Faculty Bibliography

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.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction (MPFLR) is often indicated in athletes with lateral patellar instability to prevent recurrence and allow for a successful return to play. In this patient population, the ability to return to play is one of the most important clinical outcomes. The purpose of the current study was to analyze the characteristics of patients who were unable return to play following MPFL reconstruction. METHODS:A retrospective review of patients who underwent MPFL reconstruction and subsequently did not return to play after a minimum of 12-months of follow-up was performed. Patients were evaluated for their psychological readiness to return to sport using the MPFL-Return to Sport after Injury (MPFL-RSI) score, which is a modification of the ACL-RSI score. A MPFL-RSI score > 56 is considered a passing score for being psychologically ready to return to play. Additionally, reasons for not returning to play including Visual Analog Scale for pain (VAS), Kujala score, satisfaction, and recurrent instability (including dislocations and subluxations) were evaluated. RESULTS:The study included a total of 35 patients who were unable to return to play out of a total cohort of 131 patients who underwent MPFL reconstruction as treatment for patellar instability. Overall, 60% were female with a mean age of 24.5, and a mean follow-up of 38 months. Nine patients (25.7%) passed the MPFL-RSI benchmark of 56 with a mean overall score of 44.2 ± 21.8. The most common primary reasons for not returning to play were 14 were afraid of re-injury, 9 cited other lifestyle factors, 5 did not return due to continued knee pain, 5 were not confident in their ability to perform, and 2 did not return due to a feeling of instability. The mean VAS score was 1.9 ± 2.3, the mean Kujala score was 82.5 ± 14.6, and the mean satisfaction was 76.9%. Three patients (8.7%) reported experiencing a patellar subluxation event post-operatively. No patient sustained a post-operative patellar dislocation. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Following MPFL reconstruction, patients that do not return to play exhibit poor psychological readiness with the most common reason being fear of re-injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:IV.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to determine whether a preoperative video-based opioid education reduced narcotics consumption after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in opioid-naive patients. METHODS:This was a single-center randomized controlled trial. Preoperatively, the control group received our institution's standard of care for pain management education, whereas the experimental group watched an educational video on the use of opioids. Patients were discharged with 30 × 5 mg/325 mg oxycodone-acetaminophen prescribed: 1 to 2 tablets every 4 to 6 hours. They were contacted daily and asked to report opioid use and visual analog scale pain. A chart review at 3 months post-op was used to analyze for opioid refills. RESULTS:A total of 130 patients completed the study (65 control and 65 experimental). No statistically significant differences were noted in patient demographics between groups (P > 0.05). Patients in the education group did not use a statistically significant different number of narcotics than the control group throughout the first postoperative week (14.0 pills experimental versus 13.7 pills control, P = 0.60). No statistically significant differences were noted between groups at follow-regarding the rate of prescription refills (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study suggests that preoperative video-based opioid education may have no effect on reducing the number of narcotic pills consumed after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. CLINICAL RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:Data exist to suggest that preoperative video-based opioid education has an effect on postoperative consumption; however, the effect of this education in the setting of already-limited opioid-prescribing is not known. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER/UNASSIGNED:NCT04018768.