MLB pitchers who undergo UCL-R have a low rate of return to MLB play and have shortened careers after return. Pitchers who returned to the MLB level maintained performance in several statistics such as earned run average and walks/hits per innings pitched; however, pitchers returned with a significantly decreased workload.

Background: Femoral nerve block (FNB) is a commonly performed technique that has been proven to provide effective regional analgesia after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. The adductor canal block (ACB) uses a similar sensory block around the knee while avoiding motor blockade of the quadriceps muscles. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of our study was to compare the efficacy of FNB versus ACB for pain control after ACL reconstruction. It was hypothesized that there would be no difference in pain levels or opioid requirements between the 2 groups. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: We performed a prospective, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Sixty patients undergoing primary ACL reconstruction with bone-patellar tendon-bone autograft were randomized to receive either an ACB or an FNB preoperatively. The primary outcomes assessed were pain levels (visual analog scale) and narcotic requirements for 4 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes included ability to perform a straight leg raise in the recovery room and difference in thigh circumference between the operative and nonoperative leg measured at 7 days postoperatively. Results: Morphine requirements were less in the ACB group in the first 4 hours postoperatively ( P = .02). Aside from this time interval, no differences were found between the 2 groups with regard to opioid requirements and pain scores at any other time. Similarly, no differences were noted in patients’ ability to perform a straight leg raise in the recovery room ( P = .13) or in thigh circumference at the first postoperative visit ( P = .09). Conclusion: The results of our study suggest similar efficacy in perioperative pain control with the use of an ACB for ACL reconstruction when compared with FNB. The potential long-term benefit of quadriceps preservation with the ACB is worthy of future study. Registration: NCT03033589 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

No abstract

Historically, patient perceptions of surgeon reimbursement have been exaggerated compared with actual reimbursement. There is limited information about patient perceptions of physician reimbursement for arthroscopic meniscectomy and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. This study evaluated patient perceptions of physician reimbursement for these procedures and compared perceptions of health care reform between urban and suburban clinics. Surveys were given to 231 consecutive patients, and patients were asked how much they believed a surgeon should be reimbursed for arthroscopic meniscectomy and ACL reconstruction as well as their perception of actual Medicare reimbursement to physicians. Patients were then informed of the actual reimbursement rates and asked additional questions about health care reform. Survey responses were compared in an urban setting vs a suburban setting. On average, patients reported that surgeons should receive $8096 for meniscectomy and $11,794 for ACL reconstruction. Patients estimated that Medicare paid physicians $5442 for meniscectomy and $6667 for ACL reconstruction. In addition, 65% of patients believed that reimbursement for meniscectomy was too low, and 57% of patients believed that reimbursement for ACL reconstruction was too low. Fewer than 2% of patients believed that surgeon salaries should be cut, and 75% believed that orthopedic surgeons should be paid more for subspecialty training. No differences were found in patients' perceptions of reimbursement or health care reform between urban and suburban settings. Patients perceived that the values of meniscectomy and ACL reconstruction were substantially higher than current Medicare reimbursement values and that surgeon salaries should not be cut. [Orthopedics. 2016; 39(5):e904-e910.].

No abstract

No abstract

Level II, therapeutic study.

No abstract