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.

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.

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.

Arthroscopy Association of Canada Position Statement on Opioid Prescription After Arthroscopic Surgery.

Background: Despite the ongoing opioid epidemic, most patients are still prescribed a significant number of opioid medications for pain management after arthroscopic surgery. There is a need for consensus among orthopaedic surgeons and solutions to aid providers in analgesic strategies that reduce the use of opioid pain medications. Purpose: This position statement was developed with a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of exclusively randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to synthesize the best available evidence for managing acute postoperative pain after arthroscopic surgery. Study Design: Position statement. Methods: The Embase, MEDLINE, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception until August 10, 2022. Keywords included arthroscopy, opioids, analgesia, and pain, and associated variations. We included exclusively RCTs on adult patients to gather the best available evidence for managing acute postoperative pain after arthroscopic surgery. Patient characteristics, pain, and opioid data were extracted, data were analyzed, and trial bias was evaluated. Results: A total of 21 RCTs were identified related to the prescription of opioid-sparing pain medication after arthroscopic surgery. The following recommendations regarding noninvasive, postoperative pain management strategies were made: (1) multimodal oral nonopioid analgesic regimens-including at least 1 of acetaminophen-a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-can significantly reduce opioid consumption with no change in pain scores; (2) cryotherapy is likely to help with pain management, although the evidence on the optimal method of application (continuous-flow vs ice pack application) is unclear; (3) and (4) limited RCT evidence supports the efficacy of transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation and relaxation exercises in reducing opioid consumption after arthroscopy; and (5) limited RCT evidence exists against the efficacy of transdermal lidocaine patches in reducing opioid consumption. Conclusion: A range of nonopioid strategies exist that can reduce postarthroscopic procedural opioid consumption with equivalent vocal pain outcomes. Optimal strategies include multimodal analgesia with education and restricted/reduced opioid prescription.

High-Level Competitive Athletes Who Undergo Hip Arthroscopy Demonstrate Durable 5-Year Outcomes and Lower Subjective Pain: A Propensity-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hip arthroscopy (HA) has been proven to be an effective treatment for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) in both competitive athletes (CA) and non-CA at short-term follow-up. However, there is a paucity of literature investigating midterm outcomes comparing athletes with Controls. HYPOTHESIS: Athletes would have significant improvements at 5 years, with favorable outcomes compared with their control counterparts, and high return-to-sport (RTS) rate. STUDY DESIGN: Propensity-matched retrospective comparative cohort study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3. METHODS: CAs who underwent primary HA for FAIS from January 1, 2012 to April 30, 2017 were identified and propensity matched on a 1:4 basis to Controls by age, sex, and body mass index (BMI). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected preoperatively and at 5 years. Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom states (PASS) rates were calculated using previously published thresholds. Rate and duration of RTS were collected retrospectively. RESULTS: A total of 57 high-level CA (33 female, 24 male; age, 21.7 ± 4.2 years; BMI, 23.1 ± 2.8 kg/m2) were propensity matched to 228 Controls (132 female, 96 male; P > 0.99; age, 23.3 ± 5.8 years; P = 0.02; BMI, 23.8 ± 4.3 kg/m2, P = 0.24). Significant differences were observed in preoperative Hip Outcome Score Sports Specific and Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) subscales (CA, 74.9 ± 13.7 vs Controls, 66.4 ± 18.4; P = 0.01) and modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) (CA, 64.7 ± 12.9 vs Controls, 59.7 ± 14.3; P = 0.04). Both groups demonstrated significant postoperative improvements in all outcome scores measured (P ≤ 0.01). At 5 years postoperatively, there were significant differences between groups in Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Pain (CA, 17.3 ± 17.6 vs Controls, 24.7 ± 25.9; P = 0.02). There were no significant differences in achieving MCID or PASS. Athletes RTS at a median of 25.2 weeks (Q1 22.4-Q3 30.7) with an overall RTS rate of 90%. Similar rates of revision were seen between CA patients (n = 3; 5.3%) and Control patients (n = 9; 3.9%) (P = 0.66). CONCLUSION: CAs demonstrated significant and durable improvements in PROs as well as high MCID and PASS achievement rates after primary HA, which were comparable with those of Controls. Clinicians should be aware that CA patients demonstrate higher preoperative mHHS and HOS-ADL scores than Controls and achieve lower average self-reported pain at 5 years postoperatively. In addition, CA patients demonstrate high rates of RTS at a median of 25 weeks postoperatively. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study provides insight into CA versus Control PROs and rates of achieving MCID and PASS at a midterm follow-up of 5 years. Furthermore, this study offers perception into RTS rate, both in general as well as specified to individualized sports.

