Koschmeder, Katelyn

Abstract Osteochondral lesions of the knee, particularly in patients with early osteoarthritic changes, remain a clinical challenge. The Agili‐C implant (CartiHeal, Smith & Nephew), an aragonite‐based osteochondral scaffold, offers a single‐stage, off‐the‐shelf solution designed to regenerate both cartilage and subchondral bone. Unlike cell‐based therapies, Agili‐C eliminates the need for cell harvesting, culturing, or bioreactors, and avoids the morbidity associated with autografts and allografts. Recent multicenter randomized controlled trials have showed superior functional outcomes and pain reduction with Agili‐C compared to microfracture and debridement, even in patients with early osteoarthritis (Kellgren‐Lawrence grades 0‐3). This Technical Note describes the surgical technique for Agili‐C implantation and highlights key technical pearls to optimize outcomes.

Purpose To project the future utilization of open and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) in the Medicare population through 2050, incorporating post‐COVID recovery data to provide insight into evolving surgical preferences, economic pressures, and implications for health care delivery. Methods We analyzed 2003‐2024 data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicare Part‐B National Summary, which captures all Medicare beneficiaries undergoing open or arthroscopic RCR as identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes. Projections were based on 2003‐2019 and 2023‐2024 data, reflecting post‐COVID‐19 recovery and avoiding distortions from 2020 to 2022 pandemic‐related disruptions. Statistical models evaluated included log‐linear, Poisson, negative binomial, and autoregressive integrated moving average. Autoregressive integrated moving average was selected based on the lowest normalized root mean square error, reflecting superior predictive accuracy and its ability to capture time‐dependent trends, and was used to forecast RCR volumes through 2050. Results In 2024, there were 23,154 open and 188,700 arthroscopic RCR procedures, which served as the baseline for modeling. Open RCR is projected to decline on average by 5.91% annually, while arthroscopic RCR is projected to grow by 2.88% annually. By 2050, arthroscopic RCR volume is expected to reach 394,434 procedures (95% forecast interval: 363,424‐425,321), whereas open RCR is expected to decline to 4748 procedures (95% forecast interval: 1243‐43,747). Conclusions Autoregressive integrated moving average modeling projects that by 2050 arthroscopic RCR utilization will increase by 2‐fold and open RCR will decline to one‐fifth compared with 2024 baseline volumes. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Background: To our knowledge, there are no studies assessing associations between patients on preoperative estrogen replacement therapy (ERT) undergoing distal radius open reduction and internal fixation (DRORIF) and postoperative outcomes. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare surgical and medical complications in patients on ERT undergoing DR-ORIF with a matched control cohort. Materials and Methods: The PearlDiver Mariner database was searched for female patients who took ERT within 3 months of the index procedure. Patients were matched 1:4 with non-ERT controls using propensity score matching. Complications were assessed at 90 days, 2 years, and 5 years. Statistical analyses were conducted using odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Statistical significance was determined at a P value of <.05. Results: The ERT cohort consisted of 1,815 ERT users, and the control cohort consisted of 7,247 patients. At 2 years, the ERT cohort was associated with a slightly greater incidence of malunion/nonunion (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.13–2.18) but with no increased risk of revision surgery (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.50–2.10). Similarly, at 5 years, the ERT cohort was associated with a slightly higher likelihood of a malunion/nonunion diagnosis (OR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.24–2.30). Conclusion: The current study suggests that patients on preoperative ERT had a slightly increased risk of malunion/nonunion at 2 years and 5 years after DR-ORIF. We did not find associations between increases in the risk of any other major or minor complications and the cohort of patients on preoperative ERT within 5 years postoperatively.

