Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:To provide an overview of the current evidence of the timing of surgery and rehabilitation after multiligamentous knee injuries (MLKIs) and offer insights into the ongoing multi-center randomized controlled study, the 'STaR trial'. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:Due to the complexity of the MKLIs, they are usually treated surgically with the goal of either repairing or reconstructing the injured ligaments. Although the current literature on MLKIs is relatively extensive, the consensus on the timing of surgery or rehabilitation following surgery for MLKIs is still lacking. While current literature mostly suggests early treatment, there is also evidence preferring delayed treatment. Furthermore, evidence on the timing of postoperative rehabilitation is limited. Thus, the current multi-center randomized controlled study, the 'STaR trial', is expected to respond to these questions by adding new high-level evidence. The MLKIs are often associated with knee dislocation and constitute a highly complex entity, including concomitant injuries, such as neurovascular, meniscal, and cartilaginous injuries. The treatment of MLKIs usually aims to either repair or reconstruct the injured ligaments, however, there is no general consensus on the timing of surgery or rehabilitation following an MLKI surgery. This current review stresses the need for more high-level research to address the paucity of evidence-based treatment guidelines for the treatment of complex MLKIs.

➤ Posterior tibial slope (PTS) of ≥12° represents an important risk factor for both anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and ACL reconstruction failure.➤ PTS measurements can significantly differ on the basis of the imaging modality and the measurement technique used. PTS should be measured on strictly lateral radiographs, with a recommended proximal tibial length of 15 cm in the image. The PTS measurement can be made by placing 2 circles to define the proximal tibial axis, 1 just below the tibial tubercle and another 10 cm below it. PTS measurements are underestimated when made on magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography.➤ Slope-reducing osteotomies can be performed using a (1) supratuberosity, (2) tubercle-reflecting transtuberosity, or (3) infratuberosity method. The correction target remains a topic of debate. Although it is controversial, some authors recommend overcorrecting the tibial slope slightly to a range of 4° to 6°. For instance, if the initial slope is 12°, a correction of 6° to 8° should be performed, given the target tibial slope of 4° to 6°.➤ Clinical outcomes following slope-reducing osteotomies have been favorable. However, potential complications, limited data with regard to the impact of slope-reducing osteotomies on osteoarthritis, and uncertainty with regard to the effects on the patellofemoral joint are notable concerns.➤ Patients with complex deformities may need biplanar osteotomies to comprehensively address the condition.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To investigate the incidence and risk factors associated with loss of motion after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic (COVID-19). METHODS:A retrospective review of patients undergoing primary ACLR between March 2017 and November 2022 by a senior high-volume orthopaedic surgeon was performed. Exclusion criteria included revision ACLR, multiligamentous knee surgery, and age <14 years. The COVID-19 group was categorized according to the United States Centers for Disease Control Public Health Emergency declaration dates (January 31, 2020-May 11, 2023). To minimize confounding variables associated with the early stages of COVID-19, patients who underwent ACLR between December 1, 2019 and February 29, 2020 were excluded. Loss of motion was defined using the International Knee Documentation Committee criteria for loss of motion of the knee (i.e. an extension deficit >5° or flexion deficit >15° compared to the contralateral knee) 3-12 months after ACLR or as requiring surgery to restore motion within 12 months of ACLR. RESULTS:A total of 336 individuals who underwent 352 primary ACLRs (164 pre-COVID-19, 188 during COVID-19) were included (mean age: 25.2 ​± ​10.6 years, 44% female). The overall rate of postoperative loss of motion was 15% (n = 53), and 9% (n = 31) required surgery to restore motion within 12 months of ACLR. More patients underwent surgery for loss of motion during COVID-19 compared to pre-COVID-19, which was statistically significant (12% (n = 23) vs 5% (n = 8), respectively, P = 0.02). However, a statistically significant difference in the rate of loss of motion was not detected (18% (n = 33) vs 12% (n = 20), respectively, P = 0.16). A statistically significant increased median time from injury to ACLR was observed during COVID-19 compared to pre-COVID-19 (55 vs 37 days, P <0.01). More patients were unable to achieve terminal extension (0°) at minimum 9 months postoperatively during COVID-19 compared to pre-COVID-19 (10% vs 3%, P = 0.04) and motion was worse at this interval (0°-136° vs -2°-138°, P <0.01). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Surgery for loss of motion following ACLR was more common during COVID-19. Decreased access to elective medical care, changed activity level, psychological effects, or COVID-19 itself may explain the increased rate of surgery for loss of motion during COVID-19. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Case series; level IV.

