Brophy, Robert H.

Background: A critical component of conducting systematic reviews or meta-analyses is assessing the methodological quality and bias of included studies. Several methodological quality assessment tools have been developed; however, these tools may not be relevant to observational sports medicine research, which carries numerous unique nuances and biases. Purpose: To develop the Sport Publication Observational Research Tool (SPORT), which evaluates and scores the methodological quality of observational sports medicine research. Study Design: Consensus statement. Methods: SPORT was developed through a modified Delphi approach involving members from the Herodicus Society and The FORUM. All active members were invited to participate in the process aimed at building consensus on SPORT content and scoring. After finalizing SPORT, a power analysis led to the independent selection of 55 observational clinical sports medicine studies, which were scored twice by 4 reviewers of varying training levels. Interrater and intrarater reliability for SPORT was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). The distribution and percentiles for total SPORT score across the 55 studies were calculated. SPORT was also compared with the methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS), a commonly utilized quality assessment tool. Results: A total of 51 members participated and achieved 100%, 100%, 98.0%, and 98.0% completion rates for rounds 1 through 4, respectively. The final SPORT included 19 subscores related to methodological quality and bias and achieved 94% consensus approval. Mean SPORT completion time was 6 minutes and 19 seconds per study, which varied significantly by reviewer training level. The subscore "peer review" demonstrated unacceptable reliability and was removed. The remaining 18 subscores exhibited ICC ranges of 0.599 to 0.955 for interrater reliability and 0.530 to 0.936 for intrarater reliability. Total SPORT score demonstrated excellent agreement, for interrater (ICC, 0.967) and intrarater reliability (ICC, 0.966). Median SPORT score across the 55 studies was 20.0 and skewed toward lower scores. There was a moderate significant correlation between SPORT and MINORS ( r [53] = 0.575; P < .001). Conclusion: An objective tool to assess the methodologic quality of observational sports medicine research (SPORT) was successfully developed through a modified Delphi approach with numerous content experts in the field. This tool may be useful in assessing the methodological quality of primary observational sports medicine studies included in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Abstract Medial meniscus extrusion, particularly in the setting of medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRTs), has become an area of interest in recent years due to the correlation between meniscus extrusion with inferior clinical outcomes, progression to osteoarthritis, and increased rate of conversion to total knee arthroplasty after MMPRT repair. This correlation led to the development of meniscus centralisations procedures that can be performed in addition to MMPRT repair and/or high tibial osteotomy. Although it was originally thought that medial meniscus extrusion was a consequence of MMPRTs, it has been reported that meniscus extrusion often precedes the development of MMPRTs, which suggests that there may be underlying meniscus pathology that predisposes to the development of both meniscus extrusion and MMPRTs. The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an overview of the anatomy, pathology, and surgical management of meniscus extrusion and MMPRTs, while identifying areas of future research to further elucidate the relationship meniscus extrusion and MMPRTs that may be necessary to improve outcomes after MMPRT repair. Level of Evidence Level V.

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: 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: 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: Characteristics regarding mechanism of injury, management, and return-to-play (RTP) rate and timing are important when treating and counseling athletes with rectus femoris tears. Purpose: To systematically review the literature to better understand the prevalence, sporting activity, injury mechanisms, and treatment of patients with rectus femoris injury and to provide prognostic information regarding the rate and timing of RTP. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Following the 2020 PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we queried PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane, OVID, EMBASE, and Google Scholar in March 2022 for studies reporting on athletes sustaining isolated, full-thickness tearing, or bony avulsion injuries to the proximal rectus femoris during sporting activity. Excluded were studies without evidence of full-thickness tearing or avulsion, with athletes sustaining concomitant injuries, or with injuries occurring from nonsporting activities. The percentage of athletes sustaining injuries was calculated based on sport, injury mechanism, and management (nonoperative versus operative). Results: Of 132 studies initially identified, 18 were included, comprising 132 athletes (mean age, 24.0 ± 5.4 years; range, 12-43 years). The most common sporting activities were soccer (70.5%) and rugby (15.2%). The most reported mechanisms of injury were kicking (47.6%) and excessive knee flexion/forced hip extension (42.9%). Avulsion injuries were reported in 86% (n = 114) of athletes. Nonoperative management was reported in 19.7% of athletes, with operative management performed in 80.3%. The mean follow-up time was 21.4 ± 11.4 months (range, 1.5-48 months). The RTP rate was 93.3% (n = 14) in nonoperatively treated and 100% (n = 106) in operatively treated athletes, and the mean RTP time was 11.7 weeks (range, 5.5-15.2 weeks) in nonoperatively treated and 22.1 weeks (range, 14.0-37.6 weeks) in operatively treated athletes. Complications were reported in 7.7% (2/26) of nonoperatively treated and 18% (n = 19/106) of operatively treated athletes. Conclusion: Full-thickness proximal rectus femoris injuries occurred most frequently in athletes participating in soccer and rugby secondary to explosive, eccentric contractions involved in kicking and sprinting. Operative management was performed in the majority of cases. Athletes who underwent operative repair had a 100% RTP rate versus 93.3% in athletes treated nonoperatively.

