Michael E. Steinhaus

High variability in outcome reporting patterns in high-impact ACL literature

BACKGROUND ACL (anterior cruciate ligament) reconstruction is one of the most commonly performed and studied procedures in modern sports medicine. A multitude of objective and subjective patient outcome measures exists; however, nonstandardized reporting patterns of these metrics may create challenges in objectively analyzing pooled results from different studies. The goal of this study was to document the variability in outcome reporting patterns in high-impact orthopaedic studies of ACL reconstruction. METHODS All clinical studies pertaining to ACL reconstruction in four high-impact-factor orthopaedic journals over a five-year period were reviewed. Biomechanical, basic science, and imaging studies were excluded, as were studies with fewer than fifty patients, yielding 119 studies for review. Incorporation of various objective and subjective outcomes was noted for each study. RESULTS Substantial variability in reporting of both objective and subjective measures was noted in the study cohort. Although a majority of studies reported instrumented laxity findings, there was substantial variability in the type and method of laxity reporting. Most other objective outcomes, including range of motion, strength, and complications, were reported in <50% of all studies. Return to pre-injury level of activity was infrequently reported (24% of studies), as were patient satisfaction and pain assessment following surgery (8% and 13%, respectively). Of the patient-reported outcomes, the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Lysholm, and Tegner scores were most often reported (71%, 63%, and 42%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Substantial variability in outcome reporting patterns exists among high-impact studies of ACL reconstruction. Such variability may create challenges in interpreting results and pooling them across different studies.

Outcomes assessment in rotator cuff pathology: what are we measuring?

BACKGROUND Assessments used to measure outcomes associated with rotator cuff pathology and after repair are varied. This lack of standardization leads to difficulty drawing comparisons across studies. We hypothesize that this variability in patient-reported outcome measures and objective metrics used in rotator cuff studies persists even in high-impact, peer reviewed journals. METHODS All studies assessing rotator cuff tear and repair outcomes in 6 orthopedic journals with a high impact factor from January 2010 to December 2014 were reviewed. Cadaveric and animal studies and those without outcomes were excluded. Outcome measures included range of motion (forward elevation, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation), strength (in the same 4 planes), tendon integrity imaging, patient satisfaction, and functional assessment scores. RESULTS Of the 156 included studies, 63% documented range of motion measurements, with 18% reporting range of motion in all 4 planes. Only 38% of studies reported quantitative strength measurements. In 65% of studies, tendon integrity was documented with imaging (38% magnetic resonance imaging/magnetic resonance anrhrogram, 31% ultrasound, and 8% computed tomography arthrogram). Finally, functional score reporting varied significantly, with the 5 most frequently reported scores ranging from 16% to 61% in studies, and 15 of the least reported outcomes were each reported in ≤6% of studies. CONCLUSIONS Significant variability exists in outcomes reporting after rotator cuff tear and repair, making comparisons between clinical studies difficult. Creating a uniformly accepted, validated outcomes tool that assesses pain, function, patient satisfaction, and anatomic integrity would enable consistent outcomes assessment after operative and nonoperative management and allow comparisons across the literature.

Patellar Instability Management: A Survey of the International Patellofemoral Study Group:

