Ganley, Theodore J.

Through a Delphi process, all 33 panelists reached consensus on topics relating to MRI reporting of knee meniscus lesions, demonstrating that interdisciplinary and multi-institutional standardization is possible.

Background: Stable osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) lesions are primarily treated nonoperatively. Nonoperative treatment includes several recommendations, including the use of an unloader brace. However, little is known about the clinical effectiveness of unloader bracing and its influence on OCD healing, return to sports, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the impact of unloader bracing on patients with stable medial femoral condyle (MFC) OCD lesions treated nonoperatively. Purpose: To investigate the influence of valgus unloader bracing on the success of treating stable MFC OCD with nonoperative treatment strategies. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: The authors used a prospective cohort of patients receiving nonoperative care for stable MFC knee OCD lesions. The primary variable of interest was the efficacy of bracing. The primary outcomes were transition from nonoperative care to surgical intervention, return-to-play (RTP) clearance, and PROs. Bivariate testing was used to determine if there were differences between groups. Chi-square testing was used to determine if there were differences in rates of transition to surgery by group. The timing of the transition by each group was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test, given the nonparametric nature of the data. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to calculate time at risk, incidence rate, and survival times for each group. Results: A total of 185 knees (bracing group: 123 [66.5%] knees; no-bracing group: 62 [33.5%] knees) were analyzed. Overall, 142 (76.8%) knees were successfully treated nonoperatively. Transition to surgery occurred in 43 (23.2%) knees. There were no differences in transition to surgery by groups, with no differences seen by group. Of the knees that did not transition to surgical care, 65 (71.4%) in the bracing group and 38 (74.5%) in the no-bracing group received RTP clearance ( P = .693). PRO scores were similar between the 2 groups at the time of RTP clearance. Conclusion: The inclusion of an unloader brace in the nonoperative treatment for stable MFC OCD lesions did not decrease the likelihood of patients undergoing surgical intervention or improve their PRO scores at the time of RTP clearance. Registration: NCT02771496 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Background: Meniscal preservation has been demonstrated to contribute to long-term knee health and has been a successful intervention in isolation and in patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The long-term results of meniscal repair in the setting of revision ACLR have yet to be documented. Purpose: To report the incidence of meniscal repair failures at the 6-year follow-up in a cohort of patients who underwent concurrent revision ACLR and primary meniscal repair. Study Design: Prospective cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: All revision ACLRs with concomitant primary meniscal repair cases from a multicenter group between 2006 and 2011 were selected. Six-year follow-up was obtained to determine whether any subsequent surgery had occurred since their initial revision ACLR. If so, operative reports were obtained, whenever possible, to verify pathological condition and treatment. Results: In total, 221 patients from 1234 revision ACLRs underwent concurrent primary meniscal repairs (18% of the cohort). There were 238 repairs performed: 173 medial and 65 lateral. The majority of these repairs (n = 181; 76%) were performed with an all-inside technique. Six-year surgical follow-up was obtained in 77% (171/221) of the cohort, or 189 of 238 (79%) of the repairs (136 medial, 53 lateral). The meniscal repair failure rate, defined as reoperation, was 16% (31/189) at 6 years. Of the 31 failures, 28 were medial (24 all-inside, 4 inside-out; 28/136 = 20.6% failure rate) and 3 were lateral (2 all-inside, 1 inside-out; 3/53 = 5.7% failure rate). Three medial failures were treated in conjunction with a subsequent repeat revision ACLR. Medial tears underwent reoperation for failure at a significantly higher rate than lateral tears (20.6% vs 5.7%; P = .01) and had a significantly shorter survival time compared with lateral tears ( P = .02). No difference was found between the failure and nonfailure groups when it came to tear type, tear length, repair technique utilized, suture/implant type, or number of sutures used between the 2 groups. Conclusion: Meniscal repair in the revision ACLR setting has a 16% failure rate at 6 years. Failure rates for medial tears (20.6%) were found to be higher than that for lateral tears (5.7%), which aligns with previous studies in both the revision and primary ACLR setting.

