Back to Authors

Nazzal, Ehab M.

0000-0002-9852-8975

Mayo Clinic

UPMC Health System

Citations 2

Managing the meniscus Part 2: Traumatic tear patterns, biologic augmentation, transplantation, innovation and future research
Runer, Armin , Kolevar, Matthew P. , Kopf, Sebastian, Krych, Aaron J, Getgood, Alan, Spalding, Tim , Prill, Robert, Tuca, Maria, Ollivier, Matthieu, Siebenlist, Sebastian, Tapasvi, Sachin, Musahl, Volker, Spalding, Tim , Nazzal, Ehab M. , Hughes, Jonathan Daniel , Kopf, Sebastian , Krych, Aaron J. , Hirschmann, Michael T. , LaPrade, Robert F. , Getgood, Alan , Prill, Robert , Tuca, María , Ollivier, Matthieu , Siebenlist, Sebastian , Tapasvi, Sachin Ramchandra , Musahl, Volker

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | January 31, 2026 | Volume: No volume available | Issue: No issue available | Pages: No page available

10.1002/ksa.70314 Get It

Abstract Acute, traumatic meniscus tears are common and should be repaired whenever possible. However, the biological age of the patient, along with the specific tear morphology, may significantly influence the selection of the repair technique, expected clinical outcomes and the postoperative rehabilitation protocol. Risk factors for failure of meniscus repair, such as ligament laxity, need to be addressed to improve the healing potential of the meniscus. Biologic augmentation strategies, including bone marrow stimulation, platelet‐rich plasma, fibrin clot, mesenchymal stem cells or meniscal wrapping, can be used to enhance healing and reduce failure of meniscus repair rates. However, the clinical evidence remains limited and of low quality. As such, the routine use of biologic augmentation in meniscus repair warrants critical evaluation. In patients with post‐meniscectomy syndrome, meniscus allograft transplantation (MAT) may be a viable option to reduce pain and joint degeneration and improve knee function. Meniscus implants provide alternatives to traditional MAT; however, their long‐term efficacy, chondroprotective effects and integration within the knee joint require further research. Meniscus reconstruction using tendon autografts has been described as an alternative treatment option in patients with meniscus loss. Emerging methods, such as gene therapy and repurposed drugs, demonstrate in vitro potential for advancing meniscal repair, although their clinical applications are still in their infancy. Future research is necessary to optimize meniscal repair techniques, enhance clinical efficacy, and ultimately, improve outcomes in patients. Level of Evidence Level V.
Association of Preoperative Opioid Use With Complication Rates and Resource Use in Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement
Wilson, Jacob M. , Schwartz, Andrew , Xerogeanes, John W. , Nazzal, Ehab M. , Farley, Kevin X.

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine | November 22, 2021 | Volume: 9 | Issue: 11 | Pages: No page available

10.1177/23259671211045954 Get It

Background: Preoperative opioid use has been shown to be a negative predictor of patient outcomes, complication rates, and resource utilization in a variety of different orthopaedic procedures. To date, there are no studies investigating its effect on outcomes after hip arthroscopy in the setting of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Purpose: To determine the association of preoperative opioid use with postoperative outcomes after hip arthroscopy in patients with FAI. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The Truven Health MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database was queried for all patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAI between 2011 and 2018. Opioid prescriptions filled in the 6 months preceding surgery were queried, and the average daily oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) in this period were computed for each patient. Patients were divided into 4 cohorts: opioid naïve, <1 OME per day, 1 to 5 OMEs per day, and >5 OMEs per day. Postoperative 90-day complications, health care utilization, perioperative costs, postoperative opioid use, and 1- and 3-year revision rates were then compared among cohorts. Results: A total of 22,124 patients were ultimately included in this study; 31.2% of these patients were prescribed opioids preoperatively. Overall, the percentage of preoperative opioid-naïve patients increased from 64.5% in 2011 to 78.9% in 2018. Patients who received preoperative opioids had a higher rate of complications, increased resource utilization, and increased revision rates. Specifically, on multivariate analysis, patients taking >5 OMEs per day (compared with patients who were preoperatively opioid naïve) had increased odds of a postoperative emergency department visit (Odds Ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.94-2.56; P < .001), 90-day readmission (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.77-2.87; P < .001), increased acute postoperative opioid use (OR, 25.56; 95% CI, 22.98-28.43; P < .001), prolonged opioid use (OR, 10.45; 95% CI, 8.92-12.25; P < .001), and 3-year revision surgery (OR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.36-3.36; P < .001). Perioperative adjusted costs were increased for all preoperative opioid users and were highest for the >5 OMEs per day cohort ($6255; 95% CI, $5143-$7368). Conclusion: A large number of patients with FAI are prescribed opioids before undergoing hip arthroscopy, and use of these pain medications is associated with increased health care utilization, increased costs, prolonged opioid use, and early revision surgery.