Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this investigation is to determine the proportion of sports medicine studies that are labeled as Level I Evidence in 5 journals and compare the quality of surgical and nonsurgical studies using simple quality assessment tools (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT] and Jadad). METHODS:By use of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines over the prior 2 years in the top 5 (citation and impact factor based) sports medicine journals, only Level I Evidence studies were eligible for inclusion and were analyzed. All study types (therapeutic, prognostic, diagnostic, and economic) were analyzed. Study quality was assessed with the level of evidence, Jadad score, and CONSORT 2010 guidelines. Study demographic data were compared among journals and between surgical and nonsurgical studies by use of χ(2), 1-way analysis of variance, and 2-sample Z tests. RESULTS:We analyzed 190 Level I Evidence studies (10% of eligible studies) (119 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]). Therapeutic, nonsurgical, single-center studies from the United States were the most common studies published. Sixty-two percent of studies reported a financial conflict of interest. The knee was the most common body part studied, and track-and-field/endurance sports were the most common sports analyzed. Significant differences (P < .05) were shown in Jadad and CONSORT scores among the journals reviewed. Overall, the Jadad and CONSORT scores were 2.71 and 77%, respectively. No differences (P > .05) were shown among journals based on the proportion of Level I studies or appropriate randomization. Significant strengths and limitations of RCTs were identified. CONCLUSIONS:This study showed that Level I Evidence and RCTs comprise 10% and 6% of contemporary sports medicine literature, respectively. Therapeutic, nonsurgical, single-center studies are the most common publications with Level I Evidence. Significant differences across sports medicine journals were found in study quality. Surgical studies appropriately described randomization, blinding, and patient enrollment significantly more than nonsurgical studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level I, systematic review of Level I studies.

Chondral injuries of the hip joint are often symptomatic and affect patient activity level. Several procedures are available for addressing chondral injuries, including microfracture. Microfracture is a marrow-stimulating procedure, which creates subchondral perforation in the bone, allowing pluripotent mesenchymal stem cells to migrate from the marrow into the chondral defect and form fibrocartilaginous tissue. In the knee, microfracture has been shown to relieve pain symptoms. In the hip, microfracture has been studied to a lesser extent, but published studies have shown promising clinical outcomes. The depth, joint congruity, and geometry of the hip joint make microfracture technically challenging. The most common technique uses hip-specific microfracture awls, but the trajectory of impaction is not perpendicular to the subchondral plate. Consequently, the parallel direction of impaction creates poorly defined channels. We describe an arthroscopic microfracture technique for the hip using a flexible microfracture drill. The drill and angled guides simplify access to the chondral defect. The microfracture drill creates clear osseous channels, avoiding compaction of the surrounding bone and obstruction of the channels. Furthermore, this technique allows for better control of the angle and depth of the drill holes, which enhances reproducibility and may yield improved clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Condition-specific questionnaires are important components in evaluation of outcomes of surgical interventions. No condition-specific study methodological quality questionnaire exists for evaluation of outcomes of articular cartilage surgery in the knee. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To develop a reliable and valid knee articular cartilage-specific study methodological quality questionnaire. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Cross-sectional study. METHODS:A stepwise, a priori-designed framework was created for development of a novel questionnaire. Relevant items to the topic were identified and extracted from a recent systematic review of 194 investigations of knee articular cartilage surgery. In addition, relevant items from existing generic study methodological quality questionnaires were identified. Items for a preliminary questionnaire were generated. Redundant and irrelevant items were eliminated, and acceptable items modified. The instrument was pretested and items weighed. The instrument, the MARK score (Methodological quality of ARticular cartilage studies of the Knee), was tested for validity (criterion validity) and reliability (inter- and intraobserver). RESULTS:A 19-item, 3-domain MARK score was developed. The 100-point scale score demonstrated face validity (focus group of 8 orthopaedic surgeons) and criterion validity (strong correlation to Cochrane Quality Assessment score and Modified Coleman Methodology Score). Interobserver reliability for the overall score was good (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.842), and for all individual items of the MARK score, acceptable to perfect (ICC, 0.70-1.000). Intraobserver reliability ICC assessed over a 3-week interval was strong for 2 reviewers (≥0.90). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The MARK score is a valid and reliable knee articular cartilage condition-specific study methodological quality instrument. CLINICAL RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:This condition-specific questionnaire may be used to evaluate the quality of studies reporting outcomes of articular cartilage surgery in the knee.