Purpose To determine if preoperative femoral or tibial bone marrow edema (BME) is indicative of higher rates of re‐tear and conversion to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) after posterior medial meniscal root tear repair, and, secondarily, whether preoperative BME impacted patient‐reported outcome measures and rates of infection and arthrofibrosis. Methods Patients that underwent posterior medial meniscal root tear repair between 2013 and 2021 with a 2‐year minimum follow‐up were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcome measures included re‐tears and TKA conversion. Secondary outcomes included International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score and Lysholm score, infection, and arthrofibrosis. Cohort‐specific minimally clinically important difference and Patient Acceptable Symptomatic Scale rates were calculated. Two‐tailed t‐tests, Wilcoxon rank‐sum tests, and Fisher's exact tests were used where appropriate. Results The study population consisted of 97 knees (74 without BME [NBME], 23 with BME) with average follow‐up of 38.9 months (24‐68). Preoperatively, the NBME group had higher IKDC scores ( P = .008). Postoperatively, the NBME group had higher IKDC scores at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years (84.5 [6.0] vs 68.5 [11.0]) ( P = .041, <.001, <.001). IKDC minimally clinically important difference rates were not significantly different between groups at all follow‐ups. Patient Acceptable Symptomatic Scale rates were higher for the NBME group at 1‐year and final follow‐up (100.0% vs 60.9%) ( P < .001 for both). Lysholm scores were higher for the NBME group at 1‐year and final follow‐up (84.0 [5.6] vs 74.6 [12.8]) ( P = .019 and .008, respectively). Re‐tear occurred in 17.4% of the BME group and 0% of the NBME group ( P = .003). TKA conversion rates were 21.7% in the BME group and 2.7% in the NBME group ( P = .008). There was no difference in arthrofibrosis or infection rates. Conclusions Preoperative BME in patients undergoing posterior medial meniscal root tear repair is associated with higher rates of recurrent meniscal root tearing and conversion to TKA in addition to lower subjective IKDC and Lysholm scores compared to patients without preoperative BME. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective prognostic case control series.

Background: Simultaneous carpal tunnel release (sCTR) with emergent forearm fasciotomy in the setting of acute compartment syndrome (ACS) has been reported, but the national incidence and cost of delayed carpal tunnel release (CTR) remain unknown. This large database study aims to evaluate how often sCTR is performed, the frequency of delayed CTR when not performed simultaneously, and the associated costs. Methods: The PearlDiver Mariner database was queried for patients who underwent forearm fasciotomies between January 1, 2015, and October 31, 2022. Patients were grouped based on CTR timing: simultaneous, within 2 weeks, 2 weeks to 1 year, 1 to 5 years, or no CTR. Reimbursement data were collected, and patient numbers and costs were analyzed across cohorts. Results: More than half of patients undergoing emergent forearm fasciotomy received sCTR. Among those who did not, 31% required CTR within 1 year and 35% within 5 years. The total cost was highest when CTR was performed within 1 year but not on the same day as fasciotomy. After 1 year, the additional cost of CTR was similar to that of patients who never underwent fasciotomy. Conclusions: This large database study shows that over one-third of patients who did not undergo sCTR at the time of emergent forearm fasciotomy required it within 1 year, incurring significantly higher costs. Including sCTR during initial fasciotomy may reduce delayed care and associated expenses. While these findings suggest that including sCTR during initial fasciotomy may reduce delayed care and expenses, the retrospective design precludes definitive recommendations, and clinical judgment remains essential Level of Evidence: 4

Abstract Despite the reported benefits of testosterone replacement therapy (TRT), prior studies have shown that TRT is correlated with increased incidence of adverse outcomes after orthopedic procedures. There is a paucity of literature assessing the outcomes of patients on preoperative TRT undergoing distal radius open reduction and internal fixation (DR-ORIF). Our purpose was to evaluate rates of surgical and medical complications in patients on TRT undergoing DR-ORIF with a matched control cohort. The PearlDiver database was queried for patients who used TRT within 3 months prior to the index procedure. Patients were matched 1:4 with nonuser controls using propensity score matching. Matching was conducted based on age, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, hypogonadism, osteoporosis, and other comorbidities. Complications were assessed at 90 days and 2 years. Statistical analyses were conducted using chi-square tests. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for each complication. Statistical significance was determined at a p-value of < 0.05. The matched group included 657 TRT users and 2,236 controls. There were significant differences in depression (control: 40.6% vs. TRT: 45.7%, p = 0.02) and rates of hypogonadism (control: 74.1% vs. TRT: 77.9%, p = 0.05) between the groups. No other statistically significant demographic or characteristic differences were noted. TRT use was not associated with increased surgical or medical complication rates at 90 days postoperatively. At 2 years, TRT use was associated with a greater incidence of revision (OR: 2.80, 95% CI: 1.34–5.85) and nonunion (OR: 2.76, 95% CI: 1.59–4.81). There were no other associations noted at 2 years. Preoperative TRT was associated with an increased risk of revision surgery and nonunion at 2 years postoperatively. No other significant associations in the risk of major or minor complications were observed. Level III

