McCarty, Eric C

Background: Orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships are highly competitive, yet objective data defining characteristics of successful applicants remain limited. Hypothesis: It was hypothesized that greater academic productivity, top-tier residency training, and certain demographic factors would be associated with matching into a top-ranked orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed applicants who matched into one of the top 10 orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships from 2020 to 2025, as identified by previous applicant preference rankings. Applicant data were obtained from publicly available sources and verified by 2 independent reviewers. Variables included sex, degree type, residency program ranking, geographic region, and research productivity (total publications, primary publication count, H-index, and sports-related publications). Multivariate logistic regression assessed predictors of matching into top 5 versus 6th- to 10th-ranked programs. Results: Among 226 matched applicants, 87.7% were male and 99.1% held a doctorate in medicine degree. The mean total publication count was 12.4, mean H-index was 8.2, and 30.5% trained at a top 20 orthopaedic residency. Applicants matching into top 5 programs had significantly higher research metrics than those in the 6th- to 10th-ranked programs: total publications (20.1 vs 4.7), primary publication count (6.2 vs 1.6), and sports-related publications (11.4 vs 1.9). On regression analysis, total publications, H-index, and residency ranking were independent predictors of matching into a top 5 program. Conclusion: Matching into a top orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship is associated with higher academic productivity and training at a top-tier residency program.

Background: Multiple studies have compared outcomes among patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with autograft versus allograft, but these data are inconsistently reported and long-term outcomes depending on graft type are yet to be determined. Purpose: To perform a systematic review of clinical outcomes after revision ACLR (rACLR) with autograft versus allograft. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase to identify studies that compared the outcomes of patients undergoing rACLR with autograft versus allograft. The search phrase used was autograft allograft revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Graft rerupture rates, return-to-sports rates, anteroposterior laxity, and patient-reported outcome scores (subjective International Knee Documentation Committee, Tegner, Lysholm, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) were evaluated. Results: Eleven studies met inclusion criteria, including 3011 patients undergoing rACLR with autograft (mean age, 28.9 years) and 1238 patients undergoing rACLR with allograft (mean age, 28.0 years). Mean follow-up was 57.3 months. The most common autograft and allograft types were bone–patellar tendon–bone grafts. Overall, 6.2% of patients undergoing rACLR experienced graft retear, including 4.7% in the autograft group and 10.2% in the allograft group ( P < .0001). Among studies that reported return-to-sports rates, 66.2% of patients with an autograft returned to sports as opposed to 45.3% of patients with an allograft ( P = .01). Two studies found significantly greater postoperative knee laxity in the allograft group as compared with the autograft group ( P < .05). Among all patient-reported outcomes, 1 study found 1 significant difference between groups: patients with an autograft had a significantly higher postoperative Lysholm score when compared with patients with an allograft. Conclusion: Patients undergoing revision ACLR with an autograft can be expected to experience lower rates of graft retear, higher rates of return to sports, and less postoperative anteroposterior knee laxity when compared with patients undergoing revision ACLR with an allograft.

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: 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.

Background: Various analgesic modalities have been used to improve postoperative pain in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy. Purpose: To systematically review the literature to compare the efficacy of the fascia iliaca block (FIB) with that of other analgesic modalities after hip arthroscopy in terms of postoperative pain scores and analgesic consumption. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Embase up to April 2020 to identify randomized controlled trials that compared postoperative pain and analgesic consumption in patients after hip arthroscopy with FIB versus other pain control modalities. The search phrase used was “hip arthroscopy fascia iliaca randomized.” Patients were evaluated based on postoperative pain scores and total postoperative analgesic consumption. Results: Five studies (3 level 1, 2 level 2) were identified that met inclusion criteria, including 157 patients undergoing hip arthroscopy with FIB (mean age, 38.3 years; 44.6% men) and 159 patients among the following comparison groups: lumbar plexus block (LPB), intra-articular ropivacaine (IAR), local anesthetic infiltration (LAI), saline placebo, and a no-block control group (overall mean age, 36.2 years; 36.5% men). No significant differences in pain scores were reported in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) between the FIB and LPB (3.4 vs 2.9; P = .054), IAR (7.7 vs 7.9; P = .72), control group (no FIB: 4.1 vs 3.8; P = .76); or saline placebo (difference, –0.2 [95% CI, –1.1 to 0.7]). One study reported significantly higher pain scores at 1 hour postoperation in the FIB group compared with the LAI group (5.5 vs 3.4; P = .02). Another study reported significantly greater total analgesic consumption (in morphine equivalent dosing) in the PACU among the FIB group compared with the LPB group (20.8 vs 17.0; P = .02). No significant differences were observed in total PACU analgesic consumption between FIB and other analgesic modalities. Conclusion: In patients undergoing hip arthroscopy, the FIB does not appear to demonstrate superiority to other forms of analgesics in the immediate postoperative period. Therefore, it is not recommended as a routine form of pain control for these procedures.

