No abstract

Purpose: Evaluating outcomes in patients receiving intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibitors for neovascular age-related macular degeneration whom experience a lapse in treatment. Methods: A retrospective chart review evaluating 3,304 patients ≥18 years who experienced treatment lapses ≥3 months compared with control counterparts. Demographic information, macular thickness as measured by central subfield thickness, and visual acuity were collected at baseline, the first postlapse appointment, and at 3, 6, and 12 months after the lapse for the study group. Results: Lapse (n = 241) and control patients (n = 241) had similar baseline visual acuity and central subfield thickness (Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study: 58.9 ± 20.2 [20/63] vs. 59.2 ± 20.1 [20/63]; central subfield thickness: 252.4 ± 63.2 µm vs. 259.8 ± 66.2 µm, P = 0.21). Analysis revealed that lapse patients experienced a significant increase in central subfield thickness after lapse when compared with controls (279.4 ± 86.9 µm vs. 253.7 ± 65.9 µm, P < 0.01), which normalized on resumption of treatment (259.1 ± 79 µm vs. 246.8 ± 57.6 µm, P = 0.06). Study patients also experienced loss in the visual acuity after lapse when compared with controls (52.9 ± 23.6 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study [20/100] vs. 59.9 ± 20.8 [20/63] Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study, P < 0.01) that did not recover through 12 months of follow-up. Conclusion: Patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration who have lapses in care are at risk for poorer outcomes. Although macular thickness normalizes on resumption of treatment, their decline in the visual acuity does not recover.

The purpose of this study was to compare (1) operative time, (2) in-hospital pain scores, (3) opioid medication use, (4) length of stay (LOS), (5) discharge disposition at 90-day postoperative, (6) range of motion (ROM), (7) number of physical therapy (PT) visits, (8) emergency department (ED) visits, (9) readmissions, (10) reoperations, (11) complications, and (12) 1-year patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in propensity matched patient cohorts who underwent robotic arm-assisted (RA) versus manual total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Using a prospectively collected institutional database, patients who underwent RA- and manual TKA were the nearest neighbor propensity score matched 3:1 (255 manual TKA:85 RA-TKA), accounting for various preoperative characteristics. Data were compared using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Kruskal–Wallis, Pearson's Chi-squared, and Fisher's exact tests, when appropriate. Postoperative pain scores, opioid use, ED visits, readmissions, and 1-year PROMs were similar between the cohorts. Manual TKA patients achieved higher maximum flexion ROM (120.3 ± 9.9 versus 117.8 ± 10.2, p = 0.043) with no statistical differences in other ROM parameters. Manual TKA had shorter operative time (105 vs.113 minutes, p < 0.001), and fewer PT visits (median [interquartile range] = 10.0 [8.0–13.0] vs. 11.5 [9.5–15.5] visits, p = 0.014). RA-TKA had shorter LOS (0.48 ± 0.59 vs.1.2 ± 0.59 days, p < 0.001) and higher proportion of home discharges (p < 0.001). RA-TKA and manual TKA had similar postoperative complications and 1-year PROMs. Although RA-TKA patients had longer operative times, they had shorter LOS and higher propensity for home discharge. In an era of value-based care models and the steady shift to outpatient TKA, these trends need to be explored further. Long-term and randomized controlled studies may help determine potential added value of RA-TKA versus manual TKA. This study reflects level of evidence III.

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions (ACLRs) fail at an alarmingly high rate in young active individuals. The Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) knee group has developed an autograft risk calculator that uses patient characteristics and lifestyle to predict the probability of graft rupture if the surgeon uses a hamstring tendon (HT) or a bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) graft to reconstruct the ligament. If validated, this risk calculator can be used during the shared decision-making process to make optimal ACLR autograft choices and reduce rupture rates. The STABILITY 1 randomized clinical trial offers a large, rigorously collected data set of similar young active patients who received HT autograft with or without lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) for ACLR. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to validate the ACLR graft rupture risk calculator in a large external data set and to investigate the utility of BPTB and LET for ACLR. We hypothesized that the risk calculator would maintain adequate discriminative ability and calibration in the external STABILITY 1 data set when compared with the initial MOON development data set. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 1. Methods: The model predictors for the risk calculator include age, sex, body mass index, sport played at the time of injury, Marx Activity Score, preoperative knee laxity, and graft type. The STABILITY 1 trial data set was used for external validation. Discriminative ability, calibration, and diagnostic test validity of the model were assessed. Finally, predictor strength in the initial and validation samples was compared. Results: The model showed acceptable discriminative ability (area under the curve = 0.73), calibration (Brier score = 0.07), and specificity (85.3%) to detect patients who will experience a graft rupture. Age, high-grade preoperative knee laxity, and graft type were significant predictors of graft rupture in young active patients. BPTB and the addition of LET to HT were protective against graft rupture versus HT autograft alone. Conclusion: The MOON risk calculator is a valid predictor of ACLR graft rupture and is appropriate for clinical practice. This study provides evidence supporting the idea that isolated HT autografts should be avoided for young active patients undergoing ACLR. Registration: NCT00463099 (MOON); NCT02018354 (STABILITY 1) ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers)

No abstract