Search

Background: Exertional compartment syndrome (ECS) is an underdiagnosed cause of lower extremity pain among athletes. The condition can be managed operatively by fasciotomy to relieve excess compartment pressure. However, symptom recurrence rates after fasciotomy are considerable, ranging from 3% to 17%., Hypothesis: Leg paresthesia and its distribution during ECS episodes would be a significant predictor of outcomes after fasciotomy., Study Design: Retrospective cohort study., Level of Evidence: Level 4., Methods: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent fasciotomy for ECS at our center from 2010 to 2020 (institutional review board no. 21-00107). We measured postoperative outcomes including pain frequency and severity, Tegner activity level, and return to sport. Significant predictors of outcomes were identified using multivariable linear and logistic regression. P values <0.05 were considered significant., Results: A total of 78 legs (from 42 male and 36 female participants) were included in the study with average follow-up of 52 months (range, 3-126 months); 33 participants (42.3%) presented with paresthesia. Paresthesia was an independent predictor of worse outcomes, including more severe pain at rest ( P = 0.05) and with daily activity ( P = 0.04), reduced postoperative improvement in Tegner scores ( P = 0.04), and lower odds of return to sport ( P = 0.05). Those with paresthesia symptoms in the tibial nerve distribution had worse outcomes than those without paresthesia in terms of preoperative-to-present improvement in pain frequency ( P < 0.01), pain severity at rest ( P < 0.01) and with daily activity ( P = 0.04), and return to sport ( P = 0.04)., Conclusion: ECS patients who present with paresthesia have worse pain and activity outcomes after first-time fasciotomy, but prognosis is worst among those with tibial nerve paresthesia., Clinical Relevance: Paresthesia among ECS patients is broadly predictive of more severe recurrent leg pain, reduced activity level, and decreased odds of return to sport after fasciotomy., Competing Interests: The following author declared potential conflicts of interest: L.M.J. received grants or has pending grants from Arthrex, Mitek, and Smith & Nephew; and received publishing royalties from Wolters Kluwer Health - Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Background: Previous research has found that the incidence of neurovascular injury is greatest among multiligamentous knee injuries (MLKIs) with documented knee dislocation (KD). However, it is unknown whether there is a comparative difference in functional recovery based on evidence of a true dislocation., Purpose: To determine whether the knee dislocation-3 (KD3) injury pattern of MLKI with documented tibiofemoral dislocation represents a more severe injury than KD3 MLKI without documented dislocation, as manifested by poorer clinical outcomes at long-term follow-up., Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3., Methods: A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed of patients who underwent surgical treatment for KD3 MLKI between May 2012 and February 2021. Outcomes were assessed using the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm score, Tegner activity scale, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Documented dislocation was defined as a radiographically confirmed tibiofemoral disarticulation, the equivalent radiology report from outside transfer, or emergency department documentation of a knee reduction maneuver. Subgroup analysis was performed comparing lateral (KD3-L) versus medial (KD3-M) injuries. Multivariable linear regression was conducted to determine whether documented dislocation was predictive of outcomes., Results: A total of 42 patients (25 male, 17 female) were assessed at a mean 6.5-year follow-up (range, 2.1-10.7 years). Twenty patients (47.6%) were found to have a documented KD; they reported significantly lower IKDC (49.9 vs 63.0; P = .043), Lysholm (59.8 vs 74.5; P = .023), and Tegner activity level (2.9 vs 4.7; P = .027) scores than the patients without documented dislocation. VAS pain was not significantly different between groups (36.4 vs 33.5; P = .269). The incidence of neurovascular injury was greater among those with documented dislocation (45.0% vs 13.6%; P = .040). Subgroup analysis found that patients with KD3-L injuries experienced a greater deficit in Tegner activity level than patients with KD3-M injuries (Δ: -3.4 vs -1.2; P = .006) and had an increased incidence of neurovascular injury (41.7% vs 11.1%; P = .042). Documented dislocation status was predictive of poorer IKDC (β = -2.15; P = .038) and Lysholm (β = -2.85; P = .007) scores., Conclusion: Patients undergoing surgical management of KD3 injuries with true, documented KD had significantly worse clinical and functional outcomes than those with nondislocated joints at a mean 6.5-year follow-up. The current MLKI classification based solely on ligament involvement may be obscuring outcome research by not accounting for true dislocation., Competing Interests: One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: L.M.J. has received research support from Arthrex, Mitek, and Smith & Nephew; and support for education from Suvon Surgical, Gotham Surgical, Arthrex, and Flexion Therapeutics; L.M.J. also holds stocks or stock options in Lazurite. M.J.M. has received consulting fees from Smith & Nephew. M.J.A. has received consulting fees from BodyCad, JRF Ortho, Mitek, and DePuy Synthes; research support from Orcosa; and support for education from Gotham Surgical Solutions and Suvon Surgical. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.

