Improvements in Quality, Safety and Costs Associated with Use of Implant Registries Within a Health System.

BACKGROUND: Clinical quality registries (CQRs) are intended to enhance quality, safety, and cost reduction using real-world data for a self-improving health system. Starting in 2001, Kaiser Permanente established several medical device CQRs as a quality improvement initiative. This report examines the contributions of these CQRs on improvement in health outcomes, changes in clinical practice, and cost-effectiveness over the past 20 years. METHODS: Eight implant registries were instituted with standardized collection from the electronic health record and other institutional data sources of patient characteristics, medical comorbidities, implant attributes, procedure details, surgical techniques, and outcomes (including complications, revisions, reoperations, hospital readmissions, and other utilization measures). A rigorous quality control system is in place to improve and maintain the quality of data. Data from the Implant Registries form the basis for multiple quality improvement and patient safety initiatives to minimize variation in care, promote clinical best practices, facilitate recalls, perform benchmarking, identify patients at risk, and construct reports about individual surgeons. RESULTS: Following the inception of the Implant Registries, there was an observed (1) reduction in opioid utilization following orthopedic procedures, (2) reduction in use of bone morphogenic protein during lumbar fusion allowing for cost savings, (3) reduction in allograft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction and subsequent decrease in organizationwide revision rates, (4) cost savings through expansion of same-day discharge programs for joint arthroplasty, (5) increase in the use of cement fixation in the hemiarthroplasty treatment of hip fracture, and (6) organizationwide discontinuation of an endograft device associated with a higher risk for adverse outcomes following endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. CONCLUSION: The use of Implant Registries within our health system, along with clinical leadership and organizational commitment to a learning health system, was associated with improved quality and safety outcomes and reduced costs. The exact mechanisms by which such registries affect health outcomes and costs require further study.

Risk of Revision and Reoperation After Quadriceps Tendon Autograft ACL Reconstruction Compared With Patellar Tendon and Hamstring Autografts in a US Cohort of 21,973 Patients.

BACKGROUND: The use of quadriceps tendon (QT) autografts has increased in the past 10 years. However, there remains a dearth of large studies examining the effects of graft selection on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) that includes QT grafts. PURPOSE: To evaluate the risk of subsequent surgical outcomes, including revision and reoperation, for a large cohort of patients with primary ACLR according to autograft selection. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Data from a US health care system ACLR registry were used to conduct a cohort study. Primary isolated autograft ACLRs were identified (2012-2021). The exposure of interest was autograft type: QT, bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB), and hamstring tendon (HT). Multivariable Cox regression models were used to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision (defined as a subsequent surgery where removal and replacement of the original graft for noninfectious reasons was required) and risk of aseptic reoperation (defined as any subsequent surgery for noninfectious reasons where the graft was left intact) according to autograft selection. RESULTS: The study sample comprised 21,973 ACLRs performed by 290 surgeons at 53 hospitals. QT, BPTB, and HT autografts were used in 1103 (5.0%), 9519 (43.3%), and 11,351 (51.7%) ACLRs, respectively. In adjusted models, no significant differences were observed in revision risk (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06; 95% CI, 0.60-1.89; P = .837) or reoperation risk (HR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.70-1.43; P = .993) within 4 years of follow-up when comparing QT ACLR with BPTB ACLR. Additionally, no differences in 4-year revision (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.34-1.12; P = .111) or reoperation (HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.85-1.80; P = .262) risks were observed when comparing QT ACLR with HT ACLR. HT ACLRs were noted to have a higher risk of revision (HR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.25-1.84; P < .001) compared with BPTB ACLRs but a lower risk of reoperation (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75-0.98; P = .024). CONCLUSION: In this large multicenter study using data from an ACLR registry, the authors found no difference in the risk of revision or reoperation when QT was compared with BPTB or HT autograft with the numbers available, but they did find a 1.5 times higher risk of revision when HT autograft was compared with BPTB autograft. Surgeons may use this information when choosing the appropriate graft for ACLR in their patients.

