Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study is to survey the members of North American and European shoulder surgery & sports medicine societies to evaluate their criteria for deciding when an athlete can safely return to play (RTP) following shoulder stabilization surgery. METHODS:A survey was sent to the members of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM), European Society for Sports & Knee Arthroscopy (ESSKA), and European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and the Elbow (SECEC). Surgeons were asked which criteria they used to determine when an athlete can RTP following the arthroscopic Bankart repair and Latarjet procedures, with additional questions on how time from surgery and participation in collision sports affect return. RESULTS:Overall, 317 surgeons responded to the survey. Following arthroscopic Bankart repair, the most common criteria used were time (98.7%), strength (74.8%), and range of motion (70%). The most commonly-reported time point was 4 months (43.8%), and the majority used an additional time period, most commonly 2 months (38.2%), before allowing a collision athlete to RTP (75.4%). Interestingly, the addition of a Remplissage procedure did not affect decision-making regarding RTP in most cases (92.1%). Following the Latarjet procedure, the most common criteria used were time (98.4%), strength (67.5%), and range of motion (65.9%). Less than half reported using imaging to assess for radiographic union before allowing patients to RTP (47%), and the most common modality was plain radiography (80%). The most common time point was 4 months (33.1%), and the majority reported waiting an additional period of time, most commonly by 2 months (25.9%), before allowing a collision athlete to RTP (59.6%). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Despite the absence of evidence-based guidelines on when athletes can safely return to play following shoulder stabilization surgery, there exists minimal variability in recommendations between North American and European shoulder surgeons. Further research is required to better define criteria for return to play after the arthroscopic Bankart repair and Latarjet procedures.

BACKGROUND:Telemedicine has increasingly been considered as a viable alternative to traditional office-based health care, including postoperative follow-up visits. The purpose of the present study was to determine if patient satisfaction with overall care is equivalent for telemedicine follow-up (i.e., synchronous face-to-face video) and office-based follow-up after arthroscopic meniscectomy and repair. METHODS:Patients were prospectively enrolled from August 1, 2019, to March 1, 2020. Patients were included who were ≥18 years old, consented to isolated arthroscopic meniscal repair or meniscectomy, and were able to properly utilize telemedicine software on a computer, tablet, or smartphone with a built-in camera. Patient demographic data, including complication events and postoperative satisfaction data, were recorded and analyzed for significance. RESULTS:One hundred and fifty patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 122 (81.3%) were included in the final analysis. There were no significant differences between groups in terms of patient demographics or satisfaction scores. Patient satisfaction with overall care was equivalent based on the results of two 1-sided t-test analysis for equivalence (9.77 ± 0.60 in the office-based group versus 9.79 ± 0.53 in the telemedicine group; p < 0.001). When patients were asked to indicate their preferred follow-up type with the options listed as the type they received versus an alternative, 58 patients (84.1%) in the office-based group preferred their received type of follow-up, whereas 42 (79.2%) in the telemedicine group preferred their received follow-up (p = 0.493). There were no significant differences between groups in terms of complications (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:The present study showed that patient satisfaction with overall care is equivalent between telemedicine and office-based follow-up in the immediate postoperative period following an arthroscopic meniscal surgical procedure, and should be considered a reasonable alternative to the traditional in-office modality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

CASE:A 71-year-old man presented with extreme anterior knee pain. His history, physical examination, and imaging were consistent with prepatellar bursitis, but his pain seemed out of proportion for these findings. The patient eventually underwent marginal excision of the inflamed prepatellar bursa which histopathology identified as a glomangioma. Postoperatively, he has complete resolution of his pain and has returned to his daily activities. CONCLUSION:Glomus tumors are a rare cause of severe knee pain that completely resolves after excision. In the patient with extreme, localized knee sensitivity, it is important to consider this pathology even if no mass is identified on imaging.

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.

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.

Acute Achilles tendon ruptures can be disabling injuries with high personal and societal costs. However, the decision to pursue operative versus nonoperative management following these injuries remains controversial. Functional rehabilitation techniques have been refined such that outcomes may be as good, if not better, with nonoperative treatment. Furthermore, while surgical treatment rates have dramatically decreased in many countries over the prior 15 years, operative repair remains the treatment of choice for most patients in the United States. A critical review is presented regarding outcomes, complications, and rates of return to sport for both pathways to determine the best course of action for patients who sustain this injury.

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.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:It is important to understand the current characteristics of orthopaedic surgery program leadership, especially in the current climate of modern medicine. The purpose of this report was to describe the demographic, academic, and geographic characteristics of current orthopaedic chairs and program directors (PDs). METHODS:Orthopaedic surgery residency programs were obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education website and cross-referenced with the Electronic Residency Application Service, identifying 161 residency programs for the 2018 to 2019 cycle. All data were collected in January 2020 to best control for changes in leadership. Demographic and academic information were collected from public websites. For geographic analysis, the United States was divided into five regions, and training locations were categorized as appropriate. RESULTS:A total of 153 chairs and 161 PDs were identified. 98.0% of chairs were men versus 88.8% of PDs (P = 0.001). Chairs had been in practice and in their current position for longer than PDs (26.4 vs 16.8 years [P < 0.005] and 9.1 vs 7.1 years [P = 0.014], respectively). Chairs had more publications and were more likely to be professors than PDs. PDs were more likely to remain at both the same region and institution that they trained in residency. The most common subspecialty was sports among chairs and trauma among PDs, although when compared with national averages orthopaedic trauma and orthopaedic oncology were the most overrepresented subspecialties. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Orthopaedic chairs are more likely to be men, have had longer careers, and have more academic accomplishments than their PD counterparts. Geography appears to have an association with where our leaders end up, especially for PDs. Subspecialization does not notably influence leadership positions, although orthopaedic trauma and orthopaedic oncology surgeons are more commonly represented than expected. This report serves to identify the current state of orthopaedic leadership and may provide guidance for those who seek these leadership positions.

BACKGROUND:With the increasing utilization of patient satisfaction as a metric for clinical care, there is growing interest in techniques that can be used to improve satisfaction in patients undergoing surgery. The purpose of this trial was to assess the impact of day-of-surgery video and phone calls on patient satisfaction. METHODS:We enrolled 251 patients undergoing outpatient orthopaedic surgery with 3 participating surgeons. Surgeons were randomized to 1 of 3 patient communication modalities: no contact (standard of care), phone call, or video call. Several hours following discharge on the day of surgery, the surgeons contacted patients according to their assigned treatment group. At the initial postoperative office visit, satisfaction outcomes were assessed using the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Surgical Care (S-CAHPS) survey and an additional satisfaction questionnaire. RESULTS:Fifty-nine (97%) of 61 patients in the no-contact group, 118 (99%) of 119 patients in the phone group, and 71 (100%) of 71 patients in the video group completed follow-up assessment. The S-CAHPS top-box response rate in both the video group (0.86 ± 0.14, p < 0.001) and the phone group (0.84 ± 0.17, p < 0.001) was greater than in the no-contact group (0.68 ± 0.26). When asked to rate satisfaction with overall care, a greater proportion of patients in the video group (85.9%) gave the top-box response compared with both the phone group (71.8%, p = 0.040) and the no-contact group (60.7%, p = 0.002). Among the patients in the video group, 62.0% indicated that they would prefer a video call in future encounters with their surgeon compared with 1.8% of patients in the no-contact group (p < 0.001) and 1.7% of patients in the phone group (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Phone and video calls following discharge are an effective way of enhancing patient satisfaction with the clinical care experience as measured by the S-CAHPS survey. In terms of satisfaction with overall care, video calls may be superior to phone calls. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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.