Faculty Bibliography

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.

Purpose/UNASSIGNED:To evaluate the efficacy of oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) as the primary postoperative pain medication compared with standard oral opioids after arthroscopic shoulder capsulolabral (Bankart) repair for recurrent anterior shoulder instability. Methods/UNASSIGNED:This was a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled study. Patients aged 18 to 65 years indicated for arthroscopic shoulder capsulolabral repair for recurrent anterior shoulder instability were included. Postoperatively, patients were prescribed 1 of 2 analgesic regimens: (1) 30 ibuprofen (600 mg every 6 to 8 hours as needed) and 10 tablets of oxycodone/acetaminophen (5/325 mg every 6 hours as needed for breakthrough pain) or (2) 30 tablets oxycodone/acetaminophen (5/325 mg every 6 hours as needed). Subjects completed questionnaires at 24, 48, and 96 hours and 1 week after surgery, which included questions about analgesic medication usage, visual analog scale (VAS) pain score, incidence of adverse events, and patient satisfaction. Results/UNASSIGNED: = .05) compared with patients in the NSAID group. Of patients in the NSAID group, 17.5% experienced adverse effects, compared with 35% in the opioid-only group. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Use of oral NSAIDs with limited breakthrough opioids results in significantly less opioid use after arthroscopic Bankart repair in the first postoperative week compared with opioids only. Both groups used limited amounts of opioids to control postoperative pain. There were no differences in pain levels at any time point postoperatively or satisfaction between patient groups. Level of Evidence/UNASSIGNED:II, nonblinded randomized control trial.

IMPORTANCE/OBJECTIVE:Cadaveric and MRI findings have demonstrated significantly less labral separation and displacement when the shoulder is placed in external rotation as compared with internal rotation. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of the current study is to meta-analyse the randomised controlled trials in the literature to compare immobilisation in external versus internal rotation after first-time anterior shoulder dislocation. EVIDENCE REVIEW/METHODS:A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Randomised controlled trials comparing immobilisation in external rotation versus internal rotation for first-time anterior shoulder dislocation were included. FINDINGS/RESULTS:Nine randomised controlled trials with 795 patients were included. The mean age of included patients was 29 years, 82.4% were male and the mean follow-up was 25.5 months. As compared with immobilisation in internal rotation, compliance was significantly higher (74.5% vs 67.4%, p=0.01), and the rate of recurrent dislocations was significantly lower (22.2% vs 33.4%, p=0.02) with immobilisation in external rotation. Additionally, in patients 20-40 years old the rate of recurrent dislocations was significantly lower in those treated with immobilisation in external rotation than internal rotation (12.1% vs 31.4%, p=0.006). Immobilisation in external rotation also resulted in a higher rate of return to preinjury level of play (60.1% vs 42.6%, p=0.0001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:Immobilisation of the shoulder in external rotation after a traumatic first-time anterior shoulder dislocation results in a higher compliance rate, a lower recurrent dislocation rate and a higher rate of return to play as compared with immobilisation in internal rotation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level I.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of the current study is to systematically review the current evidence in the literature to ascertain rates of return to play following ACLR with extra-articular augmentation (EA). METHODS:A literature search was performed based on the PRISMA guidelines. Studies were included if they evaluated and reported on return to play following ACLR + EA, case studies and review articles were excluded. The outcomes measured focused on 1) return to play, 2) return to play at the same or higher level, and 3) timing of return to play. Qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis were performed using SPSS. RESULTS:Overall, 19 studies met our inclusion criteria. Among those undergoing primary ACLR, 82.8%-100% were able to return to play, with 64%-100% able to return at the same/higher level of play. All professional athletes were able to return to play and 85.7%-100% able to return to the same level of pre-operative play. The mean time to return was 5-11 months in those undergoing primary ACLR + EA. Among those undergoing revision ACLR, 50-88.4% were able to return to play, with 41.5%-77.8% able to return at the same/higher level of play. None of the included 5 studies comparing rate of return to play between ACLR + EA or ACLR found a significant difference between them. However, among the 6 studies comparing rate of return to play at the same level ACLR + EA or ACLR, 2 studies found a significant difference in rate of return to play at the same/higher level in those undergoing ACLR + EA. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:ACLR + EA resulted in high levels of return to play in those undergoing either primary or revision ACLR. Additionally, comparative studies of patients undergoing primary ACLR with or without EA reported similar high rates of return to play.

