Update This article was updated on December 4, 2018, because of previous errors. On pages 1949 and 1958, in the byline, the second author was incorrectly listed as “Dean X. Wang, MD,” which was then abbreviated to “D.X. Wang” in the ORCID iD list. The author's name is now listed as “Dean Wang, MD” in the byline and abbreviated to “D. Wang” in the ORCID iD list. Additionally, on page 1958, in the ORCID iD list, the ORCID iD for Dr. Scott A. Rodeo was incorrectly listed as “0000-0003-2991-7173.” Dr. Rodeo's ORCID iD is now listed as “0000-0002-0745-9880.” An erratum has been published: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019 Jan 16;101(2):e9. Background: Fresh osteochondral allograft transplantation is an appealing option to address a failed cartilage repair surgical procedure, given the ability to treat large lesions and to address the subchondral osseous changes commonly seen in the revision setting. We hypothesized that osteochondral allograft transplantation after failed cartilage repair would result in low failure rates and improved function and that improved graft incorporation on postoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) would correlate with a superior clinical outcome. Methods: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was used to identify 43 patients treated with fresh osteochondral allograft transplantation after a previous cartilage repair surgical procedure and having a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Clinical outcomes were evaluated using the Short Form-36 (SF-36) score, International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Score, Marx Activity Scale, Knee Outcome Survey-Activities of Daily Living (KOS-ADL) Questionnaire, Cincinnati Sports Activity Score, and Cincinnati Overall Symptom Assessment. Postoperative MRI scans were obtained at a mean time of 19.7 months and were independently reviewed by a musculoskeletal radiologist using the Osteochondral Allograft MRI Scoring System (OCAMRISS). Results: At a mean 3.5-year follow-up after osteochondral allograft transplantation, significant improvements (p < 0.05) in SF-36 Physical Function, SF-36 Pain, KOS-ADL, IKDC Subjective Knee Score, and Cincinnati Overall Symptom Assessment were seen. Over 90% of grafts remained in situ at the time of the latest follow-up, although 17 knees (40%) underwent reoperation, the majority for arthroscopic debridement or manipulation for stiffness. Body mass index (BMI) of >30 kg/m2 was associated with worse clinical outcomes. The mean total OCAMRISS score demonstrated poorer allograft integration in patients with graft failure, but the total score did not meaningfully correlate with clinical outcome scores. However, better individual articular cartilage appearance and osseous integration subscores were associated with better clinical outcome scores. Conclusions: Significant improvements in pain and function were seen following fresh osteochondral allograft transplantation after failed cartilage repair, with an overall graft survival rate of >90%. Patients with greater bone and cartilage incorporation on MRI had superior clinical outcomes, although persistent osseous edema was frequently seen. We concluded that osteochondral allograft transplantation is an effective salvage treatment after failed cartilage repair and recommend further evaluation of techniques to optimize graft integration. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate factors associated with inpatient admission following 2-level cervical disc arthroplasty (CDA). A secondary aim was to compare outcomes between those treated on an inpatient versus outpatient basis. MethodsUsing data from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database, multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to assess the independent effect of each variable on inpatient or outpatient selection for surgery. Statistical significance was defined by p-values <0.05. The factors considered were age, sex, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, and comorbidities including hypertension, diabetes, history of dyspnea or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, previous cardiac intervention or surgery, steroid usage, and history of bleeding. In addition, whether the operation was performed by an orthopedic or neurosurgical specialist was analyzed. ResultsThe number of 2-level CDA procedures increased from 6 cases reported in 2014 to 142 in 2016, although a statistically significant increase in the number of outpatient cases performed was not seen (p=0.2). The factors found to be significantly associated with inpatient status following surgery were BMI (p=0.019) and diabetes mellitus requiring insulin (p=0.043). There were no significant differences in complication and readmission rates between the inpatient and outpatient groups. ConclusionPatients undergoing inpatient 2-level CDA had significantly higher rates of obesity and diabetes requiring insulin than did patients undergoing the same procedure in the outpatient setting. With no difference in complication or readmission rates, 2-level CDA may be considered safe in the outpatient setting in appropriately selected patients.

No abstract

No abstract