No difference in revision risk between autologous hamstring graft less than 8 mm versus hybrid graft 8 mm or larger in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Hamstring autograft (HA) is commonly used for primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). However, if the harvested HA is inadequate in diameter, it is often augmented with an allograft tendon, forming a hybrid graft (HY). This study sought to evaluate aseptic revision risk following HA versus HY ACLR. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using data obtained from our healthcare system's ACLR registry. Patients ≤ 25 years of age who underwent primary isolated ACLR were identified (2005-2020). Graft type and diameter size was the primary exposure of interest: < 8 mm HA and ≥ 8 mm HY. A secondary analysis was performed to examine 7 mm HA and 7.5 mm HA vs ≥ 8 mm HY. Propensity score-weighted Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision. RESULTS: The study sample included 1,945 ACLR: 548 ≥ 8 mm HY, 651 7 mm HA, and 672 7.5 mm HA. The crude cumulative aseptic revision probability at 8-years for ≥ 8 mm HY was 9.1%, 11.1% for 7 mm HA, and 11.2% for 7.5 mm HA. In adjusted analysis, no difference in revision risk was observed for < 8 mm HA (hazard ratio [HR] 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.72-1.82), 7 mm HA (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.71-2.11), or 7.5 mm HA (HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.74-1.82) compared to ≥ 8 mm HY. CONCLUSION: In a US-based cohort of ACLR patients aged ≤ 25 years, we failed to observe any differences in aseptic revision risk for HA < 8 mm compared to HY ≥ 8 mm. Augmentation of a HA as small as 7 mm is not necessary to prevent a revision surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Association Between Graft Type and Risk of Repeat Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Cohort Study of 1747 Patients.

BACKGROUND: With an increasing number of primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions (ACLRs), the burden of revision ACLR (rACLR) has also increased. Graft choice for rACLR is complicated by patient factors and the remaining available graft options. PURPOSE: To examine the association between graft type at the time of rACLR and the risk of repeat rACLR (rrACLR) in a large US integrated health care system registry while accounting for patient and surgical factors at the time of revision surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Data from the Kaiser Permanente ACLR registry were used to identify patients who underwent a primary isolated ACLR between 2005 and 2020 and then went on to have rACLR. Graft type used at rACLR, classified as autograft versus allograft, was the exposure of interest. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate the risk of rrACLR, with ipsilateral and contralateral reoperation as secondary outcomes. Models included factors at the time of the rACLR (age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, staged revision, femoral fixation, tibial fixation, femoral tunnel method, lateral meniscal injury, medial meniscal injury, and cartilage injury) and a factor from the primary ACLR (activity at injury) as covariates. RESULTS: A total of 1747 rACLR procedures were included. The crude cumulative rrACLR incidence at 8-year follow-up was 13.9% for allograft and 6.0% for autograft. Cumulative ipsilateral reoperation incidence at 8-year follow-up was 18.3% for allograft and 18.9% for autograft; contralateral reoperation cumulative incidence was 4.3% for allograft and 6.8% for autograft. With adjustment for covariates, a 70% lower risk for rrACLR was observed for autograft compared with allograft (hazard ratio [HR], 0.30; 95% CI, 0.18-0.50; P < .0001). No differences were observed for ipsilateral reoperation (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.73-1.51; P = .78) or contralateral reoperation (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.60-2.97; P = .48). CONCLUSION: The use of autograft at rACLR was associated with a 70% lower risk of rrACLR compared with allograft in this cohort from the Kaiser Permanente ACLR registry. When accounting for all reoperations outside of rrACLR after rACLR, the authors found no significant difference in risk between autograft and allograft. To minimize the risk of rrACLR, surgeons should consider using autograft for rACLR when possible.

An Interrupted Time Series Analysis Measuring the Impact of Research and Education on Clinical Practice: Decreasing Allograft Use in Young Patients Using a Registry to Track Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: We sought to evaluate whether allograft utilization for primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) within our health-care system changed following the implementation of an allograft reduction intervention and whether revision rates within the health-care system changed following the initiation of the intervention. METHODS: We conducted an interrupted time series study using data from Kaiser Permanente's ACL Reconstruction Registry. In our study, we identified 11,808 patients who were ≤21 years of age and underwent primary ACLR from January 1, 2007, through December 31, 2017. The pre-intervention period (15 quarters) was January 1, 2007, through September 30, 2010, and the post-intervention period (29 quarters) was October 1, 2010, through December 31, 2017. Poisson regression was used to evaluate trends over time in 2-year revision rates according to the quarter in which the primary ACLR was performed. RESULTS: Allograft utilization increased pre-intervention from 21.0% in 2007 Q1 to 24.8% in 2010 Q3. Utilization decreased post-intervention from 29.7% in 2010 Q4 to 2.4% in 2017 Q4. The quarterly 2-year revision rate increased from 3.0 to 7.4 revisions per 100 ACLRs pre-intervention and decreased to 4.1 revisions per 100 ACLRs by the end of the post-intervention period. Poisson regression found an increasing 2-year revision rate over time pre-intervention (rate ratio [RR], 1.03 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.00 to 1.06] per quarter) and a decreasing rate over time post-intervention (RR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.92 to 0.99]). CONCLUSIONS: In our health-care system, we saw a decrease in allograft utilization following the implementation of an allograft reduction program. During the same period, a decrease in the ACLR revision rate was observed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Temporal Trends in Deep Surgical Site Infections After Six Orthopaedic Procedures Over a 12-year Period Within a US-based Healthcare System.

