Search

Purpose: To determine the prevalence of chronic trochanteric bursitis (TB) in patient being treated for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) and determine the effectiveness of arthroscopic bursectomy and iliotibial band lengthening (AB-ITB-L) at the time of hip arthroscopy for FAI., Methods: Patients diagnosed with primary FAI and chronic TB were included in the study. Patients were included if they underwent hip arthroscopy with labral repair, femoral and/or acetabular osteoplasty, and AB-ITB-L. Patients were matched by age and gender to patients without chronic TB., Results: The prevalence of chronic TB with FAI was 7% (90/1,278). Females were 5.3 times more likely to have TB compared with males (95% confidence interval: 3.2-8.7). Patients more than 30 years of age were 2.5 times more likely to have TB (95% confidence interval: 1.48-4.4). Of the 90 patients diagnosed with TB, 72 (54 female, 18 male) with an average age of 36.7 years underwent AB-ITB-L at the time of their index hip arthroscopy for FAI. All 72 patients had associated intra-articular pathology consisting of a combined cam and pincer pathology. The TB (average follow-up = 42 ± 9.9 months) and non-TB group (average follow-up = 42 ± 9.1 months) both had significant improvement from preoperative to postoperative scores for Hip Outcome Score Activities Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score Sport, Modified Harris Hip Score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, Short Form (SF)-12 Physical Component score, and SF-12 Mental Component Score. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups in postoperative patient reported outcome scores., Conclusions: The occurrence of chronic TB in the FAI population, which did not adequately respond to nonoperative management, for a single surgeon high volume hip arthroscopy practice was 7%, and was more commonly seen in women older than 30 years. Patients who undergo concomitant AB-ITB-L for chronic TB report excellent pain relief, and have equivalent results and outcome scores that are not inferior when compared with patients with primary FAI without chronic TB., Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective matched case control study., (Copyright © 2017 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To conduct a systematic review of the literature comparing patient outcomes following arthroscopic and open operative management of iliopsoas tendonitis (IPT) following total hip replacement (THR)., Methods: This review study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Inclusion criteria were as follows: outcome studies following open or arthroscopic iliopsoas tendon release after THR with at least 6 months of follow-up, English language, and human studies. The exclusion criteria included case reports, articles evaluating nonsurgical management or cup revision, and articles without a specific diagnosis of IPT or in which results between open and arthroscopic treatment were reported in conjunction., Results: A total of 131 studies were initially retrieved, with 7 satisfying all inclusion criteria (4 studies on arthroscopic tenotomy and 3 studies on open tenotomy). The review included a total of 88 patients with IPT-61 patients treated arthroscopically and 27 patients treated with open tenotomy. In total, 77 of the 88 patients demonstrated successful outcomes following surgery. In the group treated with arthroscopy, 91.8% (56/61) of patients had successful outcomes, whereas in those treated with open tenotomy, 77.8% (21/27) of patients had successful outcomes. Of patients with signs of mechanical impingement from acetabular component overhang, those who underwent open tenotomy had complete pain relief in 6/8 patients (75%) compared to arthroscopic tenotomy in which there was relief in 40/43 patients (93%)., Conclusions: Arthroscopic iliopsoas release for management of IPT is suggested to be an effective minimally invasive operative technique that may also yield a lower complication rate in comparison to open tenotomy. Tenotomy, both arthroscopic and open, are successful treatment options for IPT, including those with signs of mechanical impingement, and are recommended prior to cup revision., Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of level IV studies., (Copyright © 2017 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the differences in intra-articular pathology, demographic characteristics, and radiographic characteristics of the knee associated with primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) versus revision ACLR at the time of initial presentation with either a native anterior cruciate ligament tear or an anterior cruciate ligament graft tear. Secondarily, we aimed to investigate risk factors for concomitant medial and lateral meniscal tears and cartilage injuries at the time of ACLR., Methods: This was a retrospective review of patients who underwent primary or revision ACLR by a single surgeon. The exclusion criteria were as follows: skeletally immature patients; patients with an intra-articular fracture; patients with an ipsilateral knee infection; or patients who underwent an osteotomy, cartilage restoration procedure, or meniscal transplantation either previously or concomitantly with the ACLR. Detailed patient demographic data, radiographic long-standing alignment, tibial slope, and intraoperative findings including articular cartilage injury grade and meniscus integrity were documented at surgery., Results: There were 