Particulated Juvenile Articular Cartilage Allograft Transplantation for Patellofemoral Defects Shows Favorable Return-to-Sport Rates and Patient-Reported Outcomes.

PURPOSE: To report return-to-sport rates, postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs), complication rates, and reoperation rates of a cohort of patients undergoing particulated juvenile articular cartilage (PJAC) allograft transplantation for patellofemoral articular cartilage defects. METHODS: We performed a single-institution retrospective review of all patients with patellofemoral articular cartilage defects who received PJAC allograft transplantation from 2014 to 2022. Baseline demographic characteristics and surgical data, including concomitant surgical procedures, were collected. Clinical outcomes recorded included return-to-sport rates, complications, reoperations, and the following PRO scores: Kujala knee score, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference score, and PROMIS Physical Function score. RESULTS: Forty-one knees with a mean age of 23.4 ± 9.7 years and mean follow-up period of 30.3 months (range, 12-107 months) were included. The mean postoperative PROMIS Pain Interference, PROMIS Physical Function, and Kujala knee scores were 47.4 ± 7.7, 52.2 ± 10.8, and 81.7 ± 16.1, respectively, reflecting low residual anterior knee pain and a return to normal function. For patients playing organized sports at the high school and collegiate levels, the overall return-to-sport rate was 100% (17 of 17). During follow-up, complications developed in 12 knees (29.3%), the most common of which was anterior-based knee pain, and 6 knees (14.6%) required a total of 8 reoperations, which occurred from 6 to 32 months postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: The 100% return-to-sport rate and satisfactory PRO scores in our study suggest that PJAC allograft transplantation can effectively address patellofemoral cartilage defects in many patients. The complication and reoperation rates of 29.3% and 14.6%, respectively, are consistent with the challenging and heterogeneous etiology and treatment of patellofemoral articular defects. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series.

Influence of preoperative and intraoperative factors on recovery after aortic root surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the influence of intraoperative factors relative to preoperative risk factors on recovery after aortic root replacement (ARR). METHODS: Retrospective review of baseline and intraoperative characteristics was performed of 822 patients at our Aortic Center from 2005 to 2019. Inclusion criteria were all patients age 18 and older who underwent ARR at our institution from 2005 to 2019. The primary endpoint was the aggregate outcome of "failure to achieve uneventful recovery (FUR)," as previously defined. RESULTS: In total, 207 (25%) patients experienced FUR. The following preoperative and intraoperative variables were significantly associated with FUR in the multivariable analysis: cardiopulmonary bypass time (OR 1.01, 95% CI 1.01-1.02) open chest management (OR 5.67, 95% CI 2.65-12.1), ejection fraction (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.04), chronic kidney disease > stage 3a (OR 2.37, 95% CI 1.54-3.63), bicuspid aortic valve (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.21-1.96), and female sex (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.06-1.61). Cardiopulmonary bypass time and open chest management were among the top three partial R2 contributors to the logistic regression model variance. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest efficacy in using intraoperative parameters to predict postoperative outcomes after ARR.

The Fragility of Statistical Significance in Sham Orthopaedic Surgery: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the stability of statistical findings among sham surgery randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in orthopaedic surgery using fragility analysis. METHODS: PubMed systematic review was conducted to include studies reporting dichotomous outcomes pertaining to sham surgery. The final review included eight RCTs involving only partial meniscectomies and vertebroplasties from 2009 to 2020. With a fixed sample size with dichotomous outcome measures (events versus non-events), the Total Fragility Index (TFI), which is composed of the fragility index (FI) and reverse fragility index (RFI), was calculated by altering the ratio of events to non-events in an iterative fashion until results were reversed from significant to nonsignificant findings (FI) or vice versa (RFI). The TFI, FI, and RFI were divided by their sample sizes to obtain the respective total fragility quotient, fragility quotient (FQ), and reverse fragility quotient. Median fragility indices and quotients were reported for all studies. RESULTS: The eight RCTs included 50 dichotomous outcomes involving either partial meniscectomies or vertebroplasties, with a median TFI and total fragility quotient of 5 [interquartile range (IQR) 4 to 6] and 0.035 (IQR 0.028 to 0.048), respectively, indicating that a median of five total patients or 3.5 per 100 patients would need to experience a different outcome to reverse significant or insignificant findings for each of the eight trials. Among the 8 statistically significant ( P < 0.05) outcome events (16%), the respective FI and FQ were 2 (IQR 1 to 5) and 0.018 (IQR 0.010 to 0.044). Among the 42 statistically insignificant outcome events (84%), the respective RFI and reverse fragility quotient were 5 (IQR 4 to 6) and 0.04 (IQR 0.034 to 0.048). The median number of patients lost to follow-up was 1.5 (IQR 0.5 to 2). CONCLUSION: The unstable findings in partial meniscectomy and vertebroplasty sham surgical RCTs undermine their study conclusions and recommendations. We recommend using fragility analysis in future sham surgical RCTs to contextualize statistical findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV; Systematic Review.