INTRODUCTION: Centers of excellence and bundled payment models have driven perioperative optimization and surgical site infection (SSI) prevention with decolonization protocols and antibiotic prophylaxis strategies. We sought to evaluate time trends in the incidence of deep SSI and its causative organisms after six orthopaedic procedures in a US-based integrated healthcare system. METHODS: We conducted a population-level time-trend study using data from Kaiser Permanente's orthopaedic registries. All patients who underwent primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), elective total hip arthroplasty (THA), hip fracture repair, shoulder arthroplasty, and spine surgery were identified (2009 to 2020). The annual incidence of 90-day deep SSI was identified according to the National Healthcare Safety Network/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines with manual chart validation for identified infections. Poisson regression was used to evaluate annual trends in SSI incidence with surgical year as the exposure of interest. Annual trends in overall incidence and organism-specific incidence were considered. RESULTS: The final study sample was composed of 465,797 primary orthopaedic procedures. Over the 12-year study period, a decreasing trend in deep SSI was observed for ACLR and hip fracture repair. Although there was variation in incidence rates for specific operative years for TKA, elective THA, shoulder arthroplasty, and spine surgery, no consistent decreasing trends over time were found. Decreasing rates of Staphylococcus aureus infections over time after hip fracture repair, shoulder arthroplasty, and spine surgery and decreasing trends in antibiotic resistance after elective THA and spine surgery were also observed. Increasing trends of polymicrobial infections were observed after TKA and Cutibacterium acnes after elective THA. CONCLUSIONS: The overall incidence of deep SSI after six orthopaedic procedures was rare. Decreasing SSI rates were observed for ACLR and hip fracture repair within our US-based healthcare system. Polymicrobial infections after TKA and Cutibacterium acnes after elective THA warrant closer surveillance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Association Between Anteromedial Portal Versus Tibial Tunnel Drilling and Meniscal Reoperation Risk Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) provides functional stability to an injured knee. While multiple techniques can be used to drill the femoral tunnel during ACLR, a single technique has yet to be proven as clinically superior. One marker of postoperative functional stability is subsequent meniscal tears; a lower risk of subsequent meniscal surgery could be expected with improved knee stability. PURPOSE: To determine if there is a meniscal protective effect when using an anteromedial portal (AMP) femoral tunnel drilling technique versus transtibial (TT) drilling. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Data from Kaiser Permanente's ACLR registry were used to identify patients who had a primary isolated ACLR between 2009 and 2018; those with previous surgery in the index knee and meniscal pathology at the time of ACLR were excluded. The exposure of interest was TT (n = 2711) versus AMP (n = 5172) drilling. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression was used to evaluate the risk of a subsequent ipsilateral meniscal reoperation with adjustment for age, sex, femoral fixation, and graft choice. We observed a shift in surgeon practice from the TT to AMP over the study time frame; therefore, the relationship between technique and surgeon experience on meniscal reoperation was evaluated using an interaction term in the model. RESULTS: At the 9-year follow-up, the crude cumulative meniscal reoperation probability for AMP procedures was 7.76%, while for TT it was 5.88%. After adjustment for covariates, we observed a higher risk for meniscal reoperation with AMP compared with TT (hazard ratio [HR], 1.53; 95% CI, 1.05-2.23). When stratifying by surgeon experience, this adverse association was observed for patients who had their procedure performed by surgeons with less AMP experience (no previous AMP ACLR: HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.84-1.91) while a protective association was observed for patients who had their procedure with more experienced surgeons (40 previous AMP ACLRs: HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.13-0.92). CONCLUSION: Drilling the femoral tunnel via the AMP was associated with a higher risk of subsequent meniscal surgery compared with TT drilling. However, when AMP drilling was used by surgeons experienced with the technique, a meniscal protective effect was observed.

