Bryan M. Saltzman

Is Local Viscosupplementation Injection Clinically Superior to Other Therapies in the Treatment of Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Systematic Review of Overlapping Meta-analyses

PURPOSE To conduct a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA) with intra-articular viscosupplementation (intra-articular hyaluronic acid [IA-HA]) versus oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), intra-articular corticosteroids (IA-corticosteroids), intra-articular platelet-rich plasma (IA-PRP), or intra-articular placebo (IA-placebo) to determine which meta-analyses provide the best current evidence and identify potential causes of discordance. METHODS Literature searches were performed for meta-analyses examining use of IA-HA versus NSAIDs, IA-corticosteroids, IA-PRP, or IA-placebo. Clinical data were extracted, and meta-analysis quality was assessed. The Jadad algorithm was applied to determine which meta-analyses provided the highest level of evidence. RESULTS Fourteen meta-analyses met the eligibility criteria and ranged in quality from Level I to IV evidence. In studies reporting patient numbers, there were a total of 20,049 patients: 13,698 receiving IA-HA, 355 receiving NSAIDs, 294 receiving IA-corticosteroids, and 5,702 receiving IA-placebo. Ten studies examined the effects of IA-HA versus IA-placebo; of these, 5 found that IA-HA improved pain and 4 found that IA-HA improved function. No clinically relevant differences in the efficacy of IA-HA versus NSAIDs regarding pain and function were found. Regarding IA-HA versus IA-PRP, IA-HA improved knee function at 2 and 6 months after injection but the effects were less robust than those of IA-PRP. Regarding IA-HA versus IA-corticosteroids, the positive effects of IA-HA were greater at 5 to 13 weeks and persisted for up to 26 weeks. After application of the Jadad algorithm, 2 concordant high-quality meta-analyses were selected and both showed that IA-HA provided clinically relevant improvements in pain and function compared with IA-placebo. CONCLUSIONS This systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing IA-HA with other nonoperative treatment modalities for knee OA shows that the current highest level of evidence suggests that IA-HA is a viable option for knee OA. Its use results in improvements in knee pain and function that can persist for up to 26 weeks. IA-HA has a good safety profile, and its use should be considered in patients with early knee OA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.

The Relationship between Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injury and Osteoarthritis of the Knee

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears are a common injury, particularly in the athletic and youth populations. The known association between ACL injury and subsequent osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee merits a more in-depth understanding of the relationship between the ACL-injured knee and osteoarthritis. ACL injury, especially with concomitant meniscal or other ligamentous pathology, predisposes the knee to an increased risk of osteoarthritis. ACL insufficiency results in deterioration of the normal physiologic knee bending culminating in increased anterior tibial translation and increased internal tibial rotation. This leads to increased mean contact stresses in the posterior medial and lateral compartments under anterior and rotational loading. However, surgical reconstruction of the ACL has not been shown to reduce the risk of future OA development back to baseline and has variability based on operative factors of graft choice, timing of surgery, presence of meniscal and chondral abnormalities, and surgical technique. Known strategies to prevent OA development are applicable to patients with ACL deficiency or after ACL reconstruction and include weight management, avoidance of excessive musculoskeletal loading, and strength training. Reconstruction of the ACL does not necessarily prevent osteoarthritis in many of these patients and may depend on several external variables.

Does the Use of Platelet-Rich Plasma at the Time of Surgery Improve Clinical Outcomes in Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair When Compared With Control Cohorts? A Systematic Review of Meta-analyses

PURPOSE The aims of the study were as follows: (1) to perform a systematic review of meta-analyses evaluating platelet-rich plasma (PRP) use at the time of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair surgery and to determine its effect on retear rates and clinical outcomes; (2) to provide a framework for the analysis and interpretation of the best currently available evidence; and (3) to identify gaps within the literature where suggestions for continued investigational efforts would be valid. METHODS Literature searches were performed to identify meta-analyses examining arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs augmented with PRP versus control (no PRP). Clinical data were extracted and meta-analysis quality was assessed using the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses and Oxman-Guyatt scales. RESULTS Seven meta-analyses met inclusion and exclusion criteria. All were considered as being of similar quality with Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses scores >15 and Oxman scores of 7. A total of 3,193 overlapping patients treated were included with mean follow-up from 12 to 31 months. When compared with control patients, use of PRP at the time of rotator cuff repair did not result in significantly lower overall retear rates or improved clinical outcome scores. The following postoperative functional scores comparing PRP versus control were reported: Constant (no significant difference demonstrated with PRP use in 5 of 6 reporting meta-analyses), University of California - Los Angeles (no difference, 6 of 6), American Shoulder and Elbow Society (no difference, 4 of 4), and Simple Shoulder Test (no difference, 3 of 5). Subgroup analysis performed by 3 meta-analyses showed evidence of improved outcomes with solid PRP matrix versus liquid, small- and/or medium-sized versus large and/or massive tears, PRP application at the tendon-bone interface versus over tendon, and in the setting of double-row versus single-row rotator cuff. CONCLUSIONS The current highest level of evidence suggests that PRP use at the time of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair does not universally improve retear rates or affect clinical outcome scores. However, the effects of PRP use on retear rates trend toward beneficial outcomes if evaluated in the context of the following specific variables: use of a solid PRP matrix; application of PRP at the tendon-bone interface; in double-row repairs; and with small- and/or medium-sized rotator cuff tears. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level III, systematic review of Level II and III studies.

