Lee, Dustin R.

Background: Chronic hamstring tears can result in challenging surgical repairs. Allografts may be used to augment the repair; however, there is limited clinical evidence supporting their use. Purposes: To (1) evaluate clinical outcomes of patients who underwent proximal hamstring repair with allograft augmentation or interposition and (2) compare them to matched controls who underwent primary hamstring repair. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 117 patients who underwent proximal hamstring repair were included, consisting of 19 allograft augmentations, 20 allograft interpositions, and 78 primary repairs. Allograft cohorts were propensity-matched with those who underwent primary repair in a 1 to 2 ratio. Clinical outcomes were obtained at the final follow-up. Data were extracted using continuous variables, with normality reported as mean values ± standard deviation, and non-normality reported as median values with interquartile ranges (IQR). Results: The median follow-up of the augmentation cohort was 1.9 [IQR, 0.8-3.9] years, while it was 3.2 [IQR, 1.6-5.1] years ( P = .182) for the primary repair cohort. The mean follow-up for the interposition cohort was 3.5 ± 2.4 years, while it was 4.2 ± 2.5 years for the primary repair cohort ( P = .227). Forty-two percent of the augmentation cohort had undergone previous surgery, compared with 5% of the interposition cohort. The time from injury to surgery for the augmentation and primary repair cohorts was 6.4 and 1.3 months, respectively ( P < .001). For the interposition and primary repair cohorts, the durations were 17.8 and 1 months, respectively ( P < .001). Clinical outcomes, including the Tegner Activity Scale (3 vs 3), pain with activity (47.4% vs 23.7%), and muscle spasms (36.8% vs 26.3%), did not show significant differences between the augmentation and primary repair cohorts. The augmentation cohort had a significantly worse Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) score (64 vs 75; P < .001) and were more likely to experience pain with sitting (52.6% vs 21.1%; P = .034) than the primary repair cohort. There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the interposition and primary repair cohorts (LEFS: 69 vs 75.5, Tegner Activity Scale: 4 vs 4; pain with sitting: 26.3% vs 27.5%; pain with activity: 42.1% vs 30%; muscle spasms: 26.3% vs 30%). Revision rates were similar between cohorts ( P ≥ .255). Conclusion: Proximal hamstring repair for chronic tears with allograft augmentation or interposition is a reproducible procedure that results in satisfactory, yet poorer clinical outcomes compared with patients who underwent primary hamstring repair. These procedures should be considered in symptomatic patients with chronic tears that are not amenable to primary repair.

Purpose To compile and analyze structural and clinical outcomes after meniscus root tear treatment as currently described in the literature. Methods A review was conducted to identify studies published since 2011 on efficacy of repair, meniscectomy, and nonoperative management in the treatment of meniscus root tears. Patient cohorts were grouped into treatment categories, with medial and lateral root tears analyzed separately; data were collected on patient demographics, structural outcomes including joint space width, degree of medial meniscal extrusion, progression to total knee arthroplasty, and patient‐reported outcome measures. Risk of bias was assessed using the MINORS (methodological index for non‐randomized studies) criteria. Heterogeneity was measured using the I‐statistic, and outcomes were summarized using forest plots without pooled means. Results The 56 included studies comprised a total of 3,191 patients. Mean age among the included studies ranged from 24.6 to 65.6 years, whereas mean follow‐up ranged from 12 to 125.9 months. Heterogeneity analysis identified significant differences between studies. Change in joint space width ranged from –2.4 to –0.6 mm (i.e., decreased space) after meniscectomy (n = 186) and –0.9 to –0.1 mm after root repair (n = 209); change in medial meniscal extrusion ranged from –0.6 to 6.5 mm after root repair (n = 521) and 0.2 to 4.2 mm after meniscectomy (n = 66); and event rate for total knee arthroplasty ranged from 0.00 to 0.22 after root repair (n = 205), 0.35 to 0.60 after meniscectomy (n = 53), and 0.27 to 0.35 after nonoperative treatment (n = 93). Root repair produced the greatest numerical increase in International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm scores of the 3 treatment arms. In addition, root repair improvements in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Pain (range: 22‐32), Sports and Recreational Activities (range: 23‐36), Quality of Life (range: 22‐42), and Symptoms subscales (range: 10‐19), in studies with low risk of bias. Conclusions The literature reporting on the treatment of meniscus root tears is heterogenous and largely limited to Level III and IV studies. Current evidence suggests root repair may be the most effective treatment strategy in lessening joint space narrowing of the knee and producing improvements in patient‐reported outcomes. Level of Evidence Level IV, systematic review of Level II‐IV studies.

