Background: Glenoid bone loss (GBL) has been implicated as a risk factor for failure of arthroscopic anterior glenohumeral instability repair. Although certain amounts of GBL are associated with higher recurrence rates, there are limited studies on successes versus failures in these cohorts. Purpose: To compare the outcomes of arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients with and without GBL to determine a threshold percentage of GBL that predicts success. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: All consecutive patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability between 2004 and 2013 were prospectively enrolled. Patients with ≤25% GBL were included. Patients with no GBL were grouped and compared with those having 5% to 25% GBL. Outcomes included Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation, Western Ontario Shoulder Index, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores, with evidence of recurrent instability. Patients with and without GBL were statistically compared with respect to outcomes and recurrence rates. Results: Of 434 eligible patients, the cases of 405 (45 female, 360 male; mean age, 27.5 years [range, 18-47 years]) were followed for a mean 61 months (range, 48-96 months). There were 189 (46.6%) with no GBL and 216 (53.3%) with GBL; the mean GBL of the latter cohort was 15% (range, 5%-25%). The mean duration of instability symptoms was 7.9 months (range, 1-21 months) and was significantly longer in the GBL group ( P < .05). The mean recurrence rate was 14.8%, which was significantly greater in patients presenting with GBL versus those with none (48/216 [22.2%] vs 12/189 [6.3%]; P < .01). Within the GBL group, GBL ≥15%, duration of symptoms >5 months, and younger age (<20 years) were independent risk factors for failure ( P < .01). Patients with any GBL had >4-times greater odds of recurrence after arthroscopic stabilization (odds ratio, 4.21; 95% CI, 2.16-8.21). Moreover, patients presenting for arthroscopic Bankart repair with GBL ≥15% had nearly 3-times greater odds of recurrent instability. Conclusion: GBL ≥15% in an active patient population portends to increased odds of recurrent instability events and inferior clinical outcomes after arthroscopic Bankart repair. Furthermore, nonmodifiable risk factors, such as age (<20 years) and duration of symptoms before presentation (>5 months), significantly affect risk of recurrence and should be key factors when counseling patients on risk of failure and determining the ideal procedure for the individual patient.

Background: Patients with recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability after a failed Latarjet procedure remain a challenge to address. Complications related to this procedure include large amounts of bone loss, bone resorption, and issues with retained hardware that necessitate the need for revision surgery. Purpose: To determine the outcomes of patients who underwent revision surgery for a recurrent shoulder instability after a failed Latarjet procedure with fresh distal tibial allograft. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: All consecutive patients who underwent revision of a failed Latarjet procedure with distal tibial allograft were prospectively enrolled. Patients were included if they had physical examination findings consistent with recurrent anterior shoulder instability. Patients were excluded if they had prior neurologic injury, a seizure disorder, bone graft requirements to the humeral head, or findings of multidirectional or posterior instability. History of shoulder instability was documented, including initial dislocation history, duration of instability, number of prior surgeries, examination findings, plain radiographic and computed tomography (CT) data, and arthritis graded with Samilson and Prieto (SP) classification. All patients were treated with hardware removal, capsular release with subsequent repair, and fresh distal tibial allograft to the glenoid. Outcomes before and after revision were assessed according to the American Shoulder and Elbow Score (ASES), Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE), and Western Ontario Shoulder Index (WOSI) and statistically compared. All patients underwent a CT scan of the distal tibial allograft at a minimum 4 months after surgery. Results: There were 31 patients enrolled (all males), with a mean age of 25.5 years (range, 19-38 years) and a mean follow-up time of 47 months (range, 36-60 months) after revision with distal tibial allograft. Before distal tibial allograft augmentation, the mean percentage glenoid bone loss was 30.3% (range, 25%-49%). All patients after their Latarjet stabilization had recurrent shoulder dislocation (11/31, 35.5%) or subluxation (20/31, 64.5%), and all patients had symptoms consistent with recurrent shoulder instability upon physical examination. Radiographs demonstrated 2 fixation screws in all cases, mean SP grade was 0.5 (range, 0-3), and CT scans revealed that a mean 78% of the Latarjet coracoid graft had resorbed (range, 37%-100%). Patient-reported outcome scores improved significantly pre- to postoperatively for ASES (40 to 92, P = .001), SANE (44 to 91, P = .001), and WOSI (1300 to 310, P = .001). There were no cases of recurrence, and a final CT scan of the distal tibial revision demonstrated a complete union at the glenoid–distal tibial allograft interface in 92% of patients. Conclusion: The majority of the failed Latarjet procedures included in this study had near-complete resorption of the coracoid graft and hardware complications. At a minimum follow-up time of 36 months, patients who underwent revision treatment for a failed Latarjet procedure with a fresh distal tibial allograft demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes and near-complete osseous union at the glenoid-allograft interface. Although patients evaluated with recurrent anterior shoulder instability after a failed Latarjet procedure remain a challenge to address, fresh distal tibial allograft augmentation is a viable and highly effective revision procedure to treat this patient population.