Background Carpal tunnel release (CTR) is one of the most frequently performed procedures in the United States, with both open (OCTR) and endoscopic (ECTR) techniques widely used. As surgical practices evolve and outpatient care expands, understanding future utilization trends across care settings is increasingly important. This study projects the use of OCTR and ECTR through 2040 to inform shifting surgical preferences and healthcare demands. Methods This study analyzed procedural data from 2010 to 2019 using the PearlDiver Mariner all-payer claims database. Cases of OCTR and ECTR were identified using Current Procedural Terminology codes. Procedures were further stratified by inpatient or outpatient status based on the documented site of service field within the database. Log-linear, Poisson, negative binomial regression, and autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models were applied to procedural volumes to project trends through 2040. The ARIMA model was selected based on the lowest normalized root mean square error and overall model performance. Results In 2019, there were 31,190 outpatient ECTR, 155 inpatient ECTR, 101,334 outpatient OCTR, and 1359 inpatient OCTR procedures. By 2040, outpatient ECTR is projected to grow to 65,072 cases (95% CI, 62,471–67,781) at 3.79% annually. Inpatient ECTR is projected to reach 181 cases (95% CI, 97–340) with 2.13% annual growth. Outpatient OCTR is expected to decline to 77,834 cases (95% CI, 76,287–79,413), and inpatient OCTR to 962 cases (95% CI, 809–1143), with annual decreases of 1.19% and 1.48%, respectively. Conclusions By 2040, demand for outpatient ECTR is projected to increase by 110.31% compared to 2019, whereas outpatient OCTR is expected to decline by 20.31%. Although inpatient utilization remains limited, the adoption of endoscopic techniques is anticipated to rise across all care settings, in contrast to the continued decline of open procedures. These trends highlight the ongoing shift toward minimally invasive, ambulatory surgical care. Strategic planning in surgical training, healthcare infrastructure, and reimbursement models will be critical to meet changing demands. Further research is needed to validate these projections in broader populations and across diverse healthcare systems.

ABSTRACTBackground and ObjectivesMedicaid reimbursement to physicians has been demonstrated to be lower than reimbursement from Medicare and private insurance. Studies on Medicaid reimbursement for orthopedic oncology procedures, however, are limited. This study compares Medicaid reimbursement rates to Medicare for 38 common musculoskeletal oncology procedures and assesses variability among states.MethodsWe collected 38 current procedural terminology (CPT) codes for commonly performed orthopedic oncology procedures. Medicare rates were obtained from the 2023 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid physician (CMS) fee schedule. Medicaid rates were collected from electronic state website fee schedules. Reimbursement for the two insurance types were compared with state and national averages. Dollar differences were adjusted for work relative value units (RVU) to ascertain procedural variability. The Medicare Wage Index, representing differences in wages across states, was used to adjust medicaid rates to compare more accurately to medicare. Coefficient of variation values, calculated by dividing the standard deviation by the mean, were calculated to assess variation among procedures.ResultsMedicaid reimbursed orthopedic oncologists 22.1% less than medicare on average, increasing to 33.0% when adjusting for wage differences. State Medicaid reimbursement ranged from 37% to 131% of Medicare, with 38 states reimbursing less than Medicare on average. The coefficient of variation for Medicaid procedures ranged from 0.24 to 0.46, indicating wide variability among states and procedures, while for Medicare, the coefficient of variation was low at 0.06 to 0.07.ConclusionsMedicaid reimbursement for common orthopedic oncology procedures is substantially lower and more variable than Medicare, despite the often urgent nature of these surgeries. Disparities in reimbursement may impact access to care for this population, highlighting the need for policy reform.