Administrative Databases Used for Sports Medicine Research Demonstrate Significant Differences in Underlying Patient Demographics and Resulting Surgical Trends.

PURPOSE: To discern differences between the PearlDiver and MarketScan databases with regards to patient demographics, costs, reoperations, and complication rates for isolated meniscectomy. METHODS: We queried the PearlDiver Humana Patient Records Database and the IBM MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters database for all patients who had record of meniscectomy denoted by Current Procedure Terminology 29880 or 29881 between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2016. Those that had any other knee procedure at the same time as the meniscectomy were excluded, and the first instance of isolated meniscectomy was recorded. Patient demographics, Charlson Comorbidity Index, reoperations, 30- and 90-day complication rates, and costs were collected from both databases. Pearson's χ2 test with Yate's continuity correction and the Student t test were used to compare the 2 databases, and an alpha value of 0.05 was set as significant. RESULTS: We identified 441,147 patients with isolated meniscectomy from the MarketScan database (0.36% of total database), approximately 10 times the number of patients (n = 49,924; 0.20% of total database) identified from PearlDiver. The PearlDiver population was significantly older (median age: 65-69) than the MarketScan cohort, where all patients were younger than 65 (median age: 52; P < .001). Average Charlson Comorbidity Index was significantly lower for MarketScan (0.172, standard deviation [SD]: 0.546) compared with PearlDiver (1.43, SD: 2.05; P < .001), even when we restricted the PearlDiver cohort to patients younger than 65 years (1.02, SD: 1.74; P < .001). The PearlDiver <65 years subcohort also had increased 30- (relative risk 1.53 [1.40-1.67]) and 90-day (relative risk 1.56 [1.47-1.66]) postoperative complications compared with MarketScan. Overall, laterality coding was more prevalent in the PearlDiver database. CONCLUSIONS: For those undergoing isolated meniscectomy, the MarketScan database comprised an overall larger and younger cohort of patients with fewer comorbidities, even when examining only subjects younger than 65 years of age. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Quality Measures in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To report the current quality measures that are applicable to orthopaedic sports medicine physicians. METHODS: Six databases were searched with a customized search term to identify quality measures relevant to orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons: MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, the National Quality Forum (NQF) Quality Positioning System (QPS), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) National Quality Measures Clearinghouse (NQMC), the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) database, and the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) website. Results were screened by 2 Board-certified orthopaedic surgeons with fellowship training in sports medicine and dichotomized based on sports medicine-specific or general orthopaedic (nonarthroplasty) categories. Hip and knee arthroplasty measures were excluded. Included quality measures were further categorized based on Donabedian's domains and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) National Quality Strategy priorities. RESULTS: A total of 1,292 quality measures were screened and 66 unique quality measures were included. A total of 47 were sports medicine-specific and 19 related to the general practice of orthopaedics for a fellowship-trained sports medicine specialist. Nineteen (29%) quality measures were collected within PQRS, with 5 of them relating to sports medicine and 14 relating to general orthopaedics. AAOS Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) comprised 40 (60%) of the included measures and were all within sports medicine. Five (8%) additional measures were collected within AHRQ and 2 (3%) within NQF. Most quality measures consist of process rather than outcome or structural measures. No measures addressing concussions were identified. CONCLUSIONS: There are many existing quality measures relating to the practice of orthopaedic sports medicine. Most quality measures are process measures described within PQRS or AAOS CPGs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Knowledge of quality measures are important as they may be used to improve care, are increasingly being used to determine physician reimbursement, and can inform future quality measure development efforts.

Current status of evidence-based sports medicine.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this investigation is to determine the proportion of sports medicine studies that are labeled as Level I Evidence in 5 journals and compare the quality of surgical and nonsurgical studies using simple quality assessment tools (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] and Jadad). METHODS: By use of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines over the prior 2 years in the top 5 (citation and impact factor based) sports medicine journals, only Level I Evidence studies were eligible for inclusion and were analyzed. All study types (therapeutic, prognostic, diagnostic, and economic) were analyzed. Study quality was assessed with the level of evidence, Jadad score, and CONSORT 2010 guidelines. Study demographic data were compared among journals and between surgical and nonsurgical studies by use of χ(2), 1-way analysis of variance, and 2-sample Z tests. RESULTS: We analyzed 190 Level I Evidence studies (10% of eligible studies) (119 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]). Therapeutic, nonsurgical, single-center studies from the United States were the most common studies published. Sixty-two percent of studies reported a financial conflict of interest. The knee was the most common body part studied, and track-and-field/endurance sports were the most common sports analyzed. Significant differences (P < .05) were shown in Jadad and CONSORT scores among the journals reviewed. Overall, the Jadad and CONSORT scores were 2.71 and 77%, respectively. No differences (P > .05) were shown among journals based on the proportion of Level I studies or appropriate randomization. Significant strengths and limitations of RCTs were identified. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that Level I Evidence and RCTs comprise 10% and 6% of contemporary sports medicine literature, respectively. Therapeutic, nonsurgical, single-center studies are the most common publications with Level I Evidence. Significant differences across sports medicine journals were found in study quality. Surgical studies appropriately described randomization, blinding, and patient enrollment significantly more than nonsurgical studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, systematic review of Level I studies.

