Background: Loss of motion (LOM) remains a common complication after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and can be detrimental to patient outcomes after surgery. LOM is multifactorial, but nonsurgical and surgical solutions to this complex problem are available. A paucity of quality data exists evaluating clinical outcomes after the surgical treatment of patients with LOM after ACL reconstruction. Hypothesis: Patients undergoing surgical lysis of adhesions and manipulation under anesthesia for LOM after ACL reconstruction will exhibit decreased function, lower outcome scores, and delayed time of release to play when compared with matched controls without LOM. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3 Methods: A database of 1572 patients undergoing ACL reconstruction was sampled from 2013 to 2017 to identify a total of 58 patients (LOM group [n = 29] vs matched control group [n = 29]). Group comparisons were examined for patients requiring a second surgical procedure for LOM versus matched controls after ACL reconstruction for differences in surgical timing, self-reported International Knee Disability Committee scores, objective function at release to play, and subjective knee function at 2 years with the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation. The risk of a type I error was set at α = .05 for all statistical analyses. Results: Patients who underwent lysis of adhesions and manipulation under anesthesia for LOM after ACL reconstruction exhibited no differences in Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation knee function at 2 years when compared with matched controls (85.8 ± 14.9 vs 88.0 ± 10.8, P = .606). All patients met release-to-play criteria. Only International Knee Disability Committee scores ( P = .046) and single-legged hop testing ( P = .050) reached statistically significant differences, with higher scores in the control group. There was no difference in the time to release to play ( P = .034) or level of participation ( P = .180) between the control and surgical groups. Subjective function scores at 2 years were not significantly different between groups. Tourniquet time during the index ACL reconstruction was shorter in the control group ( P = .034). Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that patients who undergo surgical treatment for LOM after ACL reconstruction can release to play at similar times but display relative deficits in single-legged-hop symmetry and lower self-reported function when compared with matched controls. Longer surgical times may increase the risk for LOM after ACL reconstruction. Registration: NCT03704376 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier)
Background: The increasing incidence of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and meniscal injuries has led to strong interest in discovering new methods to enhance the biological healing response of these tissues. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) contains various growth factors associated with a positive healing response, but few existing clinical studies are available to determine the risks and benefits of these therapies. Purpose: To determine the effects of intraoperative PRP on postoperative knee function and complications at 2 years after ACL reconstruction with meniscal repair. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective matched case-control study was conducted between 2013 and 2017 using a single surgeon database of 1014 patients undergoing primary ACL reconstruction with concomitant meniscal repair, resulting in 324 patients (162 PRP patients and 162 control patients) who met the study criteria. Patients were matched by age, sex, graft type, and meniscal injury. The Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) was administered at 2 years, and injury surveillance was conducted. Secondary outcomes included the time to return to activity (months), self-reported knee function (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] score), functional performance testing (knee range of motion, single-leg balance, single-leg hopping, agility testing), and postoperative complications (graft failure, infection, loss of motion [requiring repeat arthroscopy for lysis of adhesions], venous thrombosis, etc). Univariate models were used for between-group comparisons, and alpha was set at .05 for all analyses. Results: No differences were found in SANE knee function scores between the PRP and matched-control groups at 2 years (91.6 ± 11.2 vs 92.4 ± 10.6, respectively; P = .599). Additionally, no differences were reported between groups for self-reported function (IKDC score, 87.6 ± 13.3 vs 88.1 ± 12.6; P = .952), functional performance testing ( P > .05), and timing of return to activity (7.8 ± 1.9 vs 8.0 ± 1.9 months; P = .765). The PRP group demonstrated a higher rate of postoperative knee motion loss compared with the control group (13.6% vs 4.6%; P < .001). No other differences were observed in postoperative complications ( P > .05). Conclusion: The added use of intraoperative PRP did not improve self-reported knee function, functional performance, and timing of return to activity for patients undergoing ACL reconstruction with meniscal repair. Furthermore, the use of PRP may have negative consequences for regaining knee range of motion after surgery. On the basis of these data, surgeons should cautiously consider the application of PRP when planning surgery for intra-articular injuries of the knee. Registration: NCT03704376 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).
To our knowledge, there is no available standardized educational curriculum designed to promote the incorporation of skin cancer examinations and procedures into general practice. To explore the contemporary training landscape, we conducted a systematic review of educational interventions designed to support skin cancer diagnostic examinations by primary care providers (PCPs). Our review uniquely encompasses all PCPs, including practicing physicians, residents, and advanced practice practitioners (APPs). The objective of this study is to review and synthesize worldwide data on educational interventions addressing PCP performance of skin cancer diagnostic examinations. A systematic review was performed in MEDLINE , Cochrane , EMBASE, and Scopus for English language articles worldwide published from 2000 onwards. Articles were screened for eligibility, and possibly overlapping datasets were resolved. Data extracted included curriculum content, delivery format, and educational outcomes. This review followed the PRISMA guidelines. A total of 63 studies were selected for data inclusion with one addressing training for resident physicians, 4 for APPs, and the remainder for practicing physicians. Educational interventions included in this review reflect the pre-SARS-CoV-2 pandemic educational environment: half provided live/synchronous instruction of about 5-h duration on average, and a quarter featured interactive components. Less than a quarter of interventions included practice change as a specific reported outcome. Without sustainable practice change, the anticipated long-term benefits of early cancer detection in patients remain limited. Previous and existing educational interventions designed to support skin cancer detection by PCPs demonstrate heterogeneous curriculum content, delivery methods, and educational outcomes. An ideal intervention would teach consensus-derived clinical competencies, provide meaningful learner feedback, and measure outcomes, such as knowledge/competency, confidence/attitudes, and practice change, using validated instruments. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13187-021-02118-8.
www.mohscollege.org/for-physicians/acms-fellowship-training. Accessed December 14, 2021. 5. Coldiron BM. Should we pursue board certification in Mohs micrographic surgery? Available at: https://www.mdedge.com/dermatology/article/113747/should-we-pursue-board-certification-mohs-micrographic-surgery. Accessed December 14, 2021.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.