Faculty Bibliography

Background: Single-stage medial meniscus allograft transplantation (MAT) with concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a technically challenging procedure for management of knee pain and instability in younger patients, but clinical and functional outcomes data are sparse. The purpose of this study was to assess surgical and patient-reported outcomes following concomitant ACLR and medial MAT. Methods: We conducted a retrospective case series of patients who underwent medial MAT with concomitant primary or revision ACLR at our institution from 2010 to 2021 and had minimum 12-month follow-up. Complications, reoperations, visual analog scale (VAS) pain, satisfaction, Lysholm score, return to sport, and return to work outcomes were assessed. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference, Pain Intensity, and Physical Function Scores were used to measure patients"™ functional status relative to the US population. P-values < 0.05 were considered significant. Results: The cohort consisted of 17 knees of 16 individual patients. The cohort was majority male (82.4%) with mean age of 31.9 years (range 19"“49 years) and mean body mass index (BMI) of 27.9 kg/m² (range 22.5"“53.3 kg/m²). Mean follow-up time was 56.8 months (range 13"“106 months). Most patients underwent revision ACLR (64.7%). The 1-year reoperation rate was high (23.5%), with two patients (11.8%) tearing their meniscus graft. Patient-reported outcomes indicated low VAS pain (mean 2.2), high satisfaction (mean 77.9%), and fair Lysholm score (mean 81.1). Return to work rate was high (92.9%), while return to sport rate was low (42.9%). Postoperative PROMIS scores were comparable or superior to the national average and correlated significantly with patient satisfaction (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The concomitant ACLR and MAT procedure is associated with excellent knee pain and functional outcomes and high rate of return to work after surgery, though the 1-year reoperation rate is high and rate of return to sport is low. Level of evidence: IV.

Introduction: While OCA has been shown to result in good long-term outcomes, there is still a considerable failure rate present with room for improvement. Objectives: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact that osteochondral allograft cartilage thickness has on contact pressures, and to simulate whether a mismatch of the subchondral bony interface relative to the host-recipient site results in altered biomechanics. Methods: Properties of articular cartilage and bone were incorporated into a finite element model to create a simulated osteochondral lesion (diameter: 10 mm, height: 10 mm, cartilage thickness: 2 mm, subchondral bone thickness: 8 mm). Five osteochondral plugs were constructed to fill the defect, with cartilage-to-bone ratios between 1:9 and 1:1. The plugs were inserted and given a static downward force of 5000 N. Resultant stresses and displacements were measured. Results: The 2:8 cartilage-to-bone ratio plug, matched with the recipient site, was deemed optimal based on its resultant stress and displacement. The 1:9 plug displaced less than the 2:8 match and endured greater stress per unit of cartilage volume, whereas the 3:7 plug also displayed similar displacement to the 1:9 plug but had greater cartilage volume and was able to distribute less stress per unit of cartilage volume. The 4:6 plug displaced to a similar extent as the 3:7 plug but displayed a unique pattern of strain. The 5:5 plug was considered nonfunctional, as the majority of displacement was seen in the cartilage of the recipient site rather than in the plug itself. Conclusions: The relationship between the cartilage-to-bone ratio in osteochondral allografts and that of their surroundings significantly impacts the distribution of stresses and predilection for micromotion at the repair site.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Multi-ligamentous knee injuries (MLKIs) are high-energy injuries that may infrequently present with concomitant patellar tendon rupture. There is limited information in the literature regarding these rare presentations, with even less information regarding clinical outcomes. Using propensity-score matching, the purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of MLKIs with and without patellar tendon ruptures and to investigate the overall predictors of these outcomes. METHODS:Twelve patients who underwent surgical repair for combined MLKI and patellar tendon rupture from 2011 to 2020 with minimum 1-year follow-up data were identified from two separate institutions. Patients were propensity-score matched with a 1:1 ratio with controls based on age, body mass index (BMI), gender, and time from surgery. Patient-reported outcomes included International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Form, Lysholm and Tegner scores. RESULTS:Twelve MLKIs with concomitant patellar tendon injuries were identified out of a multicenter cohort of 237 (5%) patients sustaining MLKI and were case matched 1:1 with 12 MLKIs without extensor mechanism injuries. The average follow-up was 5.5 ± 2.6 years. There were no differences in Schenck Classification injury patterns. There were significant differences found across IKDC (Patellar Tendon mean: 53.1 ± 24.3, MLKI mean 79.3 ± 19.6, P < 0.001) and Lysholm scores (Patellar Tendon mean: 63.6 ± 22.3, MLKI mean 86.3 ± 10.7, P < 0.001) between the two, illustrating poorer outcomes for patients with concomitant patellar tendon ruptures. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In the setting of MLKI, patients who have a concomitant patellar tendon rupture have worse functional outcomes compared to those without. This information will be important for patient counseling and might be considered to be added to Schenck classification, reflecting its prognostic value. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level IV.