Background: Although patellofemoral instability is among the most prevalent knee disorders, the management of patients with this condition is complex and remains variable, given the lack of long-term, high-level clinical outcome studies to compare various operative and nonoperative modalities. Purpose: To discover a consensus within treatment controversies in patellofemoral instability among experienced knee surgeons with a specific interest in the patellofemoral joint. Study Design: Expert opinion; Level of evidence, 5. Methods: A 3-step modified Delphi technique was used to establish a consensus. A 34-question, case-based online survey regarding patellofemoral instability was distributed to all active members of the International Patellofemoral Study Group. Consensus statements were generated if at least 66% of the respondents agreed and then redistributed to the same panel. Modifications to the consensus statements were made based on the iterative feedback process until no discordance was encountered in the third stage. Results: Eight consensus statements were achieved. Nonoperative management is the current standard of care for a first-time dislocation in the absence of an osteochondral fragment or loose body requiring excision (100% agreement). In patients with a first-time dislocation with an operative osteochondral fracture requiring excision or repair, patellar instability should be addressed concurrently (89% agreement). Recurrent instability should be treated surgically, with most surgeons favoring medial reconstruction (77%-86% agreement). While there is general agreement that bony procedures should be performed to correct underlying bony deformities, there is no consensus regarding the most appropriate type of procedure performed. Lateral release should not be performed in isolation for the treatment of patellar instability (89% agreement). Conclusion: Despite the consensus generated in this study, our current understanding remains limited by a lack of high-level evidence as well as the numerous complex variables influencing treatment decision making. High-quality, multicenter randomized controlled trials, particularly those directly comparing specific surgical treatment methods while controlling for underlying risk factors, are needed to address these areas of uncertainty.

Revision Arthroscopic Repair Versus Latarjet Procedure in Patients With Recurrent Instability After Initial Repair Attempt: A Cost-Effectiveness Model

PURPOSE To compare the cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic revision instability repair and Latarjet procedure in treating patients with recurrent instability after initial arthroscopic instability repair. METHODS An expected-value decision analysis of revision arthroscopic instability repair compared with Latarjet procedure for recurrent instability followed by failed repair attempt was modeled. Inputs regarding procedure cost, clinical outcomes, and health utilities were derived from the literature. RESULTS Compared with revision arthroscopic repair, Latarjet was less expensive (

How Are We Measuring Patient Satisfaction After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

13,672 v

Variable reporting of functional outcomes and return to play in superior labrum anterior and posterior tear

15,287) with improved clinical outcomes (43.78 v 36.76 quality-adjusted life-years). Both arthroscopic repair and Latarjet were cost-effective compared with nonoperative treatment (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 3,082 and 1,141, respectively). Results from sensitivity analyses indicate that under scenarios of high rates of stability postoperatively, along with improved clinical outcome scores, revision arthroscopic repair becomes increasingly cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS Latarjet procedure for failed instability repair is a cost-effective treatment option, with lower costs and improved clinical outcomes compared with revision arthroscopic instability repair. However, surgeons must still incorporate clinical judgment into treatment algorithm formation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level IV, expected value decision analysis.

Patient Satisfaction Reporting After Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.

Background: Reconstruction of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is one of the most common orthopaedic operations in the United States. The long-term impact of ACL reconstruction is controversial, however, as longer term data have failed to demonstrate that ACL reconstruction helps alter the natural history of early onset osteoarthritis that occurs after ACL injury. There is significant interest in evaluating the value of ACL reconstruction surgeries. Purpose: To examine the quality of patient satisfaction reporting after ACL reconstruction surgery. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review of the MEDLINE database was performed using the PubMed interface. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines as well as the PRISMA checklist were employed. The initial search yielded 267 studies. The inclusion criteria were: English language, US patient population, clinical outcome study of ACL reconstruction surgery, and reporting of patient satisfaction included in the study. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: A total of 22 studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies comprised a total of 1984 patients with a mean age of 31.9 years at the time of surgery and a mean follow-up period of 59.3 months. The majority of studies were evidence level 4 (n = 18; 81.8%), had a mean Newcastle-Ottawa scale score of 5.5, and were published before 2006 (n = 17; 77.3%); 5 studies (22.7%) failed to clearly describe their method for determining patient satisfaction. The most commonly used method for assessing satisfaction was a 0 to 10 satisfaction scale (n = 11; 50.0%). Among studies using a 0 to 10 scale, mean satisfaction ranged from 7.4 to 10.0. Patient-reported outcome and objective functional measures for ACL stability and knee function were positively correlated with patient satisfaction. Degenerative knee change was negatively correlated with satisfaction. Conclusion: The level of evidence for studies reporting patient satisfaction is low, and the methodologies for reporting patient satisfaction are variable. Additionally, within the past decade there has been a significant decline in the inclusion of this outcome measure within published ACL studies. As sports surgeons are increasingly called on to demonstrate the value of operative procedures, attention should be paid to understanding and reporting patient satisfaction.

