Search

PURPOSE: To evaluate functional outcomes and satisfaction in patients who underwent telerehabilitation (telerehab) compared with in-person rehabilitation after arthroscopic meniscectomy. METHODS: A randomized-controlled trial was conducted including patients scheduled to undergo arthroscopic meniscectomy for meniscal injury by 1 of 5 fellowship-trained sports medicine surgeons between September 2020 and October 2021. Patients were randomized to receive telerehab, defined as exercises and stretches provided by trained physical therapists over a synchronous face-to-face video visit or in-person rehabilitation for their postoperative course. International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC) score and satisfaction metrics were collected at baseline and 3 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Analysis was conducted on 60 patients with 3-month follow-up outcomes. There were no significant differences in IKDC scores between groups at baseline (P = .211) and 3 months’ postoperatively (P = .065). Patients were more likely to report being satisfied with their rehabilitation group 73% vs. 100% (P = .044) if there were in the in-person group. Satisfaction differed significantly between the 2 groups at the end of their rehabilitation course, and only 64% of those in the telerehab group would elect to undergo telerehab again for future indications. Furthermore, they believed that future rehabilitation would benefit from a hybrid model. CONCLUSIONS: Telerehab showed no difference versus traditional in-person rehabilitation in terms of functional outcomes up to 3 months after arthroscopic meniscectomy. However, patients were less satisfied with telerehab. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I, randomized controlled trial.

IMPORTANCE There have been several recent systematic reviews of quadriceps tendon autografts (QT) which have not shown any significant difference in outcomes between QT and hamstring tendon autograft (HS) for ACL reconstruction (ACLR). However, several recent comparative studies have been published comparing QT to HS for ACLR. AIM The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the studies comparing QT to HS for ACLR. EVIDENCE REVIEW Two independent reviewers performed the literature search based on the PRISMA guidelines, with a senior author arbitrating discrepancies. Cohort studies comparing QT with HS were included. FINDINGS There were 15 studies comparing 611 patients with QT to 543 patients with HS, with a mean of 27.4 months follow-up. QT resulted in a significantly lower rate of graft re-rupture (2.5% vs 8.7%, p=0.01), and donor site morbidity (17.6% vs 26.2%, p=0.02). There was a significant difference in favor of QT for the positive pivot shift test (Grade I/II: 15.8% vs 23.0%, p=0.02), but not in the rate of positive Lachman test (Grade I/II: 18.3% vs 26.7%, p=0.16). Additionally, there was no difference in the side to side difference in knee stability (1.8mm vs 2.0mm, p=0.48). Functionally, both grafts had similar functional outcomes in terms of the IKDC score (88.0 vs 87.9, p=0.69), and Lysholm score (89.3 vs 87.6, p=0.15). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our study showed that QT has a lower re-rupture rate than HS in ACLR, with lower donor site morbidity. QT appeared to be slightly better for residual pivot shift, but there was no difference in patient-reported outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III.

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the patient-reported outcomes of open Latarjet (OL) compared to arthroscopic Latarjet (AL) for anterior shoulder instability. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent either OL or AL for anterior shoulder instability between 2011 and 2019 was performed. Recurrent instability, visual analog scale (VAS) score, Shoulder Instability-Return to Sport after Injury (SIRSI), Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), Western Ontario Shoulder Instability (WOSI) score, patient satisfaction, willingness to undergo surgery again, and return to work/sport (RTW/RTS) were evaluated. A P value of < .05 was considered to be statistically significant. Results: Our study included 102 patients in total; 72 patients treated with OL, and 30 treated with AL. There were no demographic differences between the two groups (P > .05 for all). At final follow up (mean of 51.3 months), there was no difference between those that underwent OL or AL in the reported WOSI, VAS, VAS during sports, SSV, and SIRSI scores, nor in patient satisfaction, or whether they would undergo surgery again (P > .05). Overall, there was no significant difference in the total rate of RTP (65% vs 60.9%; P = .74), or timing of RTP (8.1 months vs 7 months; P = .35). Additionally, there was no significant difference in the total rate of RTW (93.5% vs 95.5%; P = .75). Overall, 3 patients in the OL group and 2 patients in the AL group had recurrent instability events (6.9% vs 6.7%; P = .96), with no significant difference in the rate of recurrent dislocation (4.2% vs 3.3%; P = .84). Conclusion: In patients with anterior shoulder instability, both the OL and AL are reliable treatment options, with a low rate of recurrent instability, and similar patient-reported outcomes.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to systematically review the evidence in the literature to ascertain whether acetabular labral repair (ALR) or debridement (ALD) resulted in superior patient outcomes. Methods The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Peer-reviewed studies comparing ALR and ALD published in English with full text available were included. Patients undergoing both open and arthroscopic surgery in randomized controlled trials, prospective cohort studies, retrospective cohort studies, and case-control studies were included. Studies were quantified for methodological quality using the MINORS criteria. Clinical outcomes were compared, with qualitative analysis, and quantitative analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism version 7. A P value