BACKGROUND:Concentrated bone marrow aspirate (cBMA) has garnered widespread and increasing attention in recent years. We aimed to characterize the most influential articles in cBMA research while clarifying controversies surrounding its use and clinical efficacy and identifying important areas on which to focus future research efforts. METHODS:The Science Citation Index Expanded subsection of the Web of Science Core Collection was systematically searched to identify the top 50 most cited publications on orthopedic cBMA research. Publication and study characteristics were extracted, and Spearman correlations were calculated to assess the relationship between citation data and level of evidence. RESULTS:The top 50 articles were published between the years 1996 and 2018, with 58% published in the year 2010 or later. Of the 29 studies for which level of evidence was assessed, the majority were Level IV (24, 83%). Twenty-one articles (42%) were classified as basic science or translational (9 cell culture, 8 animal study, and 4 using human blood samples). Application to treat cartilage defects was the most common focus of studies (17 studies, 34%), followed by analysis of cBMA composition (14 studies, 28%). No correlation was found between rank, citation rate, or year of publication and level of evidence. CONCLUSIONS:The most influential articles on cBMA are recent and consist of a majority low-level of evidence studies. Cohort studies were the most common study type among the top 50 most cited articles, while basic science articles were relatively less common. These results suggest a rapidly evolving field with the potential to better explain inconsistent clinical results with improved understanding and documentation of basic science concepts in addition to large-scale, prospective clinical trials. Orthobiologics and especially cBMA holds great promise for the future, and higher-level clinical trials will help better define the best clinical uses for this treatment.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective analysis of outcomes in cervical spine and shoulder arthroscopy patients. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study is to assess differential improvements in health-related quality of life for cervical spine surgery compared with shoulder surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:An understanding of outcome differences between different types of orthopedic surgeries is helpful in counseling patients about expected postoperative recovery. This study compares outcomes in patients undergoing cervical spine surgery with arthroscopic shoulder surgery using computer-adaptive Patient-reported Outcome Information System scores. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Patients undergoing cervical spine surgery (1-level or 2-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, cervical disc replacement) or arthroscopic shoulder surgery (rotator cuff repair±biceps tenodesis) were grouped. Patient-reported Outcome Information System scores of physical function, pain interference, and pain intensity at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months were compared using paired t tests. RESULTS:Cervical spine (n=127) and shoulder (n=91) groups were similar in sex (25.8% vs. 41.8% female, P=0.731) but differed in age (51.6±11.6 vs. 58.60±11.2, P<0.05), operative time (148.3±68.6 vs. 75.9±26.9 min, P<0.05), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASAs) (2.3±0.6 vs. 2.0±0.5, P=0.001), smoking status (15.7% vs. 4.4%, P=0.008), and length of stay (1.1±1.0 vs. 0.3±0.1, P=0.000). Spine patients had worse physical function (36.9 ±12.6 vs. 49.4±8.6, P<0.05) and greater pain interference (67.0±13.6 vs. 61.7±4.8, P=0.001) at baseline. Significant improvements were seen in all domains by 3 months for both groups, except for physical function after shoulder surgery. Spine patients had greater physical function improvements at all timepoints (3.33 vs. -0.43, P=0.003; 4.81 vs. 0.08, P=0.001; 6.5 vs. -5.24, P=<0.05). Conversely, shoulder surgery patients showed better 6-month improvement in pain intensity over spine patients (-8.86 vs. -4.46, P=0.001), but this difference resolved by 12 months. CONCLUSIONS:Cervical spine patients had greater relative early improvement in physical function compared with shoulder patients, whereas pain interference and intensity did not significantly differ between the 2 groups after surgery. This will help in counseling patients about relative difference in recovery and improvement between the 2 surgery types. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Prior studies of hamstring tendon tears have reported varied findings on whether increased delay from injury to surgery is associated with worse outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine whether increased time from injury to surgical repair is associated with worse clinical outcomes in patients with proximal hamstring ruptures. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Patients who underwent surgical repair of a proximal hamstring rupture from 2010 to 2019 were followed for a minimum of 24 months from surgery. A cutoff of 6 weeks from injury to the time of surgery was used to distinguish between acute and chronic ruptures. All patients completed patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) at the final follow-up. Multiple factors were analyzed for their effects on PROs including time to surgery, amount of tendon retraction, and demographics such as sex and age. RESULTS:Complete data sets were obtained for 38 patients at a mean follow-up of 4.9 years. All data is reported as a mean ± standard deviation. Patients who underwent acute repair of proximal hamstring ruptures had significantly greater Perth Hamstring Assessment Tool (PHAT) scores than those who underwent chronic repair (76.9 ± 18.8 vs 60.6 ± 18.2, p = 0.01). Increased time to surgery was significantly correlated with worse PHAT scores (ρ = - 0.47, p = 0.003). There was no difference in PROs based on the amount of tendon retraction, number of tendons torn, sex, smoking status, or BMI. CONCLUSIONS:This study found that acute repair performed within 6 weeks of injury appears to yield improved PROs compared to chronic repair. These data highlight the importance of timely and accurate diagnosis of proximal hamstring ruptures and early operative intervention for surgical candidates.

STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:Retrospective comparative; LOE-3. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to investigate what effect, if any, an institutional opioid reduction prescribing policy following one- or two-level lumbar fusion has on Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey results. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA/BACKGROUND:Previous research has demonstrated that high levels of opioid-prescribing may be related, in part, to a desire to produce superior patient satisfaction. METHODS:A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was conducted on patients who underwent one- or two-level lumbar fusions L3-S1 between October 2014 and October 2019 at a single institution. Patients with complete survey information were included in the analysis. Patients with a history of trauma, fracture, spinal deformity, fusions more than two levels, or prior lumbar fusion surgery L3-S1 were excluded. Cohorts were based on date of surgery relative to implementation of an institutional opioid reduction policy, which commenced in October 1, 2018. To better compare groups, opioid prescriptions were converted into milligram morphine equivalents (MME). RESULTS:A total of 330 patients met inclusion criteria: 259 pre-protocol, 71 post-protocol. There were 256 one-level fusions and 74 two-level fusions included. There were few statistically significant differences between groups with respect to patient demographics (P > 0.05) with the exception of number of patients who saw the pain management service, which increased from 36.7% (95) pre-protocol to 59.2% (42) post-protocol; P < 0.001. Estimated blood loss (EBL) decreased from 533 ± 571 mL to 346 ± 328 mL (P = 0.003). Percentage of patients who underwent concomitant laminectomy decreased from 71.8% to 49.3% (P < 0.001). Average opioids prescribed on discharge in the pre-protocol period was 534 ± 425 MME, compared to after initiation of the protocol, that is 320 ± 174 MME (P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference with respect to satisfaction with pain control, 4.49 ± 0.85 pre-protocol versus 4.51 ± 0.82 post-protocol (P = 0.986). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:A reduction in opioids prescribed at discharge after one- or two-level lumbar fusion is not associated with any statistically significant change in patient satisfaction with pain management, as measured by the HCAHPS survey.Level of Evidence: 3.

PURPOSE:The purpose of this study was to perform a network meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the literature in order to assess the evidence defining the optimal combination of surgical technique single-row repair (SRR), double-row repair (DRR), or transosseous-equivalent/suture bridge (TOE/SB) arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) and postoperative rehabilitation (early or late) protocol for ARCR. METHODS:The literature search was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomized SSR-early trials (RCTs) comparing SRR vs DRR vs TOE/SB ARCR techniques were included, as well as early vs late postoperative range of motion. 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:Twenty-eight studies comprising 2,181 total shoulders met the inclusion criteria. TOE/SB-late (odds ratio [OR], 0.19; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.46) and DRR-late (OR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.12-0.52) were found to significantly reduce the rate of retear, with TOE/SB-late resulting in the highest P-score for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (P-score: 0.7911) score and retear rate (P-score: 0.8725). DRR-early did not result in any significant improvements over the SRR-early group, except in internal rotation. There was no significant difference in forward flexion between groups, with almost equivalent P-scores. Furthermore, TOE/SB-early and TOE/SB-late trended toward worsening external rotation compared with the control. CONCLUSIONS:The current study suggests that rotator cuff repair using the TOE/SB technique and late postoperative mobilization yields the highest functional outcomes and lowest retear rate in the arthroscopic management of symptomatic rotator cuff tears. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Level I, meta-analysis of Level I studies.

