Meta, Fabien

Abstract Osteochondromas are benign bone tumors that result in an osseous projection along with a hyaline cartilage cap that most commonly form around the knee. Typically, they are asymptomatic, however with continued growth, symptoms may arise such as pain, mechanical symptoms, or neurovascular compression due to contact with neighboring structures resulting in the need for surgical management. The presented arthroscopic technique described herein is a safe, effective, and reproducible method for excision of benign, metaphyseal, distal femoral osteochondromas. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Abstract Radial meniscal tears can be challenging to address and require advanced arthroscopic techniques for satisfactory repair. When radial tears occur in older patients, the surgeon often encounters suboptimal tissue integrity that presents its own challenges. Incorporating ripstop sutures in tie‐grip repair constructs for radial tears has been documented in the literature with favorable biomechanical properties. This Technical Note and accompanying video present a reproducible method for incorporating tie‐grip and mobile ripstop stitches to fortify traditional meniscal repair configurations for radial tears. This technique augments the biomechanical strength of repair and may prove useful in poor tissue quality and areas of small focal deficiency, especially in scenarios with repairable but degenerative meniscal tissue. This is particularly relevant considering many repairs fail due to pull‐through of sutures within the meniscal tissue. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Objectives: Radial tears of the meniscus are increasingly treated with repair instead of partial meniscectomy, with satisfactory short-term clinical outcomes. There remains a paucity of mid- and long-term outcomes data for this preservation technique. The purpose of this study was to 1) evaluate the mid- to long-term clinical outcomes and reoperation rate of radial meniscal repair versus bucket-handle meniscal repair and 2) evaluate the outcomes of both surgeries overtime. We hypothesized that radial repair would provide similar outcomes and reoperation rates to that of bucket-handle meniscal repair in this propensity-matched cohort. Methods: A previously identified cohort of radial meniscal tears without concurrent root injuries undergoing surgical repair at a single institution between 2011 and 2015 were reviewed. Inclusion criteria was patients undergoing repair of full-thickness radial tears. Exclusion criteria were patients who had 1) not consented for research follow-up, 2) <2 year of follow-up, 3) high-grade (Outerbridge grade 3 or 4) chondromalacia, 4) knee dislocations or combined anterior cruciate ligament and posterior cruciate ligament injuries, 5) repair of posterior meniscal root tears, and 6) repair of partial radial tears. Propensity matching was performed based on age at surgery, sex, laterality, body mass index (BMI), and concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using a comparison pool of 70 bucket-handle meniscal repairs (BHMR). Reoperation-free survival rates, Tegner Activity Score, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores were analyzed. Results: Twenty-four patients (18 males, 6 females, age 22.8 ± 11.9 years, BMI 26.5 ± 5.8) with radial meniscal repair were included in this study. Eighteen of these patients were successfully propensity matched to 18 bucket-handle meniscal tears for an overall mean follow-up of 10.2 ± 1.7 years (range, 7.3-13.5) (Table 1). The 24 radial tear repairs demonstrated significant and durable postoperative improvements at mean 10.2 years across VAS at rest (3.0 ± 2.5 vs 0.5 ± 1.0, p < 0.001), VAS for pain at use (5.8 ± 2.9 vs 1.4 ± 1.9, p < 0.001) Tegner (2.6 ± 1.4 vs 6.8 ± 2.0, p < 0.001) and IKDC (39.8 ± 12.3 vs 84.1 ± 16.5, p < 0.001) (Table 1). Of patients not undergoing reoperation (19), 100% reported being “Satisfied” 4/19 (21%) or “Very Satisfied” 15/19 (79%). When the 18 radial tear repairs were compared to the 18 BHMT repairs, there was no significant difference across VAS for pain at rest (0.6 ± 1.2 vs 0.3 ± 0.7, p = 0.48), VAS for pain at use (1.6 ± 2.1 vs 1.1 ± 1.3, p = 0.48) Tegner (6.9 ± 2.2 vs 6.4 ± 2.1, p = 0.51) and IKDC (83.4 ± 17.4 vs 82.1 ± 14.1, p = 0.83) (Table 2). Importantly, survival without reoperation rates were not statistically different between the 2 groups at 10-year follow-up (14/18 (78%) vs 16/18 (89%), p = 0.37) (Figure 1). There was no significant difference between clinical outcomes (Tegner and