Acute and subacute anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions are associated with a higher risk of revision and reoperation.

PURPOSE: (1) Report concomitant cartilage and meniscal injury at the time of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), (2) evaluate the risk of aseptic revision ACLR during follow-up, and (3) evaluate the risk of aseptic ipsilateral reoperation during follow-up. METHODS: Using a United States integrated healthcare system's ACLR registry, patients who underwent primary isolated ACLR were identified (2010-2018). Multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression was used to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision, with a secondary outcome evaluating ipsilateral aseptic reoperation. Outcomes were evaluated by time from injury to ACLR: acute (< 3 weeks), subacute (3 weeks-3 months), delayed (3-9 months), and chronic (≥ 9 months). RESULTS: The final sample included 270 acute (< 3 weeks), 5971 subacute (3 weeks-3 months), 5959 delayed (3-9 months), and 3595 chronic (≥ 9 months) ACLR. Medial meniscus [55.4% (1990/3595 chronic) vs 38.9% (105/270 acute)] and chondral injuries [40.0% (1437/3595 chronic) vs 24.8% (67/270 acute)] at the time of ACLR were more common in the chronic versus acute groups. The crude 6-year revision rate was 12.9% for acute ACLR, 7.0% for subacute, 5.1% for delayed, and 4.4% for chronic ACLR; reoperation rates a 6-year follow-up was 15.0% for acute ACLR, 9.6% for subacute, 6.4% for delayed, and 8.1% for chronic ACLR. After adjustment for covariates, acute and subacute ACLR had higher risks for aseptic revision (acute HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.07-2.72, p = 0.026; subacute HR 1.25, 95% CI 1.01-1.55, p = 0.040) and aseptic reoperation (acute HR 2.04, 95% CI 1.43-2.91, p < 0.001; subacute HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.11-1.54, p = 0.002) when compared to chronic ACLR. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort study, while more meniscal and chondral injuries were reported for ACLR performed ≥ 9 months after the date of injury, a lower risk of revision and reoperation was observed following chronic ACLR relative to patients undergoing surgery in acute or subacute fashions.

Optimizing anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: Individualizing the decision-making process using data from the Kaiser Permanente ACLR Registry: 2018 OREF award paper.

Despite years of study, controversy remains regarding the optimal graft for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), suggesting that a single graft type is not ideal for all patients. A large community based ACLR Registry that collects prospective data is a powerful tool that captures information and can be analyzed to optimize surgery for individual patients. The studies highlighted in this paper were designed to optimize and individualize ACLR surgery and have led to changes in surgeon behavior and improvements in patient outcomes. Kaiser Permanente (KP) is an integrated health care system with 10.6 million members and more than 50 hospitals. Every KP member who undergoes an ACLR is entered into the Registry, and prospectively monitored. The Registry uses a variety of feedback mechanisms to disseminate Registry findings to the ACLRR surgeons and appropriately influence clinical practices and enhance quality of care. Allografts were found to have a 3.0 times higher risk of revision than bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autografts. Allograft irradiation >1.8 Mrad, chemical graft processing, younger patients, BPTB allograft, and male patients were all associated with a higher risk of revision surgery. By providing feedback to surgeons, overall allograft use has decreased by 27% and allograft use in high-risk patients ≤21 years of age decreased 68%. We have identified factors that influence the outcomes of ACLR. Statement of Clinical Significance: We found that information derived from an ACLR Registry and shared with the participating surgeons directly decreased the use of specific procedures and implants associated with poor outcomes.

Clinical Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury: Panther Symposium ACL Injury Clinical Outcomes Consensus Group.