Background: Bone marrow stimulation (BMS) has been proposed to augment healing at the time of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) by creating several bone marrow vents in the footprint of the rotator cuff, allowing mesenchymal stem cells, platelets, and growth factors to cover the area as a "crimson duvet.", Purpose: To perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the outcomes after BMS and a control for those undergoing ARCR., Study Design: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 1., Methods: A literature search of 3 databases was performed based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. RCTs comparing BMS and a control for ARCR were included. Clinical outcomes were compared, and a P value <.05 was considered to be statistically significant., Results: A total of 7 RCTs with 576 patients were included. Overall, 18.8% of patients treated with BMS and 21.0% of patients treated with a control had a retear ( I 2 = 43%; P = .61). With BMS, the mean Constant score was 88.2, and with the control, the mean Constant score was 86.7 ( P = .12). Additionally, there was no significant difference in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (94.3 vs 93.2, respectively; P = .31) or visual analog scale score (0.9 vs 0.9, respectively; P = .89)., Conclusion: The level 1 evidence in the literature did not support BMS as a modality to improve retear rates or clinical outcomes after ARCR., Competing Interests: One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: R.M.D. has received support for education from SouthTech Orthopedics. L.M.J. has received support for education from Suvon Surgical, Gotham Surgical, and Arthrex and consulting fees from Flexion Therapeutics. R.M. has received consulting fees from Arthrex and compensation for services other than consulting from Empire Medical. J.F.D. has received support for education from SouthTech Orthopedics and Supreme Orthopedic Systems and compensation for services other than consulting from Arthrex. O.A. has received consulting fees from Exactech, Smith & Nephew, Medical Device Business Services, Bioventus, Lima, Responsive Arthroscopy, Encore Medical, and Stryker; support for education from Arthrex and SouthTech Orthopedics; and travel expenses from Wright Medical and Zimmer Biomet. C.K. has received consulting fees from Acumed, restor3d, and Smith & Nephew and holds stock or stock options in GE HealthCare, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Pfizer. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.

Background: An increased posterior tibial slope (PTS) is a risk factor for primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears and graft failure, but the PTS has not been well-defined in those who have experienced bilateral ACL injuries., Purpose: The primary aim was to compare the PTS, as well as the rate of an elevated PTS (>12° on lateral radiography; >7° on magnetic resonance imaging [MRI]), between patients who have undergone bilateral ACL reconstruction (ACLR) versus unilateral ACLR. A secondary purpose was to examine whether these associations remained consistent on both plain radiography and MRI., Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3., Methods: We retrospectively identified patients who underwent primary ACLR at our institution from the years 2012 to 2020. Patients who underwent nonsimultaneous bilateral ACLR (n = 53) were matched to those who underwent unilateral ACLR (n = 53) by age, sex, and body mass index. Exclusion criteria were rotated lateral radiographs, MRI scans of inadequate quality, and concomitant ligament injuries or fractures. Those who had undergone unilateral ACLR with <5-year follow-up were further excluded. There were 3 blinded readers who measured the PTS on lateral radiographs, while the medial PTS (MPTS) and lateral PTS (LPTS) were measured on MRI scans. Bivariate regression was performed to determine the correlation between radiographic and MRI measurements., Results: The PTS on radiography (11.26° vs 10.13°, respectively; P = .044) and the LPTS on MRI (7.32° vs 6.08°, respectively; P = .012) in the bilateral ACLR group were significantly greater than those in the unilateral ACLR group but not the MPTS on MRI (4.55° vs 4.17°, respectively; P = .590). The percentage of patients in the bilateral group with a radiographic PTS >12° was 41.0% compared with 13.2% in the unilateral group ( P = .012). The bilateral group had a significantly higher rate of an LPTS >7° compared with the unilateral group (53.8% vs 32.1%, respectively; P = .016) but not for an MPTS >7° ( P = .190). On MRI, the LPTS (6.90°± 2.73°) was significantly greater than the MPTS (4.41°± 2.92°) ( P < .001). There was a weak correlation between MPTS and radiographic PTS measurements ( R = 0.24; P = .021), but LPTS and radiographic PTS measurements were not significantly correlated ( R = 0.03; P = .810)., Conclusion: Patients who underwent bilateral ACLR had a significantly greater PTS on radiography and a significantly greater LPTS on MRI compared with those who underwent unilateral ACLR. The rate of a radiographic PTS >12° was 2.4 times greater among patients undergoing bilateral ACLR compared with those undergoing unilateral ACLR. PTS measurements on radiography demonstrated a weak to negligible correlation with PTS measurements on MRI, suggesting that future normative PTS values should be reported specific to the imaging modality., Competing Interests: One or more of the authors has declared the following potential conflict of interest or source of funding: M.J.A. has received publishing royalties from Springer; research support from Orcosa; and consulting fees from Arthrex, JRF Ortho, and Mitek. E.J.S. has received publishing royalties from Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers and Springer; has received research support from CartiHeal and Fidia Pharma; has received consulting fees from Arthrex, JRF Ortho, Smith & Nephew, Organogenesis, Subchondral Solutions, Vericel, and Flexion Therapeutics; and holds stock options in BetterPT. L.M.J. has received publishing royalties from Wolters Kluwer Health–Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and research support from Mitek, Smith & Nephew, and Arthrex. AOSSM checks author disclosures against the Open Payments Database (OPD). AOSSM has not conducted an independent investigation on the OPD and disclaims any liability or responsibility relating thereto.