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. A retrospective review of patients who underwent PRP injection in the knee from 2016 to 2019 was performed. Various patient-reported outcomes were collected, including: 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. Demographics and radiographical information were obtained via chart review. Statistical analyses were conducted including descriptive statistics and binary logistic and linear regressions. Overall, 114 patients were included. The mean pre-injectionpain score was 70.4, and the mean pain level decreased after injection to 36.8. Patients rated their satisfaction on average as neutral along the aforementioned continuous scale (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. Patients on average rated satisfaction slightly below average, indicating net neutrality in terms of satisfaction with their injection. Furthermore, only half of the patients indicated that it was worth the cost and that they would receive it again. Younger age and post-injection pain relief increased desire for further injection, but pain-relief did not correlate with patients saying that the injection was worth the cost.

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 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.

Background: The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) note “strong” evidence that early and delayed mobilization protocols after small to medium arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs achieve similar rotator cuff healing rates. Purpose: We utilized the reverse fragility index (RFI) to assess the fragility of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting no statistically significant difference in tendon re-tear rates after rotator cuff repair in those undergoing early versus delayed rehabilitation. Methods: Randomized controlled trials used in the most recent AAOS CPGs on the timing of postoperative mobilization after arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs were analyzed. Only RCTs with a reported P value ≥ .05 were included. The RFI at a threshold of P < .05 was calculated for each study. The reverse fragility quotient (RFQ) was calculated by dividing the RFI by the study sample size. Results: In 6 clinical trials with a total of 542 patients, the number of tendon re-tear events was 48. The median RFI at the P < .05 threshold was 4 (range: 3.25–4.75), and the median RFQ was .05 (range: 0.03–0.08). The median loss to follow-up was 6 patients. Of the 6 studies investigated, 3 reported a loss to follow-up greater than their respective RFI. Conclusion: The equivalence in rotator cuff repair healing rates associated with early and delayed mobilization protocols rests on fragile studies, as their statistical non-significance can be reversed by changing the outcome status of only a handful of patients. Consideration should be given to the routine reporting of RFI in clinical practice guidelines including RCTs with statistically non-significant results.

Background: The Latarjet procedure is indicated in patients with risk factors for postoperative recurrence, including collision and competitive athletes. However, the factors that prevent athletes from being able return to play (RTP) after the open Latarjet procedure are still unclear and have not been fully elucidated in the literature. Purpose: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes and psychological and psychosocial factors associated with athletes who did not RTP after the open Latarjet procedure compared with patients who did RTP. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of athletes who underwent the open Latarjet procedure and subsequently did not RTP after a minimum of 12 months. These patients were pair matched in a 2:1 ratio for age, sex, sport, and level of preoperative play with a control group who returned to play. Patients were evaluated for their psychological readiness to return to sport using the Shoulder Instability–Return to Sport after Injury (SIRSI); other measures included the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV). Multivariate regression models were used to evaluate factors affecting RTP. Results: Included were 35 patients in the no-RTP group and 70 patients in the RTP group. In the no-RTP group, 7 patients (20%) passed the SIRSI benchmark of 56, with a mean overall score of 41.5 ± 21.9; in the RTP group, 57 patients (81.4%) passed the SIRSI benchmark, with a mean overall score of 74.5 ± 19.8 ( P < .0001 for both). Patients in the RTP group had better SSV (88.0 vs 75.7; P Conclusion: Patients who did not RTP after open Latarjet exhibited poor psychological readiness to RTP and worse pain VAS and SSV scores compared with patients who did RTP.