Jones, Morgan H.

ObjectiveTo determine the 5‐year outcome of treatment for meniscal tear in osteoarthritis.MethodsWe examined 5‐year follow‐up data from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research trial (METEOR) of physical therapy versus arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. We performed primary intent‐to‐treat (ITT) and secondary as‐treated analyses. The primary outcome measure was the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) pain scale; total knee replacement (TKR) was a secondary outcome measure. We used piecewise linear mixed models to describe change in KOOS pain. We calculated 5‐year cumulative TKR incidence and used a Cox model to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) for TKR, with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).ResultsThree hundred fifty‐one participants were randomized. In the ITT analysis, the KOOS pain scores were ~46 (scale of 0 [no pain] to 100 [most pain]) at baseline in both groups. Pain scores improved substantially in both groups over the first 3 months, continued to improve through the next 24 months (to ~18 in each group), and were stable at 24–60 months. Results of the as‐treated analyses of the KOOS pain score were similar. Twenty‐five participants (7.1% [95% CI 4.4–9.8%]) underwent TKR over 5 years. In the ITT model, the HR for TKR was 2.0 (95% CI 0.8–4.9) for subjects randomized to the arthroscopic partial meniscectomy group, compared to those randomized to the physical therapy group. In the as‐treated analysis, the HR for TKR was 4.9 (95% CI 1.1–20.9) for subjects ultimately treated with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy, compared to those treated nonoperatively.ConclusionPain improved considerably in both groups over 60 months. While ITT analysis revealed no statistically significant differences following TKR, greater frequency of TKR in those undergoing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy merits further study.

ObjectiveThe present study was undertaken to evaluate changes in knee magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) findings over the course of 18 months in subjects with osteoarthritic change and meniscal tear treated with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) or nonoperatively with physical therapy (PT).MethodsWe used 18‐month follow‐up data from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research Trial. MRI results were read with reference to the MRI Osteoarthritis Knee Score. We focused on 18‐month change in bone marrow lesions (BMLs), cartilage thickness, cartilage surface area, osteophyte size, effusion‐synovitis, and Hoffa‐synovitis. We used multinomial logistic regression to assess associations between MRI‐based changes in each feature and treatment type.ResultsA total of 351 subjects were randomized, and 225 had both baseline and 18‐month MRI results. In both treatment groups, patients experienced substantial changes in several MRI‐based markers. In 60% of the APM group, versus 33% of the PT group, cartilage surface area damage advanced in ≥2 subregions (adjusted odds ratio 4.2 [95% confidence interval 2.0–9.0). Patients who underwent APM also had greater advancement in scores for osteophytes and effusion‐synovitis. We did not find significant associations between treatment type and change in cartilage thickness, BMLs, or Hoffa‐synovitis.ConclusionThis cohort of patients with meniscal tear and osteoarthritis showed marked advancement in MRI‐based features over 18 months. Patients treated with APM showed more advancement in some features compared to those treated nonoperatively. The clinical relevance of these early findings is unknown and requires further study.

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.

Background: One complication of anteroinferior glenohumeral shoulder dislocation is a critical bone defect that requires surgical repair to prevent recurrent instability. However, controversy exists regarding the surgical management because both open and arthroscopic surgeries have respective advantages and disadvantages. Moreover, it is difficult to determine the patient’s preferred treatment, as factors that influence treatment choice include recurrence rates, morbidity of the procedures, and patient preferences. Hypothesis: Patients who have a higher probability of recurrent instability after arthroscopic surgery will select open surgery whereas patients with a lower probability of recurrent instability after arthroscopic surgery will favor arthroscopy. Study Design: Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A decision tree was constructed to model each hypothetical outcome after open or arthroscopic surgery for glenohumeral instability in patients with bone defects. A literature review was performed to determine the probability of occurrence for each node while utility values for each outcome were obtained via patient-administered surveys given to 50 patients without prior history of shoulder injury or dislocation. Fold-back analysis was then performed to show the optimal treatment strategy. Finally, sensitivity analysis established the thresholds at which open treatment becomes the optimal treatment. Results: The ultimate expected value—the objective evaluation of all potential outcomes after choosing either open or arthroscopic surgery—was found to be greater for arthroscopic surgery than for open surgery (87.17 vs 81.64), indicating it to be the preferred treatment. Results of sensitivity analysis indicated that open surgery becomes the preferred treatment when probability of recurrence after arthroscopic treatment is ≥23.8%, although varying the utility, defined as an aggregate patient preference for a particular outcome, has no effect on the model. When the rate of no complication after open surgery is 97.6%, open surgery becomes the patient’s preferred treatment. Conclusion: Arthroscopic surgery is an acceptable treatment if recurrent instability occurs consistently at ≤23.8%. This has important implications given the technical difficulty of successfully performing arthroscopic fixation to resolve recurrent anteroinferior glenohumeral dislocations associated with critical osseous defects. However, due to a lack of clinical outcomes studies, more research is needed to better predict the optimal operative treatment.