Trofa, David P

Background: Hip arthroscopy has seen a significant surge in utilization, but complications remain, and optimal functional outcomes are not guaranteed. Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as an effective supportive decision-making tool for surgeons. The purpose of this systematic review was to characterize the outcomes, performance, and validity (generalizability) of AI-based prediction models for hip arthroscopy in current literature. Methods: Two reviewers independently completed structured searches using PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases on August 10, 2022. The search query used the terms as follows: (artificial intelligence OR machine learning OR deep learning) AND (hip arthroscopy). Studies that investigated AI-based risk prediction models in hip arthroscopy were included. The primary outcomes of interest were the variable(s) predicted by the models, best model performance achieved (primarily based on area under the curve, but also accuracy, etc), and whether the model(s) had been externally validated (generalizable). Results: Seventy-seven studies were identified from the primary search. Thirteen studies were included in the final analysis. Six studies (n = 6,568) applied AI for predicting the achievement of minimal clinically important difference for various patient-reported outcome measures such as the visual analog scale and the International Hip Outcome Tool 12-Item Questionnaire, with area under a receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.572 to 0.94. Three studies used AI for predicting repeat hip surgery with AUC values between 0.67 and 0.848. Four studies focused on predicting other risks, such as prolonged postoperative opioid use, with AUC values ranging from 0.71 to 0.76. None of the 13 studies assessed the generalizability of their models through external validation. Conclusion: AI is being investigated for predicting clinical outcomes after hip arthroscopy. However, the performance of AI models varies widely, with AUC values ranging from 0.572 to 0.94. Critically, none of the models have undergone external validation, limiting their clinical applicability. Further research is needed to improve model performance and ensure generalizability before these tools can be reliably integrated into patient care. Level of Evidence: Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Introduction Revision total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) is indicated for component loosening, periprosthetic joint infection, and fractures. Previous investigations into revision TEA complications have small sample sizes and limited exploration of acute complications. This study aims to characterize the 30-day complications and associated demographics of patients undergoing revision TEA using a large national database. Methods The 2015–2020 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used to identify all revision TEA patients. Results The analysis included 158 patients (average age 62.6 years). The overall complication rate was 13.9% ( n = 22). The most common 30-day complications were organ/space surgical site infection (3.8%, n = 6), unplanned readmission (3.2%, n = 5), intraoperative or postoperative transfusion (3.2%, n = 5), and unplanned reoperation (1.9%, n = 3). Patients with a history of dyspnea or steroid/immunosuppressant use for a chronic condition had significantly higher rates of bleeding requiring transfusion ( p = .029 and p = .021, respectively). Additionally, patients aged 80 years or older had a significantly higher rate of unplanned readmission ( p = .032). Conclusion Revision TEA has a 13.9% rate of complications within 30-days of surgery, with most involving surgical site infection, unplanned readmission, and blood transfusion. Level of Evidence IV.

Background Although arthroscopic procedures are generally considered safer than open procedures, they are not without complications. This study's purpose is to characterize patient demographics, medical complications, overnight admissions, and prolonged operative times for patients undergoing elective elbow arthroscopy using a national database. Methods This retrospective study used the ACS NSQIP database with data from 2015 to 2020. Patients undergoing elbow arthroscopy were identified, and those undergoing emergent surgery were excluded. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, medical comorbidities, 30-day complications, overnight admission rates, and operative times were recorded and analyzed. Results Overall, 815 patients undergoing elective elbow arthroscopy were included. The mean age was 46.8 years. Mean BMI was 29.7 kg/m 2 , and 75.2% (n = 613) were male sex. The most common comorbidity was smoking (14.8%, n = 121). The cumulative complication rate was 2.5% (n = 20). The most common complication was surgical site infection (n = 7, 0.9%). 10.7% of patients required at least one overnight hospital stay. 20.2% of patients had a prolonged operative time ≥ 120 min. Conclusion Elbow arthroscopy is not without complications and morbidity despite being a minimally invasive procedure and advances made in surgical technique. Surgeons should use this information to facilitate shared-surgical decision making, preoperative patient counselling, and preoperative patient optimization.