487 patients included in this study (363 with primary ACLR and 124 with revision ACLR). There were no significant differences in age (P = .119), sex (P = .917), body mass index (P = .468), allograft versus autograft reconstruction (P = .916), or prevalence of meniscal tears (P = .142) between the primary and revision groups. Patients who underwent revision ACLR had a significantly increased medial tibial slope (P = .048) and a higher prevalence of chondral defects on both the medial (P < .001) and lateral (P = .003) femoral condyles when compared with primary ACLR patients. Logistic regression showed that a decreased tibial slope was correlated with femoral medial-sided chondral injuries and that varus or valgus coronal-plane malalignment was correlated with lateral meniscal tears in both groups., Conclusions: The findings of this study show that patients undergoing a revision ACLR have significantly more chondral lesions, as well as higher-grade chondral lesions, at the time of presentation. Furthermore, coronal malalignment and a decreased tibial slope may contribute to injury patterns of the lateral meniscus and medial compartment cartilage, respectively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective case-control study., (Copyright © 2017 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To perform a systematic review on the techniques and a meta-analysis on the functional and objective outcomes after single-bundle (SB) versus double-bundle (DB) posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstructions., Methods: A systematic review of the techniques, as well as functional and objective outcomes of clinical studies comparing SB versus DB PCL reconstruction with a mean follow-up of at least 24 months and minimum level of evidence of III were performed. After review of the literature, a quality analysis of the studies (Detsky score) and a meta-analysis comparing raw mean differences in data between SB and DB PCL groups were performed. Clinical outcome measures included in the meta-analysis were functional outcomes (Lysholm, Tegner, and objective International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] scores) and objective measurements (arthrometer and stress radiographs)., Results: The systematic search identified 11 studies (441 patients). Three studies were prospective randomized controlled trials and the other 8 studies were case-control studies. Two hundred thirty-two patients were treated with SB PCL reconstruction, whereas 209 were treated with DB PCL reconstruction. Only 4 studies satisfied the threshold for a satisfactory level of methodologic quality (>75%). There were no significant differences between SB and DB PCL reconstructions in postoperative Lysholm (P = .6, 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.98, 2.18) or Tegner scores (P = .37, 95% CI, -0.19, 0.92). DB PCL reconstruction provided significantly better objective posterior tibial translation stability than the SB technique using the Telos technique at 90° (P = -.58, 95% CI, -1.06, -0.10)., Conclusions: Improved patient-reported outcomes and knee stability were achieved with both SB and DB PCL reconstruction surgery. DB PCL reconstruction provided significantly improved objective posterior tibial stability and objective IKDC scores when compared with SB PCL reconstruction in randomized clinical trials. No significant difference was found for the other patient-reported outcomes., Level of Evidence: Level III, systematic review and meta-analysis of Level II and III studies., (Copyright © 2017 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To investigate glenoid fixation for superior capsule reconstruction (SCR) and evaluate anchor positions, intraosseous trajectories, and proximity to the suprascapular nerve (SSN) and glenoid fossa. The secondary purpose was to provide technical pearls and pitfalls for anchor insertion on the superior glenoid during SCR., Methods: Three beath pins were arthroscopically inserted into 12 (n = 12) nonpaired human cadaveric shoulders through Neviaser, anterior, and posterior portals to simulate anchor placement on the superior glenoid during SCR. Computed tomography scans were performed to evaluate anchor positioning and insertion trajectories. Specimens were then dissected to delineate the anatomic relations of the beath pins to the SSN and glenoid fossa., Results: The superior glenoid anchor position was a mean 15.0 ± 4.0 mm to the SSN and 6.5 ± 1.7 mm to the glenoid fossa. The posterior glenoid anchor position was a mean 11.8 ± 2.1 mm to the SSN and 2.9 ± 2.9 mm to the glenoid fossa. On average, the superior pin was placed at 12:30 ± 0:30 (left-sided glenoid clock face) and inserted at 19° ± 9° with respect to the sagittal plane of the glenoid, the anterior pin was placed at 11:00 ± 0:30 and inserted 40° ± 17° off the glenoid, and the posterior pin was placed at 3:00 ± 1:00 and inserted at 52° ± 12° off the glenoid., Conclusions: The results of the present cadaveric study showed that glenoid fixation was safe with respect to the SSN and delineated technical guidelines and trajectories for inserting 3 anchors into the glenoid., Clinical Relevance: This study shows that 3 anchors can be inserted into the glenoid without a risk of SSN damage and delineates technical guidelines for anchor insertion., (Copyright © 2016 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To investigate clinical outcomes after primary and revision arthroscopic treatment for snapping scapula syndrome (SSS) and