Safety of Anteromedial Portals in Elbow Arthroscopy: A Systematic Review of Cadaveric Studies.

PURPOSE: To systematically review available literature comparing location and safety of 2 common anteromedial portals with nearby neurovascular structures in cadaveric models and to determine the correct positioning and preparation of the joint before elbow arthroscopy. METHODS: The review was devised in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Inclusion criteria consisted of original, cadaveric studies performed by experienced surgeons on male or female elbows evaluating anteromedial portal placement with regard to proximity of the arthroscope to neurovascular structures. Exclusion criteria consisted of case reports, clinical series, non-English language studies, and noncadaveric studies. Statistical analysis was done to measure reviewer reliability after scoring of each study. RESULTS: During screening, 2,596 studies were identified, and 10 studies met final inclusion as original, cadaveric investigations of anteromedial portal proximity to neurovascular structures. The difference in distance between proximal and distal portals was <1 mm for the brachial artery and <1.5 mm for the medial antebrachial cutaneous nerve, whereas the ulnar nerve was 4.17 mm further from the distal portal and the median nerve was 5.07 mm further from the proximal portal. Joint distension increased the distances of neurovascular structures to portal sites, with the exception of the ulnar nerve in distal portals. Elbow flexion to 90° increased distances of all neurovascular structures to portal sites. CONCLUSION: The results show that the proximal anteromedial portal puts fewer structures at risk compared with the distal portal. Elbows in 90° flexion with joint distension carry a lower risk for neurovascular injury during portal placement. These findings suggest the proximal anteromedial portal to be the safer technique in anteromedial arthroscopy of the elbow. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Discrepancies in placement of portals have existed in the literature, indicating differing safety margins regarding surrounding neurovascular anatomy. The present study aims to link together the literature-based evidence to describe the safest anteromedial portal variation.

Outcomes of hip arthroscopy in patients aged 50 years or older compared with a matched-pair control of patients aged 30 years or younger.

PURPOSE: Age has been suggested as a negative prognostic factor for hip arthroscopy. The purpose of this study was to compare patient characteristics and outcomes after hip arthroscopy in patients aged 50 years or older with a matched control group of patients aged 30 years or younger at a minimum postoperative follow-up of 2 years. METHODS: Between September 2008 and March 2010, data were prospectively collected on all patients aged 50 years or older undergoing primary hip arthroscopy. Fifty-two patients met our inclusion and matching criteria, of whom all 52 (100%) were available for follow-up at a minimum of 2 years. This cohort was compared with a matched-pair control group of patients aged 30 years or younger who underwent similar procedures. RESULTS: The mean age of the study group was 54.8 years (range, 50 to 69 years), and that of the control group was 20.3 years (range, 13 to 30 years). The groups were matched at a 1:1 ratio, including 18 male patients (34.6%) and 34 female patients (65.4%) in each group, with a mean follow-up period of 32 months (range, 24 to 54 months). In the younger control group, the score improvement from preoperatively to 2 years' follow-up was 62.9 to 84.2 for the modified Harris Hip Score, 60.5 to 84.2 for the Non-Arthritic Hip Score, 63.1 to 86.5 for the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, and 42.2 to 72.7 for the Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale. In the older study group, the score improvement from preoperatively to 2 years' follow-up was 61.2 to 82.2 for the modified Harris Hip Score, 59.9 to 80.4 for the Non-Arthritic Hip Score, 63.9 to 83 for the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living, and 41.2 to 64.6 for the Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale. All improvements in both groups were statistically significant at the 2-year postoperative follow-up (P < .001). There was no significant difference for all patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores at final follow-up between both groups. When we compared the change in PRO scores (Δ) from preoperatively to 2 years postoperatively, there was no significant difference between both groups. The overall survivorship rate was 98.1% for the younger control group and 82.7% for the older study group. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors aged 50 years or older show similar improvement to patients aged 30 years or younger in PRO and patient satisfaction scores. The 2-year survivorship rate was 98.1% for the younger control group and 82.7% for the older study group. Therefore we believe that hip arthroscopy should be considered a valid treatment option when treating hip pain in patients aged 50 years or older with a Tönnis arthritic grade of 0 or 1. Older patients should be counseled on the possibility of later conversion to total hip arthroplasty. Future work may include development of a decision-making tool to assess for prognosis to better delineate the indications for hip arthroscopy in the older population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic case-control study.

Influence of capsular repair versus unrepaired capsulotomy on 2-year clinical outcomes after arthroscopic hip preservation surgery.

PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to determine whether capsular management technique influences clinical outcomes at a minimum of 2 years after arthroscopic hip preservation surgery. METHODS: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was conducted to determine the relative influence of 2 capsular management strategies on clinical outcomes: unrepaired capsulotomy (group A) and capsular repair (group B). Four hundred three patients who had undergone arthroscopic hip preservation surgery met the inclusion criteria and had 2-year outcome data available. All patients completed 4 patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires preoperatively and at a minimum of 2 years' follow-up. These included the Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) and Hip Outcome Score-Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS) subsets, Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), and modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS). RESULTS: Group A included 235 patients and group B, 168. The mean age of all patients at final follow-up was 36.9 years. Patients in group A were significantly older (42.3 years v 29.4 years, P < .0001) and had a significantly higher body mass index (26.8 kg/m(2)v 22.9 kg/m(2), P < .0001) compared with group B. In addition, female patients were more likely than male patients to undergo capsular repair (136 female patients v 32 male patients, P < .0001). Patients in group A also showed greater chondral damage by acetabular labrum articular disruption classification (P = .0081) and reduced preoperative PROs (HOS-ADL of 60.5 v 66.0, P = .087; HOS-SSS of 37.0 v 46.4, P = .0002; NAHS of 54.6 v 62.2, P < .0001; mHHS of 58.7 v 64.4, P = .0009; and visual analog scale score of 6.3 v 5.84, P = .028). All PROs showed statistically significant improvements for both groups at a minimum follow-up of 2 years (HOS-ADL, 60.5 to 82.2 in group A and 66 to 86.1 in group B; HOS-SSS, 36.9 to 67.3 and 46.4 to 71.2, respectively; NAHS, 54.6 to 79 and 62.2 to 82.8, respectively; visual analog scale score, 6.3 to 3.1 and 5.8 to 2.9, respectively; and mHHS, 58.7 to 81 and 64.4 to 83.8, respectively; P < .0001 for all differences). Furthermore, group B showed greater overall improvements than group A for the HOS-ADL (P = .03) and NAHS (P = .03) on uncorrected univariate analysis, but significance was lost once we controlled for confounding variables. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic capsular repair, used in conjunction with arthroscopic hip preservation surgery, appears to be safe and did not negatively influence clinical outcomes in this study. When confounding variables were controlled for, the use of capsular repair did not show clinically relevant superiority over the use of unrepaired capsulotomy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Sensitivity of systemic inflammatory response syndrome for critical illness among ED patients.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the diagnostic accuracy of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria for critical illness among emergency department (ED) patients with and without infection. Our objective was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of SIRS criteria for critical illness in ED patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of ED patients at an urban academic hospital. Standardized chart abstraction was performed on a random sample of all adult ED medical patients admitted to the hospital during a 1-year period, excluding repeat visits, transfers, ED deaths, and primary surgical or psychiatric admissions. The binary composite outcome of critical illness was defined as 24 hours or longer in intensive care or inhospital death. Presumed infection was defined as receiving antibiotics within 48 hours of admission. Systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria were calculated using ED triage vital signs and initial white blood cell count. RESULTS: We studied 1152 patients; 39% had SIRS, 27% had presumed infection, and 23% had critical illness (2% had inhospital mortality, and 22% had ≥24 hours in intensive care). Of patients with SIRS, 38% had presumed infection. Of patients without SIRS, 21% had presumed infection. The sensitivity of SIRS criteria for critical illness was 52% (95% confidence interval [CI], 46%-58%) in all patients, 66% (95% CI, 56%-75%) in patients with presumed infection, and 43% (95% CI, 36%-51%) in patients without presumed infection. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic inflammatory response syndrome at ED triage, as currently defined, has poor sensitivity for critical illness in medical patients admitted from the ED.

Complications after Nonoperative Management of Hamate Fractures.

Hamate fractures are an infrequent injury and are often missed or have a delayed diagnosis with potential for significant patient morbidity. There is a relative paucity in the literature involving large population studies of hamate fractures and subsequent complications. Gaining a better understanding of complications associated with nonoperative management will help guide the decision for operative intervention. Methods: The PearlDiver patient records database was used to query for patients who sustained a hamate fracture using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes. Postinjury complications within 1 year of diagnosis were assessed using ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes for diagnoses of complications. Results: A total of 1120 patients who sustained a hamate hook or body fracture met inclusion and exclusion criteria and were included in the study. Patients who were managed nonoperatively showed a nonunion rate of 2%, ulnar neuropathy rate of 1.7%, and tendon rupture rate of 0.2%. In a subanalysis using only ICD-10 codes to distinguish between hook and body fractures, hook fractures demonstrated a nonunion rate of 2.2%, ulnar neuropathy rate of 2.7%, and tendon rupture rate of 0%, while body fractures had a nonunion rate of 1.2%, ulnar neuropathy rate of 1%, and tendon rupture rate of 0%. Conclusion: The current study shows very low rates of nonunion, ulnar neuropathy and tendon rupture after nonoperative management of hamate fractures.

