Faculty Bibliography

»:Biceps tendon pathologies include a spectrum of injuries that range from mild tendinosis to complete tendon rupture. »:Tendinosis, the most common pathology, occurs more frequently with age and is likely related to chronic degeneration. On the other side of the spectrum of severity lies a rupture of the long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT), which may be accompanied by injury to the glenoid labrum. »:Superior labral anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears are frequently associated with biceps pathology. Surgical management for injuries of the bicipital-labral complex includes biceps tenodesis or tenotomy and SLAP repair. A consensus as to which of these procedures is the optimal choice has not been reached, and management may ultimately depend on patient-specific characteristics. »:Due to the relatively low incidence of distal biceps tendon rupture, agreement on the optimal management strategy has not been reached. Surgical repair, or reconstruction in the case of a chronic rupture, is often chosen. However, nonoperative management has also been utilized in older, less-active patients.

Identifying the specific source of gluteal pain can elude the most seasoned orthopaedic diagnosticians. Patients will often present with a protracted course of symptoms, and failure to successfully identify and treat the underlying etiology leads to frustration for both patient and clinician. Pain deep in the buttocks can arise from compression, inflammation, or injury of one or more of the structures in this anatomically dense area. Although sacroiliitis, hip arthritis, and trochanteric bursitis may also masquerade as gluteal pain, sciatic nerve irritation in its various presentations causes a substantial percentage of cases. Deep gluteal syndrome, hamstring syndrome, and ischiofemoral impingement can have overlapping presentations but can be differentiated by clinical examination and judiciously placed diagnostic corticosteroid injections. Although nonsurgical management, including physical therapy, relative rest, and injections represent the mainstay of treatment, open and endoscopic surgical approaches have yielded encouraging success rates in refractory cases.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is a term synonymous with orthopaedic clinical research over the past decade. The term represents the smallest change in a patient-reported outcome measure that is of genuine clinical value to patients. It has been derived in a myriad of ways in existing orthopaedic literature. PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:To describe the various modalities for deriving the MCID. STUDY DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:Narrative review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:The definitions of common MCID determinations were first identified. These were then evaluated by their clinical and statistical merits and limitations. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:There are 3 primary ways for determining the MCID: anchor-based analysis, distribution-based analysis, and sensitivity- and specificity-based analysis. Each has unique strengths and weaknesses with respect to its ability to evaluate the patient's clinical status change from baseline to posttreatment. Anchor-based analyses are inherently tied to clinical status yet lack standardization. Distribution-based analyses are the opposite, with strong foundations in statistics, yet they fail to adequately address the clinical status change. Sensitivity and specificity analyses offer a compromise of the other methodologies but still rely on a somewhat arbitrarily defined global transition question. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:This current concepts review demonstrates the need for (1) better standardization in the establishment of MCIDs for orthopaedic patient-reported outcome measures and (2) better study design-namely, until a universally accepted MCID derivation exists, studies attempting to derive the MCID should utilize the anchor-based within-cohort design based on Food and Drug Administration recommendations. Ideally, large studies reporting the MCID as an outcome will also derive the value for their populations. It is important to consider that there may be reasonable replacements for current derivations of the MCID. As such, future research should consider an alternative threshold score with a more universal method of derivation.

PUPROSE/UNASSIGNED:The purpose of this study is to systematically review the literature and evaluate patient-reported outcomes and complication/revision rates of bone-block augmentation in the treatment of posterior shoulder instability (PSI). METHODS:PUBMED was searched according to PRIMSA guidelines to find clinical studies evaluating patient-report outcomes, revision and complication rates in posterior bone block for posterior shoulder instability. A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, was performed based on the PRISMA guidelines. Clinical studies reporting on the complications following posterior bone block were included. RESULTS:Overall, 11 (LOE III: 2, LOE IV: 9) studies met inclusion criteria, with 225 shoulders. Recurrent instability after the posterior bone block was found to be 9.8%. The overall complication rate was 13.8%, with 0.89% having graft complications, 11.1% having hardware complications, 0.4% having wound complications, 0.4% having nerve complications, and 0.89% having other complications. Residual pain was found in 11.6% of shoulders operated on. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated most commonly by Rowe (81.4), Constant (84.6), and Walch - Duplay (81.6). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:There is a moderate rate of recurrence following posterior bone block for PSI. However, the patient-reported outcomes are high despite there being commonly reported persistent shoulder pain postoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level IV; Systematic Review.

