OA despite combined HTO with ACLR. Future research is required to better understand the effects of combined HTO and ACLR compared to ACLR or HTO alone and to evaluate the long-term post-operative progression of medial compartment OA following combined HTO and ACLR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.