Background: Anterior and posterior shoulder instabilities are entirely different entities. The presenting complaints and symptoms vastly differ between patients with these 2 conditions, and a clear understanding of these differences can help guide effective treatment. Purpose: To compare a matched cohort of patients with anterior and posterior instability to clearly outline the differences in the initial presenting history and overall outcomes after arthroscopic stabilization. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Consecutive patients with either anterior or posterior glenohumeral instability were prospectively enrolled; patients were excluded if they had more than 10% anterior or posterior glenoid bone loss, multidirectional instability, neurologic injury, or prior surgery. Patients were assigned to anterior or posterior shoulder instability groups based on the history and clinical examination documenting the primary direction of instability, with imaging findings to confirm a labral tear associated with the specific direction of instability. Preoperative demographic data, injury history, and overall clinical outcome scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES], Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation [SANE], and Western Ontario Shoulder Index [WOSI]) were assessed and compared statistically between the 2 cohorts. Patients were indicated for surgery if they elected to proceed with surgical management or did not respond to a course of nonoperative management. Results: The study included 103 patients who underwent anterior stabilization (mean age, 23.5 years; range, 18-36 years) and 97 patients who underwent posterior stabilization (mean age, 24.5 years; range, 18-36 years). The mean follow-up was 39.7 months (range, 24-65 months), and there were no age or sex differences between the groups. No patients were lost to follow-up. The primary mechanism of injury in the anterior cohort was a formal dislocation event (82.5% [85/103], of which 46% [39/85] required reduction by a medical provider), followed by shoulder subluxation (12%, 12/103), and “other” (6%, 6/103; no forceful injury). No primary identifiable mechanism of injury was found in the posterior cohort for 78% (75/97) of patients; lifting and pressing (11%, 11/97) and contact injuries (10% [all football blocking], 10/97) were the common mechanisms that initiated symptoms. Only 10 patients (10.3%) in the posterior cohort sustained a dislocation. The most common complaints for patients with anterior instability were joint instability (80%) and pain with activities (32%). In the posterior cohort, the most common complaint was pain (90.7%); only 13.4% in this cohort reported instability as the primary complaint. Clinical outcomes after arthroscopic stabilization were significantly improved in both groups, but the anterior cohort had significantly better outcomes in all scores measured: ASES (preoperative: anterior 58.0, posterior 60.0; postoperative: anterior 94.2 vs posterior 87.7, P < .005), SANE (preoperative: anterior 50.0, posterior 60.0; postoperative: anterior 92.9 vs posterior 84.9, P < .005), and WOSI (preoperative: anterior 55.95, posterior 60.95; postoperative: anterior 92% of normal vs posterior 84%, P < .005). Conclusion: This study outlines clear distinctions between anterior and posterior shoulder instability in terms of presentation and clinical findings. Patients with anterior instability present primarily with an identifiable mechanism of injury and complaints of instability, whereas most patients with classic posterior instability have no identifiable mechanism of injury and their primary symptom is pain. Anterior instability outcomes in this matched cohort were superior in all domains versus posterior instability after arthroscopic stabilization, which further highlights the differences between anterior and posterior instability.