Defining Operative Indications in Lisfranc Injuries: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to determine operative indications for Lisfranc injuries. METHODS: A systematic review using a MEDLINE literature search was performed using the index "Lisfranc Injury" from 1980 onward using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines where applicable. Inclusion criteria were all clinical studies reporting on the management of Lisfranc injuries obtained via the search index, including case reports, review articles, cohort studies, and randomized trials. Non-English-language articles, inaccessible articles, those not relevant to the management of Lisfranc injuries (biomechanical, cadaveric, and technique articles), and those that did not explicitly state operative indications (vague or absent indications) were excluded. RESULTS: After identifying 737 studies, the full text of 391 studies was reviewed, and 58 reports providing explicit operative indications were included in the final analysis. Fifty-one (81.1%) studies provided diastasis cutoffs varying ≥2 mm (35/58; 60.4%), ≥1 mm (13; 22.4%), and ≥3 mm (3; 5.2%); the diastasis location was most commonly unspecified (31/58; 53.5%) or varied between combinations of metatarsal, tarsal, cuboid, and cuneiform bones (20/58; 27.6%). Specific imaging criteria for surgery included an avulsion fracture or fleck sign (3/58; 5.2%), arch height loss (3/58; 5.2%), and a tear on magnetic resonance imaging (5; 8.6%). The 11 (19%) studies defining operative indications in terms of classification schemes used the Nunley and Vertullo (8/58; 13.8%), Myerson (2; 3.5%), and Buehren (1; 1.7%) systems. Twenty-one (36.2%) studies provided multiple operative indications. CONCLUSION: The most common Lisfranc operative indications among the limited reporting studies varied from a 1- to 3-mm diastasis across several locations. It is imperative for operative indications to be reported with an increased frequency and in a homogenous fashion to guide the clinical management of these subtle injuries. LEVELS OF EVIDENCE: Level IV; systematic Review.

A systematic review of the patient reported outcome measures utilized in level 1 randomized controlled trials involving achilles tendon ruptures.

BACKGROUND: Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are utilized in level 1 randomized controlled trials involving Achilles tendon ruptures. However, the characteristics of these PROMs and current practices has not yet been reported. We hypothesize that there will be heterogeneous PROM usage in this context. METHODS: A PubMed and Embase systematic review was performed including all dates up to July 27th, 2022, assessing Achilles tendon ruptures in level 1 studies using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines where applicable. Inclusion criteria were all randomized controlled clinical studies involving Achilles tendon injuries. Studies that: (1) were not level 1 evidence (including editorial, commentary, review, or technique articles), (2) omitted outcome data or PROMs, (3) included injuries aside from Achilles tendon ruptures, (4) involved non-human or cadaveric subjects, (5) were not written in English, and (6) were duplicates were excluded. Demographics and outcome measures were assessed in the studies included for final review. RESULTS: Out of 18,980 initial results, 46 studies were included for final review. The average number of patients per study was 65.5. Mean follow up was 25 months. The most common study design involved comparing two different rehabilitation interventions (48 %). Twenty different outcome measures were reported including the Achilles tendon rupture score (ATRS) (48 %), followed by the American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle score Ankle-Hindfoot score (AOFAS-AH) (46 %), the Leppilahti score (20 %), and the RAND-36/Short Form (SF) - 36/SF-12 scores (20 %). An average of 1.4 measures were reported per study. CONCLUSION: Significant heterogeneity exists in PROM usage among level 1 studies involving Achilles tendon ruptures, which prevents meaningful interpretation of these data across multiple studies. We advocate for usage of at least the disease-specific Achilles Tendon Rupture score and a global, quality of life (QOL) survey such as the SF-36/12/RAND-36. Future literature should provide more evidence-based guidelines for PROM usage in this context. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV; Systematic Review.

