Cartilage Restoration of Bipolar Lesions Within the Patellofemoral Joint Delays Need for Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Rates of Failure.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the present review is to systematically review the available literature for failure rates and complications of cartilage restoration of bipolar chondral defects in the patellofemoral (PF) joint to assess the ability to treat these lesions without arthroplasty. METHODS: PubMed and MEDLINE databases were queried between 2000 to 2020 using the keywords "osteochondral" and "knee" and "microfracture," "autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI)," or "transplantation." Patient selection included patients with bipolar chondral lesions of the patellofemoral joint that were treated with cartilage restoration procedures. Treatment of PF joints were reviewed for surgical indications/technique, rates of failure, defect characteristics, and time to failure. For the purposes of this study, failure was defined by each individual author on their respective studies. RESULTS: After screening 1,295 articles, there were 8 publications analyzed quantitatively and 10 articles analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. A total of 249 knees involved bipolar lesions of the patellofemoral joint. The weighted average age was 36.5 ± 10.4 years, and weighted average follow-up was 89.0 ± 31.7 months. There were failures in 0% to 50% of cases, revision procedures in 0% to 10% of cases, conversion to arthroplasty in in 0% to 50% of cases, and unsatisfactory outcome without revision in 0% to 8.3% of cases. The range in average failure rate was 0% to 50.0% (I2 = 68.0%), whereas the range in average time to failure was 2.9 to 6.8 years (I2 = 79.0%). CONCLUSION: From the available data, established cartilage restoration procedures may provide favorable patient-reported function, avoidance of secondary surgery, and joint preservation in at least 80% of patients at short- to mid-term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies.

Cartilage Restoration for Tibiofemoral Bipolar Lesions Results in Promising Failure Rates: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study is to systematically review the available literature for management of bipolar lesions within the tibiofemoral joint and determine whether tibiofemoral cartilage restoration is an effective treatment modality. METHODS: PubMed and MEDLINE databases were queried between 2000 and 2020 using the following keywords: "osteochondral" and "knee" and "microfracture," "autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI)," or "transplantation." Articles were reviewed for the presence of a bipolar or "kissing" tibiofemoral lesion and reported lesion size, concomitant procedures, failure rates, and time to failure. RESULTS: After screening 1,295 articles, there were 4 articles available for analysis and a total of 152 knees involving the management of bipolar tibiofemoral lesions. Age ranged from 14 to 60 years, and mean follow-up was between 12 and 240 months. There was 1 retrospective cohort study (36 knees) and 3 case series (mean, 38.7 ± 17.5 knees). There were 58 knees treated with bipolar osteochondral allograft (OCA) transplantation, 58 knees treated with bipolar ACI, 20 knees treated with femoral OCA and tibial debridement, and 16 knees treated with femoral OCA and tibial microfracture. There were 37 failures (24.3%): 16 patients (10.5%) were converted to unicompartmental or total knee arthroplasty, 4 restorative procedures (2.6%) were revised, and 8 patients (1.6%) had unsatisfactory outcomes only. The remaining 15 failures (9.9%) had an unspecified combination of objective failure. The mean rate of failure ranged between 0% and 44.1% (I 2 = 83.2%). The mean time to failure ranged between 2.7 and 4.1 years (I 2 = 79.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Cartilage restoration, through both ACI and OCA, had failure rates between 0% and 44% in patients with bipolar lesions of the tibiofemoral compartment. Although a higher level of evidence is required to prove efficacy, the current study demonstrates midterm survivorship rates between 55% and 100%, which may delay the need for secondary arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies.

Low Risk of Recurrence After Posterior Labral Repair of the Shoulder in a High-Risk United States Military Population.

PURPOSE: To examine the results of isolated arthroscopic posterior labral repair of the shoulder in an active military population, looking specifically at the reoperation rate and rate of return to previous military activity with a minimum follow-up period of 2 years. METHODS: A retrospective case series was performed in active-duty military service members who underwent isolated, primary arthroscopic posterior labral repair at a single academic military treatment facility between 2009 and 2015 and had at least 2 years of follow-up. Patients were excluded if they were of non-active-duty status, had insufficient follow-up (<2 years), or had undergone a concurrent procedure. Injury presentation, demographic data, and surgical data (i.e., surgical positioning, number of anchors, and anchor placement location) were compiled manually. Outcomes including the rate of return to active duty, recurrence of symptoms, and need for revision surgery were evaluated. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were included. After arthroscopic repair, a high rate of return to previous military duties (83%) was noted at short- to mid-term follow-up (mean ± standard deviation, 3.04 ± 1.30 years), with 1 patient (1.5%) requiring revision arthroscopic repair and 10 patients (15.5%) showing activity-limiting shoulder pain preventing a return to active duty. Intraoperative positioning (P = .17), a low anchor position (P = .27), and the number of anchors used (P = .62) were not found to be significant contributors to continued postoperative pain or recurrent instability. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic intervention resulted in a reliable rate of glenohumeral stability with a low rate of surgical revision and a high rate of return to military duty at short- to mid-term follow-up. However, 1 in 6 military service members showed significant, activity-limiting shoulder pain postoperatively that did not permit a return to previous military activities after surgical intervention. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Improving Responsiveness to Patient Phone Calls: A Pilot Study.

Optimal patient-physician communication in the outpatient clinical setting is critical for safe and effective patient care. Keeping track of multiple patient telephone messages can be difficult and hazardous if a structured system is not in place. A multidisciplinary group at Hershey Medical Center developed a standardized approach for addressing patient telephone calls at their outpatient surgical clinics. This program was designed to improve the patient experience by providing a realistic time frame for phone calls to be returned and requests fulfilled. Additionally, this system permitted phone calls to be tracked and documented appropriately and allowed for prioritization of urgent and emergent messages. Our intent for this program was to close potential gaps within the communication chain at our outpatient surgical clinics, improve overall communication between clinicians and their patients, and improve both patient and employee satisfaction.

Evaluation of Patients' Response Toward Osteoporosis Letter Intervention Versus Phone Call Plus Letter Intervention.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of 2 interventions in prompting patients to obtain osteoporosis follow-up after a fracture. Our hypothesis was that a phone call plus letter would yield greater response toward osteoporosis evaluation versus a letter alone to patients after sustaining a fragility fracture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective study randomized 141 patients age 50 years and older with a fragility fracture into 3 groups for comparison. Group 1 (letter only) patients received a letter 3 months after their diagnosis of fracture indicating their risk for osteoporosis and urging them to follow-up for evaluation. Group 2 (phone call plus letter) patients were contacted via phone 3 months after their diagnosis of fracture. A letter followed the phone call. Group 3 (control) patients were neither contacted via phone nor sent a letter. All groups were contacted via phone 6 months after their initial visit to determine if they followed up for evaluation. RESULTS: In group 1, 23 (52.27%) of 44 had follow-up, and 21 (47.73%) of 44 did not follow-up. In group 2, 30 (62.5%) of 48 had follow-up, and 18 (37.50%) of 48 did not follow-up. In group 3, 6 (12.24%) of 49 had some sort of follow-up, and 43 (87.76%) of 49 did not have any follow-up. A statistical significance was achieved between group 3 (control) and both groups 1 and 2 with regard to follow-up (P < .0001). The results did not show a statistically significant difference between Groups 1 and 2, however, there was a trend toward improved response with a phone call plus letter (P = .321). CONCLUSION: A more personalized approach with a phone call plus follow-up letter to patients increased osteoporosis follow-up care by an additional 10%, however, this was not a statistically significant difference from just sending out a letter alone.