Background/Purpose: Recent literature suggests that rheumatic disease patients hold most immunosuppressive (IS) medications before and after joint replacement surgery, to prevent infections and other complications. But there are currently no guidelines on peri-arthroscopic management of IS treatment in this population. The purpose of this study is to characterize the rheumatic disease patient population undergoing arthroscopy, compare the incidence of postoperative complications among patients who either remained on IS perioperatively, held IS perioperatively or were not on IS at baseline, and compare the incidence of postoperative complication by rheumatic disease type, medication type, and procedure.
Method(s): We conducted a retrospective review of all arthroscopic sports medicine surgeries in patients with a rheumatic disease diagnosis at our institution over an 11-year period. Patients on IS at baseline were grouped into those who remained on IS perioperatively or held all IS before the date of their surgery. These two groups were compared to rheumatic disease patients who were not on IS at baseline. Incidence of postoperative complications was calculated for the three cohorts and by medication class, rheumatic disease type, and procedure risk. Analysis of variance (ANOVA), Chi-squared, and Fisher's exact tests were used to determine the statistical significance of between-group differences in postoperative complication incidence.
Result(s): We identified 1,316 rheumatic disease patients undergoing arthroscopy, with 214 of them taking IS medications at baseline. Overall, 8.4% (n=110) remained on IS perioperatively, 7.9% (n=104) held IS perioperatively, and 83.7% (n=1102) were not on IS at baseline. In all cohorts, 7 patients experienced postoperative complications, with 6 of the 7 due to infections. There were two cases (1.82%) of infections among patients remaining on IS perioperatively, zero cases (0%) of infection in patients who held all IS, and four cases (0.36%) of postoperative infection in patients who were not on any IS at baseline. There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative infections or complication rates among the three cohorts or further subgroups.
Conclusion(s): Physicians and surgeons will increasingly be faced with challenging perioperative management decisions regarding IS in their rheumatic disease patients undergoing arthroscopic surgery. The present study is the first to suggest a low and acceptable risk of postoperative infections and other complications in these patients on IS at the time of arthroscopy

Background/Purpose: To determine the rate and characteristics of postoperative flares in rheumatic disease patients undergoing arthroscopic surgery, and the role of perioperative immunosuppression (IS) management in preventing or provoking these exacerbations. We conducted a retrospective review of arthroscopic surgeries in patients with rheumatologic disease over 11 years. Patients taking IS at baseline and those without were matched 1:1 using propensity scores on age, sex, rheumatic disease type, and procedure complexity. Patients taking IS at baseline were sub-divided into those remaining on IS perioperatively versus those who held IS before surgery. Multivariable logistic regression identified risk factors for postoperative flares for the three IS groups, and survival analysis was used to compare the probability of remaining flare-free up to 12 weeks postoperatively.
Method(s): We conducted a retrospective review of arthroscopic surgeries in patients with rheumatologic disease over 11 years. Patients taking IS at baseline and those without were matched 1:1 using propensity scores on age, sex, rheumatic disease type, and procedure complexity. Patients taking IS at baseline were sub-divided into those remaining on IS perioperatively versus those who held IS before surgery. Multivariable logistic regression identified risk factors for postoperative flares for the three IS groups, and survival analysis was used to compare the probability of remaining flare-free up to 12 weeks postoperatively.
Result(s): After matching,428 patients (214 on baseline IS, 214 not on baseline IS) were included, with 110 on baseline IS remaining on it perioperatively. Rates of postoperative flares were similar for those staying on vs holding their baseline IS (9.1% vs 9.6%) but flares were less frequent in patients not on baseline IS (1.9%). Patients who remained on perioperative IS did not have significantly less flares compared to patients taken off perioperative IS (OR 0.764 [0.267, 2.181]; p = 0.61). Patients not on baseline IS had a significantly higher probability of remaining flare-free up to 12 weeks (p = 0.004).
Conclusion(s): Rheumatic disease patients who hold IS medication before undergoing arthroscopy do not increase their risk of flaring their autoimmune disease. Those not taking any IS at baseline have amuch lower risk of post-arthroscopic flaring, though as a group they might harbor less of an autoimmune burden. Given the overall low observed rates of postoperative infection and complications among our cohort, the feared trade-off between infection risk and flare risk may not hold true in arthroscopy