No abstract

Background: Autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) is an increasingly popular technique for the treatment of articular cartilage defects. Because several companies have financial interests in ACI, it is important to consider possible conflicts of interest when evaluating studies reporting outcomes of ACI. Purpose: To determine whether there is an association between authors’ financial conflicts of interest and the outcomes of ACI studies. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: A search of PubMed and MEDLINE databases for “autologous chondrocyte implantation” was performed. Clinical studies published after 2012 through May 15, 2019, and in English were included. Studies were determined to have financial conflicts of interest if any contributing author had relevant conflicts, either self-reported in the published study’s disclosures section or reported online in the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Disclosure database or the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database. The outcomes of each study were rated as favorable, equivocal, or unfavorable based on predefined criteria and then tested for association with conflicts of interest through use of the Fisher exact test. Results: A total of 79 studies met the inclusion criteria. Nearly all studies were of level 3 or 4 evidence. Conflicts of interest were established in 51.90% of studies (n = 41). Conflicts that were not self-reported by the authors were discovered in 18% of studies. The level of evidence was not associated with conflict of interest. No statistically significant difference was found in the rate of favorable outcomes between studies with conflicts (92.68%) and those with no conflicts (81.58%) ( P = .126). Publications by US authors were more likely to have financial conflicts of interest ( P = .003). Conclusion: Favorable results were reported in a majority of studies involving ACI. No statistical association was found between the frequency of favorable outcomes and the presence of financial conflicts of interest, country of authorship, or level of evidence. There was a trend toward more favorable outcomes in studies with conflicts of interest. Additionally, nearly 20% of publications had possible conflicts found online that were not self-reported. It is critical for orthopaedic surgeons to judiciously evaluate published studies and consider financial conflicts of interest before performing ACI techniques on patients.

Hip preservation is one of the fastest growing subspecialties in orthopaedic surgery. Surgical training recommendations and guidelines in this field are lacking. To survey high volume hip preservation surgeons regarding their perspectives on the current and future training of surgeons entering their field, a cross-sectional survey of 16 high-volume hip preservation surgeons was conducted to gather perspectives and opinions on the most appropriate education of future hip preservation surgeons. All participants completed the survey in person and anonymously. Of the surveyed surgeons, the mean career hip preservation volume was 1031.25 cases (250 to >3000) with an average annual volume of 162.08 cases (75–400). The average number of hip arthroscopy cases necessary to competently perform joint access is 19, labral repair is 34, acetabuloplasty/femoroplasty are 54, labral reconstruction is 101 and capsular closure/plication is 53. Fifty-six percent of the surgeons believe mid-career surgeons who have never performed hip preservation surgery should not adopt it as part of their practice. The mean optimal number of cases recommended was 128 hip arthroscopies during a dedicated hip preservation fellowship and 67 hip arthroscopies during a sports medicine fellowship. Surgeons with an interest in hip preservation careers, should strongly consider a 12-month dedicated hip preservation fellowship that provides exposure to at least 128 cases, including open and arthroscopic techniques, hip arthroplasty, and research opportunities. Mid-career surgeons should be cautious about adopting hip preservation into their practice if they have not had prior adequate training.

The rapid growth of hip preservation has left surgeons following trends based on limited, or even anecdotal, evidence in certain circumstances. A consensus as well as high-level research on how best to manage the iliopsoas is lacking. Arthroscopic treatment of the iliopsoas may be an example of how treatment patterns and trends can shift with limited evidence-based medicine. A cross-sectional survey of 16 high-volume hip preservation surgeons was conducted to gather perspectives and opinions on how and why the arthroscopic management of the iliopsoas has evolved. All participants completed the survey in person and anonymously. Of the surveyed surgeons, the mean career hip preservation volume was 1031.25 cases (250 to >3000) with an average annual volume of 162.08 cases (75–400). Of the surveyed surgeons’ caseload, 16.1% involved an iliopsoas tenotomy or fractional lengthening mostly commonly (75%) for recalcitrant internal snapping. Labral repair/reconstruction is performed concomitantly 87.5% of the time. Seventy-five percent of surgeons indicated a decrease in frequency of iliopsoas tenotomy over the course of their practice most commonly (56.3%) because of hip flexion weakness; however, 0% of the surgeons could cite literature evidence to support their practices. Perceived poor outcomes in individual practices was the most common (56.3%) source of this complication. Surgeons were less inclined to perform tenotomy on patients with borderline dysplasia (75%) or ligamentous laxity (56.3%).

No abstract