Knee osteotomies are essential orthopedic procedures with the ability to preserve the joint and correct ligament instabilities. Literature supports the correlation between lower limb malalignment and outcomes after knee ligament reconstruction and cartilage procedures. Concepts such as joint line obliquity, posterior tibial slope angle, and intra-articular deformity correction are integral components of both preoperative planning and postoperative evaluations. The concept of preserving and/or restoring joint line congruence during simultaneous correction of varus or valgus deformity can be achieved through several different approaches. With advancements in osteotomy research and surgical planning technology, the surgical decision-making has increased in complexity. Based upon a patient's specific deformity, decisions need to be made whether to perform a single-level (proximal tibia or distal femur) versus double-level (both proximal tibia and distal femur) osteotomy, and whether to correct deformity in a single plane (coronal or sagittal) or perform a biplanar osteotomy, correcting two of the malalignments in either coronal, sagittal, or axial planes. Osteotomy procedures prioritize safety, reproducibility, precision, and meticulous planning. Equally important is the proactive management of possible complications and the implementation of preventive strategies for complications such as hinge fractures and unintentional changes to alignment in other planes. This review navigates the intricate landscape of lower limb alignment, commencing with foundational definitions and rationale for performing osteotomies, progressing through the planning phase, and addressing the critical aspect of complication prevention, all while looking ahead to anticipate future advancements in this field. However, rotational osteotomies and tibial tubercle osteotomies in isolation or as an adjunct procedure are beyond the scope of this review.

IMPORTANCE/OBJECTIVE:Anterolateral augmentation during primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) may lower rates of ACL graft failure. However, differences in costs between two techniques, lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) and anterolateral ligament reconstruction (ALLR), are unclear. OBJECTIVE:To perform a systematic review and subsequent cost-effectiveness analysis comparing LET versus ALLR in the setting of primary ACLR. The hypothesis was that LET is more cost-effective than ALLR. EVIDENCE REVIEW/METHODS:A systematic review was conducted on studies in which patients underwent primary ACLR with a concomitant LET or ALLR with minimum 24 months follow-up published between January 2013 and July 2023. Primary outcomes included ACL graft failure rates and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Survey-Quality of Life (KOOS-QoL) subscale scores, which were used to determine health utilities measured by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. A decision tree model with one-way and two-way sensitivity analyses compared the cost of primary ACLR with a concomitant LET, independent autograft ALLR, or independent allograft ALLR. Costs were estimated using a combination of QALYs, institution prices, literature references, and a survey sent to 49 internationally recognized high-volume knee surgeons. FINDINGS/RESULTS:A total of 2505 knees undergoing primary ACLR with concomitant LET (n=1162) or ALLR (n=1343) were identified from 22 studies. There were 77 total ACL graft failures with comparable failure rates between patients receiving LET versus ALLR (2.9% vs. 3.2%, P=0.690). The average QALYs gained was slightly higher for those who received LET (0.77) compared to ALLR (0.75). Survey results revealed a 5 minute longer median self-reported operative time for ALLR (20 ​min) than LET (15 ​min). The estimated costs for LET, autograft ALLR, and allograft ALLR were $1,015, $1,295, and $3,068, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE/CONCLUSIONS:Anterolateral augmentation during primary ACLR with LET is more cost-effective than independent autograft and allograft ALLR given the lower costs and comparable clinical outcomes. Surgeons may utilize this information when determining the optimal approach to anterolateral augmentation during primary ACLR, although differences in preferred technique and health care systems may influence operative efficiency and material costs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Systematic review; Level of evidence, IV.