Objectives: Meniscus injuries remain a common source of morbidity in patients over the age of 40. Historically, meniscus injuries in this age group have been treated non-operatively or with surgical management limited to debridement procedures. There is strong evidence for repair over meniscectomy in younger patients, however literature remains sparce regarding repair outcomes and re-operation rates for patients over the age of 40. The objectives of this study were to document patient reported outcomes, complications, and re-operation rates for meniscus repairs in patients above the age of 40 and determine what patient demographics or injury characteristics correlated with reoperation. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted at a single academic institution after obtaining IRB approval. An initial query of patients over the age of 40, was performed via the CPT code 29882. Inclusion criteria consisted of patient age greater than 40 at time of initial meniscal repair. Exclusion criteria consisted of prior surgery in the ipsilateral knee, meniscal root repair, septic arthritis postoperatively, and any form of knee trauma postoperatively. Patients that met inclusion criteria were chart reviewed for relevant data including demographic information, comorbidities, surgical procedure information such as type of implant used, laterality of meniscus tear, type of tear and pattern, and revision/re-operation data. Patients were then contacted to answer full 100-point KOOS (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) questionnaires. Results: 413 total patients met inclusion criteria. The average age at time of surgery was 46 years (IQR, 43-51), and 214 patients were female (51.8%). KOOS scores were reported at a median follow-up of 24-months (IQR, 3-62). Median symptom, pain, activity of daily living (ADL), sport, and quality of life (QoL) subscales were reported as 78.6 (IQR, 60.7-92.9), 87.5 (IQR, 69.4-97.2), 94.1 (IQR, 82-100), 80.0 (IQR, 55-95), and 68.8 (IQR, 40.6-81.3), respectively. A total of 74 patients underwent reoperation (17.8%). There was no significant difference in reoperation rates when stratified by age group (40-49, 50-59, 60-69) (p=0.515). Reoperation rates were not affected by type of implant used for initial meniscus repair (Fast-fix anchor, Omnispan meniscal anchor, Meniscal cinch implant, Fiberwire, MaxBraid suture, Ethibond suture, PDS suture or Bionics meniscal arrow) (p>0.7). Average number of all-inside anchors used for repair was 2 (IQR, 2-3) and did not correlate with reoperation (p=0.49). Location of initial meniscus tear (body or posterior horn) and tear pattern did not correlate with reoperation rates (p>0.36, p>0.28 respectively). A total of 47 patients complained of postoperative stiffness, of which 28 (6.7%) underwent lysis of adhesions and/or arthroscopic debridement (p=.042). Twenty-five patients sustained a meniscal re-tear or injury, of which 17 underwent reoperation with partial or total meniscectomy. Of the total patient cohort, only seven patients ultimately went on to require ipsilateral total knee arthroplasty (1.6%). Conclusions: Patients over the age of 40 who underwent meniscus repair showed favorable reported outcomes at a mean 2-year follow-up. Reoperation rates were associated with postoperative stiffness and repeat injury. Re-operation rates in patients over 40 are comparable to reported rates of younger patients who undergo meniscus repair.

Background: Ice hockey referees and linesmen are at risk for musculoskeletal injuries because of the lack of protective equipment and contact with players, sticks, pucks, the ice surface and boards. Purpose: To quantify and analyze injuries reported by officials of the International Ice Hockey Federation (IIHF). Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: A 61-question survey tool was designed by an interdisciplinary team to evaluate musculoskeletal injuries experienced by ice hockey officials. This survey was administered to 600 active IIHF referees and linesmen. Only completed survey responses were included in the statistical analysis. Continuous variables were analyzed using unpaired t-tests, while categorical data were assessed utilizing chi-square tests. Results: Of the 600 surveys administered, 264 surveys were completed by officials from 45 countries (44% response rate). Of the respondents, 72% were male, and 28% were female, with a mean age of 31.1 ± 5.8 years. Officiating experience averaged 11.4 ± 6.0 years (6.3 ± 4.5 years with the IIHF). A total of 295 injuries were reported by 55% of the officials. Injuries occurred more frequently during games compared with training, and officials who worked year-round had more total injuries than those who took time off ( P = .03). The most common injuries involved the wrist and hand (n = 64 [22%]), head and face (n = 58 [20%]), and the knee (n = 47 [16%]). Wrist and hand trauma included 23 fractures. Knee and shoulder injuries were most likely to require surgery compared with other body areas ( P < .001); 30 officials underwent surgery because of an acute knee injury (10%). Injury prevention activities were effective at reducing injuries ( P = .04). Conclusion: Most ice hockey officials experienced musculoskeletal injuries during their career. The risk of trauma to the wrist and hand can possibly be reduced via equipment modifications including protective gloves. A greater emphasis should be placed on injury prevention programs and time away from officiating competitions.