Faculty Bibliography

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: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.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Osteoarthritis (OA) is a debilitating joint disease characterized by progressive loss of articular cartilage. Intra-articular injections are a mainstay of nonoperative treatment, however, there is controversy as to the optimal injectable for these patients. The purpose of the current study is to perform a network meta-analysis of the randomized control trials in the literature to ascertain whether there is a superior injectable nonoperative treatment for knee OA. METHODS:The literature search was conducted based on the PRISMA guidelines. Randomized control trials (RCTs) evaluating intra-articular injectables in osteoarthritic knees were included. Data was extracted and Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores, where available were analyzed at 1, 3, 6 and 12 months. Clinical outcomes were compared using a frequentist approach to network meta-analysis, with statistical analysis performed using R. The treatment options were ranked using the P-Score. RESULTS:Seventy-nine RCTs with 8761 patients were included in this review. Intra-articular injectables evaluated included autologous conditioned serum (ACS), bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC), botulinum toxin, corticosteroids (CS), hyaluronic acid (HA), mesenchymal stem cells (MSC), ozone, saline placebo, platelet-rich plasma (PRP), plasma rich in growth factor (PRGF), and stromal vascular fraction (SVF). At 4-6 weeks and 3 months of follow-up, the treatment with the highest P-Score for WOMAC score was high molecular weight (HMW) HA + CS [P-Score = 0.9500 and 8503, respectively]. At 6-months follow-up, the treatment with the highest P-Score for WOMAC score was PRP [P-Score = 0.7676]. At all post-injection time points, the treatment with the highest P-Score for VAS score [P-Score Range = 0.8631-9927] and Womac score at 12 Months [P-Score = 0.9044] was SVF. CONCLUSIONS:The current evidence shows that SVF injections result in the greatest improvement in pain and functional outcomes in patients with knee OA at up to 1 year of follow-up.

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.

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.

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of the current study is to evaluate the clinical and radiographic outcomes at early to midterm follow-up between fresh precut cores versus hemi-condylar osteochondral allograft (OCAs) in the treatment of symptomatic osteochondral lesions. DESIGN/METHODS:A retrospective review of patients who underwent an OCA was performed. Patient matching between those with OCA harvested from an allograft condyle/patella or a fresh precut allograft core was performed to generate 2 comparable groups. The cartilage at the graft site was assessed with use of a modified Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue (MOCART) scoring system and patient-reported outcomes were collected. RESULTS:= 0.93). CONCLUSIONS:This study found that there was no difference in patient-reported clinical outcomes or MOCART scores following OCA implantation using fresh precut OCA cores or size matched condylar grafts at early to midterm follow-up.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study is to evaluate the short-term complication rate following the open and arthroscopic Latarjet procedures and to meta-analyze the studies comparing the 2 approaches. METHODS:PubMed was searched according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to find clinical and biomechanical studies comparing complication rates in open and arthroscopic Latarjet procedures. A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed based on the PRISMA guidelines. Clinical studies reporting on the complications following the open or arthroscopic Latarjet were included. Meta-analysis was performed for comparative studies using Review Manager, version 5.3. A P value of <.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS:Overall, 89 studies (Level of Evidence [LOE] I: 2, LOE II: 2, LOE III: 24, LOE IV: 61) met inclusion criteria, with 7175 shoulders. Following the open Latarjet procedure, the overall complication rate was 6.1%, with a 1.9% occurrence of graft-related complications, 1.1% hardware, 1.1% wound, 0.9% nerve, and 1.2% other complications. Following the arthroscopic Latarjet procedure, the overall complication rate was 6.8%, with a 3.2% occurrence of graft-related complications, 1.9% hardware, 0.5% wound, 0.7% nerve, and 0.5% other complications. Complications were reported in 7 studies comparing 379 patients treated with the open Latarjet and 531 treated with the arthroscopic Latarjet, with no statistically significant difference between the two (P = .81). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our study established that the overall complication rate following the Latarjet procedure was 6%-7%, with the most common complication being graft-related. Furthermore, based on the current evidence, there is no significant difference in the complication rate between the open and arthroscopic Latarjet procedures.

BACKGROUND:Prior research has demonstrated that physician desire to optimize patient satisfaction is a cause of over-prescription of opioid medications in the healthcare setting. The purpose of this study was to investigate what effect, if any, decreased opioid prescribing following arthroscopic meniscectomy had on Press-Ganey (PG) satisfaction survey scores. METHODS:A retrospective review of prospectively-collected data was conducted on patients who underwent arthroscopic meniscectomy between October2014-October2019. Inclusion criteria consisted of complete PG information, no history of trauma, connective tissue disease, or prior knee surgery. Groups were separated based on date of surgery relative to implementation of an institutional opioid reduction policy which occurred on October 1, 2018. Prescriptions were converted to milligram-morphine-equivalents (MME) for direct comparison between opioids. Minimal-Detectable-Change (MDC) was calculated to evaluate clinical significance of any statistically significant findings. RESULTS:554 patients were included in this analysis (452pre-protocol, 102post-protocol). The groups did not differ statistically (p > 0.05) with respect to any patient demographics (age, BMI, sex, prior opioid use, opioid naivete) with the exception of smoking history; 54.4% in the pre-protocol group and 32.4%in the post-protocol group; p < 0.001. Mean discharge dose for the pre-protocol group was 229.3 ± 141MME, and 80.05 ± 82.7MME post-protocol; P < 0.0001. There were no statistically significant differences between pre-and-post-protocol satisfaction with pain control scores; P = 0.15. The differences between satisfaction with pain control did not meet clinical or statistical significance, based on a calculated MDC = 0.368. Among pre-protocol patients, 372(82.3%) gave a "top box" response to the question "degree-to-which-your-pain-was-controlled", compared to 91(89.2%) from the post-protocol group; P = 0.10. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:A reduction in opioids prescribed after arthroscopic meniscectomy was not associated with any difference in patient satisfaction with pain management, as measured by the Press-Ganey survey. LOE: 3.

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.