Background:American football is a leading cause of sports-related injuries, with the knee, ankle, and shoulder most commonly involved.Purpose/Hypothesis:The purpose of this study was to describe the epidemiology, characteristics, and imaging findings of ankle injuries in football players at the National Football League (NFL) Combine and determine the relationship to player position. We hypothesized that there would be a high relative incidence of ankle injuries in these players compared with other sports and that there would be a direct correlation between the incidence of ankle injuries and player position.Study Design:Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:A retrospective chart review of data collected from NFL Combine participants between 2009 and 2015 was performed. Patient demographics, history, physical examination results, and imaging findings were reviewed.Results:Of 2285 players, 1216 (53.2%) had a history of ankle injuries; of these, 987 (81.2%) had unilateral injuries, while 229 (18.8%) had bilateral injuries (total of 1445 ankles injured). This included 1242 ankle sprains (86.0% of ankle injuries): 417 (33.6% of sprains) high and 930 (74.9%) low. The most common soft tissue injuries were to the anterior talofibular ligament (n = 158, 12.7% of sprains) and syndesmosis (n = 137, 11.0%). Of all players at the NFL Combine with radiographs, 131 (10.9%) had evidence of an ankle fracture, all of which had healed. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) identified 66 players (28.9% of players at the combine who underwent MRI) with articular cartilage injuries: 62 involving the talus and 16 involving the tibia. Furthermore, 85 players (37.3% of players with MRI) with tendon injuries were identified: 26 Achilles, 55 peroneal, 3 flexor hallucis longus, and 19 posterior tibial. A total of 611 players (50.6% of players with radiographs) had signs of arthrosis on radiography. Running backs (61.9%), offensive linemen (60.3%), and tight ends (59.4%) had the highest rates of ankle injuries by position, while kickers/punters (23.3%) and long snappers (37.5%) had the lowest.Conclusion:Prior ankle injuries were present in more than 50% of elite college football players attending the NFL Combine. The rate of these ankle injuries varied by player position: offensive linemen, running backs, and tight ends had the highest overall rates, while special teams players had the lowest. Additional prospective work is needed to determine the impact of prior injuries on future playing career.

Evidence before this study: Acute appendicitis is the most common general surgical emergency in children. Its diagnosis remains challenging and children presenting with acute right iliac fossa (RIF) pain may be admitted for clinical observation or undergo normal appendicectomy (removal of a histologically normal appendix). A search for external validation studies of risk prediction models for acute appendicitis in children was performed on MEDLINE and Web of Science on 12 January 2017 using the search terms ["appendicitis" OR "appendectomy" OR "appendicectomy"] AND ["score" OR "model" OR "nomogram" OR "scoring"]. Studies validating prediction models aimed at differentiating acute appendicitis from all other causes of RIF pain were included. No date restrictions were applied. Validation studies were most commonly performed for the Alvarado, Appendicitis Inflammatory Response Score (AIRS), and Paediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS) models. Most validation studies were based on retrospective, single centre, or small cohorts, and findings regarding model performance were inconsistent. There was no high quality evidence to guide selection of the optimum model and threshold cutoff for identification of low-risk children in the UK and Ireland. Added value of this study: Most children admitted to hospital with RIF pain do not undergo surgery. When children do undergo appendicectomy, removal of a normal appendix (normal appendicectomy) is common, occurring in around 1 in 6 children. The Shera score is able to identify a large low-risk group of children who present with acute RIF pain but do not have acute appendicitis (specificity 44%). This low-risk group has an overall 1 in 30 risk of acute appendicitis and a 1 in 270 risk of perforated appendicitis. The Shera score is unable to achieve a sufficiently high positive predictive value to select a high-risk group who should proceed directly to surgery. Current diagnostic performance of ultrasound is also too poor to select children for surgery. Implications of all the available evidence: Routine pre-operative risk scoring could inform shared decision making by doctors, children, and parents by supporting safe selection of lowrisk patients for ambulatory management, reducing unnecessary admissions and normal appendicectomy. Hospitals should ensure seven-day-a-week availability of ultrasound for medium and high-risk patients. Ultrasound should be performed by operators trained to assess for acute appendicitis in children. For children in whom diagnostic uncertainty remains following ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or low-dose computed tomography (CT) are second-line investigations.