The effect of adding an open distal anastomosis to proximal aneurysm repairs in bicuspid aortopathy.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the role of adding open distal anastomosis to proximal aortic aneurysm repairs in bicuspid aortic valve (BAV) patients. METHODS: Retrospective review was performed of 1132 patients at our Aortic Center between 2005 and 2019. Inclusion criteria were all patients diagnosed with a BAV who underwent proximal aortic aneurysm repair with open or clamped distal anastomosis. Exclusion criteria were patients without a BAV, age < 18 years, aortic arch diameter ≥ 4.5 cm, type A aortic dissection, previous ascending aortic replacement, ruptured aneurysm, and endocarditis. Propensity score matching in a 2:1 ratio (220 clamped: 121 open repairs) on 18 variables was performed. RESULTS: Median follow-up time was 45.6 months (range 7.2-143.4 months). In the matched groups, no significant differences were observed between the respective open and clamped distal anastomosis groups for Kaplan Meier 10-year survival (86.9% vs. 92.9%; p = 0.05) and landmark survival analysis after 1 year (90.6%; vs. 93.3%; p = 0.39). Overall incidence of aortic arch-related reintervention was low (n = 3 total events). In-hospital complications were not significantly different in the open with respect to the clamped repair group, including in-hospital mortality (2.5% vs. 0.5%; p = 0.13) and stroke (0% vs. 0.9%; p = 0.54). In multivariable analysis, open distal anastomosis repair was not associated with long-term mortality (Hazard Ratio (HR) 1.98; p = 0.06). CONCLUSION: We found no significant inter-group differences in survival, reintervention, or in-hospital complication rates, with low rates of mortality, and aortic arch-related reintervention, suggesting adding open distal anastomosis may not provide benefit in BAV patients undergoing proximal aortic aneurysm repairs.

Outcomes After Anatomic Versus Physiologic Repair of Congenitally Corrected Transposition of the Great Arteries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Surgical treatment for congenitally corrected transposition of the great arteries is widely debated, with both physiologic repair and anatomic repair holding advantages and disadvantages. This meta-analysis, which includes 44 total studies consisting of 1857 patients, compares mortality at different time points (operative, in-hospital, and post-discharge), reoperation rates, and postoperative ventricular dysfunction between these two categories of procedures. Although anatomic and physiologic repair had similar operative and in-hospital mortality, anatomic repair patients had significantly less post-discharge mortality (6.1% vs 9.7%; P = .006), lower reoperation rates (17.9% vs 20.6%; P < .001), and less postoperative ventricular dysfunction (16% vs 43%; P < .001). When anatomic repair patients were subdivided into those who had atrial and arterial switch versus those who had atrial switch with Rastelli, the double switch group had significantly lower in-hospital mortality (4.3% vs 7.6%; P = .026) and reoperation rates (15.6% vs 25.9%; P < .001). The results of this meta-analysis suggest a protective benefit of favoring anatomic repair over physiologic repair.

Comparison of glenoid bone grafting vs. augmented glenoid baseplates in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Management of bone loss and glenoid deformity can present a significant challenge to surgeons. The purpose of this review was to compare outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) using either bone graft or augmented baseplates for the management of glenoid bone loss and deformity. METHODS: A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane indices was performed for studies reporting clinical outcomes following primary RSA with bone grafting or use of augmented baseplates. Pooled and frequency-weighted means, standard deviations, and ranges were calculated and reported for comparison. RESULTS: Overall, 19 studies and 652 patients with bone grafting (n = 401) and augmented baseplates (n = 251) were included in the study. Mean patient age and gender were 70.3 ± 3.1 years and 47% female in the bone grafting group and 72.9 ± 3.7 years and 59.0% female in the augmented baseplate group. Mean follow-up for the augmented baseplate group was 23.1 ± 8.2 months and 29.5 ± 10.1 months for the bone grafting group. Overall complication and revision rates were 11.7% and 4.5% for the bone grafting group and 11.8% and 3.7% for the augmented baseplate group. Range of motion as well as patient-reported and functional outcome scores were similar between both techniques. Infections, component loosening, and notching were 1.9%, 3.6%, and 24.6% in the bone grafting group and 0.7%, 1.6%, and 4.7% in the augmented baseplate group. CONCLUSIONS: Glenoid bone grafting and augmented baseplates are effective treatment options for the management of bone loss and glenoid deformity. Both treatments improve overall clinical outcomes with relatively low complication rates and revision rates.

Quantifying the effects of circulatory arrest on acute kidney injury in aortic surgery.

