Kennedy, John G.

Background: The purpose of this study was to validate the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) for osteochondral lesions of the talus (OLTs). We hypothesize that the FAOS will meet all 4 psychometric criteria for validity in this patient population. Methods: From 2008 to 2014, a total of 208 patients with OLTs were included in the construct validity portion of the study. All patients completed FAOS and 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) scores. Twenty additional patients were prospectively recruited and were asked to complete questionnaires to determine the relevance of each of the FAOS questions as it related to their OLT. Forty-four patients completed the FAOS 1 month after the first FAOS to assess reliability via Spearman correlation coefficient. Responsiveness of the FAOS was assessed with 54 patients who had both preoperative and postoperative FAOS scores via Student paired t test with significance determined as P < .05. In total, 229 unique patients were included in this study. Results: Statistically significant associations were found between all FAOS and SF-12 subscales ( P < .01). The FAOS symptoms subscale demonstrated the lowest correlation with the SF-12 physical health domains. No floor or ceiling effects were identified. Weak correlations were calculated between the 5 FAOS subscales and the SF-12 mental component summary score. All FAOS domains met the threshold for acceptable content validity (score > 2.0). All FAOS subscales demonstrated acceptable test-retest reliability, with ICC values ranging from 0.81 (ADL) to 0.92 (Pain). Conclusion: This study demonstrates the acceptable yet moderate construct and content validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the FAOS for patients with OLTs of the ankle joint. We endorse the use of the FAOS in evaluating ankle OLTs in both the research and clinical setting and consider it a useful patient-reported, self-administered instrument following surgical intervention. Level of Evidence: Level IV, retrospective case study.

AbstractStem cell therapies have become widely popular in orthopaedic surgery, with a recent interest in adipose-derived therapeutics. Adipose-derived mesenchymal signaling cells (ADSCs) and micronized adipose tissue (MAT) are unique therapies derived from different processing methods. Characterizing the most influential studies in lipoaspirate research can help clarify controversies in definitions, identify core literature, and further collective knowledge for educational purposes. The Science Citation Index Expanded subsection of the Web of Science Core Collection was systematically searched to identify the top 50 most cited publications (based on citation/year) on orthopaedic ADSCs or MAT research. Publication and study characteristics were extracted and reported using descriptive statistics. Level of evidence was assessed for applicable studies, and Spearman correlations were calculated to assess the relationship between citation data and level of evidence. The top 50 articles were published between the years 2003 and 2020, with 78% published in the year 2010 or later. The mean number of citations was 103.1 ± 81.1. The mean citation rate was 12.4 ± 6.0 citations per year. Of the 21 studies for which level of evidence was assessed, the majority were level III (10, 47.6%). The single study design most common among the top 50 cited articles was in vitro basic science studies (17 studies, 34%). Twenty-nine articles (58%) were classified as basic science or translational. Application to treat knee osteoarthritis was the most common focus of studies (14 studies, 28%), followed by in vitro analysis of growth factor and cell signaling markers (11 studies, 22%). No correlation was found between rank, citation rate, or year of publication and level of evidence. This study provides a current landscape on the most cited articles in lipoaspirates in orthopaedic surgery. With the expansion of ADSCs and MAT in the past two decades, this study provides the first historical landmark of the literature and a launching point for future research. Studies should explicitly state their processing methodology and whether their study investigates ADSCs or MAT to avoid misinformation.

AbstractConcentrated bone marrow aspirate (cBMA) has garnered widespread and increasing attention in recent years. We aimed to characterize the most influential articles in cBMA research while clarifying controversies surrounding its use and clinical efficacy and identifying important areas on which to focus future research efforts. The Science Citation Index Expanded subsection of the Web of Science Core Collection was systematically searched to identify the top 50 most cited publications on orthopaedic cBMA research. Publication and study characteristics were extracted, and Spearman's correlations were calculated to assess the relationship between citation data and level of evidence. The top 50 articles were published between the years 1996 and 2018, with 58% published in the year 2010 or later. Of the 29 studies for which level of evidence was assessed, the majority were Level IV (24, 83%). Twenty-one articles (42%) were classified as basic science or translational (9 cell culture, 8 animal study, and 4 using human blood samples). Application to treat cartilage defects was the most common focus of studies (17 studies, 34%), followed by analysis of cBMA composition (14 studies, 28%). No correlation was found between rank, citation rate, or year of publication and level of evidence. The most influential articles on cBMA are recent and consist of a majority low level of evidence studies. Cohort studies were the most common study type among the top 50 most cited articles, while basic science articles were relatively less common. These results suggest a rapidly evolving field with the potential to better explain inconsistent clinical results with improved understanding and documentation of basic science concepts in addition to large-scale, prospective clinical trials. Orthobiologics especially cBMA holds great promise for the future, and higher level clinical trials will help better define the best clinical uses for this treatment.