Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of the current study is to perform a systematic review of the literature and evaluate maximum medical improvement and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of different injectables in the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. METHODS:A systematic review was performed to evaluate maximum medical improvement and MCID in patients undergoing injections of different modalities for knee osteoarthritis. Demographic factors of the patients being reviewed were analyzed, with patient-reported outcomes as reported by visual analog scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) being used to evaluate the clinical trajectory of patients receiving intra-articular injections. RESULTS:Overall, 79 (level of evidence I: 79) studies met inclusion criteria, with 8761 patients. Corticosteroid (CS) injections, middle molecular weight hyaluronic acid (MMW-HA), and leukocyte-rich platelet rich plasma (LR-PRP) injections reached their maximum pain control at 4 to 6 weeks after injection, as measured by VAS. The lowest VAS scores were reached for low molecular weight hyaluronic acid (LMW-HA), high molecular weight hyaluronic acid (HMW-HA), and leukocyte-poor platelet rich plasma (LP-PRP) by 3 months after injection. Similarly, the WOMAC scores were lowest at 4 to 6 weeks after CS and MMW-HA injections, and at 3 months after HMW-HA and LP-PRP injections. LR-PRP demonstrated the most prolonged pain relief relative to the other injection types, with the lowest VAS score of all groups measured at final follow-up. LP-PRP showed the lowest WOMAC scores at final follow-up, one year post-injection. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:PRP injections provide continued pain relief at up to 1 year after injection. Corticosteroids and hyaluronic acid have good efficacy and are suitable for many patients but lack this longevity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level I, a systematic review of Level I studies.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of the current study is to compare the outcomes of open subpectoral biceps tenodesis (BT) to arthroscopic repair (AR) for SLAP tears in patients under the age of 30 years. METHODS:A retrospective review of patients under the age of 30 years who underwent either isolated BT or AR for a diagnosis of a SLAP tear between 2011 and 2019 was performed. Patients were included if they were >16 years old at the time of surgery, had an isolated SLAP tear involving instability of the biceps-labral anchor (types II-IV), were skeletally mature, and had a minimum follow-up of 12 months. The American Shoulder & Elbow Surgeons score, visual analog scale, Subjective Shoulder Value, patient satisfaction, willingness to undergo surgery again, revisions, and return to play (RTP) were evaluated. A P value of <.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS:Our study included 103 patients in total; 29 patients were treated with BT, and 74 were treated with AR. The mean age was 24.8 years, and the mean follow-up duration was 60 months. At final follow-up, there was no difference between treatment groups in any of the functional outcome measures assessed (P > .05). Overall, there was no significant difference in the total rate of RTP (BT: 76.3%, AR: 85%; P = .53), timing of RTP (BT: 8.8 months, AR: 9.4 months; P = .61), and total rate of RTP among overhead athletes (BT: 84.2%, AR: 83.3%; P > .99). Among those undergoing AR, 9 required a revision procedure (11.5%) compared to none treated with BT (P = .11). CONCLUSIONS:In patients under the age of 30 years with a symptomatic isolated SLAP tear, BT may be a reliable alternative to AR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III, retrospective comparative study.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:An isolated medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction (MPFLR) has been demonstrated to be an effective treatment option in the prevention of patellar instability, but there is growing support for performing a tibial tubercle osteotomy (TTO) in patients with an elevated tibial tubercle-trochlear groove distance. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of adding a TTO to MPFLR on patient-reported outcomes. METHODS:A retrospective review of patients who underwent MPFLR with or without TTO with a minimum of 12-month follow-up was performed. Patients in both groups were matched based on age, gender, and follow-up time. Recurrent instability (including redislocation and subluxation), visual analogue scale (VAS) score, Kujala score, and satisfaction were evaluated. RESULTS:There were 59 patients who underwent MPFLR with concomitant TTO performed at our institution and met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. These patients were then matched to patients undergoing isolated MPFLR based on demographics and follow-up time. The mean age was 25.0 years, 76.3% were female, and the mean follow-up time was 49 months. There was a significant difference in mean tibial tubercle-trochlear groove distance (19.8 ± 3.9 vs. 14.1 ± 2.8) between groups. There was no significant difference in VAS (1.48 ± 2.0 vs. 1.49 ± 2.1, p = 0.972), satisfaction (86.1% ± 24.2% vs. 81.2% ± 27.9, p = 0.311) or revision surgeries (10.2% vs. 10.2%) between groups. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Matched patients undergoing MPFLR with TTO compared with isolated MPFLR demonstrate no statistically significant difference in patient-reported outcomes, levels of pain, and satisfaction postoperatively. Furthermore, the addition of a TTO does not increase the risk of further surgery or complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III, retrospective comparative study.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:As platelet-rich plasma injection for knee osteoarthritis (OA) has increased in popularity, it has become more important to assess its effectiveness and satisfaction with its use in the context of its high cost. The purpose of this study was to determine satisfaction, commercial appeal, and effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for the treatment of knee OA. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A retrospective review of patients who underwent PRP injection in the knee from 2016 to 2019 was performed. Satisfaction with the PRP injection (out of 100), whether the patient would want to undergo PRP injection again, whether they would recommend the injection and whether they felt that the injection was worth the cost was collected. VAS pain scores were collected and measured out of 100. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Overall, 114 patients were included. The mean pre-injection pain score was 70.4, and the mean pain level decreased after injection to 36.8. Patients rated their satisfaction on average at 49.2, 50.9% stated that they would get the PRP injection again, 60.5% would recommend to a friend, and 50.9% felt the injection was worth the cost. Younger age and improved post-injection pain correlated with increasing likelihood of desiring further PRP injection. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Patients on average rated satisfaction slightly below average, indicating net indifference skewing towards dissatisfaction with their injection, and only half indicated that it was worth the cost and that they would receive it again. Younger age and pain relief increased desire for further injection, but efficacy did not correlate with patients saying that the injection was worth the cost.