identify predictive factors associated with outcomes., Methods: Patients who underwent arthroscopic treatment for SSS between October 2005 and December 2013 were identified in a prospectively collected database. The inclusion criteria were patients with a diagnosis of symptomatic SSS, in whom extensive nonoperative modalities failed, who underwent arthroscopic surgery for SSS, and who had undergone surgery a minimum of 2 years earlier. Postoperative clinical outcomes were assessed with the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score; short version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire; and general health Short Form 12 (SF-12) scores, including both physical component summary and mental component summary. Patient satisfaction was recorded on a 10-point visual analog scale. Scapular bony morphology was determined on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging., Results: Ninety-two scapulae underwent arthroscopic treatment for SSS. There were 74 scapulae that met the inclusion criteria, including having undergone surgery a minimum of 2 years earlier. An outcome questionnaire was completed for 60 of 74 (81%). The mean age was 33 years (range, 12-65 years), and the mean duration of symptoms before surgery was 4 years (range, 90 days to 20.4 years). The mean follow-up period was 3.4 years (range, 2-7 years). Eight scapulae failed initial surgical management (10.9%) because of recurrent pain and underwent revision surgery at a mean of 309 days (range, 120-917 days). After surgery, there was a significant improvement in all outcome scores, including SF-12 physical component summary score, from 39.2 to 45.4 (P = .002); SF-12 mental component summary score, from 45.0 to 49.6 (P = .023); American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, from 52.6 to 75.8 (P < .001); and score on the short version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire, from 40.2 to 24.2 (P = .001). The median patient satisfaction rating was 7 of 10. Greater age, lower preoperative psychological score, and longer duration of symptoms before surgery correlated with lower postoperative outcome scores., Conclusions: Arthroscopic surgery is an effective treatment for SSS in both primary and revision cases, showing significant improvements in all postoperative outcome scores at a mean of 3.4 years. Lower preoperative mental status score, longer duration of symptoms, and greater age were associated with poorer outcomes., Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic case series., (Copyright © 2016 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature on rerevision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, focusing on patient outcomes. The secondary aims of this study were to (1) identify risk factors that contribute to multiple ACL reconstruction failures (defined as a complete tear of a revision ACL graft with knee instability) and (2) assess concomitant knee injuries, such as articular cartilage and menisci lesions., Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed. Inclusion criteria were as follows: outcomes of rerevision ACL reconstruction, English language, minimum of 2 years of follow-up, and human studies. We excluded cadaveric studies, animal studies, basic science articles, editorial articles, surgical technique descriptions, surveys, and rerevision ACL articles in which rerevision reconstruction subgroups were not reported independently of first-time ACL revision groups., Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria and were considered for review. One was a case-control study (Level III evidence), and 5 studies were case series (Level IV evidence). Compared with preoperative scores, patient outcomes improved after rerevision ACL reconstruction. However, more meniscal and cartilage pathologies were present in rerevision cases compared with after primary and revision ACL reconstruction., Conclusions: Although rerevision ACL reconstruction can restore stability and improve functional outcomes compared with the preoperative state, outcomes remained inferior when compared with primary ACL reconstructions, particularly regarding a patient's ability to return to his or her preinjury level of activity. Additional factors that place increased stress on the ACL graft, such as increased posterior tibial sagittal plane slope or undiagnosed concomitant ligament injuries, should be investigated, especially in atraumatic failures. If present, operative treatment of these factors should be considered., Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies., (Copyright © 2016 Arthroscopy Association of North America. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The oral and maxillofacial surgeon (OMS) plays a critical role when it comes to listening and answering patients' questions regarding prognosis, course of treatment, and overall expectations of what lies ahead. The OMS should remain an advocate for the patient, always keeping in mind that it is the patient's wishes that must be respected. The surgeon should champion patients' autonomy and cooperate with their families and other clinicians to ensure that patients have a "good death," defined as one that is pain free, peaceful, and dignified, at a place of their choosing with the relatives present and without futile heroic interventions. Indeed, the relationship and open communication between patient and surgeon may be one of the best treatments that the patient can have., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)