Faculty Bibliography

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.

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.

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.

Bone tunnel-related complications are frequently encountered during revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Issues with tunnel positioning, enlargement, containment, and hardware interference may complicate surgery and compromise outcomes. As a result, several strategies have emerged to address these issues and optimize results. However, a systematic, unified approach to tunnel pathology in revision ACLR is lacking. The purpose of this review is to highlight the current state of the literature on bone tunnel complications and, although extensive literature on the subject is lacking, present an updated approach to the evaluation and management of tunnel-related issues in revision ACLR.

Although anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a generally successful procedure, failure is still relatively common. An increased posterior tibial slope (PTS) has been shown to increase the anterior position of the tibia relative to the femur at rest and under load in biomechanical studies. Increased PTS has also been shown to increase forces on the native and reconstructed ACL. Clinical studies have demonstrated elevated PTS in patients with failed ACLR and multiple failed ACLR, compared with control subjects. Anterior closing-wedge osteotomies have been shown to decrease PTS and may be indicated in patients who have failed ACLR with a PTS of ≥12°. Available clinical data suggest that the procedure is safe and effective, although evidence is limited to case series. This article presents the relevant biomechanics, clinical observational data on the effects of increased PTS, and an algorithm for evaluating and treating patients with a steep PTS.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of the current study is to systematically review and network meta-analyze the current evidence in the literature to ascertain if there is a superior lateral extra-articular augmentation technique in conjunction with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACL.R) with respect to knee stability, re-rupture rates and functional outcomes. METHODS:The literature search was performed based on the PRISMA guidelines. Cohort studies comparing ACL.R to ACL.R + lateral extra-articular augmentation were included. Lateral extra-articular techniques included were anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALL.R), Cocker-Arnold, Lemaire, Losee, Maraccaci, and McIntosh. Clinical outcomes were compared between ACL.R alone and the different lateral extra-articular augmentation techniques 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 with a total of 2990 patients were included. ACL.R + Cocker-Arnold technique had the highest P-Score for ACL re-ruptures and residual pivot-shift. ACL.R + Cocker-Arnold, Lemaire, and ALL.R all significantly reduced the rate of ACL re-rupture, and residual pivot-shift, compared to ACL.R alone. There was no significant difference between any of the lateral extra-articular augmentation techniques and ACL.R alone. ALL.R had the highest P-Score for return to play, and return to play at pre-injury level. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study established that ACL.R + Cocker-Arnold, Lemaire and ALL.R resulted in significantly lower ipsilateral ACL re-ruptures, as well as reduced pivot-shift, compared to ACL.R alone. Whereas, the other lateral extra-articular augmentation techniques did not reduce pivot-shift and re-rupture. Additionally, functional outcomes and return to play were comparable between those who underwent ACL.R and lateral extra-articular augmentation and ACL.R alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.