Risk of Subsequent Knee Arthroplasty After Sports Medicine Procedures.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 10% of men and 13% of women older than the age of 60 are affected by symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee. Anatomic repair or reconstruction after knee injury has been a central tenet of surgical treatment to reduce the risk of osteoarthritis. The purpose of this study was to examine common sports medicine procedures of the knee and determine the proportion of patients who subsequently undergo total knee arthroplasty (TKA). METHODS: The MarketScan database was queried from the period of January 2007 through December 2016. Patients were identified, who underwent a procedure of the knee, as defined by Current Procedural Terminology codes relating to nonarthroplasty procedures of the knee. Patients in whom laterality could not be confirmed or underwent another ipsilateral knee procedure before TKA were excluded from this study. The primary outcome of this study was the overall rate of TKA after index knee surgery. Time from index procedure to TKA was a secondary outcome. A multivariate regression analysis was used to control for covariates such as age, sex, and comorbidity status. RESULTS: A total of 843,749 patients underwent one of the 13 common sports medicine procedures of the knee. The procedure with the highest unadjusted rate of subsequent TKA was arthroscopic osteochondral allograft (5.81%), whereas anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with meniscus repair demonstrated the lowest rate of subsequent TKA (0.01%). When adjusting for confounding factors, the regression analysis identified meniscal transplantation (odds ratio [OR] = 3.06, P < 0.0001) as having the highest risk of subsequent TKA, followed by osteochondral autograft (OR = 1.74, P = 0.0424) and arthroscopic osteochondral allograft (OR = 1.49, P < 0.0001). ACL reconstruction with meniscus repair (OR = 0.02, P < 0.0001), ACL reconstruction alone (OR = 0.17, P < 0.0001), ACL with meniscectomy (OR = 0.20, P < 0.0001), and meniscal repair (OR = 0.65, P < 0.0001) had the lowest rate of subsequent TKA. ACL reconstruction with meniscus repair had the longest period from index procedure to TKA at 2827 days. CONCLUSION: ACL reconstruction and meniscus preservation demonstrated an extremely low rate of conversion to TKA when compared with patients who needed salvage interventions such as meniscus and cartilage transplantation. None of the salvage interventions delayed the need for a TKA. Meniscal transplantation had the highest risk of all procedures of going on to a TKA.

Return to sport after ACL reconstruction.

Objective guidelines permitting safe return to sport following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction are infrequently used. The purpose of this study was to determine the published return to sport guidelines following ACL reconstruction in Level I randomized controlled trials. A systematic review was performed using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Level I randomized controlled trials were included if they reported a minimum 2-year follow-up after ACL reconstruction and return to sport criteria. Outcomes analyzed were the timing of initiation of return to sport, follow-up duration, and use of quantitative/qualitative criteria to determine return to sport. Forty-nine studies were included (N=4178; 68% male; mean patient age, 27.5±3.2 years; mean follow-up, 3.0±1.9 years; mean time from injury to reconstruction, 379±321 days). Ninety-six percent of reconstructions used autograft and 87% were single-bundle reconstructions. Lysholm score, single-leg hop, isokinetic strength, and KT-1000 or KT-2000 arthrometer (MEDmetric, San Diego, California) testing were performed in 67%, 31%, 31%, and 82% of studies, respectively. Only 5 studies reported whether patients were able to successfully return to sport. Ninety percent and 65% of studies failed to use objective criteria or any criteria, respectively, to permit return to sport. Description of permission/allowance to return to sport was highly variable and poor. Twenty-four percent of studies failed to report when patients were allowed return to sport without restrictions. Overall, 39%, 45%, and 51% of studies permitted running at 3 months, return to cutting/pivoting sports at 6 months, and return to sport without restrictions at 6 months, respectively. Further research into validated return to sport guidelines is necessary to fill the existing void in contemporary literature and to guide clinical practice.