Background:Jones fractures result in subsequent dysfunction and remain an issue for athletes.Purpose:To (1) describe the epidemiology, treatment, and impact of Jones fractures identified at the National Football League (NFL) Scouting Combine on players’ early careers and (2) establish the value of computed tomography (CT) to determine bony healing after a fracture in prospective players.Study Design:Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.Methods:All players who attended the combine between 2009 and 2015 were retrospectively reviewed to identify their history of Jones fractures. The playing position, treatment method, and number of missed collegiate games were recorded. The mean overall draft pick number, number of games started and played, snap percentage, and position-specific performance scores (fantasy score) over the first 2 years in the NFL were compared between players with fractures and controls. An imaging classification system was applied based on grading of each quadrant of the fifth metatarsal (plantar, dorsal, medial, lateral), with a score of 0 for not healed or 1 for healed.Results:Overall, the number of Jones fractures identified was 72 in 2285 athletes (3.2%), with all treated via intramedullary screw fixation. The mean overall draft pick number for players with fractures was 111.2 ± 67.9 compared with 99.0 ± 65.9 for controls (P = .12). Performance scores for players with fractures were lower than those for controls across all positions, with a significant difference in running backs (2.6 vs 4.0, respectively; P < .001) and defensive linemen (1.4 vs 2.3, respectively; P = .02). The mean CT score was 2.5 ± 1.3. Of the 32 athletes who underwent imaging, 16 Jones fractures (50.0%) were healed or nearly healed, 12 (37.5%) were partially healed, and 4 (12.5%) showed little or no healing. The plantar cortex demonstrated the least healing (18/32; 56.3%), followed by the lateral cortex (15/32; 46.9%). Players with a mean score <1 were found to have fewer games started (2.7 ± 2.5) than those with 1 to 3 cortices healed (17.4 ± 10.4) or all cortices healed (8.7 ± 11.2).Conclusion:Based on CT, 50% of all players with a previous Jones fracture demonstrated incomplete healing. Moreover, position-specific performance scores over the first 2 years of a player’s career were lower across all positions for those with fractures compared with controls. Players with CT scores <1 were found to start fewer games and were drafted later than controls.

Background: High recurrence rates have been reported after anterior shoulder dislocations, regardless of the treatment utilized. However, the definition of recurrent instability has been inconsistent, making a comparison between studies difficult. Purpose: To report on the nature with which the rate of recurrent instability is reported after arthroscopic Bankart repair, across all levels of evidence, and to analyze factors that may affect the reported rate of recurrence. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov for studies published within the dates of January 2008 and September 2018. Studies in English that reported on the recurrence of instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability were considered for inclusion in this review. A meta-regression was performed to test for a linear association between the reported recurrence rate and several continuous covariates, including mean age at surgery, mean length of follow-up, attrition rate (loss to follow-up percentage), and percentage of male patients. Results: A trim-and-fill meta-analysis yielded an estimated overall recurrence rate of 17.4% (95% CI, 14.3%-20.9%). There was a significant difference in the recurrence rate depending on the level of evidence (Q(3) = 10.98; P = .012). Significant associations were found with the recurrence rate through the meta-regression, including a negative association with mean age ( P = .009), a positive association with mean follow-up time ( P = .002), and a positive association with attrition rate ( P = .035). Conclusion: A call for standardization is necessary for reporting outcomes of anterior instability after arthroscopic Bankart repair, especially with regard to the reporting of recurrence/failure rates, with careful consideration of the effects that may occur from patient demographics and study design. With no current recommendations for deeming failure, we suggest that all forms of instability be accounted for when determining a failed treatment procedure, with future studies placing an emphasis on greater control of the study design.

Articular cartilage injuries of the knee are common among young, active patients presenting with knee pain, swelling, and/or mechanical symptoms. These injuries have limited healing potential due to the avascular nature of hyaline cartilage. While several treatment options exist, osteochondral allograft (OCA) transplantation for the knee has been used successfully in primary management of large chondral or osteochondral defects and salvage of previously failed cartilage repair. OCA transplantation potentially yields a natural, matching contour of the native recipient surface anatomy and transplants mature, viable hyaline cartilage to the affected defect. Following OCA transplantation, strict compliance with a rehabilitation protocol is essential to enable optimal recovery. The outlined rehabilitation protocol is informed by the existing literature and incorporates current rehabilitation principles, the science of osteochondral incorporation, and adaptations based on an individual's readiness to progress through subsequent phases. The purpose of this clinical commentary is to discuss the diagnosis, surgical management, and post-operative rehabilitation following OCA transplantation and to assist the physical therapist in returning athletes to full sports participation.