Aman Dhawan

Clinical Cartilage Restoration: Evolution and Overview

BackgroundClinical cartilage restoration is evolving, with established and emerging technologies. Randomized, prospective studies with adequate power comparing the myriad of surgical techniques used to treat chondral injuries are still lacking and it remains a challenge for the surgeon treating patients to make evidence-based decisions. Questions/purposesWe reviewed the history of the major cartilage repair/restorative procedures, indications for currently available repair/restorative procedures, and postoperative management.MethodsWe performed searches using MEDLINE and cartilage-specific key words to identify all English-language literature. Articles were selected based on their contributions to our current understanding of the basic science and clinical treatment of articular cartilage lesions or historical importance. We then selected 77 articles, two of which are articles of historical importance. ResultsCurrent cartilage restorative techniques include débridement, microfracture, osteochondral fragment repair, osteochondral allograft, osteochondral autograft, and autologous chondrocyte transplantation. Pending techniques include two-staged cell-based therapies integrated into a variety of scaffolds, single-stage cell-based therapy, and augmentation of marrow stimulation, each with suggested indications including lesion size, location, and activity demands of the patient. The literature demonstrates variable improvements in pain and function contingent upon multiple variables including indications and application.ConclusionsFor the patient with symptomatic chondral injury, numerous techniques are available to the surgeon to relieve pain and improve function. Until rigorous clinical trials (prospective, adequately powered, randomized control) are available, treatment decisions should be guided by expert extrapolation of the available literature based in historically sound principles.

An Epidemiologic Analysis of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Non-Arthroplasty Treatment of Osteoarthritis of the Knee

PURPOSE To analyze the current practice patterns of non-arthroplasty treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA) and to assess the impact of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guidelines on the management of OA of the knee, particularly as they relate to the use of arthroscopic treatment. METHODS The United Healthcare Database (2004-2009, 11 million patients, 216 million records) was used for the study and was searched using Boolean language for International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition, Clinical Modification and Current Procedural Terminology, fourth revision codes. A reference group was defined as patients treated with knee arthroplasty in 2009 and diagnosed with knee OA in the same record. Clinical practice patterns in the 5 years preceding arthroplasty were analyzed in this group. RESULTS The reference group consisted of 12,806 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty in 2009 with a documented diagnosis of OA at the time of surgery, with prior nonoperative treatment strategies analyzed during the preceding 5 years (2004-2009); 10.0% of patients were prescribed physical therapy specific to OA, 2.6% received an unloader brace, 0.52% underwent acupuncture, 43.5% were administered intra-articular corticosteroids, and 15.4% received viscosupplementation injections. During the 5 years before arthroplasty, 2,505 patients (19.6%) underwent arthroscopy and debridement/lavage, 35% of whom did not have a diagnosis code for mechanical pathology. Within 1 year of knee arthroplasty, 2,028 of the 2,505 knee arthroscopies (80.9%) were performed. CONCLUSIONS The findings show that significant gaps do exist between the evidence-based American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons recommendations and actual practice patterns in the United States between 2004 and 2009. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level IV, diagnostic study.