BACKGROUND:Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is a significant injury in male National Hockey League (NHL) players. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To determine (1) the return to sport (RTS) rate in the NHL following ACL reconstruction, (2) performance on RTS, and (3) the difference in RTS and performance between players who underwent ACL reconstruction and controls. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS:NHL players undergoing ACL reconstruction were evaluated. All demographic data were analyzed. Matched controls were selected from the NHL during the same years as those undergoing ACL reconstruction. The "index year" (relative to the number of years of experience in the NHL) in controls was the same as the year that cases underwent ACL reconstruction. RTS and performance in the NHL were analyzed and compared between cases and controls. Student t tests were performed for analysis of within- and between-group variables. Bonferroni correction was used in the setting of multiple comparisons. RESULTS:A total of 36 players (37 knees) meeting the inclusion criteria underwent ACL reconstruction while in the NHL. Thirty-five players were able to RTS in the NHL (97%), and 1 player returned to the international Kontinental Hockey League. Of the players who RTS in the NHL, 100% were able to RTS the season after ACL reconstruction (mean, 7.8 ± 2.4 months). Length of career in the NHL after ACL reconstruction was 4.47 ± 3.3 years. The revision rate was 2.5%. There were significantly more cases playing in the NHL at 3 (P = .027) and 4 (P = .029) years following surgery compared with controls (index year). After ACL reconstruction, player performance was not significantly different from preinjury performance. Following ACL reconstruction (or index year in controls), cases played significantly more minutes, took more shots, had better shooting percentages, and scored more goals and points than did controls (P < .01 for all). Control players did not significantly outperform cases after ACL reconstruction in any performance measure. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:There is a high RTS rate in the NHL following ACL reconstruction. All players who RTS did so the season following surgery. Performance following ACL reconstruction was not significantly different from preinjury. Cases performed better than did controls in several performance measures. Controls did not outperform cases in any measured performance variable.

BACKGROUND:Achilles tendon ruptures are one of the most commonly treated injuries by orthopaedic surgeons and general practitioners. Achilles tendon ruptures have classically been thought to affect the middle-aged "weekend warrior" participating in basketball, volleyball, soccer, or any other ground sport that requires speed and agility; however, with a more active elderly population, these tears are becoming more common in older patients. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To report trends in nonoperative and operative treatment of Achilles tendon tears in the United States from 2005 to 2011 in patients registered with a large Medicare database. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Descriptive epidemiological study. METHODS:Patients who underwent nonoperative and operative treatment of Achilles tendon ruptures by either primary repair or primary repair with graft (International Classification of Diseases 9 [ICD-9] diagnosis code 727.67, Current Procedural Terminology [CPT] codes 27650 and 27652) for the years 2005 to 2011 were identified using the PearlDiver Medicare Database. Demographic and utilization data available within the database were extracted for patients who underwent nonoperative as well as operative treatment for Achilles tendon ruptures. Statistical analysis involved Student t tests, chi-square tests, and linear regression analyses, with statistical significance set at P < .05. RESULTS:From 2005 to 2011, there were a total of 14,127 Achilles tendon ruptures. Of these, 9814 were managed nonoperatively, 3531 were treated with primary repair, and 782 were treated with primary repair with graft. The incidence of Achilles tendon increased from 0.67 per 10,000 in 2005 to 1.08 per 10,000 in 2011 (P < .01). There was no significant difference in the number of Achilles ruptures between males (6636) and females (7582) (P > .05). There was an increase in the overall number of Achilles tendon ruptures over time (1689 in 2005 compared with 2788 in 2011; P < .001) but no difference in the percentage of Achilles ruptures treated operatively (P > .05). Older patients were more likely to be treated nonoperatively (P < .05). No differences in operative versus nonoperative treatment were seen between yearly quarter (P > .05), sex (P > .05), or region (P > .05). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The incidence of Achilles tendon ruptures is increasing with time, but the trend in operative and nonoperative treatment has not changed between 2005 and 2011. Older patients, especially those older than 85 years, are more likely to be treated nonoperatively. No differences in treatment patterns were seen based on sex, region, or yearly quarter.

