Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE:To systematically review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating various pain control interventions after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) to determine the best-available evidence in managing postoperative pain and to optimize patient outcomes. METHODS:A systematic review of the literature was performed based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. A study was included if it was an RCT evaluating an intervention to reduce postoperative pain acutely after ACLR in one of the following areas: (1) nerve blocks, (2) nerve block adjuncts, (3) intra-articular injections, (4) oral medications, (5) intravenous medications, (6) tranexamic acid, and (7) compressive stockings and cryotherapy. Quantitative and qualitative statistics were carried out, and network meta-analysis was performed where applicable. RESULTS:Overall, 74 RCTs were included. Across 34 studies, nerve blocks were found to significantly reduce postoperative pain and opioid use, but there was no significant difference among the various nerve blocks in the network meta-analysis. Intra-articular injections consisting of bupivacaine and an adjunct were found to reduce reported postoperative pain scores up to 12 hours after ACLR, with significantly lower postoperative opioid use. CONCLUSIONS:Nerve blocks and regional anesthesia are the mainstay treatment of postoperative pain after ACLR, with the commonly used nerve blocks being equally efficacious. Intra-articular injections consisting of bupivacaine and an adjunct were found to reduce reported postoperative pain scores up to 12 hours after ACLR, with significantly lower postoperative opioid use. There was promising evidence for the use of some oral and intravenous medications, tranexamic acid, and nerve block adjuncts, as well as cryotherapy, to control pain and reduce postoperative opioid use. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Level II, systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.

IMPORTANCE/OBJECTIVE:Cadaveric and MRI findings have demonstrated significantly less labral separation and displacement when the shoulder is placed in external rotation as compared with internal rotation. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of the current study is to meta-analyse the randomised controlled trials in the literature to compare immobilisation in external versus internal rotation after first-time anterior shoulder dislocation. EVIDENCE REVIEW/METHODS:A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomised controlled trials comparing immobilisation in external rotation versus internal rotation for first-time anterior shoulder dislocation were included. FINDINGS/RESULTS:Nine randomised controlled trials with 795 patients were included. The mean age of included patients was 29 years, 82.4% were male and the mean follow-up was 25.5 months. As compared with immobilisation in internal rotation, compliance was significantly higher (74.5% vs 67.4%, p=0.01), and the rate of recurrent dislocations was significantly lower (22.2% vs 33.4%, p=0.02) with immobilisation in external rotation. Additionally, in patients 20-40 years old the rate of recurrent dislocations was significantly lower in those treated with immobilisation in external rotation than internal rotation (12.1% vs 31.4%, p=0.006). Immobilisation in external rotation also resulted in a higher rate of return to preinjury level of play (60.1% vs 42.6%, p=0.0001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:Immobilisation of the shoulder in external rotation after a traumatic first-time anterior shoulder dislocation results in a higher compliance rate, a lower recurrent dislocation rate and a higher rate of return to play as compared with immobilisation in internal rotation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level I.

BACKGROUND:Telemedicine has increasingly been considered as a viable alternative to traditional office-based health care, including postoperative follow-up visits. The purpose of the present study was to determine if patient satisfaction with overall care is equivalent for telemedicine follow-up (i.e., synchronous face-to-face video) and office-based follow-up after arthroscopic meniscectomy and repair. METHODS:Patients were prospectively enrolled from August 1, 2019, to March 1, 2020. Patients were included who were ≥18 years old, consented to isolated arthroscopic meniscal repair or meniscectomy, and were able to properly utilize telemedicine software on a computer, tablet, or smartphone with a built-in camera. Patient demographic data, including complication events and postoperative satisfaction data, were recorded and analyzed for significance. RESULTS:One hundred and fifty patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 122 (81.3%) were included in the final analysis. There were no significant differences between groups in terms of patient demographics or satisfaction scores. Patient satisfaction with overall care was equivalent based on the results of two 1-sided t-test analysis for equivalence (9.77 ± 0.60 in the office-based group versus 9.79 ± 0.53 in the telemedicine group; p < 0.001). When patients were asked to indicate their preferred follow-up type with the options listed as the type they received versus an alternative, 58 patients (84.1%) in the office-based group preferred their received type of follow-up, whereas 42 (79.2%) in the telemedicine group preferred their received follow-up (p = 0.493). There were no significant differences between groups in terms of complications (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:The present study showed that patient satisfaction with overall care is equivalent between telemedicine and office-based follow-up in the immediate postoperative period following an arthroscopic meniscal surgical procedure, and should be considered a reasonable alternative to the traditional in-office modality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Introduction: Fencing is growing rapidly in popularity and competitiveness with fencers beginning at a younger age and competing in more tournaments. Even though fencing has a low risk of time-loss injury, fencers are inevitably going to experience injuries if proper athletic training and prevention does not occur. We aim to describe and compare the lower extremity injuries experienced by fencers that have trained at the highest level in the sport. We hypothesized that athletes who fenced longer would suffer more knee and hip injuries and report lower IKDC and HOS scores.Methods: This is an epidemiology study distributed to members of the U.S national team and Olympic team from 1980 to 2018. The electronic survey included questions regarding age, weapon, number of years fencing, number of national and Olympic teams, injuries on the dominant and nondominant hip and knee, time missed due to injury, and methods for treatment. The survey also included the International Knee Demographic Committee (IKDC) and Hip Outcome Score (HOS).Results: There were 153 national team members between July 1980 and July 2018, 110 with contact information. A total of 77 athletes submitted the survey, consisting of 30 females and 47 males. Female fencers had more hip injuries and lower IKDC and HOS scores than their male counterparts. In total, there were 71 injuries to the dominant (front) knee and 28 injuries to the nondominant (back) knee. There were 32 dominant hip injuries and 5 nondominant hip injuries. Saber fencers reported the most dominant and nondominant hip and knee injuries.Conclusion: The intense, repetitive and asymmetrical movements involved in fencing affect the weight bearing leg and the nondominant leg in all weapons. Special attention should be paid to female fencers as they experience more hip and knee injuries resulting in impaired joint function.