IKDC) at final follow-up in the radial repair group as compared to the 4-year mid-term outcomes (p = 0.58 and 0.19 respectively). For the BHMR group, Tegner scores were not significantly different (p = 0.60) compared with their 4-year timepoint; however, IKDC scores at the final timepoint were significantly lower 93.4 ± 3.4 vs 82.1 ± 14.1 (p = 0.01). Notably, both the radial repair and bucket-handle repairs groups reported final follow-up Tegner scores that were not significantly different from their preinjury Tegner scores (p = 0.70 for the radial group and p = 0.62 for the bucket-handle group). Conclusions: At mean 10-year follow-up, significant clinical improvements and high rates of satisfaction were observed for radial meniscal tear repair. When propensity matched, radial and BHMR demonstrated durable improvements in postoperative VAS for pain, IKDC, and Tegner scores, as well as similar, acceptable reoperation rates. [Figure: see text]

Objectives: Medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRTs) render the meniscus essentially non-functional, resulting in increased peak contact pressures, reduced forced dissipation, and increased risk of early osteoarthritis. Transtibial root repair has shown promise at restoring meniscus function and improving clinical outcomes; however, a paucity of literature exists evaluating the prognostic clinical and radiographic factors for poor outcomes following isolated meniscus root repair. The purpose of this study was to 1) describe the patient reported clinical outcomes after isolated MMPRT repair at minimum 2-year follow-up, 2) determine the retear and conversion to arthroplasty rates, and 3) identify prognostic factors for clinical outcomes and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) achievement. Methods: Isolated MMPRT repairs from 2010-2020 at three institutions in Rochester, MN; Jacksonville, FL; and Phoenix, AZ were followed prospectively for postoperative Tegner Activity Scale, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain, IKDC, Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), subjective improvement and knee preference, and subsequent surgeries at minimum 2-year follow up. PASS for IKDC was set at 69. Demographics, injury characteristics, and surgical details were collected. Results: Eighty-four patients were included in this study (age: 49.7 ± 11.0 years [range: 13-76]; sex: 75.0% female; BMI: 31.6 ± 6.9 kg/m 2 [MH1] ). Forty-five patients (53.6%) had BMI >30 kg/m 2 , and 14 patients (16.7%) reported a history of active smoking (Table 1). Mean medial compartment Outerbridge grade was 2.0 ± 1.1, with 73.8% of patients having grade ≥2 changes. Mean preinjury Tegner score, preoperative VAS at rest, and preoperative VAS with use were 4.6 ± 2.4, 3.6 ± 2.7, and 6.5 ± 2.5, respectively. At final follow-up (mean 3.9 ± 2.0 years), mean Tegner score was 4.3 ± 1.8, mean VAS at rest was 1.2 ± 2.0, and mean VAS with use was 2.3 ± 2.2. There was no significant difference in preinjury vs. postoperative Tegner scores (p = 0.208), and preinjury Tegner was significantly positively correlated with postoperative Tegner (p < 0.001). Significant (p < 0.001) postoperative improvements in both VAS at rest and with use were observed. Mean postoperative IKDC score was 73.3 ± 17.0, and mean FJS was 59.6 ± 27.9 at final follow-up. When asked to rate their knee at final follow-up compared to before surgery on a scale from 0-5 (0 = “significantly worse”, 1 = “mildly worse”, 3 = “unchanged”, 4 = “mildly improved”, 5 = “significantly improved”), the mean score 4.6 ± 0.8. Forty-one patients (74.5%) reported significant improvement, 8 (14.5%) reported mild improvement, 3 (5.5%) reported no change, and 3 (5.5%) reported mild worsening. No patients reported significant worsening. When asked which knee they preferred, 13 patients (26.0%) reported preferring their operated knee, compared to 18 (36.0%) who preferred their nonoperated knee. The remaining 19 patients (38.0%) had no preference for one knee over the other. A summary of all patient reported outcomes is reported in Table 2. At the time of final follow-up, 16 (19.0%) of patients had reached a clinical endpoint. Twenty-nine patients (34.5%) underwent postoperative MRIs at an average of 1.5 ± 1.7 years (range: 0.3-5.9 years) after surgery[MH1] . Twelve of the MRIs (41.4%) were ordered for evaluation of continued pain, while 7 (24.1%) were ordered for new pain or injury, and 10 (34.5%) were ordered for research purposes. Five patients (6.0%) had MRI-confirmed retears of the MMPRT repair at an average of 1.1 ± 1.3 