A stringent outcome assessment is a key aspect of establishing evidence-based clinical guidelines for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury treatment. To establish a standardized assessment of clinical outcome after ACL treatment, a consensus meeting including a multidisciplinary group of ACL experts was held at the ACL Consensus Meeting Panther Symposium, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, in June 2019. The aim was to establish a consensus on what data should be reported when conducting an ACL outcome study, what specific outcome measurements should be used, and at what follow-up time those outcomes should be assessed. The group reached consensus on 9 statements by using a modified Delphi method. In general, outcomes after ACL treatment can be divided into 4 robust categories: early adverse events, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), ACL graft failure/recurrent ligament disruption, and clinical measures of knee function and structure. A comprehensive assessment after ACL treatment should aim to provide a complete overview of the treatment result, optimally including the various aspects of outcome categories. For most research questions, a minimum follow-up of 2 years with an optimal follow-up rate of 80% is necessary to achieve a comprehensive assessment. This should include clinical examination, any sustained reinjuries, validated knee-specific PROs, and health-related quality of life questionnaires. In the midterm to long-term follow-up, the presence of osteoarthritis should be evaluated. This consensus paper provides practical guidelines for how the aforementioned entities of outcomes should be reported and suggests the preferred tools for a reliable and valid assessment of outcome after ACL treatment.

Revision Risk of Soft Tissue Allograft Versus Hybrid Graft After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: When a harvested hamstring autograft is deemed by the surgeon to be of inadequate diameter, the options include using the small graft, using another autograft from a different site, augmenting with an allograft (hybrid graft), using a different configuration of the graft (eg, 5- or 6-stranded), or abandoning the autograft and using allograft alone. A small graft diameter is associated with a higher revision risk, and using another autograft site includes added harvest-site morbidity; therefore, use of a hybrid graft or an allograft alone may be appealing alternative options. Revision risk for hybrid graft compared with soft tissue allograft is not known. PURPOSE: To evaluate the risk for aseptic revision surgery after primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using a soft tissue allograft compared with ACLR using a hybrid graft in patients 25 years and younger. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Data from a health care system's ACLR registry were used to identify primary isolated unilateral ACLRs between 2009 and 2016 using either a hybrid graft (hamstring autograft with soft tissue allograft) or a soft tissue allograft alone. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to evaluate risk for aseptic revision after ACLR according to graft used after adjustment for age, allograft processing, tunnel drilling technique, and region where the primary ACLR was performed. RESULTS: The cohort included 2080 ACLR procedures; a hybrid graft was used for 479 (23.0%) ACLRs. Median follow-up time was 3.4 years (interquartile range, 1.8-5.1 years). The crude 2-year aseptic revision probability was 5.4% (95% CI, 4.3%-6.7%) for soft tissue allograft ACLR and 3.8% (95% CI, 2.3%-6.4%) for hybrid graft ACLR. After adjustment for covariates, soft tissue allograft ACLR had a higher risk of aseptic revision during follow-up compared with hybrid graft ACLR (hazard ratio, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.21-3.31; P = .007). CONCLUSION: Soft tissue allografts had a 2-fold higher risk of aseptic revision compared with hybrid graft after ACLR. Future studies evaluating the indications for using hybrid grafts and the optimal hybrid graft diameter is needed.

Screw and Sheath Tibial Fixation Associated With a Higher Likelihood of Deep Infection After Hamstring Graft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Hamstring autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions (ACLRs) have exhibited higher infection rates compared with bone-patellar tendon-bone (BPTB) autograft. The reason for this observed difference is unclear, warranting investigation. PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between tibial fixation, either with or without a sheath and screw construct, and the risk of deep infection after hamstring autograft ACLR, using BPTB autograft as a reference group for comparison. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Using the Kaiser Permanente ACLR Registry, we identified all primary isolated, unilateral, single-bundle ACLRs with a BPTB or hamstring autograft (January 1, 2008, to September 30, 2016). The exposure groups included the following: (1) BPTB ACLR, (2) hamstring ACLR using a screw and sheath construct for tibial fixation (HS with screw and sheath), and (3) hamstring ACLR using a method other than a screw and sheath construct for tibial fixation (HS without screw and sheath). We used logistic regression to evaluate the likelihood of 90-day postoperative deep infection using BPTB autograft as the reference group and adjusting for age, sex, and body mass index. The number needed to be exposed (NNE) was calculated. RESULTS: Of 15,671 ACLRs, 6745 (43.0%) used a BPTB graft, 2852 (18.2%) used HS with screw and sheath tibial fixation, and 6074 (38.8%) used HS without screw and sheath tibial fixation. There were 38 (0.2%) 90-day deep infections: 11 (0.2%) for BPTB, 14 (0.5%) for HS with screw and sheath, and 13 (0.2%) for HS without screw and sheath. Staphylococcus aureus for the BPTB group and Staphylococcus epidermidis in both hamstring groups were the most common infecting organisms. HS with screw and sheath had a higher likelihood of 90-day deep infection compared with BPTB ACLR (odds ratio [OR], 2.87; 95% CI, 1.29-6.38). We failed to observe a difference for HS without screw and sheath compared with BPTB ACLR (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 0.54-2.77). The NNE was 330 and 2701 for HS with and HS without screw and sheath, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although the overall infection rate after ACLR is low, the higher likelihood of infections when sheath and screw combined are used for tibial fixation of a hamstring autograft ACLR should be a consideration when this procedure is performed.