Complications of Bioabsorbable Suture Anchors in the Shoulder

The development of the suture anchor has played a pivotal role in the transition from open to arthroscopic techniques of the shoulder. Various suture anchors have been manufactured that help facilitate the ability to create a soft tissue to bone repair. Because of reported complications of loosening, migration, and chondral injury with metallic anchors, bioabsorbable anchors have become increasingly used among orthopaedic surgeons. In this review, the authors sought to evaluate complications associated with bioabsorbable anchors in or about the shoulder and understand these in the context of the total number of bioabsorbable anchors placed. In 2008, 10 bioabsorbable anchor–related complications were reported to the US Food and Drug Administration. The reported literature complications of bioabsorbable anchors implanted about the shoulder include glenoid osteolysis, synovitis, and chondrolysis. These potential complications should be kept in mind when forming a differential diagnosis in a patient in whom a bioabsorbable anchor has been previously used. These literature reports, which amount to but a fraction of the total bioabsorbable anchors implanted in the shoulder on a yearly basis, underscore the relative safety and successful clinical results with use of bioabsorbable suture anchors. Product development continues with newer composites such as PEEK (polyetheretherketone) and calcium ceramics (tricalcium phosphate) in an effort to hypothetically create a mechanically stable construct with and improve biocompatibility of the implant. Bioabsorbable anchors remain a safe, reproducible, and consistent implant to secure soft tissue to bone in and about the shoulder. Meticulous insertion technique must be followed in using bioabsorbable anchors and may obviate many of the reported complications found in the literature. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the existing literature as it relates to the rare complications seen with use of bioabsorbable suture anchors in the shoulder.

Research Pearls: The Significance of Statistics and Perils of Pooling. Part 1: Clinical Versus Statistical Significance

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly being used in todays rapidly evolving health care environment. The value of care provision emphasizes the highest quality of care at the lowest cost. Quality is in the eye of the beholder, with different stakeholders prioritizing different components of the value equation. At the center of the discussion are the patients and their quantification of outcome via PROs. There are hundreds of different PRO questionnaires that may ascertain an individuals overall general health, quality of life, activity level, or determine a body part-, joint-, or disease-specific outcome. As providers and patients increasingly measure outcomes, there exists greater potential to identify significant differences across time points due to an intervention. In other words, if you compare groups enough, you are bound to eventually detect a significant difference. However, the characterization of significance is not purely dichotomous, as a statistically significant outcome may not be clinically relevant. Statistical significance is the direct result of a mathematical equation, irrelevant to the patient experience. In clinical research, despite detecting statistically significant pre- and post-treatment differences, patients may or may not be able to perceive those differences. Thresholds exist to delineate whether those differences are clinically important or relevant to patients. PROs are unique, with distinct parameters of clinical importance for each outcome score. This review highlights the most common PROs in clinical research and discusses the salient pearls and pitfalls. In particular, it stresses the difference between statistical and clinical relevance and the concepts of minimal clinically important difference and patient acceptable symptom state. Researchers and clinicians should consider clinical importance in addition to statistical significance when interpreting and reporting investigation results.

Surgical Treatment of Symptomatic Superior Labrum Anterior-Posterior Tears in Patients Older Than 40 Years A Systematic Review

Background: Successful arthroscopic repair of symptomatic superior labral tears in young athletes has been well documented. Superior labral repair in patients older than 40 years is controversial, with concerns for residual postoperative pain, stiffness, and higher rates of revision surgery. Purpose: To analyze the published data on the surgical treatment of superior labral injuries in patients aged ≥40 years, including those with concomitant injuries to the rotator cuff. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed using the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The MEDLINE database via PubMed and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for articles related to superior labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: the study contained at least 1 group of patients who had undergone arthroscopic repair of a type II or IV SLAP lesion with a minimum 2-year follow-up, objective and/or functional scoring systems were used to evaluate postoperative outcomes, and the mean patient age was ≥40 years for at least 1 treatment arm or subgroup analysis. Studies were excluded if the article was a review or if the article included data for SLAP type I, III, or V to X tears or Bankart lesions. Results: While several authors reported equivalent outcomes of SLAP repair in patients both older than 40 years and younger than 40 years, others demonstrated significantly higher failure rates in the older cohort. Decreased patient satisfaction and increasing complications, including postoperative stiffness and reoperations, occur at higher rates as the patient age increases. The literature demonstrates that biceps tenotomy and tenodesis are reliable alternatives to SLAP repair and that biceps tenotomy is a viable revision procedure for failed SLAP repair. With concomitant rotator cuff tears, the evidence favors debridement or biceps tenotomy over SLAP repair. Conclusion: While studies show that good outcomes can be obtained with SLAP repair in an older cohort of patients, age older than 40 years and workers’ compensation status are independent risk factors for increased surgical complications. The cumulative evidence supports labral debridement or biceps tenotomy over labral repair when an associated rotator cuff injury is present.