Background: Osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) of the knee is a focal idiopathic alteration of subchondral bone and/or its precursor with risk for instability and disruption of adjacent cartilage. Treatment options focused on preventing premature osteoarthritis vary depending on multiple patient and lesion characteristics, including lesion mobility. Purpose: To differentiate lesion mobility before arthroscopy using a multivariable model that includes patient demographic characteristics and physical examination findings. Study Design: Cohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Demographic, preoperative physical examination, and radiographic data were collected from a multicenter national prospective cohort of patients with OCD of the knee. Inclusion criteria included patients <19 years of age and patients with arthroscopically confirmed mobility status based on the Research on Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee arthroscopy classification. Multivariable logistic regression analysis using stepwise model selection was used to determine factors associated with the likelihood of a mobile versus an immobile lesion. A 75% partition of the data was used for model training, and 25% was used as a validation cohort. Quantitative model fit statistics were computed using the holdout data, including sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), along with the corresponding 95% CI. Results: A total of 407 patients in the prospective cohort met inclusion criteria, and 62% were male. The mean ± SD age was 13.7 ± 2.2 years, height 161.8 ± 5.3 cm, and weight 59.2 ± 42.2 kg. Arthroscopic evaluation yielded 235 immobile and 172 mobile lesions. Multivariable analysis determined that the best model to predict lesion mobility included chronologic age ≥14 years ( P < .001), effusion on physical examination ( P < .001), and any loss of range of motion on physical examination ( P = .07), while controlling for male sex ( P = .38) and weight >54.4 kg ( P = .12). In the 25% holdout validation sample (n = 102), a sensitivity of 83%, a specificity of 82%, and an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82-0.95) were achieved with these predictive factors. Conclusion: Age, effusion, and loss of motion can predict knee OCD lesion mobility at the time of arthroscopy. Education about lesion mobility can help with surgical planning and patient and family counseling.

Background: As machine learning becomes increasingly utilized in orthopaedic clinical research, the application of machine learning methodology to cohort data from the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) presents a valuable opportunity to translate data into patient-specific insights. Purpose: To apply novel machine learning methodology to MARS cohort data to determine a predictive model of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR) graft failure and features most predictive of failure. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The authors prospectively recruited patients undergoing rACLR from the MARS cohort and obtained preoperative radiographs, surgeon-reported intraoperative findings, and 2- and 6-year follow-up data on patient-reported outcomes, additional surgeries, and graft failure. Machine learning models including logistic regression (LR), XGBoost, gradient boosting (GB), random forest (RF), and a validated ensemble algorithm (AutoPrognosis) were built to predict graft failure by 6 years postoperatively. Validated performance metrics and feature importance measures were used to evaluate model performance. Results: The cohort included 960 patients who completed 6-year follow-up, with 5.7% (n = 55) experiencing graft failure. AutoPrognosis demonstrated the highest discriminative power (model area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: AutoPrognosis, 0.703; RF, 0.618; GB, 0.660; XGBoost, 0.680; LR, 0.592), with well-calibrated scores (model Brier score: AutoPrognosis, 0.053; RF, 0.054; GB, 0.057; XGBoost, 0.058; LR, 0.111). The most important features for AutoPrognosis model performance were prior compromised femoral and tibial tunnels (placement and size) and allograft graft type used in current rACLR. Conclusion: The present study demonstrated the ability of the novel AutoPrognosis machine learning model to best predict the risk of graft failure in patients undergoing rACLR at 6 years postoperatively with moderate predictive ability. Femoral and tibial tunnel size and position in prior ACLR and allograft use in current rACLR were all risk factors for rACLR failure in the context of the AutoPrognosis model. This study describes a unique model that can be externally validated with larger data sets and contribute toward the creation of a robust rACLR bedside risk calculator in future studies. Registration: NCT00625885 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Background: Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been documented to have inferior outcomes compared with primary ACL reconstruction. The reasons why remain unknown. Purpose: To determine whether surgical factors performed at the time of revision ACL reconstruction can influence a patient’s outcome at 6-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction were identified and prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Data collected included baseline patient characteristics, surgical technique and pathology, and a series of validated patient-reported outcome instruments: Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective form, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Marx activity rating score. Patients were followed up for 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of outcome instruments. Regression analysis was used to control for baseline patient characteristics and surgical variables to assess the surgical risk factors for clinical outcomes 6 years after surgery. Results: A total of 1234 patients were enrolled (716 men, 58%; median age, 26 years), and 6-year follow-up was obtained on 79% of patients (980/1234). Using an interference screw for femoral fixation compared with a cross-pin resulted in significantly better outcomes in 6-year IKDC scores (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-3.9; P = .008) and KOOS sports/recreation and quality of life subscale scores (OR range, 2.2-2.7; 95% CI, 1.2-4.8; P < .01). Use of an interference screw compared with a cross-pin resulted in a 2.6 times less likely chance of having a subsequent surgery within 6 years. Use of an interference screw for tibial fixation compared with any combination of tibial fixation techniques resulted in significantly improved scores for IKDC (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.3-2.9; P = .001); KOOS pain, activities of daily living, and sports/recreation subscales (OR range, 1.5-1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.4; P < .05); and WOMAC pain and activities of daily living subscales (OR range, 1.5-1.8; 95% CI, 1.0-2.7; P < .05). Use of a transtibial surgical approach compared with an anteromedial portal approach resulted in significantly improved KOOS pain and quality of life subscale scores at 6 years (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.02-2.2; P≤ .04). Conclusion: There are surgical variables at the time of ACL revision that can modify clinical outcomes at 6 years. Opting for a transtibial surgical approach and choosing an interference screw for femoral and tibial fixation improved patients’ odds of having a significantly better 6-year clinical outcome in this cohort.