Indications and outcomes of glenoid osteotomy for posterior shoulder instability: a systematic review.

Background: There is limited evidence examining glenoid osteotomy as a treatment for posterior shoulder instability. Methods: A search of Medline, Embase, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted from the date of origin to 28th November 2019. Nine out of 3,408 retrieved studies met the inclusion criteria and quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies tool. Results: In 356 shoulders, the main indication for osteotomy was excessive glenoid retroversion (greater than or equal to approximately -10°). The mean preoperative glenoid version was -15° (range, -35° to -5°). Post-operatively, the mean glenoid version was -6° (range, -28° to 13°) and an average correction of 10° (range, -1° to 30°) was observed. Range of motion increased significantly in most studies and all standardized outcome scores (Rowe, Constant-Murley, Oxford instability, Japan Shoulder Society Shoulder Instability Scoring and mean shoulder value) improved significantly with high rates of patient satisfaction (85%). A high complication rate (34%, n = 120) was reported post-surgery, with frequent cases of persistent instability (20%, n = 68) and fractures (e.g., glenoid neck and acromion) (4%, n = 12). However, the revision rate was low (0.6%, n = 2). Conclusion: Glenoid osteotomy is an appropriate treatment for posterior shoulder instability secondary to excessive glenoid retroversion. However, the high rate of persistent instability should be considered when making treatment decisions.Level of Evidence: Systematic review; Level 4.

Results of Endoscopic Labral Repair With Concomitant Gluteus Medius and/or Minimus Repair Compared With Outcomes of Labral Repair Alone: A Matched Comparative Cohort Analysis at Minimum 2-Year Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of information available to clinicians on outcomes of patients undergoing endoscopic surgery for labral repairs and femoroacetabular impingement syndrome with simultaneous repair of the gluteus medius and/or minimus muscles. PURPOSE: To determine whether patients with labral tears and concomitant gluteal pathology who undergo simultaneous endoscopic labral and gluteus medius and/or minimus repair experience similar outcomes to patients with isolated labral tears who undergo endoscopic labral repair alone. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A matched retrospective comparative cohort study was performed. Patients who underwent gluteus medius and/or minimus repair with concomitant labral repair between January 2012 and November 2019 were identified. These patients were matched in a 1:3 ratio by sex, age, and body mass index (BMI) to patients who underwent labral repair alone. Preoperative radiographs were assessed. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were assessed preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively. PRO measures included the Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living and Sports subscales, modified Harris Hip Score, 12-Item International Hip Outcome Tool, and visual analog scales for pain and satisfaction. Published labral repair minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds were utilized for these measures. RESULTS: A total of 31 patients who underwent gluteus medius and/or minimus repair with concomitant labral repair (27 female, 4 male; age, 50.8 ± 7.3 years; BMI, 27.9 ± 5.2) were matched with 93 patients who underwent labral repair alone (81 female, 12 male; age, 50.9 ± 8.1 years; BMI, 28.5 ± 6.2). There were no significant differences in sex (P > .99), age (P = .869), or BMI (P = .592); preoperative radiographic measurements; or preoperative or 2-year postoperative PRO scores (P≥ .081). Changes between preoperative and 2-year postoperative PRO scores were significantly different for both groups for all PROs assessed (P < .001 for all). There were no significant differences in MCID or PASS achievement rates (P≥ .123), with low PASS achievement rates of 40% to 60% found in both groups. CONCLUSION: Patients who were treated with endoscopic gluteus medius and/or minimus repair with concomitant labral repair demonstrated comparable outcomes with those who were treated with endoscopic labral repair alone.

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.

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.

Internet search analytics for shoulder arthroplasty: what questions are patients asking?