Arthroscopic Primary Rotator Cuff Repairs in Patients Aged Younger Than 45 Years

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the mechanism of injury, patient characteristics, tear size, and clinical outcomes after arthroscopic primary rotator cuff repair of full-thickness tears in patients aged younger than 45 years. METHODS A total of 70 consecutive patients were reviewed in a retrospective, multicenter (2 institutions) study evaluating prospectively collected data. Fifty-three patients, with a mean age of 37.5 years (range, 16.2 to 44.9 years), were available for follow-up at a mean of 35.8 months (range, 13.8 to 59.1 months). Exclusion criteria included patients with revision procedures, repair of partial tears, and follow-up of less than 12 months. Follow-up evaluation included physical examination with dynamometer strength testing and clinical outcome measures including the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Constant-Murley score, pain score on a visual analog scale, and Simple Shoulder Test score. RESULTS A total of 60% of the patients (32 of 53) had a traumatic etiology, with 38% (12 of 32) of these related to an athletic event. Of the tears, 36 (68%) were medium tears. Concomitant procedures performed at the time of rotator cuff repair included acromioplasty (51), biceps tenodesis or tenotomy (24), distal clavicle excision (10), anteroinferior stabilization (2), and labral repair (1). The mean postoperative ASES score was 84.6 (range, 21.6 to 100.0), with 2 patients recording ASES scores of less than 50 (21.7 and 41.7) at final follow-up. In the 38 patients available for clinical follow-up examination, forward flexion improved from 158.7° (range, 45° to 180°) to 168.4° (range, 120° to 180°) (P = .014). At the time of follow-up, no patients had undergone revision surgery. On the basis of poor clinical outcome scores, 2 patients (4.0%) were considered failures. CONCLUSIONS Arthroscopic primary rotator cuff repair of full-thickness tears in patients aged younger than 45 years results in improved outcomes with regard to pain, subjective patient satisfaction, and shoulder function. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Reliability, Validity, and Injury Predictive Value of the Functional Movement Screen A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background: The Functional Movement Screen (FMS) is utilized by professional and collegiate sports teams and the military for the prevention of musculoskeletal injuries. Hypothesis: The FMS demonstrates good interrater and intrarater reliability and validity and has predictive value for musculoskeletal injuries. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using a computerized search of the electronic databases MEDLINE and ScienceDirect in adherence with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Extracted relevant data from each included study were recorded on a standardized form. The Cochran Q statistic was utilized to evaluate study heterogeneity. Pooled quantitative synthesis was performed to measure the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for interrater and intrarater reliability, along with 95% CIs, and odds ratios with 95% CIs for the injury predictive value for a score of ≤14. Results: Eleven studies for reliability, 5 studies for validity, and 9 studies for the injury predictive value were identified that met inclusion and exclusion criteria; of these, 6 studies for reliability and 9 studies for the injury predictive value were pooled for quantitative synthesis. The ICC for intrarater reliability was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.69-0.92) and for interrater reliability was 0.81 (95% CI, 0.70-0.92). The odds of sustaining an injury were 2.74 times with an FMS score of ≤14 (95% CI, 1.70-4.43). Studies for validity demonstrated flaws in both internal and external validity of the FMS. Conclusion: The FMS has excellent interrater and intrarater reliability. Participants with composite scores of ≤14 had a significantly higher likelihood of an injury compared with those with higher scores, demonstrating the injury predictive value of the test. Significant concerns remain regarding the validity of the FMS.

Acute compartment syndrome of the foot following an inversion injury of the ankle with disruption of the anterior tibial artery. A case report.

