BACKGROUND Whether arthroscopic partial meniscectomy for symptomatic patients with a meniscal tear and knee osteoarthritis results in better functional outcomes than nonoperative therapy is uncertain. METHODS We conducted a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving symptomatic patients 45 years of age or older with a meniscal tear and evidence of mild-to-moderate osteoarthritis on imaging. We randomly assigned 351 patients to surgery and postoperative physical therapy or to a standardized physical-therapy regimen (with the option to cross over to surgery at the discretion of the patient and surgeon). The patients were evaluated at 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome was the difference between the groups with respect to the change in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) physical-function score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe symptoms) 6 months after randomization. RESULTS In the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean improvement in the WOMAC score after 6 months was 20.9 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.9 to 23.9) in the surgical group and 18.5 (95% CI, 15.6 to 21.5) in the physical-therapy group (mean difference, 2.4 points; 95% CI, −1.8 to 6.5). At 6 months, 51 active participants in the study who were assigned to physical therapy alone (30%) had undergone surgery, and 9 patients assigned to surgery (6%) had not undergone surgery. The results at 12 months were similar to those at 6 months. The frequency of adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS In the intention-to-treat analysis, we did not find significant differences between the study groups in functional improvement 6 months after randomization; however, 30% of the patients who were assigned to physical therapy alone underwent surgery within 6 months. (Funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases; METEOR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00597012.)

Revision ACL reconstruction resulted in a worse outcome compared with primary ACL reconstruction. Patient-reported outcome scores were inferior to previously published results of primary ACL reconstruction, but these differences may not be clinically important. A dramatically elevated failure rate was noted after revision ACL reconstruction; this rate was nearly three to four times the failure rate in prospective series of primary ACL reconstructions.

Purpose To assess the effectiveness of a specific non-operative physical therapy program in treating atraumatic full thickness rotator cuff tears using a multicenter prospective cohort study design. Methods Patients with atraumatic full thickness rotator cuff tears who consented to enroll provided data via questionnaire on demographics, symptom characteristics, co-morbidities, willingness to undergo surgery, and patient related outcome assessments (SF-12, ASES, WORC, SANE score, Shoulder Activity Scale). Physicians recorded physical examination and imaging data. Patients began a physical therapy program developed from a systematic review of the literature and returned for evaluation at 6 and 12 weeks. At those visits patients could chose one of three courses: 1.) Cured (no formal follow up scheduled), 2.) Improved (continue therapy with scheduled reassessment in 6 weeks), or 3.) No better (offered surgery). Patients were contacted by telephone at 1 and 2 years to determine if they had undergone surgery since their last visit. A Wilcoxon signed rank test with continuity correction was used to compare initial, 6 week, and 12 week outcome scores. Results The cohort consists of 452 patients. Patient reported outcomes improved significantly at 6 and 12 weeks. Patients elected to undergo surgery less than 25% of the time. Patients who decided to have surgery generally did so between 6 and 12 weeks, and few had surgery between 3 and 24 months. Conclusion Non-operative treatment using this physical therapy protocol is effective for treating atraumatic full thickness rotator cuff tears in approximately 75% of patients followed for two years. Level of evidence Level IV, Case Series, Treatment Study

No abstract

Background: The opioid epidemic in the United States has placed increased pressure on physicians to engage in responsible opioid prescribing practices. However, surgeons currently have little information to guide their postoperative prescription decision-making. The purpose of this study was to assess opioid consumption after knee arthroscopy and identify preoperative factors that may predict higher opioid usage.Methods: A prospective observational study of 221 patients was conducted in patients undergoing outpatient knee arthroscopy for meniscal repair, partial meniscectomy, debridement, chondroplasty, or loose body removal. Participants recorded their daily opioid consumption in a postoperative pain diary. Total opioid consumption was calculated from counts of remaining pills at the 2-week and 6-week postoperative office visits. Variables, including age, sex, body mass index, smoking status, alcohol consumption, preoperative pain severity and duration, preoperative opioid usage, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores, and the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale, were evaluated for an association with opioid consumption.Results: Total opioid consumption ranged from 0 to 188 pills, with a median of 7 pills (hydrocodone 5-mg equivalents).Forty-six percent of patients took £5 pills, 59% took £10 pills, and 81% took £20 pills. Fifty-six percent of patients had discontinued opioid usage by the third postoperative day. Eighty-eight percent of patients had surplus opioid medication at the time of the final follow-up. Patients undergoing meniscal repair, smokers, and those taking preoperative opioids were significantly more likely to take ‡20 pills (p < 0.05). Conclusions:The median number of pills taken after knee arthroscopy is 7, with the majority of patients consuming £20 pills. Meniscal repair, smoking, and preoperative opioid usage were associated with higher postoperative opioid consumption.Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.