Outcomes of multiligament knee injury treated with versus without internal brace suture augmentation.

PURPOSE: To compare the postoperative outcomes between Internal Brace (IB) and non-IB patients who underwent surgical management of multiple-ligament knee injuries (MLKI). METHODS: Patients who underwent surgical management of MLKI at two institutions between 2010 and 2020 were identified and offered participation in the study via the collection of postoperative functional outcomes for MLKI; Lysholm Knee score, Multiligament Quality of Life (ML-QOL), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer adaptive testing (CAT), Pain Interference (PI), Physical Function (PF), and Mobility instruments (MI). The postoperative outcomes and reoperation rates were compared between the IB group and non-IB group. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-six patients were analyzed; 89 were included in the IB group (31.5% female; age 35.6 ± 1.4 years), and 37 were included in the non-IB group (25.7% female; age 38.8 ± 2.4 years). Mean follow-up time of the entire cohort was 37.9 ± 4.7 months [IB: 21.8 + 1.63; non-IB: 76.4 ± 6.2, p < 0.001). The IB group achieved similar PROMIS CAT [PROMIS Pain (51.8 + 1.1 vs. 52.1 + 1.6, p = 0.8736), Physical Function (46.6 + 1.2 vs. 46.4 + 1.8, p = 0.9168), Mobility (46.0 + 1.0 vs. 43.7 + 1.6, p = 0.2185)], ML-QOL [ML-QOL Physical Impairment (36.6 + 2.5 vs. 43.5 ± 4.2, p = 0.1485), Emotional Impairment (42.5 + 2.9 vs. 48.6 ± 4.6, p = 0.2695), Activity Limitation (34.5 + 2.8 vs. 36.2 ± 4.3, p = 0.7384), Societal Involvement (39.1 + 3.0 vs. 41.7 + 4.2, p = 0.6434)] and Lysholm knee score (64.9 + 2.5 vs. 60.4 + 4.0, p = 0.3397) postoperatively compared the non-IB group, but the differences were not significant. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of patients with MLKI treated with versus without IB, outcomes and reoperation rates trended toward favoring IB, but the study was not sufficiently powered to reach statistical significance. Internal bracing could be useful in the management of MLKI. In the future, matched patient cohorts with more patients are warranted to further evaluate the clinical impact of the internal brace in MLKI.

Reliability of Plain Radiographs Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging to Measure Tibial Slope in Sports Medicine Patients: Can They Be Used Interchangeably?

BACKGROUND: The slope of the tibial plateau has been proposed as a reason for failure of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. PURPOSE: To evaluate the interobserver reliability of measurements of tibial slope on radiographs versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans and to assess whether the modalities can be used interchangeably for this purpose. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: This retrospective study included 81 patients aged 18 to 30 years who were evaluated in a sports medicine setting for knee pain and who had lateral knee radiographs as well as knee MRI scans on file. Medial and lateral tibial plateau slope measurements were made by 3 blinded reviewers from the radiographs and MRI scans using graphic overlay software. The paired t test was used to compare measurements of the medial tibial plateau slope (MTPS) and lateral tibial plateau slope (LTPS) from radiographs and MRI scans. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to determine intra- and interobserver reliability of measurements within each imaging modality, and Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to determine the relationship between measurements on radiographs versus MRI scans. RESULTS: Imaging from 81 patients were included. The average MTPS was significantly larger on radiographs compared with MRI scans (8.7° ± 3.6° vs 3.7° ± 3.4°; P < .001), and the average LTPS was also significantly larger on radiographs compared with MRI scans (7.9° ± 3.4° vs 5.7° ± 3.7°; P < .001). ICC values indicated good to excellent intraobserver agreement for all imaging modalities (ICC, 0.81-0.97; P ≤ .009). The ICCs for interobserver reliability of MTPS and LTPS measurements were 0.92 and 0.85 for radiographs, 0.87 and 0.83 for MRI based off the subchondral bone, and 0.86 and 0.71 for MRI based off the cartilage, respectively (P < .001). Medium correlation was noted between radiographic and MRI measurements; Pearson correlation coefficients for radiographic versus subchondral MRI measurements were 0.30 and 0.37 for MTPS and LTPS, respectively. CONCLUSION: The average MTPS and LTPS were significantly larger on radiographs compared with MRI scans. Although tibial slope measurements using radiography and those using MRI are reliable between individuals, the measurements from radiographs and MRI scans cannot be used interchangeably, and caution should be used when interpreting and comparing studies using measurements of the tibial slope.