Advanced elbow arthroscopy: Tips and tricks.

Elbow arthroscopy can be a challenge, however, indications and benefits compared to open elbow surgery are rapidly evolving. The elbow has seemed to lag behind other joints including the knee, shoulder, ankle and the hip, both in number of cases and in widespread acceptance, as a joint amenable to arthroscopic management. This has occurred despite literature demonstrating successful utilization of arthroscopy in the management of a variety of injuries. The purpose of this review is to clarify and expand the indications for arthroscopy of the elbow in 2021. We will also offer tips and tricks to help make elbow arthroscopy more successful. Since originally publishing these guidelines in 2007, elbow arthroscopy has evolved, although the principles and progressions remain the same.

Blood Flow Restriction Training for Athletes: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Blood flow restriction (BFR) is a novel technique involving the use of a cuff/tourniquet system positioned around the proximal end of an extremity to maintain arterial flow while restricting venous return. PURPOSE: To analyze the available literature regarding the use of BFR to supplement traditional resistance training in healthy athletes. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: A systematic review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. From November to December 2018, studies that examined the effects of BFR training in athletes were identified using PubMed and OVID Medline. Reference lists from selected articles were analyzed for additional studies. The inclusion criteria for full article review were randomized studies with control groups that implemented BFR training into athletes' resistance training workouts. Case reports and review studies were excluded. The following data were extracted: patient demographics, study design, training protocol, occlusive cuff location/pressure, maximum strength improvements, muscle size measurements, markers of sports performance (eg, sprint time, agility tests, and jump measurements), and other study-specific markers (eg, electromyography, muscular torque, and muscular endurance). RESULTS: The initial search identified 237 articles. After removal of duplicates and screening of titles, abstracts, and full articles, 10 studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. Seven of 9 (78%) studies found a significant increase in strength associated with use of BFR training as compared with control; 4 of 8 (50%) noted significant increases in muscle size associated with BFR training; and 3 of 4 (75%) reported significant improvements in sport-specific measurements in the groups that used BFR training. Occlusive cuff pressure varied across studies, from 110 to 240 mm HG. CONCLUSION: The literature appears to support that BFR can lead to improvements in strength, muscle size, and markers of sports performance in healthy athletes. Combining traditional resistance training with BFR may allow athletes to maximize athletic performance and remain in good health. Additional studies should be conducted to find an optimal occlusive pressure to maximize training improvements. REGISTRATION: CRD42019118025 (PROSPERO).

Hand Infections Associated with Systemic Conditions.

Systemic conditions are associated with higher rates of hand and upper extremity infections, leading to more severe and atypical presentations. Understanding the unique problems associated with some of the most common systemic conditions, including human immunodeficiency virus, diabetes mellitus, and rheumatoid arthritis, can assist the hand surgeon in diagnosing and treating infection in these patients. This article reviews the most common presentation of hand infections for these patients and summarizes current approaches to the management of hand infections for patients with common immunocompromising conditions.

Platelet-Rich Plasma Is an Equal Alternative to Surgery in the Treatment of Type 1 Medial Epicondylitis.

BACKGROUND: Medial epicondylitis (ME) is characterized as an overuse injury resulting in pathological alterations of the common flexor tendon at the elbow. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has recently become of interest in the treatment of musculoskeletal conditions as an alternative to operative management. PURPOSE: To compare the outcomes of recalcitrant type 1 ME after treatment with either PRP or surgery. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: To compare the 2 methods of treatment, we performed a retrospective review of 33 patients diagnosed with type 1 ME from 2006 to 2016 with a minimum clinical follow-up of 1 year who had failed an initial nonoperative treatment program of injections, medication, topical creams, and/or physical therapy. Overall, 15 patients were treated with a series of 2 leukocyte-rich PRP injections, and 18 patients were treated with surgery. Outcome measures included time to pain-free status, time to full range of motion (ROM), the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and the Oxford Elbow Score (OES). Each patient had at least 1-year follow-up. They were then contacted by telephone to determine final scores at a minimum 2-year follow-up. Unsuccessful outcomes were determined by the Nirschl grading system and failure to reach pain-free status, achieve baseline ROM, or return to previous activity. RESULTS: The mean final follow-up was 3.9 years. A statistically significant improvement was noted in both time to full ROM (42.3 days for PRP vs 96.1 days for surgery; P < .01) and time to pain-free status (56.2 days for PRP vs 108.0 days for surgery; P < .01). Successful outcomes were observed in 80% of patients treated with PRP and 94% of those treated operatively (P = .37). No significant difference was found in return-to-activity rates, overall successful outcomes, MEPS scores, or OES scores. CONCLUSION: In this case series, the use of PRP showed clinically similar outcomes to those of surgery in recalcitrant type 1 ME. PRP can be considered as an alternative to surgery in the treatment of recurrent ME, with an earlier time to full ROM and time to pain-free status compared with surgery.

