Search

Background: The purpose of this study was to evaluate for changes in the incidence of arthroscopic meniscal procedures, especially meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) in New York State (NYS) between 2005 to 2014., Methods: The New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative Systems (SPARCS) database was queried from 2005 through 2014 to identify patients undergoing meniscetomies, meniscal repairs, and MAT. Patients were followed longitudinally to determine the incidence of subsequent ipsilateral knee procedures. The impact of patient demographics and surgeon volume on reoperation was explored., Results: From 2005 through 2014, there were 524,737 arthroscopic meniscal procedures. Of these, there were 510,406 meniscectomies, 14,214 meniscal repairs, and 117 MATs. The number of MATs increased 15.5% per year, with the largest increase being between 2013 to 2014 (an increase of 86.5%). Average MAT patient age was 29.8 ± 11.1 years; 65.0% of patients were male; 66% were Caucasian; 84% were privately-insured; and 23% of surgeons met the criteria for high-volume (five or more MATs in a year). A total of 25.6% (30/117) patients underwent subsequent surgery; 26 patients underwent knee procedures at mean of 18.9 ± 18.3 months after initial MAT, the most common of which were ipsilateral meniscectomies (19/26). Four patients underwent total knee arthroplasty (TKA) at a mean of 21.0 ± 9.2 months after initial MAT. Patients undergoing TKA after MAT were significantly older (42.0 ± 15.0 years vs, 29.3 ± 10.7 years; p = 0.0242) than patients who did not. Neither demographics nor surgeon volume were statistically significant factors for undergoing subsequent surgery (p > 0.05)., Conclusion: Meniscal allograft transplantation, though relatively uncommon, is being performed with greater frequency in NYS. Surgeons should counsel patients regarding the likelihood of requiring subsequent knee surgery after MAT, with repeat arthroscopic partial meniscectomy being the most commonly performed procedure.

Background: Female athletes have a higher rate of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries than male athletes; however, the role of age in mediating this injury risk has not been explored. The purpose of this study was to characterize the relationship between age and sex in predicting ACL injury in the pediatric population., Hypothesis: Prepubescent boys are more likely to sustain an ACL injury than prepubescent girls., Study Design: Descriptive epidemiological study., Level of Evidence: Level 4., Methods: Data were collected from the Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database for the state of New York from 1996 to 2016. The database was queried for patients aged ≤19 years who had been diagnosed with an ACL tear using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) code 844.2 or the ICD-10 (10th Revision) codes S83.512A/S83.511A/S83.519A. Patient age and sex at time of ACL injury diagnosis were recorded. Chi-square analysis was used to compare the frequency of ACL injury between groups, with statistical significance set at P < 0.05., Results: A total of 20,128 patients aged ≤19 years were diagnosed with an ACL tear (10,830 males, 9298 females; male:female, 1.16:1). In all, 129 patients aged <12 years sustained an ACL tear (85 boys, 44 girls; male:female, 1.93:1), and 19,999 of those patients were aged 12 to 19 years (10,745 males, 9254 females; male:female, 1.16:1). Chi-square analysis demonstrated a significant relationship between sex and age group ( P < 0.006). Additional analysis revealed that female athletes were most at risk for ACL injury from ages 12 to 16 years, with 4025 male and 5095 female athletes sustaining ACL injuries in this group (male:female, 1:1.27; P < 0.0001)., Conclusion: Prepubescent boys (aged <12 years) are more likely to sustain an ACL injury than same-aged female peers., Clinical Relevance: This study demonstrates that the risk of ACL injury varies with age and sex throughout childhood and adolescence, further guiding treatment and prevention for these pediatric athletes.

The lack of literature on residency selection criteria used by orthopaedic program directors has left medical students in the position of relying on rumor and anecdotal information as to what program directors value most highly when sorting through large candidate pools. The purpose of this study was to compare the perspectives on resident selection criteria solicited from orthopaedic program directors and residency applicants. A power analysis was done to determine adequate sample size. A 26-item questionnaire was mailed to 98 residency applicants who interviewed at our program and 156 orthopaedic program directors. The program directors were also asked to elaborate on those factors that were most important in their selection process. A two-tailed Student's t-test was employed to compare the two groups. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Statistically significant differences between applicant and program director ratings were found in 12 of the 26 questionnaire items. Applicants (n = 91) ranked the following criteria as most important: a letter of recommendation from an orthopaedic surgeon (8.6 on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being most important), USMLE I score (7.7), and rank in medical school (7.6). The most important criteria for the directors (n = 109) were: the applicant performed a rotation at the director's program (7.9), USMLE I score (7.8), and rank in medical school (7.8). This study provides the most comprehensive empirical data to date as to the factors which orthopaedic program directors consider most important during the residency selection process. To our knowledge, this is the first study in the orthopaedic literature that compares the program directors 'and residency applicants' views on resident selection criteria. Significant differences were found between applicant and program director views on resident selection criteria.