Meniscal pathology is one of the most common structural knee issues seen and managed by the orthopaedic surgeon. An ever-evolving armamentarium of management options exists that are geared toward the elimination of symptoms and restoration of normal knee function. A common theme among these management options is to preserve meniscal tissue whenever possible through repair or minimization of meniscal excision, as the literature has shown that the loss of meniscal tissue can significantly alter the distribution of forces and contact stresses on knee articular cartilage, thus predisposing the joint to degenerative osteoarthritis. In the setting of meniscal injuries or insufficiency, various advances in repair techniques, use of meniscal allografts, and use of biologic adjuvants have been reported to help preserve and/or attempt to restore the native kinematic properties of the knee. It is important to explore meniscal function, its associated pathologies, and currently available treatment options that are supported by short-term and long-term clinical data.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:It is unclear whether leukocyte-poor (LP) or leukocyte-rich (LR) varieties of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as an adjuvant to arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) result in improved tendon healing rates. PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:To perform a network meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials in the literature to ascertain whether there is evidence to support the use of LP- or LR-PRP as an adjunct to ARCR. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:The literature search was based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Randomized controlled trials comparing LP- or LR-PRP with a control alongside ARCR were included. Clinical outcomes, including retears and functional 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/UNASSIGNED:There were 13 studies (868 patients) included, with 9 studies comparing LP-PRP with a control and 4 studies comparing LR-PRP with a control. LP-PRP was found to significantly reduce the rate of retear and/or incomplete tendon healing after fixation, even among medium-large tears; it also improved outcomes on the visual analog scale for pain, Constant score, and University of California Los Angeles score. LP-PRP had the highest P-score for all treatment groups. LR-PRP did not result in any significant improvements over the control group, except for visual analog scale score for pain. However, post hoc analysis revealed that LP-PRP did not lead to significant improvements over LR-PRP in any category. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:The current study demonstrates that LP-PRP reduces the rate of retear and/or incomplete tendon healing after ARCR and improves patient-reported outcomes as compared with a control. However, it is still unclear whether LP-PRP improves the tendon healing rate when compared with LR-PRP.

BACKGROUND:The aim of this study was to describe associated injuries in cases of distal biceps femoris avulsions (DBFA) as well as the incidence of neurological injury and radiographic abnormalities of the common peroneal nerve (CPN). METHODS:A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients presenting to our office or trauma center with DBFA injuries. Demographic data was obtained as well as mechanism of injury. Assessment of concomitant injuries and presence of neurologic injury was completed via chart review and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) review. The CPN was evaluated for signs of displacement or neuritis. RESULTS:Sixteen patients were identified (mean age-at-injury 28.6 years, 87.5% male) with DBFA. Three patients (18.8%) sustained their injuries secondary to high energy trauma while 13 (81.3%) had injuries secondary to lower energy trauma. Nine patients (56.3%) initially presented with CPN palsy. All patients presenting with CPN palsy of any kind were found to have a displaced CPN on MRI and no patient with a normal nerve course had a CPN palsy. CONCLUSIONS:This case series demonstrates a strong association between DBFA and CPN palsy as well as multi-ligamentous knee injury (MLKI). These injuries have a higher rate of CPN palsy than that typically reported for MLKI. Furthermore, these findings suggest that CPN displacement on MRI may be a clinically significant indicator of nerve injury. LOE: IV.

Purpose/UNASSIGNED:To examine finger, thumb, hand, wrist, and forearm fractures in the National Hockey League (NHL) and determine: (1) basic demographic data, (2) return to sport (RTS) rates, (3) performance after RTS, and (4) the difference in RTS between players treated operatively versus conservatively. Methods/UNASSIGNED:NHL players with finger, thumb, hand, wrist, and forearm fractures between the 1995-1996 and 2014-2015 seasons were identified through team injury reports and archives on public record. Player demographics, RTS rate, games played per season, and performance score for each player were recorded and compared between the preinjury season and one season following injury. Results/UNASSIGNED:A total of 247 total NHL players with hand, wrist, and forearm fractures were identified, consisting of 30.8% finger, 38.5% hand, 13.8% thumb, 14.6% wrist, and 2.4% forearm fractures. Defenseman comprised the majority of players (40.1%). The overall RTS rate was 98.0%, with no significant difference between players with surgery or between injury location groups. In total, 52 players (21.1%) underwent surgery with no significant correlation of surgery rates based on fracture location. The mean number of missed games was 13.8 ± 9.9, with players sustaining wrist and forearm fractures missing the largest number of games (21.6 ± 17.7and 22.8 ± 7.5 games missed, respectively). There was no significant change in games played or performance scores 1 year after injury for players with any of the fracture types compared with baseline preoperative games played and performance. Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:NHL players have a high RTS rate following hand, wrist, and forearm fractures. Players were able to return to preinjury performance within 1 year, regardless of treatment or type of fracture. Level of Evidence/UNASSIGNED:Level IV, case series.

Purpose/UNASSIGNED:To evaluate clinical and biomechanical outcomes after knee extensor mechanism reconstruction (KEMR). Methods/UNASSIGNED:Patients who underwent KEMR at our institution from 2011 to 2018 were identified. Patient-reported outcomes (Kujala, Lysholm, Tegner Activity Scale) were compiled at clinical follow-up. Isokinetic testing was conducted using the BioDex system 4 pro dynamometer at slow (60°/s), intermediate (180°/s), and fast (300°/s) speeds in a 9-patient subset. Results/UNASSIGNED: = .038). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Patients undergoing KEMR in this study have significantly improved clinical outcomes despite having strength deficits that persist postoperatively. Level of Evidence/UNASSIGNED:Therapeutic Case Series, Level IV.