Body Mass Index Class Is Independently Associated With Health-Related Quality of Life After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Institutional Registry-Based Study.

BACKGROUND Outcomes assessments after superior labrum anterior and posterior (SLAP) tear/repair are highly varied, making it difficult to draw comparisons across the literature. This study examined the inconsistency in outcomes reporting in the SLAP tear literature. We hypothesize that there is significant variability in outcomes reporting and that although most studies may report return to play, time to return reporting will be highly variable. METHODS The PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Embase databases were systematically reviewed for studies from January 2000 to December 2014 reporting outcomes after SLAP tear/repair. Two reviewers assessed each study, and those meeting inclusion criteria were examined for pertinent data. Outcomes included objective (range of motion, strength, clinical examinations, and imaging) and subjective (patient-reported outcomes, satisfaction, activities of daily living, and return to play) measures. RESULTS Of the 56 included studies, 43% documented range of motion, 14% reported strength, and 16% noted postoperative imaging. There was significant variation in use of patient-reported outcomes measures, with the 3 most commonly noted measures reported in 20% to 55% of studies. Return to play was noted in 75% of studies, and 23% reported time to return, with greater rates in elite athletes. Eleven studies (20%) did not report follow-up or noted data with <12 months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS The SLAP literature is characterized by substantial variability in outcomes reporting, with time to return to play noted in few studies. Efforts to standardize outcomes reporting would facilitate comparisons across the literature and improve our understanding of the prognosis of this injury.

Displaced Proximal Humerus Fractures: is a Sling as Good as a Plate?

This review evaluated the quality of patient satisfaction reporting after total hip arthroplasty. The initial search of the MEDLINE database yielded 755 studies. Twenty-four met the inclusion criteria. Most studies provided level III or IV evidence (n=15, 62.5%). The most common method used to assess satisfaction was the 10-point visual analog scale (7 studies, 29.2%), followed by an ordinal satisfaction scale (6 studies, 25.0%). The quality of evidence was poor, and the methods used to assess satisfaction were not standardized. Further research is needed to define the factors that affect patient satisfaction after total hip arthroplasty and how satisfaction is best measured. [Orthopedics. 2017; 40(3):e400-e404.].

Outpatient total shoulder arthroplasty: A cost-identification analysis

BACKGROUND The purpose of this study was to compare the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients across World Health Organization (WHO) body mass index (BMI) classes before and after total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS Patients with end-stage hip osteoarthritis who received elective primary unilateral THA were identified through an institutional registry and categorized based on the World Health Organization BMI classification. Age, sex, laterality, year of surgery, and Charlson-Deyo comorbidity index were recorded. The primary outcome was the EQ-5D-3L index and visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) scores at 2 years postoperatively. Inferential statistics and regression analyses were performed to determine associations between BMI classes and HRQoL. RESULTS EQ-5D-3L scores at baseline and at 2 years were statistically different across BMI classes, with higher EQ-VAS and index scores in patients with lower BMI. There was no difference observed for the 2-year change in EQ-VAS scores, but there was a statistically greater increase in index scores for more obese patients. In the regression analyses, there were statistically significant negative effect estimates for EQ-VAS and index scores associated with increasing BMI class. CONCLUSION BMI class is independently associated with lower HRQoL scores 2 years after primary THA. While absolute scores in obese patients were lower than in nonobese patients, obese patients enjoyed more positive changes in EQ-5D index scores after THA. These results may provide the most detailed information on how BMI influences HRQoL before and after THA, and they are relevant to future economic decision analyses on the topic.