BACKGROUND: Common questions about shoulder arthroplasty (SA) searched online by patients and the quality of this content are unknown. The purpose of this study is to uncover questions SA patients search online and determine types and quality of webpages encountered. METHODS: The "People also ask" section of Google Search was queried to return 900 questions and associated webpages for general, anatomic, and reverse SA. Questions and webpages were categorized using the Rothwell classification of questions and assessed for quality using the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria. RESULTS: According to Rothwell classification, the composition of questions was fact (54.0%), value (24.7%), and policy (21.3%). The most common webpage categories were medical practice (24.6%), academic (23.2%), and medical information sites (14.4%). Journal articles represented 8.9% of results. The average JAMA score for all webpages was 1.69. Journals had the highest average JAMA score (3.91), while medical practice sites had the lowest (0.89). The most common question was, "How long does it take to recover from shoulder replacement?" CONCLUSIONS: The most common questions SA patients ask online involve specific postoperative activities and the timeline of recovery. Most information is from low-quality, non-peer-reviewed websites, highlighting the need for improvement in online resources. By understanding the questions patients are asking online, surgeons can tailor preoperative education to common patient concerns and improve postoperative outcomes.

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.

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.

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.

Anatomic Factors Associated With Osteochondral Allograft Matching for Trochlear Cartilage Defects: A Computer-Simulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Articular step-off between the donor and recipient in osteochondral allograft transplant has been shown to alter contact pressures. Currently, commercial allograft donor selection is primarily based on simple anatomic parameters such as trochlear length, trochlear width, and tibial width. PURPOSE: To identify anatomic factors associated with optimal graft matching by using a 3-dimensional simulation model. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive laboratory study. METHODS: Computed tomography images of 10 cadaveric trochlear specimens were obtained to generate 3-dimensional models. Circular defects were created virtually in the recipient trochleae at both superolateral (18.0 mm and 22.5 mm) and central (18.0 mm, 22.5 mm, 30.0 mm) locations. The donor models were virtually projected onto the defect models, and the most optimal graft from any location of the donor specimen was selected. Cartilage incongruity, subchondral bone incongruity, and peripheral articular step-off were calculated for each graft-defect combination. Linear regression models were generated to identify predictors of incongruity, step-off, and the effect of sulcus and sagittal angle mismatch. Akaike information criterion-driven stepwise regression models were generated to identify multivariate predictors. RESULTS: Ideal matches were found for 100% of superolateral defects but for only 15% to 53% of central defects, depending on the defect size. Multivariate stepwise regression identified laterality (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; P = .081), sulcus angle (OR, 0.79; P < .001), sagittal angle (OR, 0.83; P = .001), lateral radius of curvature (OR, 0.81; P < .001), and medial facet width (OR, 0.86; P = .155) as predictors of ideal graft matching. In central defects with proud grafts, increasing sagittal angle and sulcus angle resulted in significantly (P < .001) increased articular step-off, which became sequentially larger with defect size. CONCLUSION: Sagittal angle, sulcus angle, and lateral radius of curvature mismatch should be used to determine optimal donor allografts, especially in the setting of large (30-mm) central defects. Increasing sulcus angle and sagittal angle mismatch correlated with increasing step-off in proud grafts, whereas sulcus angle and sagittal angle inconsistently correlated with step-off in recessed grafts. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Additional descriptive trochlear measurements should be incorporated into the algorithm for donor selection. These findings can be used to identify acceptable mismatch parameters.

Hip Arthroscopy for the Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome in Hips With Mild Osteoarthritis (Tönnis Grade 1): A Matched Comparative Cohort Analysis at Minimum 5-Year Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of information in the literature on midterm outcomes from the arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) with concomitant labral treatment in patients with mild osteoarthritis (OA) using modern surgical techniques. PURPOSE: To compare outcomes of hip arthroscopy for the treatment of FAIS between patients with mild OA (Tönnis grade 1) and patients without OA (Tönnis grade 0) at minimum 5-year follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Patients were identified who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS with routine capsular closure between January 2012 and December 2015. Patients with Tönnis grade 1 were matched 1:3 by age, sex, and body mass index to patients without OA. The Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), HOS-Sports Subscale (HOS-SS), modified Harris Hip Score, and 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool were collected preoperatively and at 5 years postoperatively and compared between groups using an independent t test. Survivorship rate and percentage achievement of a Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) or minimal clinically important difference (MCID) were compared using a Fisher exact test. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients (54 hips) with Tönnis grade 1 were matched to 162 patients (162 hips) with Tönnis grade 0. The mean ± SD age and body mass index of the Tönnis grade 1 group were 44.5 ± 9.6 years and 28.5 ± 5.5, respectively. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores improved significantly for both groups from presurgery to 5 years postoperatively for all PROs (P≤ .03). There were no significant differences in preoperative PROs between the groups. Patients with Tönnis grade 1 had significantly lower postoperative scores on the HOS-ADL (74.7 ± 22.6 vs 83.0 ± 20.1; P = .04) and HOS-SS (58.8 ± 33.7 vs 71.8 ± 29.3; P = .03) than patients with grade 0. Patients with Tönnis grade 1 also had significantly lower rates of achievement of the MCID (57.1% vs 80.2%; P < .01) and PASS (34.1% vs 53.4%; P = .03) for any PRO when compared with patients with Tönnis grade 0. Gross survivorship was significantly lower for Tönnis grade 1 versus grade 0 (77.8% vs 96.9%; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients with Tönnis grade 1 arthritis experienced significant improvement in PROs after hip arthroscopy for the treatment of FAIS. However, they had significantly lower postoperative HOS-ADL and HOS-SS scores with significantly lower rates of achievement on the MCID and PASS, with a significantly lower gross survivorship rate at a minimum 5 years postoperatively in comparison with those with Tönnis grade 0 changes.

