Randy Mascarenhas

Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair with and without Acromioplasty in the Treatment of Full-thickness Rotator Cuff Tears: A Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND The primary objective of this prospective randomized controlled trial was to compare functional and quality-of-life indices and rates of revision surgery in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with and without acromioplasty. METHODS Eighty-six patients consented and were randomly assigned intraoperatively to one of two study groups, and sixty-eight of them completed the study. The primary outcome was the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) index. Secondary outcome measures included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) shoulder assessment form and a count of revisions required in each group. Outcome measures were completed preoperatively and at three, six, twelve, eighteen, and twenty-four months after surgery. RESULTS WORC and ASES scores improved significantly in each group over time (p < 0.001). There were no differences in WORC or ASES scores between the groups that had arthroscopic cuff repair with or without acromioplasty at any time point. There were no differences in scores on the basis of acromion type, nor were any interaction effects identified between group and acromion type. Four participants (9%) in the group that had arthroscopic cuff repair alone, one with a Type-2 and three with a Type-3 acromion, required additional surgery by the twenty-four-month time point. The number of patients who required additional surgery was greater (p = 0.05) in the group that had arthroscopic cuff repair alone than in the group that had arthroscopic cuff repair and acromioplasty. CONCLUSIONS Our findings are consistent with previous research reports in which there was no difference in functional and quality-of-life indices for patients who had rotator cuff repair with or without acromioplasty. The higher reoperation rate was found in the group without acromioplasty. Further study that includes follow-up imaging and patient-reported outcomes over a greater follow-up period is needed.

Current Concepts in Instrumented Knee-Laxity Testing

Background Instrumented knee laxity testing devices have been used in both the clinical and research setting to evaluate persons with injuries about the knee. The ability to accurately and reproducibly quantify knee motion has the potential to greatly benefit both clinical practice and research by improving the validity of the research involving treatment of knee-ligament injuries. Study Design Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods A thorough literature review was performed, and a systematic overview is provided evaluating the methods of use and the evidence for the use of instrumented knee laxity testing devices. Results Devices that provide measurements of knee laxity have evolved during the past 30 years. The authors describe in detail their proper use and the best estimates of their validity based on clinical studies. Conclusion The review suggests that the KT-1000 knee arthrometer and the Rolimeter provide best results when testing anterior laxity at the knee, whereas the Telos device is superior for the assessment of posterior laxity.

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.

Arthroscopic Treatment of Multidirectional Shoulder Instability in Athletes: A Retrospective Analysis of 2- to 5-Year Clinical Outcomes

Background There are few reports in the literature detailing the arthroscopic treatment of multidirectional instability of the shoulder. Hypothesis Arthroscopic management of symptomatic multidirectional instability in an athletic population can successfully return athletes to sports with a high rate of success as determined by patient-reported outcome measures. Study Design Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods Forty patients (43 shoulders) with multidirectional instability of the shoulder were treated via arthroscopic means and were evaluated at a mean of 33.5 months postoperatively. The mean patient age was 19.1 years (range, 14-39). There were 24 male patients and 16 female patients. Patients were evaluated with the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability scoring systems. Stability, strength, and range of motion were also evaluated with patient-reported scales. Results The mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score postoperatively was 91.4 of 100 (range, 59.9-100). The mean Western Ontario Shoulder Instability postoperative percentage score was 91.1 of 100 (range, 72.9-100). Ninety-one percent of patients had full or satisfactory range of motion, 98% had normal or slightly decreased strength, and 86% were able to return to their sport with little or no limitation. Conclusion Arthroscopic methods can provide an effective treatment for symptomatic multidirectional instability in an athletic population.

Does Double-Bundle Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Improve Postoperative Knee Stability Compared With Single-Bundle Techniques? A Systematic Review of Overlapping Meta-analyses