Abstract The integrity of the posterior meniscus root attachment is vital for the preservation of knee joint biomechanics. Meniscus root tears treated nonoperatively or with meniscectomy lead to poor functional outcomes and progressive knee degeneration. Repair returns knee biomechanics back to the intact state and has an established record of positive mid‐term to long‐term results. Although transtibial pullout repair has been the gold standard, innovation is needed to overcome the limitations inherent to traditional approaches. The latest generation of transtibial pullout repair devices is adjustable, permits suture anchor placement directly into the root footprint, and has demonstrated encouraging early results in biomechanical analysis. This Technical Note describes an arthroscopic technique for medial meniscus posterior root repair that uses a knotless adjustable implant (SutureLoc; Arthrex) for aperture fixation via a transtibial approach with intratunnel soft anchor direct fixation and rip‐stop suture configuration. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Abstract Capsular management in hip arthroscopy has recently become a popular topic in the literature. Various approaches have been developed around the critical balance between safe and satisfactory exposure while maintaining hip joint stability and the restoration of capsular integrity at the conclusion of the case. Advocates for capsular closure recognize the role of the capsule in providing hip joint stability and aim to reestablish normal hip biomechanics through capsule preservation. Several recent studies have also shown capsular management strategies to influence both clinical outcomes and risk of revision surgery. We present an effective method for capsular management in hip arthroscopy that consistently allows excellent exposure and working space while allowing for facile, anatomic closure. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Abstract Iliopsoas tendinitis following total hip arthroplasty has been linked to retroverted acetabular cup position with associated anterior overhang. For severely malpositioned components, preferred treatment is in the form of revision arthroplasty. However, for a substantial number of cases, iliopsoas tendinitis as well as associated pain and disability are observed in the presence of modest acetabular overhang. In such cases, patients may benefit substantially from arthroscopic iliopsoas fractional lengthening. Given altered postarthroplasty anatomy, we present an arthroscopic approach employing an iliopsoas air bursogram. In such a way, safe and predictable access can be provided for efficient tendon lengthening without capsular violation or inadvertent instrumentation of the nearby medial neurovascular bundle. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

ABSTRACT Hip dysplasia is a common cause of hip pain and a known risk factor for hip osteoarthritis (OA) and early total hip arthroplasty (THA). Unfortunately, little is known about the specific factors associated with an increased risk of OA. The purpose was (i) to report the overall rate of symptomatic hip OA and THA and (ii) to identify radiographic features and patient characteristics associated with the development of symptomatic hip OA. A geographic database was used to identify all patients aged 14–50 years old diagnosed with symptomatic hip dysplasia between 2000 and 2016. Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to determine the rate of symptomatic hip OA, defined as a Tönnis grade of ≥1 on hip radiograph. Univariate and multivariate proportional hazard regression models were performed to determine risk factors for OA. One hundred and fifty-nine hips (144 patients) with hip dysplasia (52 F:107 M) out of 1893 patients with hip pain were included. Of these, 45 (28%) had severe hip dysplasia with a lateral center-edge angle ≤18°. Mean age at time of presentation was 26.1 (±10.1) years. Mean follow-up time was 8.2 (±5) years. The rate of OA was 20%. THA was performed in 11% of patients. Body mass index &gt;29 (P = 0.03) and increased age (P &lt; 0.01) were risk factors for OA. Patients with symptomatic hip dysplasia are at significant risk of developing hip OA. Body mass index &gt;29 and age ≥35 years at the time of presentation with hip pain were risk factors for hip OA.

AbstractIntroductionThe elbow is a rare location for primary and metastatic tumors in the upper extremity. The goal of reconstruction is to provide painless motion and stability for hand function. Total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is commonly utilized, with either off‐the‐self components, modular segmental endoprosthesis, or allograft‐prosthesis composites (APC). The purpose of this study was to analyze and compare commonly utilized elbow reconstructions and report outcomes of (1) patient function and (2) implant survival and complications.MethodsWe reviewed 33 patients (18 females and 15 males) undergoing elbow arthroplasty for reconstruction of an underlying oncologic process including linked TEA (n = 22, 67%), APC (n = 9, 27%), and endoprosthesis (n = 2, 6%). The most common indication was metastatic disease (n = 17, 52%), with 24 patients (73%) presenting with a pathologic fracture.ResultsFive‐year implant survival was following elbow reconstruction was 88%. The mean most recent Mayo Elbow Performance Score and Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Score were 84 ± 18 and 78 ± 15%. Postoperative complications occurred in 15 elbows (45%), most commonly periprosthetic fracture (n = 5, 15%), leading to reoperation in six elbows (18%).ConclusionAlthough elbow arthroplasty is associated with a high incidence of complications, it provides a stable platform for upper extremity function in patients with oncologic processes of the elbow.