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: Although graft choice may be limited in the revision setting based on previously used grafts, most surgeons believe that graft choice for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is an important factor related to outcome. Hypothesis: In the ACL revision setting, there would be no difference between autograft and allograft in rerupture rate and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 6-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients who had revision surgery were identified and prospectively enrolled in this cohort study by 83 surgeons over 52 sites. Data collected included baseline characteristics, surgical technique and pathology, and a series of validated PRO measures. Patients were followed up at 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of PRO instruments. Incidence of additional surgery and reoperation because of graft failure were also recorded. Multivariable regression models were used to determine the predictors (risk factors) of PROs, graft rerupture, and reoperation at 6 years after revision surgery. Results: A total of 1234 patients including 716 (58%) men were enrolled. A total of 325 (26%) underwent revision using a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autograft; 251 (20%), soft tissue autograft; 289 (23%), BTB allograft; 302 (25%), soft tissue allograft; and 67 (5%), other graft. Questionnaires and telephone follow-up for subsequent surgery information were obtained for 809 (66%) patients, while telephone follow-up was only obtained for an additional 128 patients for the total follow-up on 949 (77%) patients. Graft choice was a significant predictor of 6-year Marx Activity Rating Scale scores ( P = .024). Specifically, patients who received a BTB autograft for revision reconstruction had higher activity levels than did patients who received a BTB allograft (odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.25-2.94). Graft rerupture was reported in 5.8% (55/949) of patients by their 6-year follow-up: 3.5% (16/455) of patients with autografts and 8.4% (37/441) of patients with allografts. Use of a BTB autograft for revision resulted in patients being 4.2 times less likely to sustain a subsequent graft rupture than if a BTB allograft were utilized ( P = .011; 95% CI, 1.56-11.27). No significant differences were found in graft rerupture rates between BTB autograft and soft tissue autografts ( P = .87) or between BTB autografts and soft tissue allografts ( P = .36). Use of an autograft was found to be a significant predictor of having fewer reoperations within 6 years compared with using an allograft ( P = .010; OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.87). Conclusion: BTB and soft tissue autografts had a decreased risk in graft rerupture compared with BTB allografts. BTB autografts were associated with higher activity level than were BTB allografts at 6 years after revision reconstruction. Surgeons and patients should consider this information when choosing a graft for revision ACL reconstruction.

ObjectivePatients with meniscal tears reporting meniscal symptoms such as catching or locking have traditionally undergone arthroscopy. The present study was undertaken to investigate whether patients with meniscal tears who report meniscal symptoms have greater improvement with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) than physical therapy (PT).MethodsWe used data from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (MeTeOR) trial, which randomized participants with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and meniscal tear to APM or PT. The frequency of each meniscal symptom (clicking, catching, popping, intermittent locking, giving way, swelling) was measured at baseline and 6 months. We used linear regression models to determine whether the difference in improvement in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) pain score at 6 months between patients treated with APM versus PT was modified by the presence of each meniscal symptom. We also determined the percentage of participants with resolution of meniscal symptoms by treatment group.ResultsWe included 287 participants. The presence (versus absence) of any of the meniscal symptoms did not modify the improvement in KOOS pain score between APM versus PT by >0.5 SD (all P interaction >0.05). APM led to greater resolution of intermittent locking and clicking than PT (locking 70% versus 46%, clicking 41% versus 25%). No difference in resolution of the other meniscal symptoms was observed.ConclusionMeniscal symptoms were not associated with improved pain relief. Although symptoms of clicking and intermittent locking had a greater reduction in the APM group, the presence of meniscal symptoms in isolation should not inform clinical decisions surrounding APM versus PT in patients with meniscal tear and knee OA.