BACKGROUND:The purpose of this study was to review the literature to ascertain the functional outcomes, recurrence rates, and subsequent revision rates following revision arthroscopic Bankart repair. METHODS:Two independent reviewers performed a literature search based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines using the Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases. Studies in which arthroscopic Bankart repair was performed as a revision procedure were included. The clinical outcomes extracted and analyzed were functional outcomes, return to play, and recurrent instability. RESULTS:Fourteen studies with 433 patients met the inclusion criteria. The majority of patients were male patients (63.7%); the average age was 26.1 years (range, 14-58 years), and the mean follow-up period was 37.6 months (range, 10-144 months). The mean Rowe score was 84.2, and 79.7% of patients had good to excellent outcomes. The rate of return to play was 78.5%, with 47.5% of patients returning to their preinjury level of play across 10 studies. The rate of recurrent instability was reported in 12 studies, with 328 shoulders demonstrating 86 instability events (26.2%). The rate of recurrent instability due to dislocation was reported in 7 studies (n = 176), with 19 events (10.8%), whereas the rate of subluxation was reported in 4 studies (n = 76), with 6 events (7.9%). CONCLUSIONS:Revision arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability was shown to result in a high rate of recurrent shoulder instability. There was a relatively poor rate of return to sport among athletes, and only about half of the patients were able to return at or above their preoperative level of ability.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to identify if the location of posterolateral corner (PLC) injury was predictive of clinical common peroneal nerve (CPN) palsy. METHODS:A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients presenting to our institution with operative PLC injuries. Assessment of concomitant injuries and presence of neurologic injury was completed via chart review and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) review. A fellowship-trained musculoskeletal radiologist reviewed the PLC injury and categorized it into distal, middle and proximal injuries with or without a biceps femoral avulsion. The CPN was evaluated for signs of displacement or neuritis. RESULTS:Forty-seven operatively managed patients between 2014 and 2019 (mean age-at-injury 29.5 ± 10.7 years) were included in this study. Eleven (23.4%) total patients presented with a clinical CPN palsy. Distal PLC injuries were significantly associated with CPN palsy [9 (81.8%) patients, (P = 0.041)]. Nine of 11 (81.8%) patients with CPN palsy had biceps femoral avulsion (P = 0.041). Of the patients presenting with CPN palsy, only four (36.4%) patients experienced complete neurologic recovery. Three of 7 patients (43%) with an intact CPN had full resolution of their clinically complete CPN palsy at the time of follow-up (482 ± 357 days). All patients presenting with a CPN palsy also had a complete anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture in addition to a PLC injury (P = 0.009), with or without a posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injury. No patient presenting with an isolated pattern of PCL-PLC injury (those without ACL tears) had a clinical CPN palsy. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Distal PLC injuries have a strong association with clinical CPN palsy, with suboptimal resolution in the initial post-operative period. Specifically, the presence of a biceps femoris avulsion injury was highly associated with a clinical CPN palsy. Additionally, CPN palsy in the context of PLC injury has a strong association with concomitant ACL injury. Furthermore, the relative rates of involvement of the ACL vs. PCL suggest that specific injury mechanism may have an important role in CPN palsy. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:IV.

We present a case of a surgically treated latissimus dorsi (LD) and teres major (TM) tear with a one-year outcome. The postoperative course was complicated by wound dehiscence requiring operative intervention and neuropraxia of the posterior cutaneous nerve of the arm. The report highlights previously unreported surgical risks associated with repair of LD/TM tendons.

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.