Effect of Sacroiliac Joint Pain on Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy for the Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: A Matched Comparative Cohort Analysis at Minimum 2-Year Follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) may frequently have co-existing sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain. It is known that patients with lower back pain undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) have inferior outcomes; however, it is unclear what the effect of SIJ pain is on outcomes after hip arthroscopy. PURPOSE: To determine whether patients undergoing hip arthroscopy with SIJ pain either subjectively or on physical examination achieve similar postoperative improvement in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) compared with patients without SIJ pain at 2-year follow-up. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up who underwent primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS with SIJ pain were matched in a 1:2 ratio to controls without SIJ pain. Baseline demographics, as well as postoperative PROs and rates of achievement of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) or Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) at 2-year follow-up were compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: A total of 73 patients (75 hips) with SIJ pain were matched to 150 control patients (150 hips) without SIJ pain. Both groups demonstrated statistically significant improvement in all PROs at 2 years (P < .05 for all). Patients with SIJ pain had significantly lower postoperative PRO scores for the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) (SIJ pain: 80.4 ± 22.4 vs no SIJ pain: 88.0 ± 15.1; P = .006), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) (SIJ pain: 73.2 ± 22.8 vs no SIJ pain: 80.0 ± 17.3; P < .001), and International Hip Outcome Tool-12 questionnaire (iHOT-12) (SIJ pain: 61.7 ± 25.9 vs no SIJ pain: 73.7 ± 23.7; P = .008). There were no statistically significant differences in improvement (delta) in PRO scores between the 2 groups (P > .05 for all). The SIJ pain group had significantly lower achievement of MCID for the HOS-ADL (SIJ pain: 65.2% vs no SIJ pain: 80.5%; P = .044) but not HOS-SS, mHHS, or iHOT-12 (P > .05 for all). The SIJ pain group had significantly lower achievement of PASS for the mHHS (SIJ pain: 27.5% vs no SIJ pain: 45.3%; P = .030) and iHOT-12 (SIJ pain: 31.0% vs no SIJ pain: 56.0%; P = .010) but not the HOS-ADL and HOS-SS (P > .05 for both). Only 4.1% of patients with SIJ pain and 2.4% of controls required revision surgery or converted to THA at the time of final follow-up (P = .69). CONCLUSION: Patients with FAIS and SIJ pain on history or physical examination experience significant improvement in PROs at 2 years after hip arthroscopy. However, they may be less likely to achieve the MCID or PASS and have significantly lower postoperative PROs compared with a matched cohort of patients without SIJ pain. Overall rates of revision and conversion to THA were similarly low in both groups.

Meniscal ramp lesions - Skillful neglect or routine repair?

Background: Meniscal ramp lesions are injuries of the posterior horn of the medial meniscus at the meniscocapsular junction or the meniscotibial ligament and are frequently associated with concomitant anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Objective: To review the current literature on meniscal ramp lesion management to better define the indications for and outcomes of repair. Methods: A narrative literature review was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases. Studies of all evidence levels (I-V) pertaining to meniscal ramp lesions were reviewed and included. Results: The incidence of ramp lesions has been reported between 16% and 42%. Arthroscopy remains the diagnostic gold standard as magnetic resonance imaging has limited sensitivity. Biomechanically, ramp lesions are known to increase anterior tibial translation and rotational laxity. Clinical investigations regarding optimal management are largely limited to studies of low evidence levels. While case series have demonstrated that repair is safe and efficacious, comparative studies have failed to suggest that repair of stable lesions results in superior outcomes when compared to conservative treatment approaches. However, repair may be warranted in unstable ramp lesion injuries despite the increased risk for revision surgery. Conclusion: While there is evidence to suggest that ramp lesion repair can restore joint kinematics, the current body of clinical literature fails to suggest that outcomes following repair are superior to injuries managed conservatively. The current body of clinical literature is limited, and further robust, long-term study is warranted to better guide injury diagnosis and management protocol.

Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty in rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic review.

Purpose: Given the poor soft-tissue quality in rheumatoid arthritis patients, many believe that rheumatoid arthritis should be treated with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). The purpose of this paper is to systematically assess outcomes of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) in rheumatoid arthritis to determine if aTSA remains a viable option. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted identifying articles relevant to aTSA in the setting of rheumatoid arthritis with intact rotator cuff. Outcomes include clinical outcomes and rates of complication and revision. Results: Ten studies were included with a total of 279 shoulders with mean follow-up of 116 ± 69 months. The mean age was 68 ± 10 years. Survivorship was 97%, 97% and 89% at 5, 10 and 20 years, respectively. The overall complication rate was 9%. Radiolucency was present in 69% of patients, of which 34% were at risk of loosening at 79 months. The overall rate of revision was 8.4%. Studies generally reported clinically significant improvements in range of motion, Constant score and ASES score. Conclusion: aTSA in the rheumatoid patient results in improvements in range of motion and patient-reported outcomes. Rates of complications and survivorship are generally good in this population. However, it should be noted that there is significant heterogeneity in outcome reporting amongst the literature on this topic and that many studies fail to adequately report complication and revision rates. When compared to rTSA in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, evidence suggests that aTSA is still a viable treatment option despite the shift in utilization to rTSA.

Outcomes and complications of distal humeral hemiarthroplasty for distal humeral fractures - A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Distal humeral hemiarthroplasty has been performed for a variety of indications with the most common being management of distal humeral fractures. This systematic review evaluates the outcomes and complications of distal humeral hemiarthroplasty for this pathology. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE for studies reporting indications and outcomes of patients undergoing distal humeral hemiarthroplasty. Study screening, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction were performed. Summery statistics were provided. RESULTS: We included 11 studies (N = 163) in this review. In all studies, the indication for distal humeral hemiarthroplasty was the presence of an intraarticular, comminuted, unreconstructable fracture. The mean post-operative MEPS, FullDASH, and QuickDASH (SD) scores were 83.6 (6.1) points, 25.4 (10.3), and 15.7 (7.4) points, respectively. The mean post-operative range of motion (SD) was 106° (11°) in the flexion and extension arc and 153° (19°) in the protonation and supination arc. The overall rate of adverse events and complication was 63%. The rate for major complications was 11%. The mean total revision rate was 4% (0% to 15) and total re-operation rate was 29% (0% to 88%). CONCLUSION: Distal humeral hemiarthroplasty is a suitable option for unreconstructable distal humeral fractures and offers good functional outcomes with acceptable complication rates.

Stemless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review of short- and mid-term results.

INTRODUCTION: Stemless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty is used to treat rotator cuff deficient arthropathies, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoarthritis. It has several advantages over the stemmed implant including preservation of bone stock, reduced surgical time, and easier revision. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, and CENTRAL to retrieve all relevant studies evaluating stemless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. RESULTS: The literature search identified 1993 studies out of which 7 studies were included in this review; 324 patients underwent stemless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with a weighted mean age of 74.1 (SD = 8.6, range = 38 to 93) years and a weighted mean follow-up time of 44 (SD = 6.6, range = 3 to 95) months. The included studies reported significant improvements in range of motion and functional scores comparable to stemmed reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. The weight mean flexion and abduction was (135 ± 12)° and (131 ± 12)° post-operatively, respectively. The weighted mean constant score increased from (26.7 ± 5.2) Patients (pts) to (63.0 ± 8.0) pts post-operatively. Overall complication and revision rate were 12.3% and 5.2%. CONCLUSION: Early and mid-term results indicate stemless reverse total shoulder arthroplasty has similar clinical outcomes to stemmed reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. There was no radiological evidence of humeral loosening at the latest follow-up.