The Association Between Tibial Slope and Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Patients ≤21 Years Old: A Matched Case-Control Study Including 317 Revisions.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that tibial slope may play a role in revision risk after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR); however, prior studies are inconsistent. PURPOSE: To determine (1) whether there is a difference in lateral tibial posterior slope (LTPS) or medial tibial posterior slope (MTPS) between patients undergoing revised ACLR and those not requiring revision and (2) whether the medial-to-lateral slope difference is different between these 2 groups. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: We conducted a matched case-control study (2006-2015). Cases were patients aged ≤21 years who underwent revision surgery after primary unilateral ACLR; controls were patients aged ≤21 years without revision who were identified from the same source population. Controls were matched to cases by age, sex, body mass index, race, graft type, femoral fixation device, and post-ACLR follow-up time. Tibial slope measurements were made by a single blinded reviewer using magnetic resonance imaging. The Wilcoxon signed rank test and McNemar test were used for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. RESULTS: No difference was observed between revised and nonrevised ACLR groups for LTPS (median: 6° vs 6°, P = .973) or MTPS (median: 4° vs 5°, P = .281). Furthermore, no difference was found for medial-to-lateral slope difference (median: -1 vs -1, P = .289). A greater proportion of patients with revised ACLR had an LTPS ≥12° (7.6% vs 3.8%) and ≥13° (4.7% vs 1.3%); however, this was not statistically significant after accounting for multiple testing. CONCLUSION: We failed to observe an association between revision ACLR surgery and LTPS, MTPS, or medial-to-lateral slope difference. However, there was a greater proportion of patients in the revision ACLR group with an LTPS ≥12°, suggesting that a minority of patients who have more extreme values of LTPS have a higher revision risk after primary ACLR. A future cohort study evaluating the angle that best differentiates patients at highest risk for revision is needed.

The Association Between Race/Ethnicity and Revision Following ACL Reconstruction in a Universally Insured Cohort.

BACKGROUND: There have been few large studies involving multiethnic cohorts of patients treated with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), and therefore, little is known about the role that race/ethnicity may play in the differential risk of undergoing revision surgery following primary ACLR. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether differences exist by race/ethnicity in the risk of undergoing the elective procedure of aseptic revision in a universally insured cohort of patients who had undergone ACLR. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted using our integrated health-care system's ACLR registry and including primary ACLRs from 2008 to 2015. Race/ethnicity was categorized into the following 4 groups: non-Hispanic white, black, Hispanic, and Asian. Multivariable Cox proportional-hazard models were used to evaluate the association between race/ethnicity and revision risk while adjusting for age, sex, highest educational attainment, annual household income, graft type, and geographic region in which the ACLR was performed. RESULTS: Of the 27,258 included patients,13,567 (49.8%) were white, 7,713 (28.3%) were Hispanic, 3,725 (13.7%) were Asian, and 2,253 (8.3%) were black. Asian patients (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.57 to 0.90) and Hispanic patients (HR = 0.83; 95% CI = 0.70 to 0.98) had a lower risk of undergoing revision surgery than did white patients. Within the first 3.5 years postoperatively, we did not observe a difference in revision risk when black patients were compared with white patients (HR = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.14); after 3.5 years postoperatively, black patients had a lower risk of undergoing revision (HR = 0.23; 95% CI = 0.08 to 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: In a large, universally insured ACLR cohort with equal access to care, we observed Asian, Hispanic, and black patients to have a similar or lower risk of undergoing elective revision compared with white patients. These findings emphasize the need for additional investigation into barriers to equal access to care. Because of the sensitivity and complexity of race/ethnicity with surgical outcomes, continued assessment into the reasons for the differences observed, as well as any differences in other clinical outcomes, is warranted. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Risk Factors for Opioid Use After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The misuse of opioid medications has contributed to a significant national crisis affecting public health as well as patient morbidity and medical costs. After orthopaedic surgical procedures, patients may require prescription (Rx) opioid medication, which can fuel the opioid epidemic. Opioid Rx usage after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is not well characterized. PURPOSE: To determine baseline utilization of Rx opioids in patients undergoing ACLR and examine demographic, patient, and surgical factors associated with greater and prolonged postoperative opioid utilization. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Primary elective ACLRs were identified using Kaiser Permanente's ACLR registry (2005-2015). We studied the association of perioperative risk factors on the number of dispensed opioid Rx in the early (0-90 days) and late (91-360 days) postoperative recovery periods using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 21,202 ACLRs, 25.5% used at least 1 opioid Rx in the 1-year preoperative period; 17.7% and 2.7% used ≥2 opioid Rx in the early and late recovery periods, respectively. Risk factors associated with greater opioid Rx in both the early and the late periods included the following: ≥2 preoperative opioid Rx, age ≥20 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification ≥3, other activity at the time of injury, chondroplasty, chronic pulmonary disease, and substance abuse. Risk factors associated with opioid Rx use during the early period only included the following: other race, acute injury, meniscal injury repair, multiligament injury, and dementia/psychosis. Risk factors associated with greater opioid Rx during the late period only included the following: 1 preoperative opioid Rx, female sex, body mass index ≥25 kg/m2, motor vehicle accident as the mechanism of injury, and hypertension. CONCLUSION: A quarter of ACLR patients had at least 1 opioid Rx before the procedure, but usage dropped to 2.7% toward the end of the postoperative year. We identified several perioperative risk factors for greater and prolonged opioid usage after ACLR.