Lateral Epicondylitis Debridement and Repair Using Knotless Suture Anchor.

Lateral epicondylitis, or tennis elbow, involves degeneration of the extensor carpi radialis brevis tendon and is often self-limiting, with surgery reserved for recalcitrant cases. Surgical management of tennis elbow consists primarily of either debridement alone or debridement with repair. Surgical repair is often performed using either a suture or a suture anchor. Good outcomes have been reported using standard repair methods; however, complications exist. Complications include potential loss of grip strength with debridement alone, as well as soft-tissue irritation caused by a prominent suture or knot stack after suture repair and suture anchor techniques. We describe a technique for debridement and repair of the extensor carpi radialis brevis tendon to the lateral epicondyle of the humerus using a knotless suture anchor, allowing for a watertight anatomic repair, maximum preservation of grip strength, and absence of a knot stack and resultant suture prominence.

Double-Row Repair for Recalcitrant Medial Epicondylitis.

BACKGROUND: Various techniques have been described for surgical treatment of recalcitrant medial epicondylitis (ME). No single technique has yet to be proven the most effective. PURPOSE: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of a double-row repair for ME. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on 31 consecutive patients (33 elbows) treated surgically for ME with a minimum clinical follow-up of 2 years. All patients were initially managed nonoperatively with anti-inflammatories, steroid injections, topical creams, and physical therapy. Outcome measures at final follow-up included visual analog scale (VAS) scores (scale, 0-10), time to completely pain-free state, time to full range of motion (FROM), Mayo Elbow Performance Scores (MEPS), and Oxford Elbow Scores (OES). Patients were contacted by telephone to determine current functional outcomes, pain, activity, functional limitations, and MEPS/OES. Successful and unsuccessful outcomes were determined by the Nirschl grading system. RESULTS: The mean clinical and telephone follow-up periods were 2.3 and 3.6 years, respectively, and 31 of 33 (94%) elbows were found to have a successful outcome. The mean VAS improvement was 4.9 points, from 5.8 preoperatively to 0.9 postoperatively (P < .001). The mean MEPS and OES at final follow-up were 95.1 and 45.3, respectively. The mean time to pain-free state and time to FROM were 87.4 and 96 days, respectively. Unlike prior studies, no difference in outcome was found between those with and without ulnar neuritis preoperatively (P = .67). CONCLUSION: A double-row repair is effective in decreasing pain and improving the overall function for recalcitrant ME. Uniquely, the presence of preoperative ulnar neuritis was associated with higher patient-reported preoperative pain scores but not with poor outcomes using this protocol.

What are the current indications for use of radiofrequency devices in hip arthroscopy? A systematic review.

The role of radiofrequency energy (RFE) devices has been minimally studied in hip arthroscopy. The purpose of this study was to determine the role of RFE devices in hip arthroscopy through a systematic review of the literature. We searched the PubMed database using the following Medical Subject Heading terms: hip arthroscopy, hip radiofrequency, thermal capsulorrhaphy, thermal chondroplasty and radiofrequency debridement. Two authors independently reviewed the literature and included articles based on predetermined inclusion criteria. We excluded review, technique and experimental articles. After title and abstract review, we selected 293 articles for full-text review. Ten articles met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. For the included articles, a total of 305 hips underwent arthroscopy with concomitant RFE treatment at a mean age of 25.7 years. Eight articles presented patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments, one study did not report an outcome instrument but utilized an evaluation of postoperative range of motion (ROM) and 1 year magnetic resonance image (MRI) and computed tomography (CT) imaging. The remaining article measured only the ROM pre- and postoperatively. Only one of the articles reviewed reported complications. Current evidence on the safety and indications for use of RFE devices in hip arthroscopy is insufficient. The literature shows mixed results regarding its use in hip arthroscopy. Although the use of thermal energy is not without risk, if used judiciously and appropriate precautions are taken to avoid damage to adjacent tissues, those devices can be useful for the treatment of certain intra-articular hip pathologies arthroscopically.