PURPOSE Multiple meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials, the highest available level of evidence, have been conducted to determine whether double-bundle (DB) or single-bundle (SB) anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R) provides superior clinical outcomes and knee stability; however, results are discordant. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of meta-analyses comparing SB and DB ACL-R to discern the cause of the discordance and to determine which of these meta-analyses provides the current best available evidence. METHODS We evaluated available scientific support for SB as compared with DB ACL-R by systematically reviewing the literature for published meta-analyses. Data on patient clinical outcomes and knee stability (as measured by KT arthrometry and pivot-shift testing) were extracted. Meta-analysis quality was judged using the Oxman-Guyatt and Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses systems. The Jadad algorithm was then applied to determine which meta-analyses provided the highest level of evidence. RESULTS Nine meta-analyses were included, of which 3 included Level I Evidence and 6 included both Level I and Level II Evidence. Most studies found significant differences favoring DB reconstruction on pivot-shift testing, KT arthrometry measurement of anterior tibial translation, and International Knee Documentation Committee objective grading. Most studies detected no significant differences between the 2 techniques in subjective outcome scores (Tegner, Lysholm, and International Knee Documentation Committee subjective), graft failure, or complications. Oxman-Guyatt and Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses scores varied, with 2 studies exhibiting major flaws (Oxman-Guyatt score <3). After application of the Jadad decision algorithm, 3 concordant high-quality meta-analyses were selected, with each concluding that DB ACL-R provided significantly better knee stability (by KT arthrometry and pivot-shift testing) than SB ACL-R but no advantages in clinical outcomes or risk of graft failure. CONCLUSIONS The current best available evidence suggests that DB ACL-R provides better postoperative knee stability than SB ACL-R, whereas clinical outcomes and risk of graft failure are similar between techniques. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level II, systematic review of Level I and II studies.

Is Double-Row Rotator Cuff Repair Clinically Superior to Single-Row Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review of Overlapping Meta-analyses

PURPOSE Multiple meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials, the highest available level of evidence, have been conducted to determine whether double-row (DR) or single-row (SR) rotator cuff repair (RCR) provides superior clinical outcomes and structural healing; however, results are discordant. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of meta-analyses comparing SR and DR RCR to elucidate the cause of discordance and to determine which meta-analysis provides the current best available evidence. METHODS In this study we evaluated available scientific support for SR versus DR RCR by systematically reviewing the literature for published meta-analyses. Data were extracted from these meta-analyses for patient outcomes and structural healing. Meta-analysis quality was assessed with the Oxman-Guyatt and Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) systems. The Jadad algorithm was then applied to determine which meta-analyses provided the highest level of evidence. RESULTS Eight meta-analyses met the eligibility criteria: 4 including Level I evidence and 4 including both Level I and Level II evidence. Six meta-analyses found no differences between SR and DR RCR for patient outcomes, whereas 2 favored DR RCR for tears greater than 3 cm. Two meta-analyses found no structural healing differences between SR and DR RCR, whereas 3 found DR repair to be superior for tears greater than 3 cm and 2 found DR repair to be superior for all tears. Four meta-analyses had low Oxman-Guyatt scores (<3) indicative of major flaws. After application of the Jadad algorithm, 3 concordant high-quality meta-analyses were selected, all of which found significantly better structural healing with DR compared with SR RCR. CONCLUSIONS According to this systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing SR and DR RCR, the current highest level of evidence suggests that DR RCR provides superior structural healing to SR RCR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level II, systematic review of Level I and II 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.

Do arthroscopic and open stabilization techniques restore equivalent stability to the shoulder in the setting of anterior glenohumeral instability? a systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses.

PURPOSE Shoulder instability frequently recurs in young patients without operative treatment. Both open and arthroscopic approaches to shoulder stabilization with labral repair and capsulorrhaphy have been described and are routinely used. Multiple trials have been conducted to compare these approaches, with multiple meta-analyses performed to synthesize these trials; however, the results remain controversial. The purpose of this study was to critically evaluate the current meta-analyses to identify the current state of the art. METHODS In this study we evaluate available scientific support for the ability of both arthroscopic and open soft-tissue stabilization techniques to restore stability of the shoulder by performing a systematic review of the literature for previous meta-analyses. Data were extracted for rates of recurrence and patient outcomes. Study quality was measured with the Oxman-Guyatt and QUOROM (Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses) systems. The Jadad algorithm was applied independently by 4 authors to determine which meta-analysis provided the highest level of available evidence. RESULTS After application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 8 meta-analyses were included. Both studies published prior to 2007 concluded that open stabilization provided lower recurrence rates than arthroscopic stabilization, the 3 studies published in 2007 are discordant, and all 3 studies published after 2008 concluded that open and arthroscopic stabilization provided equivalent results. Two meta-analyses had low Oxman-Guyatt scores (<3) signifying major flaws. Four authors independently selected the same meta-analysis as providing the highest quality of evidence using the Jadad algorithm, and this meta-analysis found no difference in recurrence rates between open and arthroscopic stabilization. CONCLUSIONS This systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses comparing arthroscopic and open shoulder stabilization suggests that according to current best available evidence, there are no significant differences in failure rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Level IV, systematic review of Level I through IV studies.

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.