Femoral-tibial fixation affects risk of revision and reoperation after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction using hamstring autograft.

PURPOSE: Newer fixation devices for hamstring (HS) autograft have been introduced over the years, yet the impact of these devices on ACLR outcomes requiring surgical intervention remains unclear. We sought to evaluate the risk of aseptic revision and reoperation after HS autograft ACLR according to various femoral-tibial fixation methods. METHODS: A cohort study was conducted using the Kaiser Permanente ACLR Registry. Primary isolated unilateral ACLR patients who received a HS autograft were identified (2007-2014). Fixation devices were categorized as crosspin, interference, suspensory, or combination (defined as more than one fixation device used on the same side) and femoral-tibial fixation groups used in more than 500 ACLR were evaluated. Cox proportional-hazard regression was used to evaluate the association between femoral-tibial fixation method and outcomes while adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: 6,593 primary ACLR were included. Four femoral-tibial fixation groups had more than 500 ACLR: suspensory-interference (n = 3004, 45.6%), interference-interference (n = 1659, 25.2%), suspensory-combination (n = 1103, 16.7%), and crosspin-interference (n = 827, 12.5%). After adjusting for covariates, revision risk was lower for crosspin-interference (HR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.29-0.65) and interference-interference (HR = 0.63, 95% CI 0.41-0.95) methods compared to the suspensory-interference. In contrast, reoperation risk was higher for crosspin-interference (HR = 2.13, 95% CI 1.37-3.32) and suspensory-combination (HR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.04-2.69) methods compared to suspensory-interference. CONCLUSIONS: ACLR using HS autograft appears to have the lowest risk of aseptic revision when crosspin or interference fixation is used on the femoral side and is coupled with an interference screw on the tibial side. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Femoral Tunnel Drilling Method: Risk of Reoperation and Revision After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The femoral tunnel in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) can be created by the transtibial (TT) or tibial-independent (TI) methods. An anatomically located femoral tunnel can be more consistently achieved by TI methods, which include the anteromedial portal and lateral (outside-in, retrodrill) techniques. Nonanatomic graft placement in ACLR can result in postoperative instability and meniscal or chondral injury. An anatomically located graft is subjected to higher postoperative physiologic forces than one placed nonanatomically. PURPOSE: To examine isolated primary ACLR and determine the risk of aseptic revision and reoperation based on femoral tunnel drilling method. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: The ACLR registry of an integrated US health care system was used to identify primary isolated unilateral ACLRs from 2009 to 2014. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to evaluate risk for aseptic revision for graft failure and aseptic reoperation for meniscal or chondral injury according to femoral tunnel drilling method: TI versus TT. Models included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), race, graft type, and femoral fixation type as covariates. RESULTS: The cohort included 19,059 patients with primary ACLR. The mean age was 28.9 years (SD, 11.5), 6991 patients (36.8%) were younger than 22 years, 11,795 patients (61.9%) were male, 7648 patients (40.1%) had a BMI less than 25 kg/m2, 8913 patients (46.8%) were white, and 7357 patients (38.6%) received an allograft. Median follow-up was 2.30 years (interquartile range, 1.08-3.77). TI techniques were used for 12,342 (64.8%) of the ACLRs, and the TT method was used for 6717 (35.2%). Use of TI techniques increased from 33.6% of all ACLRs in 2009 to 83.4% in 2014. After adjustment for covariates, the TI group had a higher risk for aseptic revision than the TT group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.04-1.56), and this risk was 1.41 times higher in patients younger than 22 years specifically. The 5-year cumulative reoperation probability was lower in the TI group (4.50%; 95% CI, 3.78%-5.36%) compared with the TT group (5.06%; 95% CI, 4.31-5.94%). After adjustment for the covariates, no difference in risk for aseptic reoperation was observed (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.85-1.39). CONCLUSION: In the largest known study of its type examining femoral tunnel drilling method for primary ACLR, after adjustment for age, sex, BMI, race, graft type, and femoral fixation, TI techniques were found to carry higher risk of aseptic revision compared with the TT method, while no difference was observed in risk for aseptic reoperation.