Complication rates comparing primary with revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND Complication rates after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) have, in previous series, been reported to be high. The purpose of this study was to describe the complication rates, types, timing, and risk factors after revision RTSA, as compared with primary RTSA. METHODS We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent primary or revision RTSA to determine early (within 90 days) complication rates. Complications were subdivided into medical versus surgical and minor versus major. RESULTS One hundred thirty-seven patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 111 underwent primary RTSA and 26 underwent RTSA as a revision from a previous arthroplasty. The overall complication rates were 25% after primary RTSA and 69% after revision RTSA. Minor complications accounted for 80% of the complications after primary RTSA and 94% after revision RTSA. Surgical complications were more frequent than medical complications in revision patients, occurring in 18% of primary cases and 62% of revisions. Revision patients more frequently required transfusions, with rates of 5% and 31% for primary cases and revisions, respectively. Overall, minor, surgical, intraoperative, perioperative, and postoperative complications were all significantly more frequent after revision RTSA. Multivariate logistic regression showed that revision status was the most significant predictor of overall (P < .001), minor (P < .001), surgical (P < .001), intraoperative (P = .002), and postoperative (P < .001) complication rates. Medical complications were predicted by body mass index (P < .001). CONCLUSION Revision RTSA has a significantly higher rate of complications than primary RTSA. These patients are significantly more likely to require transfusions. Patients should be aware that minor complications are frequent after revision RTSA and should be counseled accordingly.

Clinical outcomes of proximal row carpectomy versus four-corner arthrodesis for post-traumatic wrist arthropathy: A systematic review

We conducted a systematic review of studies reporting clinical outcomes after proximal row carpectomy or to four-corner arthrodesis for scaphoid non-union advanced collapse or scapholunate advanced collapse arthritis. Seven studies (Levels I–III; 240 patients, 242 wrists) were evaluated. Significantly different post-operative values were as follows for four-corner arthrodesis versus proximal row carpectomy groups: wrist extension, 39 (SD 11º) versus 43 (SD 11º); wrist flexion, 32 (SD 10º) versus 36 (SD 11º); flexion-extension arc, 62 (SD 14º) versus 75 (SD 10º); radial deviation, 14 (SD 5º) versus 10 (SD 5º); hand grip strength as a percentage of contralateral side, 74% (SD 13) versus 67% (SD 16); overall complication rate, 29% versus 14%. The most common post-operative complications were non-union (grouped incidence, 7%) after four-corner arthrodesis and synovitis and clinically significant oedema (3.1%) after proximal row carpectomy. Radial deviation and post-operative hand grip strength (as a percentage of the contralateral side) were significantly better after four-corner arthrodesis. Four-corner arthrodesis gave significantly greater post-operative radial deviation and grip strength as a percentage of the opposite side. Wrist flexion, extension, and the flexion-extension arc were better after proximal row carpectomy, which also had a lower overall complication rate. Level of evidence: Level III (Level I-III studies), Systematic Review. Therapeutic.

Bioabsorbable versus metallic interference screws in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses.