Background: 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: To describe the various modalities for deriving the MCID., Study Design: Narrative review; Level of evidence, 4., Methods: The definitions of common MCID determinations were first identified. These were then evaluated by their clinical and statistical merits and limitations., Results: 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: 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.

Background: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) reconstruction is being performed more frequently in athletes experiencing recurrent patellar instability., Purpose/hypothesis: The purpose was to systematically review the evidence in the orthopaedic sports medicine literature to determine both the rate and timing of return to play after MPFL reconstruction and the rate of further patellar instability. Our hypothesis was that there would be a high rate of return to play after MPFL reconstruction., Study Design: Systematic review., Methods: A systematic literature search was performed based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, which utilized EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library databases. Inclusion criteria for literature included clinical studies reporting on return to play after MPFL reconstruction. Rate of return to play, level of return, timing of return, rate of recurrent instability, and patient-reported outcomes were evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS., Results: Our review found 27 studies including 1278 patients meeting our inclusion criteria. The majority of patients were women (58%), and the total group had a mean age of 22.0 years and a mean follow-up of 39.3 months. The overall rate of return to play was 85.1%, with 68.3% returning to the same level of play. The average time to return to play was 7.0 months postoperatively. The rate of recurrent instability events following reconstruction was 5.4%. There was an improvement in both mean visual analog scale, pain scores (preoperative: 4.3, postoperative: 1.6) and Tegner activity scores (preoperative: 4.8, postoperative: 5.5)., Conclusion: The overall rate of return to play was high after MPFL reconstruction for the treatment of recurrent patellar instability. However, a relatively high percentage of those patients were unable to return to their preoperative level of sport. Additionally, there was a moderate time taken to return to play, at approximately 7 months after the procedure.

Background: Injection to the acromioclavicular (AC) joint can be both diagnostic and therapeutic., Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of in vivo AC joint injections., Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4., Methods: Thirty patients with pain localized to the AC joint were injected with 1 mL of 1% lidocaine and 0.5 mL of radiographic contrast material (Isovue). Radiographs of the AC joint were taken after the injection. Each radiograph was reviewed by a musculoskeletal radiologist and graded as intra-articular, extra-articular, or partially intra-articular., Results: Of the 30 injections performed, 13 (43.3%) were intra-articular, 7 (23.3%) were partially articular, and 10 (33.3%) were extra-articular. When the intra-articular and the partially articular groups were combined, 20 patients (66.7%) had some contrast dye in the AC joint., Conclusion: This study demonstrates that despite the relatively superficial location of the AC joint, the clinical accuracy of AC joint injections remains relatively low.