No abstract

Background: Acromioclavicular (AC) instability is a frequent injury affecting young and athletic populations. Symptomatic, high-grade dislocations may be managed by a myriad of operative techniques that utilize different grafts to achieve reduction. Comparative data are lacking on the ability of these techniques to achieve excellent patient outcomes and stable AC reduction and to minimize complications. Purpose: To systematically review the outcomes and complications of different techniques of AC joint reconstruction. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: The MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were accessed to perform a systematic review of the scientific literature from 2000 to 2018 using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) criteria with the following keywords: “acromioclavicular” and “reconstruction.” Included articles were evaluated for loss of reduction, complication rate, revision rate, and change in coracoclavicular distance. Articles were stratified by graft and surgical material used: suture only, Endobutton with suture, TightRope, GraftRope, synthetic artificial ligament, tendon graft, and Weaver-Dunn coracoacromial ligament transfer. These outcomes were pooled using a random-effects model and stratified by surgical technique and arthroscopic versus open reconstruction. Results: Fifty-eight articles were included in the analysis, with 63 homogeneous populations composed of 1704 patients. The mean age was 37.1 years (range, 15-80 years) with a mean follow-up of 34.3 months (range, 1.5-186 months). The overall failure rate was 20.8% (95% CI, 16.9%-25.2%). The overall pooled complication rate was 14.2% (95% CI, 10.5%-18.8%). The most common complications were infection (6.3% [95% CI, 4.7%-8.2%]), fracture to the coracoid or distal clavicle (5.7% [95% CI, 4.3%-7.6%]), and hardware/button failure (4.2% [95% CI, 3.1%-5.8%]). There were no differences between arthroscopic and open techniques in regard to loss of reduction ( P = .858), overall complication rate ( P = .774), and revision rate ( P = .390). Open surgery had a greater rate of clavicular/coracoid fractures than arthroscopic surgery ( P = .048). Heterogeneity, best assessed from the pooled loss of reduction, was measured as I2 = 64.0%. Conclusion: Open and arthroscopic AC joint reconstruction techniques have no differences in loss of reduction, the complication rate, and the revision rate based on the available literature. Complications are significant, and profiles vary between surgical techniques, which should be evaluated in the decision making of selecting the technique.

Background:Traditionally, the primary outcome in meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) has been long-term survivorship; however, short-term clinically significant outcomes are necessary to fully evaluate patient improvement after surgery.Purpose:To (1) establish the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) with respect to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and (2) evaluate preoperative and intraoperative variables correlated with achieving these threshold values.Study Design:Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.Methods:A prospectively maintained institutional registry was queried for all MATs performed between 1999 and 2017. The following PROM scores were collected: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm score, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). Patients who completed preoperative and postoperative PROMs within a 1-month window were included to calculate the distribution-based MCID at this interval. An anchor question regarding satisfaction with surgery was asked at the same time point and was employed to determine the PASS using nonparametric receiver operating characteristic curve/area under the curve analysis. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to correlate patient demographics, medical history, and concomitant procedures to propensity in achieving the MCID and PASS.Results:A total of 98 patients who underwent MAT met the inclusion/exclusion criteria, of whom 10 underwent concomitant ligamentous procedures, 65 underwent concomitant cartilage procedures, and 7 underwent concomitant realignment procedures. The mean patient age was 29.4 ± 9.0 years, and the mean body mass index (BMI) was 26.8 ± 5.2 kg/m2. The distribution-based MCID and PASS were determined for the Lysholm score (12.3 and 66.5) and IKDC (9.9 and 36.0) as well as the KOOS Pain (9.9 and N/A ), Symptoms (9.7 and 73.0), Activities of Daily Living (9.5 and N/A), Sport (13.3 and N/A), and Quality of Life (14.6 and 53.0) subscales, respectively. A preoperative Short Form Physical Component Summary (SF PCS) score greater than 32.0 was predictive of postoperative satisfaction. Patients with work-related claims had a reduced likelihood of achieving the MCID for the IKDC and the PASS for the KOOS Symptoms. An increased BMI was also associated with failing to achieve the PASS for the KOOS Quality of Life (QOL).Conclusion:This study established the MCID and PASS for the Lysholm score, IKDC, and KOOS in patients undergoing MAT. Workers’ compensation and higher BMI were associated with failing to achieve clinically significant values. Lower preoperative Lysholm, IKDC, and KOOS scores were predictive of achieving the MCID, while higher preoperative SF PCS scores were associated with achieving satisfaction after MAT.

No abstract

There exists a need for universal and consistent preoperative measurement of humeral-sided bone loss. The presence of concomitant Hill-Sachs defects with glenoid pathology should warrant more aggressive operative management through use of bone block procedures. Previously established values of critical glenoid bone loss are not equally relevant in the presence of bipolar bone loss.

No abstract

Massive rotator cuff tears pose significant clinical and surgical challenges for orthopaedic surgeons and increased morbidity to the patient. Left untreated, this pathology can lead to inability to perform daily activities, weakness, pain, and eventual cuff tear arthropathy. Several treatment options exist for irreparable cuff tears, such as reverse shoulder arthroplasty and tendon transfers. However, there exists significant concern for high complication rates and unpredictable clinical outcomes following such treatments. Superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) represents a viable alternative in treating irreparable cuff tears, providing biomechanical stability and improving pain related to this pathology by reducing superior humeral instability and subacromial impingement. Over-the-top repair of the native rotator cuff tendons with incorporation of the SCR allograft may provide surgeons the opportunity to perform a robust repair in situations where arthroplasty or other more invasive procedures were once the only options. The authors present a surgical technique with associated pearls and pitfalls for their preferred procedure of SCR with incorporation of the native rotator cuff in transosseous equivalent double-row repair for the treatment of massive, irreparable rotator cuff tears.

Background:Academic conferences are sources of novel research that can influence clinical decision making. Orthopaedic surgery maintains a relatively high rate of publication compared with other surgical subspecialties, and sports medicine conferences hold an even higher rate within the subspecialty. The American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) annual meetings have been shown to have among the highest rates of publication for accepted abstracts.Purpose:To determine differences between 2-year publication rates of poster and podium abstracts accepted into the AOSSM annual meetings and identify factors associated with publication.Study Design:Cross-sectional study.Methods:The AOSSM archives were queried for all accepted poster and podium presentations for annual meetings from 2011 through 2015. Google Scholar and MEDLINE databases were used to determine which abstracts transitioned into journal articles. Publication rates were compared based on publication 2 years following presentation. Logistic regression was performed to demonstrate which variables were most correlated with successful publication. Data on publication impact factor and number of citations were collected by use of the InCites database.Results:Of 628 abstracts accepted during this period, 265 were poster presentations and 363 were podium presentations. Overall, 44.7% of abstracts presented were accepted into peer-reviewed journals within 2 years of presentation. No statistical difference was found between poster and podium presentations for journal publication (P = .328). Poster presentations were published in journals with statistically lower impact factor (P = .005) and had a statistically lower number of citations (P < .001) compared with podium presentations. Multivariate logistic regression analysis demonstrated that only number of authors was correlated with publication (P = .003).Conclusion:Podium and poster presentations accepted into AOSSM conferences had equal rates of publication within 2 years and should influence decision making equally. The relative impact of podium presentations appeared to be greater, which suggests that the AOSSM selects podium presentations that will have greater clinical impact. Increasing number of coauthors was the only factor found to be correlated with publication.