The purpose of this review is to determine if there is a difference in outcomes after: (1) nonsurgical vs surgical treatment of FAI; (2a) surgical dislocation with greater trochanteric osteotomy, (2b) anterior mini-open, (2c) arthroscopic plus mini-open, and (2d) arthroscopic surgery for FAI; (3) difference in complication and re-operation rates; and (4a) labral refixation and (4b) labral debridement for labral injuries. A systematic review of multiple databases was performed after PROSPERO registration and using PRISMA guidelines. Level I-IV evidence clinical studies with minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Data were compared using 2-sample and 2-proportion Z-test calculators. Study methodological quality was analyzed using Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS). Recommendations were made using SORT (Strength Of Recommendation Taxonomy). Twenty-nine studies were included (2369 subjects; 2507 hips). MCMS was poor. Mean subject age was 34.4+/-8.4 years and mean follow-up was 3.1+/-0.9 years. Statistically significant differences were observed following both nonsurgical and surgical treatment, with greater (P < 0.05) improvements following surgery (SORT B), without consistent significant differences observed between different surgical techniques (SORT C). There was a greater (P < 0.05) reoperation and complication rate following surgical dislocation vs mini-open and arthroscopic techniques (SORT A). Clinical outcomes were significantly better (P < 0.05) following labral refixation vs debridement (SORT B). Outcomes of operative treatment of femoroacetabular impingement are significantly better than nonsurgical management. Surgical treatment significantly improves outcomes, with no consistent significant differences exhibited between open and arthroscopic techniques. Open surgical dislocation has significantly greater reoperation and complication rates vs mini-open and arthroscopic techniques. Outcomes of labral refixation are significantly better than debridement in patients with labral injuries.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:(1) To evaluate the quality of knee articular cartilage surgery literature using established methodologic quality instruments, and (2) to assess whether study quality has improved with time. METHODS:A systematic review was performed using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Studies of autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI), osteochondral autograft and allograft transplant, and microfracture were analyzed. Study methodologic quality was assessed by the level of evidence and 9 different methodologic quality questionnaires. Comparisons were made between different surgical technique groups by use of Student's t tests. Assessment of study quality improvement with time was performed by comparison of the Coleman Methodology Score (CMS) from the included studies (2004 to present) and CMS from a prior study assessing quality of articular cartilage studies (1985 to 2004). Furthermore, assessment of study quality improvement with time was performed over the period of the included studies (2004 to present). RESULTS:We included 194 studies (11,787 subjects). Most evidence was Level IV (76%) and nonrandomized (91%). ACI was the most commonly reported technique (62% of studies). Only 34% of studies denied the presence of a financial conflict of interest. The mean subject age was 33.5 ± 8.2 years, and the mean length of follow-up was 3.7 ± 2.3 years. By use of study quality questionnaires, the methodologic quality of articular cartilage studies was poor. However, study quality (after 2004) was significantly improved versus that reported from a prior study (before 2004) using the CMS (P < .01). The mean level of evidence, CMS, CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) score, and Jadad score showed no significant improvement over the period of the included studies (P > .05). The quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was significantly higher than that of non-RCTs (P < .05). The most common study weaknesses included blinding, subject selection process, study type, sample size calculation, and outcome measures and assessment. CONCLUSIONS:The methodologic quality of knee articular cartilage surgery studies was poor overall and also for individual techniques (ACI, osteochondral autograft transplant, osteochondral allograft transplant, and microfracture). However, the overall quality of the investigations in this review (after June 2004) has significantly improved in comparison to those published before 2004. The quality of RCTs was significantly higher than that of non-RCTs. Level of evidence, CMS, CONSORT score, and Jadad score did not significantly improve with later publication date within the period of the studies analyzed. Methodologic quality deficiencies identified in this investigation may be used to guide future articular cartilage studies' design, conduct, and reporting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level IV, systematic review of studies with Levels of Evidence I-IV.

Osteochondritis dissecans of the knee primarily affects subchondral bone, with a secondary effect on the overlying articular cartilage. This process can lead to pain, effusions, and loose body formation. While stable juvenile lesions often respond well to nonoperative management, unstable juvenile lesions, as well as symptomatic adult lesions, often require operative intervention. Short-term goals focus on symptomatic relief, while long-term expectations include the hope of preventing early-onset arthritis. Surgical options include debridement, loose body removal, microfracture, arthroscopic reduction and internal fixation, subchondral drilling, osteochondral autograft or allograft transplantation, and autologous chondrocyte implantation. Newer single-stage cell-based procedures have also been developed, utilizing mesenchymal stem cells and matrix augmentation. Proper treatment requires evaluation of both lesional (size, depth, stability) and patient (age, athletic level) characteristics.