Injury Epidemiology and Time Lost From Participation in Women's NCAA Division I Indoor Versus Beach Volleyball Players.

BACKGROUND: Beach volleyball officially became a National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I sport in 2015-2016. Few studies have examined the epidemiology of injuries in indoor versus beach volleyball in NCAA Division I athletes. PURPOSE: To compare the epidemiology of injuries and time lost from participation between female NCAA Division I athletes who participate in indoor versus beach volleyball. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Injury surveillance data (2003-2020) were obtained using an institutional database for all NCAA Division I women's beach or indoor volleyball athletes. The total injury rate was expressed per 1000 hours played. The injury rate per body site was calculated by dividing the number of injuries in each body region by the total number of injuries. The frequency of injury per body site was also expressed as number of injuries per 1000 hours of practice or number of injuries per 1000 hours of game. The injury rate (total and per body site) and time lost from participation were compared between indoor and beach volleyball athletes. RESULTS: Participants were 161 female NCAA Division I volleyball athletes (53 beach volleyball and 108 indoor volleyball athletes). In total, 974 injuries were recorded: 170 in beach volleyball and 804 in indoor volleyball. The injury rates for beach versus indoor volleyball were 1.8 versus 5.3 injuries per 1000 hours played (P < .0001). Indoor volleyball athletes had significantly higher injury rates compared with beach volleyball players for concussion (7.5% vs 6.5%; P < .0001) and knee injury (16.7% vs 7.6%; P = .0004); however, the rate of abdominal muscle injury was significantly higher in beach versus indoor volleyball (11.8% vs 4.7%; P = .0008). Time lost from sport participation was significantly longer in beach versus indoor volleyball for knee (24 vs 11 days; P = .047), low back (25 vs 17 days; P = .0009), and shoulder (52 vs 28 days; P = .001) injuries. CONCLUSION: Based on this study, injury was more likely to occur in indoor compared with beach volleyball. Sport-related concussion and knee injuries were more common in indoor volleyball, but the rate of abdominal muscle injury was higher in beach volleyball. Beach volleyball players needed longer time to recover after injuries to the knee, low back, and shoulder.

Surgical Management of Shoulder and Knee Instability in Patients with Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome: Joint Hypermobility Syndrome.

Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS) is a hereditary disorder of the connective tissue, which has been classified into numerous subtypes over the years. EDS is generally characterized by hyperextensible skin, hypermobile joints, and tissue fragility. According to the 2017 International Classification of EDS, 13 subtypes of EDS have been recognized. The majority of genes involved in EDS are either collagen-encoding genes or genes encoding collagen-modifying enzymes. Orthopedic surgeons most commonly encounter patients with the hypermobile type EDS (hEDS), who present with signs and symptoms of hypermobility and/or instability in one or more joints. Patients with joint hypermobility syndrome (JHS) might also present with similar symptomatology. This article will focus on the surgical management of patients with knee or shoulder abnormalities related to hEDS/JHS.

Irreparable rotator cuff tears: Current treatment options.

Rotator cuff disease is one of the most common causes of shoulder pain, yet controversy still exists regarding treatment of "irreparable" tears. Nonoperative management, including physical therapy and steroid injections, should be reserved for those without significant pain or functional impairment. Debridement may be used for low-demand patients, and should be performed with partial cuff repair, subacromial decompression, and/or acromioplasty to maximize outcomes. Biceps tenotomy and/or tenodesis have been shown to reduce postoperative pain and improve satisfaction when performed in conjunction with rotator cuff repairs, with no difference in functional outcome comparatively. Tendon transfers have been advocated with the potential benefit to improve function and decrease pain. More recently, extracellular matrix and human-derived dermal allografts have been used off-label as patch grafts in irreparable tears. Superior capsular reconstructive techniques and subacromial balloon spacers serve a similar function by acting to depress the humeral head in a cuff-deficient shoulder, however long-term data is needed before widespread adoption of these procedures. Finally, reverse shoulder arthroplasty serves as a salvage option for low demand elderly patients.