Purpose/UNASSIGNED:To evaluate the efficacy of oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as the primary postoperative pain medication compared with standard oral opioids after arthroscopic shoulder capsulolabral (Bankart) repair for recurrent anterior shoulder instability. Methods/UNASSIGNED:This was a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled study. Patients aged 18 to 65 years indicated for arthroscopic shoulder capsulolabral repair for recurrent anterior shoulder instability were included. Postoperatively, patients were prescribed 1 of 2 analgesic regimens: (1) 30 ibuprofen (600 mg every 6 to 8 hours as needed) and 10 tablets of oxycodone/acetaminophen (5/325 mg every 6 hours as needed for breakthrough pain) or (2) 30 tablets oxycodone/acetaminophen (5/325 mg every 6 hours as needed). Subjects completed questionnaires at 24, 48, and 96 hours and 1 week after surgery, which included questions about analgesic medication usage, visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, incidence of adverse events, and patient satisfaction. Results/UNASSIGNED: = .05) compared with patients in the NSAID group. Of patients in the NSAID group, 17.5% experienced adverse effects, compared with 35% in the opioid-only group. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Use of oral NSAIDs with limited breakthrough opioids results in significantly less opioid use after arthroscopic Bankart repair in the first postoperative week compared with opioids only. Both groups used limited amounts of opioids to control postoperative pain. There were no differences in pain levels at any time point postoperatively or satisfaction between patient groups. Level of Evidence/UNASSIGNED:II, nonblinded randomized control trial.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this double-blinded randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the use of intravenous (IV) tranexamic acid (TXA) in patients undergoing primary bone-patella tendon-bone (BTB) ACLR with regard to post-operative hemarthrosis, pain, opioid consumption, quadriceps atrophy and activation. METHODS:A controlled, randomized, double-blinded trial was conducted in 110 patients who underwent ACLR with BTB autograft. Patients were equally randomized to the control and experimental groups. The experimental group received two 1-gram boluses of IV TXA, one prior to tourniquet inflation and one prior to wound closure; the control group did not receive TXA. If a clinically significant hemarthrosis was evident, the knee was aspirated, and the volume of blood (ml) was recorded. Additionally, perioperative blood loss (ml); Visual Analog Scale (VAS) on postoperative days (POD) 1-7 and post-operative weeks (POW) 1, 6 and 12; postoperative opioid consumption POD 1-7; range of motion (ROM) and ability to straight leg raise (SLR) at POW 1, 6, 12; and pre and postoperative thigh circumference ratio (TCR). RESULTS:There was no significant difference in perioperative blood loss between the TXA and control groups (32.5ml v. 35.6ml, p=0.47). The TXA group had 23 knees aspirated; control group had 26 knees aspirated (p=0.56). No significant difference seen in postoperative hemarthrosis volume with IV TXA compared to those without (26.7ml v. 37.3ml, p=0.12). There was no significant difference in VAS score between the two groups (p=0.15), additionally, there was no difference in postoperative opioid consumption (p=0.33). There was no significant difference in ROM or ability to SLR, or post-operative TCR (p > 0.05 for all). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:IV TXA in patients who undergo ACLR with BTB autograft does not significantly impact perioperative blood loss, postoperative hemarthrosis, or postoperative pain levels. Additionally, no significant differences were seen in early post-operative recovery regarding ROM or quadriceps reactivation.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of the current study is to systematically review and network meta-analyze the current evidence in the literature to ascertain if there is a superior lateral extra-articular augmentation technique in conjunction with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACL.R) with respect to knee stability, re-rupture rates and functional outcomes. METHODS:The literature search was performed based on the PRISMA guidelines. Cohort studies comparing ACL.R to ACL.R + lateral extra-articular augmentation were included. Lateral extra-articular techniques included were anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALL.R), Cocker-Arnold, Lemaire, Losee, Maraccaci, and McIntosh. Clinical outcomes were compared between ACL.R alone and the different lateral extra-articular augmentation techniques using a frequentist approach to network meta-analysis, with statistical analysis performed using R. The treatment options were ranked using the P-Score. RESULTS:Twenty-eight studies with a total of 2990 patients were included. ACL.R + Cocker-Arnold technique had the highest P-Score for ACL re-ruptures and residual pivot-shift. ACL.R + Cocker-Arnold, Lemaire, and ALL.R all significantly reduced the rate of ACL re-rupture, and residual pivot-shift, compared to ACL.R alone. There was no significant difference between any of the lateral extra-articular augmentation techniques and ACL.R alone. ALL.R had the highest P-Score for return to play, and return to play at pre-injury level. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study established that ACL.R + Cocker-Arnold, Lemaire and ALL.R resulted in significantly lower ipsilateral ACL re-ruptures, as well as reduced pivot-shift, compared to ACL.R alone. Whereas, the other lateral extra-articular augmentation techniques did not reduce pivot-shift and re-rupture. Additionally, functional outcomes and return to play were comparable between those who underwent ACL.R and lateral extra-articular augmentation and ACL.R alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFLR) is often indicated in athletes with lateral patellar instability to prevent recurrence and allow for a successful return to play. In this patient population, the ability to return to play is one of the most important clinical outcomes. The purpose of the current study was to analyze the characteristics of patients who were unable return to play following MPFL reconstruction. METHODS:A retrospective review of patients who underwent MPFL reconstruction and subsequently did not return to play after a minimum of 12-months of follow-up was performed. Patients were evaluated for their psychological readiness to return to sport using the MPFL-Return to Sport after Injury (MPFL-RSI) score, which is a modification of the ACL-RSI score. A MPFL-RSI score > 56 is considered a passing score for being psychologically ready to return to play. Additionally, reasons for not returning to play including Visual Analog Scale for pain (VAS), Kujala score, satisfaction, and recurrent instability (including dislocations and subluxations) were evaluated. RESULTS:The study included a total of 35 patients who were unable to return to play out of a total cohort of 131 patients who underwent MPFL reconstruction as treatment for patellar instability. Overall, 60% were female with a mean age of 24.5, and a mean follow-up of 38 months. Nine patients (25.7%) passed the MPFL-RSI benchmark of 56 with a mean overall score of 44.2 ± 21.8. The most common primary reasons for not returning to play were 14 were afraid of re-injury, 9 cited other lifestyle factors, 5 did not return due to continued knee pain, 5 were not confident in their ability to perform, and 2 did not return due to a feeling of instability. The mean VAS score was 1.9 ± 2.3, the mean Kujala score was 82.5 ± 14.6, and the mean satisfaction was 76.9%. Three patients (8.7%) reported experiencing a patellar subluxation event post-operatively. No patient sustained a post-operative patellar dislocation. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Following MPFL reconstruction, patients that do not return to play exhibit poor psychological readiness with the most common reason being fear of re-injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:IV.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to determine whether a preoperative video-based opioid education reduced narcotics consumption after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in opioid-naive patients. METHODS:This was a single-center randomized controlled trial. Preoperatively, the control group received our institution's standard of care for pain management education, whereas the experimental group watched an educational video on the use of opioids. Patients were discharged with 30 × 5 mg/325 mg oxycodone-acetaminophen prescribed: 1 to 2 tablets every 4 to 6 hours. They were contacted daily and asked to report opioid use and visual analog scale pain. A chart review at 3 months post-op was used to analyze for opioid refills. RESULTS:A total of 130 patients completed the study (65 control and 65 experimental). No statistically significant differences were noted in patient demographics between groups (P > 0.05). Patients in the education group did not use a statistically significant different number of narcotics than the control group throughout the first postoperative week (14.0 pills experimental versus 13.7 pills control, P = 0.60). No statistically significant differences were noted between groups at follow-regarding the rate of prescription refills (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study suggests that preoperative video-based opioid education may have no effect on reducing the number of narcotic pills consumed after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. CLINICAL RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:Data exist to suggest that preoperative video-based opioid education has an effect on postoperative consumption; however, the effect of this education in the setting of already-limited opioid-prescribing is not known. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER/UNASSIGNED:NCT04018768.