Background: Tibial spine fractures (TSFs) are uncommon injuries that may result in substantial morbidity in children. A variety of open and arthroscopic techniques are used to treat these fractures, but no single standardized operative method has been identified. Purpose: To systematically review the literature on pediatric TSFs to determine the current treatment approaches, outcomes, and complications. Study Design: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases. Studies evaluating treatment and outcomes of patients <18 years old were included. Patient demographic characteristics, fracture characteristics, treatments, and outcomes were abstracted. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize categorical and quantitative variables, and a meta-analytic technique was used to compare observational studies with sufficient data. Results: A total of 47 studies were included, totaling 1922 TSFs in patients (66.4% male) with a mean age of 12 years (range, 3-18 years). The operative approach was open reduction and internal fixation in 291 cases and arthroscopic reduction and internal fixation in 1236 cases; screw fixation was used in 411 cases and suture fixation, in 586 cases. A total of 13 nonunions were reported, occurring most frequently in Meyers and McKeever type III fractures (n = 6) and in fractures that were treated nonoperatively (n = 10). Arthrofibrosis rates were reported in 33 studies (n = 1700), and arthrofibrosis was present in 190 patients (11.2%). Range of motion loss occurred significantly more frequently in patients with type III and IV fractures ( P < .001), and secondary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury occurred most frequently in patients with type I and II fractures ( P = .008). No statistically significant differences were found with regard to rates of nonunion, arthrofibrosis, range of motion loss, laxity, or secondary ACL injury between fixation methods (screw vs suture). Conclusion: Despite variation in TSF treatment, good overall outcomes have been reported with low complication rates in both open and arthroscopic treatment and with both screw and suture fixation. Arthrofibrosis remains a concern after surgical treatment for TSF, but no significant difference in incidence was found between the analysis groups. Larger studies are necessary to compare outcomes and form a consensus on how to treat and manage patients with TSFs.

Background: Meniscal and chondral damage is common in the patient undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Purpose: To determine if meniscal and/or articular cartilage pathology at the time of revision ACL surgery significantly influences a patient’s outcome at 6-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction were prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Data collection included baseline demographics, surgical technique, pathology, treatment, and scores from 4 validated patient-reported outcome instruments: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Marx Activity Rating Scale. Patients were followed up at 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of outcome instruments. Regression analysis assessed the meniscal and articular cartilage pathology risk factors for clinical outcomes 6 years after revision ACL reconstruction. Results: An overall 1234 patients were enrolled (716 males, 58%; median age, 26 years). Surgeons reported the pathology at the time of revision surgery in the medial meniscus (45%), lateral meniscus (36%), medial femoral condyle (43%), lateral femoral condyle (29%), medial tibial plateau (11%), lateral tibial plateau (17%), patella (30%), and trochlea (21%). Six-year follow-up was obtained on 79% of the sample (980/1234). Meniscal pathology and articular cartilage pathology (medial femoral condyle, lateral femoral condyle, lateral tibial plateau, trochlea, and patella) were significant drivers of poorer patient-reported outcomes at 6 years (IKDC, KOOS, WOMAC, and Marx). The most consistent factors driving outcomes were having a medial meniscal excision (either before or at the time of revision surgery) and patellofemoral articular cartilage pathology. Six-year Marx activity levels were negatively affected by having either a repair/excision of the medial meniscus (odds ratio range, 1.45-1.72; P≤ .04) or grade 3-4 patellar chondrosis (odds ratio, 1.72; P = .04). Meniscal pathology occurring before the index revision surgery negatively affected scores on all KOOS subscales except for sports/recreation ( P < .05). Articular cartilage pathology significantly impaired all KOOS subscale scores ( P < .05). Lower baseline outcome scores, higher body mass index, being a smoker, and incurring subsequent surgery all significantly increased the odds of reporting poorer clinical outcomes at 6 years. Conclusion: Meniscal and chondral pathology at the time of revision ACL reconstruction has continued significant detrimental effects on patient-reported outcomes at 6 years after revision surgery.