Recent advances in surgical techniques and planning for knee-based osteotomies have led to improvements in addressing lower extremity malalignment. Part 1 of this review presented the biomechanical and clinical rationale of osteotomies, emphasizing the importance of osteotomies for restoring normal knee kinematics. In Part 2 of this review, indications, surgical technique and outcomes of osteotomies to correct coronal, sagittal and axial plane deformities will be examined. Traditional high tibial and distal femoral osteotomies will be discussed in addition to more recent advanced techniques including biplanar corrections and double-level osteotomies, as well as slope-correcting osteotomies. Patient-specific instrumentation and its use in more complex corrections will also be addressed.

BACKGROUND:The surgical approach used for arthroplasty in the setting of hip fracture has traditionally been decided based on surgeon preference. This study analyzed the ef-fect of the surgical approach on hospital quality measures, complications, and mortality in patients treated with hip arthroplasty for fracture fixation. METHODS:A cohort of consecutive acute hip fracture pa-tients who were 60 years of age or older and who underwent hemiarthroplasty (HA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) at one academic medical center between January 2014 and January 2018 was included. Patient demographics, length of stay (LOS), surgery details, complications, ambulation at dis-charge, discharge location, readmission, and mortality were recorded. Two cohorts were included based on the surgical approach: the anterior-based cohort included the direct an-terior and anterolateral approaches and the posterior-based cohort included direct lateral and posterior approaches. RESULTS:Two hundred five patients were included: 146 underwent HA (81 anterior-based and 65 posterior-based) and 79 underwent THA (37 anterior-based and 42 posterior-based). The mean age of the HA and THA cohorts was 84.1 ± 7.5 and 73.7 ± 8.0 years, respectively. There was no dif-ference in LOS, time to surgery, or surgical time between the two cohorts for HA and THA. There were no differences in perioperative complications, including dislocation, ob-served based on surgical approach. No difference was found between readmission rates and mortality. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In this cohort of hip fracture arthroplasty patients, there was no difference observed in hospital quality measures, readmission, or mortality in patients based on sur-gical approach. These results are in contrast with literature in elective arthroplasty patients supporting the use of an anterior approach for potential improved short-term outcomes.

PURPOSE/UNASSIGNED:This study sought to examine the utilization of bone health evaluations in geriatric hip fracture patients and identify risk factors for the development of future fragility fractures. MATERIALS AND METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A consecutive series of patients ≥55 years who underwent surgical management of a hip fracture between September 2015 and July 2019 were identified. Chart review was performed to evaluate post-injury follow-up, performance of a bone health evaluation, and use of osteoporosis-related diagnostic and pharmacologic treatment. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:A total of 832 patients were included. The mean age of the patients was 81.2±9.9 years. Approximately 21% of patients underwent a comprehensive bone health evaluation. Of this cohort, 64.7% were started on pharmacologic therapy, and 73 patients underwent bone mineral density testing. Following discharge from the hospital, 70.3% of the patients followed-up on an outpatient basis with 95.7% seeing orthopedic surgery for post-fracture care. Overall, 102 patients (12.3%) sustained additional fragility fractures within two years, and 31 of these patients (3.7%) sustained a second hip fracture. There was no difference in the rate of second hip fractures or other additional fragility fractures based on the use of osteoporosis medications. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Management of osteoporosis in geriatric hip fracture patients could be improved. Outpatient follow-up post-hip fracture is almost 70%, yet a minority of patients were started on osteoporosis medications and many sustained additional fragility fractures. The findings of this study indicate that orthopedic surgeons have an opportunity to lead the charge in treatment of osteoporosis in the post-fracture setting.

This review highlights the expanding use of knee-based osteotomies in the treatment of knee joint malalignment and joint preservation. Planning and outcomes of traditional high tibial osteotomies and distal femoral osteotomies are discussed in addition to some of the challenges encountered with these procedures. Lastly, the role of patient-specific instrumentation and three-dimensional guided templating in performing osteotomies is discussed with respect to procedures that involve biplanar corrections and those performed in combination with other joint preservation procedures.

It is important to highlight the use of patient-specific cutting guides for knee joint osteotomies. Rationale, pitfalls, and planning of conventional osteotomy techniques are examined. The benefits of using patient-specific guides focusing on the potential for improved accuracy, efficiency, and safety are reviewed. The versatility of guides to manipulate the slope in both the coronal and sagittal planes, as well as its ability to accommodate concomitant procedures, is discussed. The time and cost differentials between standard cutting guides and three-dimensional-guided templating are also discussed.