AbstractInfection is a rare occurrence after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR). Because of the low rates of infection, it has been difficult to identify risk factors for infection in this patient population. The purpose of this study was to report the rate of infection following rACLR and assess whether infection is associated with patient‐ and surgeon‐dependent risk factors. We reviewed two large prospective cohorts to identify patients with postoperative infections following rACLR. Age, sex, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, history of diabetes, and graft choice were recorded for each patient. The association of these factors with postoperative infection following rACLR was assessed. There were 1423 rACLR cases in the combined cohort, with 9 (0.6%) reporting postoperative infections. Allografts had a higher risk of infection than autografts (odds ratio, 6.8; 95% CI, 0.9–54.5; p = .045). Diabetes (odds ratio, 28.6; 95% CI, 5.5–149.9; p = .004) was a risk factor for infection. Patient age, sex, BMI, and smoking status were not associated with risk of infection after rACLR.

Purpose To analyze failure rate in 2‐year increments to determine if graft choice changed over time and graft failure rate. Methods A prospective 2002‐2008 database was used to identify risk factors for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) retear. Subjects who had primary ACL retear with no history of contralateral surgery and 2‐year follow‐up were included. Subjects who underwent a multiligament reconstruction were excluded. Graft type, age, sex, smoking status, body mass index, Marx activity level at index surgery, medial and lateral meniscus status at time of ACL retear, sport played after ACL reconstruction, and clinical site were evaluated. Analysis was repeated using 2002‐2003 (early) and 2007‐2008 (late) 2‐year databases. Analysis of variance with post hoc analysis was performed to detect significant differences in age and Marx score by graft type over time. Results Two‐year follow‐up for graft failure was obtained on 2,497 of 2,692 (93%) subjects. There were 112 of 2,497 (4.5%) ACL retears identified at 2‐year follow‐up. The only predictor that changed between early/late periods was allograft use. Allograft odds ratio decreased from 13.1 to 9.5 ( P < .01). Allografts were used in older patients (31‐40 years) and with lower Marx scores (10‐8) from early to late periods. The mean age of subjects who received bone–patellar tendon–bone autografts did not significantly change over time (22.8‐23.5). The mean age of subjects who received hamstring autografts fell (27.9‐25.5). The mean age of subjects who received allografts rose significantly (31.3‐39.8, P < .01). The mean Marx score of subjects who received bone–patellar tendon–bone and hamstring autografts did not significantly change over time. The mean Marx score of subjects who received allografts decreased significantly ( P < .01). Conclusions After early recognition, allograft use in young active patients was a risk factor for retear; graft choice by surgeons changed in the late period to use of allografts in older and less‐active patients, which correlated with a significant decrease in retear risk. Level of Evidence Level III, case control study.

Background: Knee laxity in the setting of suspected anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury is frequently assessed through physical examination using the Lachman, pivot-shift, and anterior drawer tests. The degree of laxity noted on these examinations may influence treatment decisions and prognosis. Hypothesis: Increased preoperative knee laxity would be associated with increased risk of subsequent revision ACL reconstruction and worse patient-reported outcomes 2 years postoperatively. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: From an ongoing prospective cohort study, 2333 patients who underwent primary isolated ACL reconstruction without collateral or posterior cruciate ligament injury were identified. Patients reported by the operating surgeons as having an International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) grade D for Lachman, anterior drawer, or pivot-shift examination were classified as having high-grade laxity. Multiple logistic regression modeling was used to evaluate whether having high-grade preoperative laxity was associated with increased odds of undergoing revision ACL reconstruction within 2 years of the index procedure, controlling for patient age, sex, Marx activity level, level of competition, and graft type. Multiple linear regression modeling was used to evaluate whether having high-grade preoperative laxity was associated with worse IKDC score or Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Knee-Related Quality of Life subscale (KOOS-QOL) scores at a minimum 2 years postoperatively, controlling for baseline score, patient age, ethnicity, sex, body mass index, marital status, smoking status, sport participation, competition level, Marx activity rating score, graft type, and articular cartilage and meniscus status. Results: Pre-reconstruction laxity data were available for 2325 patients (99.7%). Two-year revision data were available for 2259 patients (96.8%), and patient-reported outcomes were available for 1979 patients (84.8%). High-grade preoperative laxity was noted in 743 patients (31.9%). The mean postoperative IKDC score was 81.8 ± 15.9, and the mean KOOS-QOL score was 72.0 ± 22.0. The presence of high-grade pre-reconstruction laxity was associated with significantly increased odds of ACL graft revision (odds ratio [OR] = 1.87 [95% CI, 1.19-2.95]; P = .007). The presence of high-grade pre-reconstruction laxity was not associated with any difference in postoperative IKDC (β = −0.56, P = .44) or KOOS-QOL (β = 0.04, P = .97). Conclusion: The presence of high-grade pre-reconstruction knee laxity as assessed by manual physical examination under anesthesia is associated with significantly increased odds of revision ACL surgery but has no association with patient-reported outcome scores at 2 years after ACL reconstruction.