Ankle sprain is the most common athletic injury, with inversion being the mechanism of injury in 85% of cases 1,2. The anterior talofibular ligament is the most commonly injured ligament in ankle sprains; injury to the ligament occurs in isolation in 66% of such sprains 3,4. Conservative treatment with rest, ice, compression, elevation, and early motion has been well documented to provide excellent results in most patients 5,6. Vascular injury complicating an inversion injury is rare 7-9. Compartment syndrome of the foot following an ankle sprain is an uncommon entity, and we know of only one previous case reported in the English-language literature 7. In that patient, an expanding traumatic pseudoaneurysm of the dorsalis pedis artery was found. We present a case of acute compartment syndrome of the foot following an inversion injury of the ankle secondary to disruption of the anterior tibial artery in a thirty-five-year-old recreational athlete. The patient was informed that data concerning the care would be submitted for publication. A thirty-five-year-old man sustained a severe inversion sprain of the right ankle while playing basketball. Approximately ninety minutes after injury, the patient was seen by his primary care provider, who prescribed treatment at home with rest, ice, elevation, and a compressive dressing. The patient returned to the primary care provider five hours after injury with increasing swelling of the ankle. Pneumatic intermittent impulse compression (PlexiPulse; Kinetic Concepts, San Antonio, Texas) was applied to the foot for one hour in the primary care setting, and conservative treatment at home was again prescribed. Pain and swelling increased through the night, and the patient returned to the primary care provider the following morning. Examination of the foot twenty-six hours after injury revealed marked, tense swelling involving the …

Effect of Drain Use in the Early Postoperative Period after Arthroscopically Assisted Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction with Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Graft

Background Little data exist on the effect of routine use of postoperative drainage after arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, although clinical studies of other procedures have not shown benefit to this practice. Hypothesis Use of a postoperative drain will not result in decreased suprapatellar girth, increased range of motion, and decreased pain compared with nonuse. Study Design Prospective randomized clinical trial. Methods Twenty-one patients undergoing arthroscopically assisted bone-patellar tendon-bone anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were randomly assigned to receive a drain for 24 hours (12 patients) or no drain (9 patients). Data for comparison of groups were collected daily through postoperative day 7. Results Pain scores on a visual analog scale demonstrated the same improving trend over time for both treatment and control groups; however, the treatment group had significantly higher average pain scores, except on day 7. Differences in suprapatellar girth, flexion, and extension were not found to be statistically significant between groups. Conclusion Use of a drain after arthroscopically assisted anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction provided no benefit in terms of range of motion, effusion, or pain in the early postoperative period.

Glenohumeral Joint Injections A Review

Context: Intra-articular injections into the glenohumeral joint are commonly performed by musculoskeletal providers, including orthopaedic surgeons, family medicine physicians, rheumatologists, and physician assistants. Despite their frequent use, there is little guidance for injectable treatments to the glenohumeral joint for conditions such as osteoarthritis, adhesive capsulitis, and rheumatoid arthritis. Evidence Acquisition: We performed a comprehensive review of the available literature on glenohumeral injections to help clarify the current evidence-based practice and identify deficits in our understanding. We searched MEDLINE (1948 to December 2011 [week 1]) and EMBASE (1980 to 2011 [week 49]) using various permutations of intra-articular injections AND (corticosteroid OR hyaluronic acid) and (adhesive capsulitis OR arthritis). Results: We identified 1 and 7 studies that investigated intra-articular corticosteroid injections for the treatment of osteoarthritis and adhesive capsulitis, respectively. Two and 3 studies investigated the use of hyaluronic acid in osteoarthritis and adhesive capsulitis, respectively. One study compared corticosteroids and hyaluronic acid injections in the treatment of osteoarthritis, and another discussed adhesive capsulitis. Conclusion: Based on existing studies and their level of evidence, there is only expert opinion to guide corticosteroid injection for osteoarthritis as well as hyaluronic acid injection for osteoarthritis and adhesive capsulitis.