PURPOSE Multiple meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials have been conducted to compare clinical and functional outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using metallic interference screw (MIS) versus bioabsorbable interference screw (BIS) fixation, but discrepancies in their findings have prevented a consensus conclusion. The purposes of this study were (1) to conduct a systematic review of meta-analyses comparing MISs and BISs in ACL reconstruction, (2) to provide surgical treatment recommendations for ACL graft fixation based on the highest available evidence, and (3) to propose future research avenues in areas of practice lacking high-level evidence. METHODS The literature was systematically reviewed to identify meta-analyses comparing MISs and BISs in ACL reconstruction. Data were extracted for clinical and functional outcomes, and methodologic quality was assessed using the validated Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses and Oxman-Guyatt systems. To determine which meta-analyses provided the current best available evidence, the Jadad decision algorithm was used. RESULTS One Level I and 2 Level II meta-analyses were included. None showed differences between BISs and MISs in validated outcome scores, pivot-shift testing, KT arthrometry (MEDmetric, San Diego, CA), or loss of knee motion. Subgroup analyses found no differences in clinical outcomes or knee stability across biomaterials. All meta-analyses were of high quality according to the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses and Oxman-Guyatt systems. Two meta-analyses were determined by the Jadad algorithm to represent the current best available evidence. Both studies showed prolonged knee effusion with BIS use, with 1 also showing an increased incidence of femoral tunnel widening and screw breakage with BIS use. CONCLUSIONS Whereas clinical and functional outcomes are similar with MISs and BISs, prolonged knee effusion, femoral tunnel widening, and screw breakage are more common with BIS use. Future cost-effectiveness analyses may help weigh the known advantages of BISs against their costs and adverse-event profile. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level II, systematic review of Level I and II studies.

Economic Analyses in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Qualitative and Systematic Review.

Background: As the health care system in the United States (US) transitions toward value-based care, there is an increased emphasis on understanding the cost drivers and high-value procedures within orthopaedics. To date, there has been no systematic review of the economic literature on anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Purpose: To evaluate the overall evidence base for economic studies published on ACLR in the orthopaedic literature. Data available on the economics of ACLR are summarized and cost drivers associated with the procedure are identified. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: All economic studies (including US-based and non–US-based) published between inception of the MEDLINE database and October 3, 2014, were identified. Given the heterogeneity of the existing evidence base, a qualitative, descriptive approach was used to assess the collective results from the economic studies on ACLR. When applicable, comparisons were made for the following cost-related variables associated with the procedure for economic implications: outpatient versus inpatient surgery (or outpatient vs overnight hospital stay vs >1-night stay); bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) graft versus hamstring (HS) graft source; autograft versus allograft source; staged unilateral ACLR versus bilateral ACLR in a single setting; single- versus double-bundle technique; ACLR versus nonoperative treatment; and other unique comparisons reported in single studies, including computer-assisted navigation surgery (CANS) versus traditional surgery, early versus delayed ACLR, single- versus double-incision technique, and finally the costs of ACLR without comparison of variables. Results: A total of 24 studies were identified and included; of these, 17 included studies were cost identification studies. The remaining 7 studies were cost utility analyses that used economic models to investigate the effect of variables such as the cost of allograft tissue, fixation devices, and physical therapy, the percentage and timing of revision surgery, and the cost of revision surgery. Of the 24 studies, there were 3 studies with level 1 evidence, 8 with level 2 evidence, 6 with level 3 evidence, and 7 with level 4 evidence. The following economic comparisons were demonstrated: (1) ACLR is more cost-effective than nonoperative treatment with rehabilitation only (per 3 cost utility analyses); (2) autograft use had lower total costs than allograft use, with operating room supply costs and allograft costs most significant (per 5 cost identification studies and 1 cost utility analysis); (3) results on hamstring versus BPTB graft source are conflicting (per 2 cost identification studies); (4) there is significant cost reduction with an outpatient versus inpatient setting (per 5 studies using cost identification analyses); (5) bilateral ACLR is more cost efficient than 2 unilateral ACLRs in separate settings (per 2 cost identification studies); (6) there are lower costs with similarly successful outcomes between single- and double-bundle technique (per 3 cost identification studies and 2 cost utility analyses). Conclusion: Results from this review suggest that early single-bundle, single (endoscopic)-incision outpatient ACLR using either BPTB or HS autograft provides the most value. In the setting of bilateral ACL rupture, single-setting bilateral ACLR is more cost-effective than staged unilateral ACLR. Procedures using CANS technology do not yet yield results that are superior to the results of a standard surgical procedure, and CANS has substantially greater costs.