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.

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.

Objectives: Socioeconomic factors have been shown to impact patient care in many surgical fields; however, their effects have not been thoroughly evaluated in the context of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) outcomes. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of socioeconomic factors on time to surgery, knee function, and subjective outcomes measures following ACLR.
Method(s): A retrospective query of primary ACLR surgeries at a single institution performed from 2011 to 2015 with minimum twoyear follow-up was conducted. Patient demographics, insurance type, worker's compensation status, surgical variables, IKDC score, and failure were recorded from chart review. Education level and income were obtained via phone interview. Differences between functional outcome were compared between Medicaid and non-Medicaid groups.
Result(s): 268 patients were included in the analysis (43 patients in the Medicaid group and 225 patients in the non-Medicaid group). The Medicaid group demonstrated lower annual income (p<0.01) and a lower level of completed education compared to the non- Medicaid group (p<0.01). Medicaid patients had a greater duration between time of initial knee injury and surgery compared to the non-Medicaid group (11.8 +/- 16.3 months versus 6.1 +/- 16.5 months, p = 0.04). At the time of follow-up, patients in the non- Medicaid group had a significantly greater IKDC score compared to Medicaid patients (82.5 +/- 13.8 versus 75.3 +/- 20.8, p = 0.03).
Conclusion(s): Socioeconomic factors impacted care in the setting of ACL injury. Medicaid insurance patients were seen significantly later after initial injury when compared to non-Medicaid carriers, and had worse outcomes compared to their non-Medicaid peers. Higher annual income brackets had significantly higher clinical outcomes scores at a minimum of two years postoperatively. Education level did not affect outcomes

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:During the COVID impacted 2020-2021 season of the English soccer league, there was an appreciable number of injuries experienced by players. These injuries, however, have not been quantified against previous seasons to highlight the altered season as a causative factor. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:, with the provided information allowing for the sorting of the data into muscular and ligamentous injuries and skeletal injuries. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Overall 226, 260, and 289 muscular and ligamentous injuries were observed across the 2018/2019, 2019/2020, and 2020/2021 seasons, respectively. There were 495 minutes on average played leading up to first injury in the 2020/2021 season, compared with 521 minutes in the 2019/2020 season and 536 minutes in the 2018/2019. There was an average of games played to injury of 5.6 games in the 2020/2021 year, with 6.0 in the 2019/2020 year and 6.1 in the 2018/2019 year. Additionally, there was a significantly shorter time in between games was noted during the COVID-affected season with a mean time of 6.8 days in-between games played during the 2020-2021 season as compared to the previous years of 9.12 and 7.12 days. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Our study found that there were more injuries and a decreased time to first injury observed during the COVID-impacted 2020-2021 season than the two preceding seasons, perhaps demonstrating a link between fixture congestion and athlete injuries as evidenced by the significantly shorter time between games. It is therefore prudent to retain fixture spacing for athlete recovery even against the backdrop of an overall shortened season.

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of osteochondral allograft (OCA) in patients older than 45 years of age, particularly with respect to return to sport. DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:A retrospective review was performed to evaluate patients greater than 45 who underwent an OCA for a symptomatic osteochondral defect of the knee between June 2011 and January 2019. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:< 0.01). Furthermore, the mean Visual Analogue Scale while playing sport was 3.4 ± 3.2, and the mean Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score was 77.5 ± 12.7 at final follow-up. Overall, 11 patients (78.6%) were able to return to their desired sport. No clinical failures were identified during the follow-up period. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:In our series of patients 45 years and older who were treated with OCA for focal osteochondral injuries of the knee, we found a significant improvement in clinical outcome scores at a midterm follow-up of 37 months with no revision OCA procedures or conversion to any form of knee arthroplasty. In addition, a high percentage of patients were able to return to their preferred level of athletic activity.