Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of the current study is to compare biomechanical and clinical outcomes between knotless and knotted anchors in arthroscopic labral repair, specifically in 1) Bankart repair, 2) superior labrum, anterior-posterior (SLAP) repair, 3) posterior labral repair, and 4) remplissage augmentation of Bankart repair. METHODS:MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library were searched according to the PRISMA guidelines to find biomechanical and clinical studies comparing knotted and knotless anchors using the search term "knotless anchor". RESULTS:Overall, 17 studies met inclusion criteria. There were 7 studies evaluating the biomechanical outcomes, of which 5 found mixed results between knotted and knotless anchors for arthroscopic Bankart repair, 1 demonstrated a difference for SLAP repair favoring knotless anchors, and 2 showed no significant difference for Remplissage in terms of ultimate load-to-failure. Four studies evaluated knotless labral anchors compared to knotted anchors in patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair with no significant differences in outcomes reported between the two anchor types, except in one study that found an improved VAS score and a lower recurrence and revision rate with knotted anchors. Five studies evaluated knotless anchors compared to knotted anchors in patients undergoing SLAP repair, and none of the included studies found any significant differences in the patient reported outcome measures or revision rates. Of the 5 studies comparing operative time, 4 found a reduced time with knotless anchors. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The clinical results show no significant differences in outcomes between knotless and knotted anchors for labral repair in the shoulder, including Bankart repair, SLAP repair, and posterior labral repair. However, there was conflicting evidence supporting knotless or knotted anchors in the biomechanical studies. However, operative times may be reduced with the use of knotless anchors.

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.

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/UNASSIGNED:To ascertain the rate and timing of return to play (RTP) and the availability of specific criteria for safe RTP after arthroscopic posterior shoulder stabilization. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to find studies on arthroscopic posterior shoulder stabilization. Studies were included if they reported RTP data or rehabilitation protocols and excluded if concomitant procedures influenced the rehabilitation protocol. Rate and timing of RTP, along with rehabilitation protocols, were assessed. Results/UNASSIGNED:This review found 25 studies, including 895 cases, meeting the study's inclusion criteria. The majority of patients were male (82.7%), with an age range of 14 to 66 years and a follow-up range of 4 to 148.8 months. The overall RTP rate ranged from 62.7% to 100.0%, and 50.0% to 100.0% returned to the same level of play. Among collision athletes, the overall rate of RTP was 80.0% to 100.0%, with 69.2%-100.0% returning to the same level of play. In overhead athletes, the overall rate of RTP was 85.2% to 100.0%, with 55.6% to 100.0% returning to the same level of play. Four studies (128 patients) specifically addressed the timing of RTP, and the range to RTP was 4.3 to 8.6 months. Specific RTP criteria were reported in a majority of studies (60%), with the most reported item being restoration of strength (44%). Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:There is a high rate of return to sport after arthroscopic posterior shoulder stabilization, ranging from 4.3 to 8.6 months after surgery. Return to preinjury level is higher for collision athletes compared with overhead athletes. However, there is inadequate reporting of RTP criteria in the current literature, with no clear timeline for when it is safe to return to sport. Level of Evidence/UNASSIGNED:IV, systematic review of level II to IV studies.

Purpose/UNASSIGNED:To systematically review the literature and assess the reported rehabilitation protocols, return-to-play guidelines, and reported rates of return-to-play after meniscal repair. Methods/UNASSIGNED:MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies on meniscal repair. Studies were included if return-to-play data and/or rehabilitation protocols were reported. The rate and timing of return-to-play was assessed. The rehabilitation protocols were documented, in addition to when to start range of motion (ROM), full ROM, partial weight-bearing (WB), and full WB. Results/UNASSIGNED:Overall, 88 studies met our inclusion criteria. Thirteen studies, including 507 patients, cited a range of 71.2% to 100% of return-to-play, with 53.9% to 92.6% returning to the same/greater level, ranging between 3.3 and 10 months. There was considerable variability in the reported rehabilitation protocols, but the most frequently reported time to begin ROM exercises was within the first week (78.9%) and full ROM at 6 weeks (33.3%). Partial WB was typically begun during the first week (61.0%), and full WB between the fourth and sixth week (65.6%) postoperatively. Following surgery, time elapsed was the most commonly cited criteria for return-to-play (97.0%), with 6 months being the most common time point applied (46.9%). No study advised against returning to competitive or contact sports after meniscal repair. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:In conclusion, there was a high rate of return-to-play following meniscal repair, with 60% of patients returning to the same level of play. However, there was considerable diversity in the reported rehabilitation protocols and insufficient reporting on return-to-play criteria in the literature. This demonstrates the need for further research and formulation of an evidence-based consensus statement for this patient population. Level of Evidence/UNASSIGNED:Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.

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.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:It is unclear whether leukocyte-poor (LP) or leukocyte-rich (LR) varieties of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as an adjuvant to arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) result in improved tendon healing rates. PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:To perform a network meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials in the literature to ascertain whether there is evidence to support the use of LP- or LR-PRP as an adjunct to ARCR. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:The literature search was based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Randomized controlled trials comparing LP- or LR-PRP with a control alongside ARCR were included. Clinical outcomes, including retears and functional 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/UNASSIGNED:There were 13 studies (868 patients) included, with 9 studies comparing LP-PRP with a control and 4 studies comparing LR-PRP with a control. LP-PRP was found to significantly reduce the rate of retear and/or incomplete tendon healing after fixation, even among medium-large tears; it also improved outcomes on the visual analog scale for pain, Constant score, and University of California Los Angeles score. LP-PRP had the highest P-score for all treatment groups. LR-PRP did not result in any significant improvements over the control group, except for visual analog scale score for pain. However, post hoc analysis revealed that LP-PRP did not lead to significant improvements over LR-PRP in any category. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:The current study demonstrates that LP-PRP reduces the rate of retear and/or incomplete tendon healing after ARCR and improves patient-reported outcomes as compared with a control. However, it is still unclear whether LP-PRP improves the tendon healing rate when compared with LR-PRP.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Shoulder arthroscopy is one of the most commonly performed orthopaedic procedures used to treat a variety of conditions, with >500,000 procedures performed each year. PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:To systematically review the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on pain control after shoulder arthroscopy in the acute postoperative setting and to ascertain the best available evidence in managing pain after shoulder arthroscopy to optimize patient outcomes. STUDY DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:Systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A systematic review of the literature was performed based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies were included if they were RCTs evaluating interventions to reduce postoperative pain after shoulder arthroscopy: nerve blocks, nerve block adjuncts, subacromial injections, patient-controlled analgesia, oral medications, or other modalities. Meta-analyses and network meta-analyses were performed where appropriate. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:< .05). No benefit was found in any of the studies evaluating subacromial infusions. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Continuous interscalene block resulted in the lowest pain levels at most time points, although this was not significantly different when compared with the other nerve blocks. Additionally, nerve block adjuncts may prolong the postoperative block time and improve pain control. There is promising evidence for some oral medications and newer modalities to control pain and reduce opioid use. However, we found no evidence to support the use of subacromial infusions or patient-controlled analgesia.