Does Operative Treatment of First-Time Patellar Dislocations Lead to Increased Patellofemoral Stability? A Systematic Review of Overlapping Meta-analyses

PURPOSE To conduct a systematic review of meta-analyses comparing nonoperative and operative treatment of patellar dislocations to elucidate the cause of the variation and to determine which meta-analysis provides the current best available evidence. METHODS A systematic review of the literature to identify meta-analyses was performed. Data were extracted for patient outcomes and recurrent dislocations. Meta-analysis quality was assessed using the Oxman-Guyatt and Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses systems. The Jadad algorithm was then applied to determine which meta-analysis provided the highest level of evidence. RESULTS Four meta-analyses met the eligibility criteria: 1 Level I evidence, 2 Level II evidence, and 1 Level III evidence. A total of 1,984 patients were included (997 underwent surgery whereas 987 underwent conservative treatment). Three meta-analyses found a lower subsequent patellar dislocation rate in patients managed operatively compared with nonoperatively, whereas one did not find a difference in recurrent dislocation rates between the operative and nonoperative groups. When the results of all the studies were combined, the overall redislocation rate was 29.4% and the rate of recurrent instability episodes was 32.8%. Patients treated operatively had a 24.0% rate of repeat patellar dislocation and a 32.7% rate of recurrent patellar instability, whereas patients treated nonoperatively had a 34.6% rate of repeat patellar dislocation and a 33.0% rate of recurrent instability. In addition, 1 meta-analysis found a significantly higher rate of patellofemoral osteoarthritis in the operative group. No differences in functional outcomes scores were seen between treatments. Two meta-analyses had low Oxman-Guyatt scores (<4), indicative of major flaws. CONCLUSIONS According to the best available evidence, operative treatment of acute patellar dislocations may result in a lower rate of recurrent dislocations than nonoperative treatment but does not improve functional outcome scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level III, systematic review of Level I, II, and II studies.

Role of platelet-rich plasma in articular cartilage injury and disease.

Clinical and laboratory research aimed at biological approaches to cartilage repair are currently in high demand due to the poor regenerative capacity of articular cartilage in the setting of a diseased articular environment. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) takes advantage of supraphysiological concentrations of platelets and their growth factors harbored in α-granules, which together attempt to return the diseased articular cartilage to a preinjury state. The local use of PRP directly at the site of cartilage injury is thought to stimulate a natural healing cascade and accelerate the formation of cartilage repair tissue. This article provides an overview of the basic science behind the use of PRP in the treatment of cartilage injury and disease. Both initial and current examples of the use of intra-articular PRP in clinical human studies are provided. These include the use of PRP either alone or as an augmentation device with various other procedures, including arthroscopic microfracture and cell-free resorbable polyglycolic acid-hyaluronan implantation. Finally, the authors describe some of the potential future roles of PRP in clinical settings based on recent literature. These include Achilles tendon rupture, chronic tendinosis, chronic rotator cuff tendinopathy or tearing, muscle injury, and meniscal repair.

Humeral Head Reconstruction With Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation

PURPOSE To synthesize, in a systematic review, the available clinical evidence of osteochondral allograft transplants for large osteochondral defects of the humeral head. METHODS The Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies reporting clinical or radiographic outcomes of osteochondral allograft transplantation for humeral head defects. Descriptive statistics were provided for all outcomes. After checking for data normality, we compared postoperative and preoperative values using the Student t test. RESULTS We included 12 studies (8 case reports and 4 case series) in this review. The study group consisted of 35 patients. The mean age was 35.4 ± 18.1 years; 77% of patients were male patients. Thirty-three patients had large Hill-Sachs lesions due to instability, 1 had an osteochondritis dissecans lesion, and 1 had an iatrogenic lesion after resection of synovial chondromatosis. The mean lesion size was 3 ± 1.4 cm (anteroposterior) by 2.25 ± 0.3 cm (medial-lateral), representing on average 40.5% ± 4.73% of the native articular surface. Of the 35 patients, 3 received a fresh graft, with all others receiving frozen grafts. Twenty-three femoral heads, 10 humeral heads, and 2 sets of osteochondral plugs were used. The mean length of follow-up was 57 months. Significant improvements were seen in forward flexion at 6 months (68° ± 18.1°, P < .001), forward flexion at 12 months (83.42° ± 18.3°, P < .001), and external rotation at 12 months (38.72° ± 18.8°, P < .001). American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores improved by 14 points (P = .02). Radiographic studies at final follow-up showed allograft necrosis in 8.7% of cases, resorption in 36.2%, and glenohumeral arthritic changes in 35.7%. Complication rates were between 20% and 30%, and the reoperation rate was 26.67%. Although only 3 patients received fresh allografts, there were no reports of graft resorption, necrosis, or arthritic changes in these patients. CONCLUSIONS Humeral head allograft-most commonly used in the setting of large Hill-Sachs lesions due to instability-has shown significant improvements in shoulder motion and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores as far as 1 year postoperatively. Return-to-work rates and satisfaction levels are high after the intervention. Complication and reoperation rates are substantial, although it is possible that use of fresh allograft tissue may result in less resorption and necrosis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level V, systematic review of Level IV and V studies.