years (range: 0.3-3.4) after surgery[HMMP2] , one of which was in an asymptomatic patient who received a follow-up MRI for research purposes. No patients underwent revision MMPRT repair surgery, and 7 patients (8.3%) progressed to arthroplasty (6 TKA, 1 UKA) at an average of 3.4 ± 4.3 years (range 0.6-12.6), one of whom also sustained a root retear. Therefore, the surgical failure was noted in 11 patients, corresponding to a surgical failure rate of 13.1% in this cohort. Of note, three of the five patients with MRI-confirmed retears had not received any further surgical intervention[MH3] [BA(M4] at the time of final follow-up 2.7, 3.8, and 8.5 years after surgery. Additionally, there were six non-MMPRT revision, non-arthroplasty subsequent surgeries in five patients, and there were three patients (3.6%) who sustained new medial meniscus tears 2.8-, 3.6-, and 5.9-years postoperatively, respectively. A concise summary of clinical endpoints can be found in Table 3 and Table 4. Significantly more females experienced surgical failures than males (17.5% vs. 0%, p = 0.040), and significantly more patients with medial compartment Outerbridge grades ≥2 experienced surgical failure than those with grades <2 (17.7% vs. 0%, p = 0.034). Additionally, patients who failed did have significantly higher mean KL grades than those who did not (1.4 ± 0.9 vs. 0.7 ± 0.7, p = 0.012). There were no other significant differences in the demographic or pathologic characteristics of patients who experienced surgical failure and those who did not. Of note, 37% of patients failed to achieve IKDC PASS, with smoking status associated with a 15-point reduction in IKDC (p=0.010) Conclusions: Patients undergoing transtibial root repair demonstrate restoration of pre-injury activity levels, significant clinical improvements in pain and function, and low surgical failure rates at minimum 2-year follow-up, with 89% of patients reporting subjective improvement after surgery. However, only 63% of patients were able to achieve PASS thresholds, suggesting that while effective, additional research on root repair technical and clinical optimization is warranted.

Objectives: Wrestling is a physically demanding sport with young athletes prone to traumatic shoulder instability (SI). However, there is a paucity of data evaluating the results of shoulder instability surgery (SIS) in this cohort of athletes. The purpose of this study is to assess reoperation rates, patient-reported outcomes (PRO), and return to wrestling (RTW) following SIS in a cohort of competitive wrestlers. Methods: All competitive wrestlers with a history of SI and subsequent surgery at a single institution between 1996 and 2020 were identified. All directions of SI (anterior SI [ASI], posterior SI [PSI], and traumatic multidirectional SI [TMDI]) were analyzed. Exclusion criteria included revision SIS and less than 2 years of clinical follow-up. Patients were contacted for determination of reinjury rates, return to wrestling (RTW), and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability index (WOSI) scores. Results: Ultimately, 104 wrestlers were included at a mean follow-up of 5.2 years (range, 2.0 – 22.0). Fifty-eight (55.8%) wrestlers presented for evaluation after a single SI event while 46 (44.2%) sustained multiple events prior to presentation. ASI was the most common direction (n = 79; 76.0%) followed by PSI (n = 14; 13.4%), and TMDI (n = 11; 10.6%). Surgical treatment was most commonly an arthroscopic soft tissue stabilization (n = 88; 84.6%), followed by an open soft tissue repair (n = 13; 12.5%) and open bony augmentation (n = 3; 2.9%) (Table 1). RTW occurred in 57.3% of wrestlers at a mean of 9.8 ± 9.6 months. Recurrent instability was the most common complication in 18 (17.3%) wrestlers. Revision SIS was performed in 15 (14.6%) wrestlers (Table 2). Across the entire cohort, Kaplan-Meier survivorship free from recurrent instability (Figure 1) and revision surgery (Figure 2) was 91.4% and 98.1% at 1 year, 90.4% and 92.5% at 2 years, 71.9% and 70.7% at 5 years, and 71.9% and 66.5% at 10 years, respectively. Pre-operative recurrent instability was an independent risk factor for post-operative recurrent instability (Hazard ratio [HR], 3.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33 – 11.03; P = .012). Conclusions: Anterior shoulder instability was the most common direction among competitive wrestlers presenting for SIS. Wrestlers with multiple dislocations prior to initial clinical presentation were 3.8 times more likely to experience post-operative recurrent instability.