OBJECTIVES: We aim to investigate the association between parameters surrounding circulatory arrest and postoperative acute kidney injury in aortic surgery. METHODS: This is a single-center retrospective study of 1118 adult patients who underwent aortic repair with median sternotomy between January 2010 and May 2019. Acute kidney injury was defined on the basis of a modified version of the 2012 Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes Scale that excluded urine output. The primary outcome of interest was any stage of acute kidney injury. RESULTS: Circulatory arrest was required in 369 patients, and 307 patients (27.5%) developed acute kidney injury: stage 1 in 241 patients, stage 2 in 38 patients, and stage 3 in 28 patients. Lower-body ischemia (the period during circulatory arrest without blood flow to kidneys) duration was not associated with acute kidney injury after multivariable logistic regression (1-40 minutes, odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.04; P = .075; >40 minutes, odds ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-1.55; P = .356). Hypertension (odds ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-2.54; P = .020), preoperative estimated glomerular filtration rate (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.98-1.00; P = .010), packed red blood cell transfusion volume (odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.00; P = .028), and nadir temperature (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-0.99; P = .013) were independently associated with acute kidney injury after multivariable analysis. Although there was a positive association between lower-body ischemia duration and development of acute kidney injury with univariable cubic spline, the positive curve was flattened after adjustment for the described variables. CONCLUSIONS: Within the range of our clinical practice, prolonged lower-body ischemia duration was not independently associated with postoperative acute kidney injury, whereas nadir temperature was.

Long-term outcome of hemiarch replacement in a proximal aortic aneurysm repair: analysis of over 1000 patients.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of hemiarch replacement in patients undergoing an open repair of proximal thoracic aortic aneurysm without arch aneurysm. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on 1132 patients undergoing proximal aortic aneurysm repair at our Aortic Center between 2005 and 2019. Inclusion criteria were all patients undergoing root or ascending aortic aneurysm repair with or without hemiarch replacement. Exclusion criteria were age <18 years, aortic arch diameter ≥4.5 cm, type A aortic dissection, previous ascending aortic replacement, ruptured aneurysm and endocarditis. Propensity score matching in a 2:1 ratio (573 non-hemiarch: 288 hemiarch) on 19 baseline characteristics was performed. The median follow-up time was 46.8 months (range 0.1-170.4 months). RESULTS: Hemiarch patients had significantly lower 10-year survival in the matched cohort (hemiarch 73.8%; 66.9-81.4%; vs non-hemiarch 86.5%; 81.1-92.3%; P < 0.001), driven by higher in-hospital mortality rate (4% vs 1%; P < 0.001). Cumulative incidence of aortic arch reintervention rates at 10 years was similarly low (hemiarch 1.0%; 0-2.5% vs non-hemiarch 1.3%; 0-2.6%, P = 0.615). Multivariate analysis with hazard ratios of the overall cohort showed hemiarch as an independent factor associated with long-term mortality (2.16; 1.42-3.27; P < 0.001) but not with aortic arch reintervention (0.76; 0.14-4.07, P = 0.750). CONCLUSIONS: Hemiarch repair may be associated with higher short-term mortality compared to non-hemiarch. Arch reintervention was rare after a repair of proximal thoracic aortic aneurysm without arch aneurysm. Our data call for larger and prospective studies to further delineate the utility of hemiarch repair in proximal aortic surgery.

Incidence, Cause, and Outcome of Reinterventions After Aortic Root Replacement.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to comprehensively characterize details of aortic and aortic valve reinterventions after aortic root replacement (ARR). METHODS: Between 2005 and 2019, 882 patients underwent ARR. Indications were aneurysm in 666, aortic valve related in 116, aortic dissection in 64, and infective endocarditis (IE) in 36. Valve-sparing root replacement was performed in 290 patients, whereas a Bio-Bentall procedure was done in 528. Among them, 52 patients (5.9%) required reintervention. The incidence, cause, and time to reintervention and the outcomes after reintervention were investigated. A cause-specific Cox hazard model was performed to identify predictors for reintervention after ARR. RESULTS: The 10-year cumulative incidence of aortic and aortic valve reintervention after ARR was 10.3% (95% confidence interval, 7.3%-14.0%). Age per year decrease was the only independent predictor for reintervention (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-0.99). The causes for 52 reinterventions were aortic valve causes in 29 patients (55.8%), including aortic stenosis/insufficiency, and prosthetic valve dysfunction; IE in 15 (28.9%); aortic-related causes in 7 (13.5%), including pseudoaneurysm, development of aneurysm, and residual dissection; and coronary button pseudoaneurysm in 1 (1.9%). Median time to reintervention was 11.0 months (interquartile range, 2.0-20.5) for IE, 24.0 months (interquartile range, 3.7-46.1) for aortic-related causes, and 77.0 months (interquartile range, 28.4-97.6) for aortic valve-related causes (P = .005). Overall in-hospital mortality after the reinterventions was 7.7% (4/52) with 20.0% for IE (3/15). CONCLUSIONS: Reintervention for IE occurred relatively early after ARR, whereas aortic valve- and aortic-related reinterventions gradually increased over time. In-hospital mortality after the reintervention was low, with the exception of IE.