Is Anesthesia Technique Associated With a Higher Risk of Mortality or Complications Within 90 Days of Surgery for Geriatric Patients With Hip Fractures?

BACKGROUND: Postoperative mortality and complications after geriatric hip fracture surgery remain high despite efforts to improve perioperative care for these patients. One factor of particular interest is anesthetic technique, but prior studies on this are limited by sample selection, competing risks, and incomplete followup. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Among older patients undergoing surgery for hip fracture, does 90-day mortality differ depending on the type of anesthesia received? (2) Do 90-day emergency department returns and hospital readmissions differ based on anesthetic technique after geriatric hip fracture repairs? (3) Do 90-day Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) outcomes differ according to anesthetic techniques used during hip fracture surgery? METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study on geriatric patients (65 years or older) with hip fractures between 2009 and 2014 using the Kaiser Permanente Hip Fracture Registry. A total of 1995 (11%) of the surgically treated patients with hip fracture were excluded as a result of missing anesthesia information. The final study sample consisted of 16,695 patients. Of these, 2027 (12%) died and 98 (< 1%) terminated membership during followup, which were handled as competing events and censoring events, respectively. Ninety-day mortality, emergency department returns, hospital readmission, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), myocardial infarction (MI), and pneumonia were evaluated using multivariable competing risk proportional subdistribution hazard regression according to type of anesthesia technique: general anesthesia, regional anesthesia, or conversion from regional to general. Of the 16,695 patients, 58% (N = 9629) received general anesthesia, 40% (N = 6597) received regional anesthesia, and 2.8% (N = 469) patients were converted from regional to general. RESULTS: Compared with regional anesthesia, patients treated with general anesthesia had a higher likelihood of overall 90-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.35; p < 0.001); however, when stratified by before and after hospital discharge but within 90 days of surgery, this higher risk was only observed during the inpatient stay (HR, 3.83; 95% CI, 3.18-4.61; p < 0.001); no difference was observed after hospital discharge (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.94-1.16; p = 0.408). Patients undergoing conversion from regional to general also had a higher overall mortality risk compared with those undergoing regional anesthesia (HR, 1.34; 95% CI 1.04-1.74; p = 0.026), but this risk was only observed during their inpatient stay (HR, 6.84; 95% CI, 4.21-11.11; p < 0.001) when stratifying by before and after hospital discharge. Patients undergoing general anesthesia had a higher risk for all-cause readmission when compared with regional anesthesia (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.01-1.19; p = 0.026). No differences according to anesthesia type were observed for risk of 90-day AHRQ outcomes, including DVT/PE, MI, and pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: We found the use of general anesthesia and conversion from regional to general anesthesia were associated with a higher risk of mortality during the in-hospital stay compared with regional anesthetic techniques, but this higher risk did not persist after hospital discharge. We also found general anesthesia to be associated with a higher risk of all-cause readmission compared with regional, but no other differences were observed in risk for complications. Our findings suggest regional anesthetic techniques may be preferred when possible in this patient population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.