Background: Lytic or malpositioned tunnels may require bone grafting during revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR) surgery. Patient characteristics and effects of grafting on outcomes after rACLR are not well described. Purpose: To describe preoperative characteristics, intraoperative findings, and 2-year outcomes for patients with rACLR undergoing bone grafting procedures compared with patients with rACLR without grafting. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 1234 patients who underwent rACLR were prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Baseline revision and 2-year characteristics, surgical technique, pathology, treatment, and patient-reported outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and Marx Activity Rating Scale [Marx]) were collected, as well as subsequent surgery information, if applicable. The chi-square and analysis of variance tests were used to compare group characteristics. Results: A total of 159 patients (13%) underwent tunnel grafting—64 (5%) patients underwent 1-stage and 95 (8%) underwent 2-stage grafting. Grafting was isolated to the femur in 31 (2.5%) patients, the tibia in 40 (3%) patients, and combined in 88 patients (7%). Baseline KOOS Quality of Life (QoL) and Marx activity scores were significantly lower in the 2-stage group compared with the no bone grafting group ( P≤ .001). Patients who required 2-stage grafting had more previous ACLRs ( P < .001) and were less likely to have received a bone–patellar tendon–bone or a soft tissue autograft at primary ACLR procedure ( P≤ .021) compared with the no bone grafting group. For current rACLR, patients undergoing either 1-stage or 2-stage bone grafting were more likely to receive a bone–patellar tendon–bone allograft ( P≤ .008) and less likely to receive a soft tissue autograft ( P≤ .003) compared with the no bone grafting group. At 2-year follow-up of 1052 (85%) patients, we found inferior outcomes in the 2-stage bone grafting group (IKDC score = 68; KOOS QoL score = 44; KOOS Sport/Recreation score = 65; and Marx activity score = 3) compared with the no bone grafting group (IKDC score = 77; KOOS QoL score = 63; KOOS Sport/Recreation score = 75; and Marx activity score = 7) ( P≤ .01). The 1-stage bone graft group did not significantly differ compared with the no bone grafting group. Conclusion: Tunnel bone grafting was performed in 13% of our rACLR cohort, with 8% undergoing 2-stage surgery. Patients treated with 2-stage grafting had inferior baseline and 2-year patient-reported outcomes and activity levels compared with patients not undergoing bone grafting. Patients treated with 1-stage grafting had similar baseline and 2-year patient-reported outcomes and activity levels compared with patients not undergoing bone grafting.

Background: Type I tibial spine fractures are non-displaced or minimally displaced (≤ 2mm displacement) fractures of the tibial eminence and ACL insertion traditionally managed nonoperatively with immobilization. Hypothesis/Purpose: We hypothesized that type I fractures do not carry significant risk of associated injuries and therefore do not require additional interventions aside from immobilization. Methods: We reviewed 52 patients classified by their treating institution with type I tibial spine fractures presenting between January 1, 2000 and January 31, 2019 at 10 institutions. Patients of age ≤ 18 years with pre-treatment plain radiographs and at least one year of follow-up were included. Data was collected on patient demographics, injury mechanism, treatment details, presence of concomitant injuries, range of motion (ROM) at final follow-up, treatment complications, and any return to the operating room for the injured knee. Pre-treatment imaging was reviewed by four authors to assess agreement of classification among the treating institutions. Patients were subclassified into two groups to ensure outcomes represented classic type I fracture patterns. Any patient with universal agreement among the four authors that the fracture did not appear consistent with a type I classification were assigned to Type 1+ Group (T1+). All other patients were assigned to the True Type I Group (TT1). We evaluated concomitant injury, need for operative intervention, and treatment outcomes overall and for each group independently. Results: 48 patients met inclusion criteria. 40/48 were TT1 fractures, while 8/48 were T1+ fractures, indicating less than universal agreement among sports specialists in classification of these fractures. Among TT1 patients, 7 of 40 (18.4%) underwent surgical treatment, though this represented 35.7% (5/14) of those who had undergone pretreatment advanced imaging. In the T1+ group, 6 of 8 (75%) underwent surgical treatment, 50% of whom (3/6) had pretreatment advanced imaging. Overall, twelve of 48 patients (25%) had concomitant injuries, nine TT1 patients and three T1+ patients (p=0.77), with 7 concomitant injuries requiring additional surgical management. Conclusions: Classification of type I fractures can be challenging. Nonetheless, a substantial percentage of patients with these fractures (>20%) were found to have concomitant injuries by advanced pretreatment imaging, with surgical management indicated in 58.3% of these patients. Contrary to traditional thought, type I tibial spine fractures do carry a risk of associated injuries. Simple cast immobilization may not be the ideal treatment in all cases. Advanced imaging would be beneficial for those whose plan of care may initially be non-operative treatment.