Open repair of retracted latissimus dorsi tendon avulsion.

Latissimus dorsi avulsion injuries are rarely reported in the literature and are managed with a variety of strategies. Primary anatomical repair of tendon to bone may offer athletes the best chance for successful return to sports. In this article, we describe a surgical technique for safely repairing an acute or chronic, retracted, avulsed latissimus tendon back to its insertion on the medial aspect of the bicipital groove of the proximal humerus. Using 1 low anterior axillary incision and 1 posterior axillary incision for tendon retrieval when retraction is more than 5 cm, this technique allows for direct anatomical repair of a retracted tendon to bone using 3 points of bony fixation supplemented by soft-tissue repair. The technique also minimizes the risks for neurovascular compromise and cosmetic deformity, while decreasing the risk for postinjury strength deficits.

Clinical outcomes of hemiarthroplasty and biological resurfacing in patients aged younger than 50 years.

BACKGROUND: Total shoulder arthroplasty as a treatment for glenohumeral degenerative joint disease is well accepted but has been less predictable with regard to outcomes and durability in a younger aged population, typically aged younger than 50 years. This younger population has a greater potential for glenoid component loosening. This has led surgeons to perform hemiarthroplasty or hemiarthroplasty with biological resurfacing of the glenoid in an effort to avoid the potential problems with a polyethylene glenoid and obtain durable and acceptable results for these patients. METHODS: The study included 44 patients, with 23 undergoing hemiarthroplasty alone and 21 undergoing hemiarthroplasty with biological resurfacing of the glenoid. All patients were aged younger than 50 years. Preoperative diagnoses, comorbidities, demographics, and range of motion were collected. Preoperative and postoperative radiographs were obtained. Preoperative and postoperative objective scoring measures (Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, visual analog scale, Simple Shoulder Test, Constant-Murley) were used. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 3.8 years for the hemiarthroplasty group and 3.6 years for the biological resurfacing group. Six patients in the hemiarthroplasty and 12 patients in the biological resurfacing group were considered failures due to revision surgery or an American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score <50. The hemiarthroplasty group had significantly better visual analog scale and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation scores. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant failure rate in the hemiarthroplasty and the biologic resurfacing groups compared with results in the literature. Improved outcomes and lower failure rates were observed in the hemiarthroplasty group compared with the biological resurfacing group in this study.

Revision posterior shoulder stabilization.

BACKGROUND: Revision arthroscopic posterior glenohumeral stabilization requires a thorough understanding of the static and dynamic stabilizers of the glenohumeral joint. The evaluation of these patients is complex but critical given the variety of possible underlying lesions. METHOD: We reviewed the literature surrounding recurrent and revision posterior instability biomechanics, etiology, evaluation, treatment, and outcomes. We also reviewed our own database of posterior instability cases and isolated revision procedures to review our own outcomes and to highlight overall concepts. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Although other authors have argued that performing a revision procedure indicates for an open procedure and osseous augmentation, our experience has been that revision posterior stabilization arthroscopic soft-tissue repair alone may be indicated in selected patients. After identification of posterior glenoid bone loss/effective retroversion and mechanical failure of prior repairs, the majority of the patients with recurrence of posterior instability likely have either recurrent or persistent labral pathology or patulous capsules with occult multi-directional instability primarily manifesting in the posterior direction. These patients are best served with capsular shift, reefing, and plication, often requiring 180-270° repair and 4 or greater suture anchors. Because of significant heterogeneity in the clinical outcomes reported to date further research will be necessary to define the clinical outcomes in revision posterior stabilization.