Search

Background: Peripheral nerve blocks (PNBs) are vital in the administration of surgical analgesia and have grown in popularity for use in lower extremity arthroscopic procedures because of their capacity to safely and effectively control pain. The number and specificity of PNBs, however, have made choosing the best option for a procedure nebulous for orthopaedic surgeons. Purpose: To present a narrative literature review of the PNBs available for arthroscopic hip and knee procedures that is adapted to an audience of orthopaedic surgeons. Study Design: Narrative literature review. Methods: A combination of the names of various lower extremity PNBs AND “hip arthroscopy” OR “knee arthroscopy” was used to search the English medical literature including PubMed, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, Embase, and Scopus. Placement technique, specificity of blockade, efficacy, and complications were assessed. Searches were performed through May 2, 2021. Results: A total of 157 studies were included in this review of lower extremity PNBs. Femoral nerve, lumbar plexus, sciatic nerve, and fascia iliaca compartment blocks were most commonly used in arthroscopic hip surgery, while femoral nerve, 3-in-1, and adductor canal blocks were preferred for arthroscopic knee surgery. Each block demonstrated a significant benefit ( P > .05) in ≥1 of the following outcomes: intraoperative morphine, pain scores, nausea, and/or opioid consumption. Combination blocks including the lateral femoral cutaneous nerve block, obturator nerve block, quadratus lumborum block, and L1 and L2 paravertebral block have also been described. Complication rates ranged from 0% to 4.8% in those administered with ultrasound guidance. The most commonly reported complications included muscular weakness, postoperative falls, neuropathy, intravascular and intraneural injections, and hematomas. Conclusion: When administered properly, PNBs were a safe and effective adjuvant method of pain control with a significant potential to limit postoperative narcotic use. While blockade choice varies by surgeon preference and procedure, all PNBs should be administered with ultrasound guidance, and vigilant protocols for the risk of postoperative falls should be exercised in patients who receive them.

Background: The use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is common practice in the treatment of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. While the prospective collection of PROs is preferred, retrospective collection involving patient recall is not uncommon and may be subject to bias. Purpose: To assess the presence of recall bias between prospectively and retrospectively collected PRO scores in hip arthroscopy. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients who underwent hip arthroscopy between 2015 and 2021 and provided preoperative baseline responses for the International Hip Outcome Tool–12 (iHOT-12), the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score–Physical Shortform (HOOS-PS), and the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) were eligible for recruitment. After surgery, participants were asked to complete a study-specific survey and the same preoperative PROs retrospectively. Agreements between the prospective and retrospective scores were assessed, and associations between score discrepancies and patient characteristics were identified. Results: A total of 94 patients (43.3% participation rate) completed study requirements and were included for analysis. The mean ± standard deviation duration of symptoms before surgery was 25.3 ± 32.8 months, and the mean duration to recall (from the day of surgery) for the PROs was 29.6 ± 22.2 months. The iHOT-12 (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.409; P < .001) and HOOS-PS (ICC, 0.415; P < .001) scores had low agreement between prospectively and retrospectively collected scores. The mHHS showed moderate agreement (ICC, 0.598; P < .001). The mean scores for the iHOT-12 (41.4 ± 22.6 vs 34.6 ± 16.3; P < .01), HOOS-PS (29.7 ± 18.5 vs 40.9 ± 17.1; P < .001), and mHHS (62.7 ± 16.5 vs 54.5 ± 14.8; P < .001) were all significantly different prospectively versus retrospectively. The average changes in score for the iHOT-12, HOOS-PS, and mHHS were −6.8, 11.2, and −8.2, respectively. Duration to recall and female sex were predictors of the difference between prospectively and retrospectively collected iHOT-12 data, while no predictors were significant for the HOOS-PS or mHHS. Conclusion: The retrospective collection of PROs for hip arthroscopy procedures is subject to bias. On average, retrospective (recalled) PROs reflected worse pain/function than their prospectively recorded counterpoints; therefore, retrospective patient recall is an unreliable source of clinical data, and the prospective collection of iHOT-12, mHHS, and HOOS-PS data should be prioritized.

Background: Ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) reconstruction has received a unique level of attention in the press and social media. There has also been an increasing use of the internet by patients to seek medical information. Concern exists regarding the quality and comprehensibility of online information when used for patient education. Purpose: To evaluate the quality and comprehensibility of the most-viewed YouTube videos related to the diagnosis and management of UCL injuries. Based on our new evidence-based scoring rubrics, we hypothesized that the quality and comprehensibility of these videos would be poor. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: The YouTube platform was searched on September 7, 2021, with the terms “UCL injury,” “ulnar collateral ligament injury,” “UCL surgery,” “ulnar collateral ligament surgery,” and “Tommy John surgery,” and the 50 most-viewed videos from each search were compiled, yielding 250 videos. After removal of duplicates and application of exclusion criteria, the 100 most-viewed videos remained. Basic attributes, including duration of video and number of views, were recorded. Each video was then analyzed by 2 independent reviewers and evaluated for 4 key parameters (quality of diagnostic content [QAR-D], quality of treatment content [QAR-T], presence of inaccurate information, and comprehensibility) and graded on a novel scale from 1 to 4 (4 being the most appropriate for patient education). Results: The mean QAR-D was 4.83 ± 3.41 (fair quality), and the mean QAR-T was 2.76 ± 3.26 (poor quality). Physician-led educational videos had both the highest mean QAR-D (6.37) and the highest mean QAR-T (4.34). No correlation was observed between video quality and views/likes. A total of 12 videos included ≥1 inaccuracy. The mean comprehensibility score was 2.66 ± 1.12, with 39 videos falling below the acceptable comprehensibility threshold (score Conclusion: The overall quality of UCL injury–related YouTube content was low. In addition, the absence of correlation between video quality and views/likes suggests that patients are not preferentially utilizing the limited high-quality content that does exist on the YouTube platform. In addition, inaccurate videos were prevalent (12%), and almost half of all videos were deemed inappropriate for patient education in terms of comprehensibility, as defined by our comprehensibility parameter.