Objectives: Hip arthroscopy is rapidly advancing, with literature increasingly reporting positive outcomes at short- and mid-term follow-up; however, available long-term data remains limited. The purpose of this study is to evaluate long-term outcomes of primary hip arthroscopy at minimum 10-year follow-up at two academic centers by describing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and determining reoperation, revision, and total hip arthroplasty (THA) rates. Methods: Primary hip arthroscopies performed between January 1988 and April 2013 at 2 academic centers were evaluated for postoperative PROs including Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Tegner Activity Scale score, Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living and Sport Scale (HOS-ADL/HOS-SS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS), 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), surgery satisfaction, function, and reoperations. Results: Two-hundred ninety-four primary hip arthroscopies with a mean age of 40±14 years; 66% female; and a mean body mass index (BMI) of 27±6 kg/m 2 were followed for mean 12±3 years (range: 10-24). Labral debridement and repair were performed in 41% and 59% of patients, respectively. All patients underwent interportal capsulotomy and 2% underwent T-capsulotomy. Eleven percent of patients underwent capsular repair. At final follow-up, patients reported mean VAS at rest of 2±2, with use of 3±3, iHOT-12 of 68±27, NAHS of 81±18, mHHS of 79±17, HOS-ADL of 82±19, and HOS-SS of 74±25. Mean surgical satisfaction was 8.4±2.4 (Table 1). Sixty-five hips (23%) underwent THA and 33 (11%) underwent revision arthroscopy (Table 2). Risk factors for THA included older age (p<0.001), higher BMI (p<0.001), lower lateral center-edge angle (p=0.039), larger alpha angle (p=0.001), higher Tönnis grade (p=0.011), labral debridement (p=0.004), and capsular nonrepair (p=0.030). Patients undergoing combined labral and capsular repair demonstrated a THA conversion rate of 3% compared to 31% for patients undergoing combined labral debridement and capsular nonrepair (p=0.006) (Table 3). Labral repair trended towards increased 10-year THA-free survival (84% vs. 77%, p=0.085) while capsular repair demonstrated significantly increased 10-year THA-free survival (97% vs 79%, p=0.032) (Figure 1). Conclusions: At minimum 10-year follow-up, patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy demonstrated high rates of satisfaction and acceptable outcome scores. In total, 11% of patients underwent revision hip arthroscopic surgery with a THA conversion rate of 23%. Conversion to THA was associated with patient factors including older age and higher Tönnis grade as well as potentially modifiable surgical factors including labral debridement and capsular nonrepair.

Cartilage injuries can present in a diverse setting of anatomic locations, with varying severity, and can impact athletes of all ages and competition levels. Moreover, the timing of when an injury presents introduces an additional dimension to treatment decision-making. Frequently, the level of competition, in conjunction with career trajectory and short-term and long-term athlete goals, will dictate whether a temporary or definitive treatment strategy is ideal. Although indicating the correct therapeutic regimen may prove challenging, understanding the athlete-specific considerations can be essential to meeting the goals of the athlete and other stakeholders involved in the athlete’s career. The purpose of this review is to comprehensively present the deliberations a treating physician must consider in managing cartilage injuries within a spectrum of athletic levels ranging from youth to professional levels, with a secondary focus on the presentation of temporizing treatment strategies and associated outcomes.

Abstract Shoulder arthroscopy is a versatile method for treating a variety of shoulder pathologies in a minimally invasive manner. Typically, it is performed with the patient positioned in a beach‐chair or lateral decubitus position with the latter being conventionally preferred for shoulder instability work given the use of traction and creation of a distracted joint. This allows ideal visualization and accessibility of the anterior, inferior, and posterior aspects of the glenoid, labrum, and axillary pouch. Despite the apparent advantages, the lateral decubitus position comes with its own technical challenges. Many of these may stem from surgeon training, experience, and level of familiarity with the positioning and arthroscopic view. This Technical Note demonstrates a reproducible and teachable method for efficient and effective diagnostic shoulder arthroscopy in the lateral decubitus position, along with presenting its associated advantages and disadvantages. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Abstract A broad range of shoulder pathologies are treated with shoulder arthroscopy due to its minimally invasive nature. Mastering the fundamentals is critical for high‐quality care; this includes patient positioning. Surgeons must consider the advantages and disadvantages of the 2 most prominent patient positions: lateral decubitus and beach chair. The beach‐chair position offers an intuitive anatomic view with the advantage of shoulder maneuverability. Understanding the associated pitfalls related to patient hemodynamics; head, neck, and shoulder positioning; and protection of bony prominences can guide the operative care team to obtaining a safe position for the patient. The purpose of this Technical Note and video is to present and demonstrate a reproducible and teachable method for safely positioning a patient in the beach‐chair position for shoulder arthroscopy, as well as to describe the associated advantages and disadvantages. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Abstract Shoulder arthroscopy is one of the most common orthopaedic procedures. Since its introduction in the 1970s, significant advances have been made in surgical techniques and instrumentation. Shoulder arthroscopy is often performed in either the beach‐chair or lateral decubitus position, and each positioning technique has its own benefits. In this work, we will describe the history of lateral decubitus positioning for shoulder arthroscopy. We outline a detailed guide for safe and consistent lateral decubitus positioning, and key steps of lateral decubitus positioning will be emphasized. Pearls, pitfalls, advantages, and disadvantages of this positioning technique will also be discussed. With appropriate technique, lateral decubitus positioning is safe and effective for arthroscopic treatment of various shoulder pathologies. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.