Does Intra-articular Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection Provide Clinically Superior Outcomes Compared With Other Therapies in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis? A Systematic Review of Overlapping Meta-analyses
PURPOSE: The aims of this study were (1) to perform a systematic review of meta-analyses evaluating platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection in the treatment of knee joint cartilage degenerative pathology, (2) to provide a framework for analysis and interpretation of the best available evidence to provide recommendations for use (or lack thereof) of PRP in the setting of knee osteoarthritis (OA), and (3) to identify literature gaps where continued investigation would be suggested. METHODS: Literature searches were performed for meta-analyses examining use of PRP versus corticosteroids, hyaluronic acid, oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or placebo. Clinical data were extracted, and meta-analysis quality was assessed. The Jadad algorithm was applied to determine meta-analyses that provided the highest level of evidence. RESULTS: Three meta-analyses met the eligibility criteria and ranged in quality from Level II to Level IV evidence. All studies compared outcomes of treatment with intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (IA-PRP) versus control (intra-articular hyaluronic acid or intra-articular placebo). Use of PRP led to significant improvements in patient outcomes at 6 months after injection, and these improvements were seen starting at 2 months and were maintained for up to 12 months. It is unclear if the use of multiple PRP injections, the double-spinning technique, or activating agents leads to better outcomes. Patients with less radiographic evidence of arthritis benefit more from PRP treatment. The use of multiple PRP injections may increase the risk of self-limited local adverse reactions. After application of the Jadad algorithm, 3 concordant high-quality meta-analyses were selected and all showed that IA-PRP provided clinically relevant improvements in pain and function compared with the control treatment. CONCLUSIONS: IA-PRP is a viable treatment for knee OA and has the potential to lead to symptomatic relief for up to 12 months. There appears to be an increased risk of local adverse reactions after multiple PRP injections. IA-PRP offers better symptomatic relief to patients with early knee degenerative changes, and its use should be considered in patients with knee OA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II through IV studies.
Platelet-Rich Plasma Outcomes Do Not Correlate with Patient Satisfaction or Perceived Cost-Effectiveness
BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:As platelet-rich plasma injection for knee osteoarthritis (OA) has increased in popularity, it has become more important to assess its effectiveness and satisfaction with its use in the context of its high cost. The purpose of this study was to determine satisfaction, commercial appeal, and effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for the treatment of knee OA. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A retrospective review of patients who underwent PRP injection in the knee from 2016 to 2019 was performed. Satisfaction with the PRP injection (out of 100), whether the patient would want to undergo PRP injection again, whether they would recommend the injection and whether they felt that the injection was worth the cost was collected. VAS pain scores were collected and measured out of 100. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Overall, 114 patients were included. The mean pre-injection pain score was 70.4, and the mean pain level decreased after injection to 36.8. Patients rated their satisfaction on average at 49.2, 50.9% stated that they would get the PRP injection again, 60.5% would recommend to a friend, and 50.9% felt the injection was worth the cost. Younger age and improved post-injection pain correlated with increasing likelihood of desiring further PRP injection. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Patients on average rated satisfaction slightly below average, indicating net indifference skewing towards dissatisfaction with their injection, and only half indicated that it was worth the cost and that they would receive it again. Younger age and pain relief increased desire for further injection, but efficacy did not correlate with patients saying that the injection was worth the cost.
Telemedicine Utilization at an Academic Medical Center During COVID-19 Pandemic: Are Some Patients Being Left Behind?
Clinical outcomes of revision arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability: a systematic review of studies
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.
The Minimal Clinically Important Difference: A Review of Clinical Significance
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.
Posterior Glenoid Bone-Block Transfer for Posterior Shoulder Instability - A Systematic Review
PUPROSE/UNASSIGNED:The purpose of this study is to systematically review the literature and evaluate patient-reported outcomes and complication/revision rates of bone-block augmentation in the treatment of posterior shoulder instability (PSI). METHODS:PUBMED was searched according to PRIMSA guidelines to find clinical studies evaluating patient-report outcomes, revision and complication rates in posterior bone block for posterior shoulder instability. A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, was performed based on the PRISMA guidelines. Clinical studies reporting on the complications following posterior bone block were included. RESULTS:Overall, 11 (LOE III: 2, LOE IV: 9) studies met inclusion criteria, with 225 shoulders. Recurrent instability after the posterior bone block was found to be 9.8%. The overall complication rate was 13.8%, with 0.89% having graft complications, 11.1% having hardware complications, 0.4% having wound complications, 0.4% having nerve complications, and 0.89% having other complications. Residual pain was found in 11.6% of shoulders operated on. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated most commonly by Rowe (81.4), Constant (84.6), and Walch - Duplay (81.6). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:There is a moderate rate of recurrence following posterior bone block for PSI. However, the patient-reported outcomes are high despite there being commonly reported persistent shoulder pain postoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level IV; Systematic Review.
Patients unable to return to play following medial patellofemoral ligament reconstructions demonstrate poor psychological readiness
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 scoreâ€‰>â€‰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 38Â months. Nine patients (25.7%) passed the MPFL-RSI benchmark of 56 with a mean overall score of 44.2â€‰Â±â€‰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 1.9â€‰Â±â€‰2.3, the mean Kujala score was 82.5â€‰Â±â€‰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.
Preoperative Opioid Education has No Effect on Opioid Use in Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial
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 Ã— 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.
Telemedicine Utilization by Orthopedic Patients During COVID-19 Pandemic: Demographic and Socioeconomic Analysis
Patient and Physician Satisfaction with Telehealth During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Sports Medicine Perspective