Cole, Brian J.

Purpose To establish consensus statements on platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) for the treatment of musculoskeletal pathologies. Methods A consensus process on the treatment of PRP using a modified Delphi technique was conducted. Thirty‐five orthopaedic surgeons and sports medicine physicians participated in these consensus statements on PRP. The participants were composed of representatives of the Biologic Association, representing 9 international orthopaedic and musculoskeletal professional societies invited due to their active interest in the study of orthobiologics. Consensus was defined as achieving 80% to 89% agreement, strong consensus was defined as 90% to 99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. Results There was consensus on 62% of statements about PRP. Conclusions (1) PRP should be classified based on platelet count, leukocyte count, red blood count, activation method, and pure‐plasma versus fibrin matrix; (2) PRP characteristics for reporting in research studies are platelet count, leukocyte count, neutrophil count, red blood cell count, total volume, the volume of injection, delivery method, and the number of injections; (3) the prognostic factors for those undergoing PRP injections are age, body mass index, severity/grade of pathology, chronicity of pathology, prior injections and response, primary diagnosis (primary vs postsurgery vs post‐trauma vs psoriatic), comorbidities, and smoking; (4) regarding age and body mass index, there is no minimum or maximum, but clinical judgment should be used at extremes of either; (5) the ideal dose of PRP is undetermined; and (6) the minimal volume required is unclear and may depend on the pathology. Level of Evidence Level V, expert opinion.

Background: Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) has been shown to provide clinical benefits in patients with symptomatic meniscal deficiency in the short term and midterm. There is, however, a paucity of data regarding long-term outcomes after MAT using fresh-frozen allografts and the bridge-in-slot technique. Purpose: To report clinical outcomes and revision rates after primary MAT with fresh-frozen allografts and the bridge-in-slot technique in a large case series of patients at a 10-year minimum follow-up. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed on patients undergoing primary MAT between 2001 and 2012. Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales were collected preoperatively and at 1-, 2-, 5-, and minimum 10-year follow-ups. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to identify variables associated with reoperation and failure, defined as revision MAT or conversion to arthroplasty. Reoperation was defined as a subsequent surgical intervention on the transplanted meniscus, including partial or total meniscectomy, meniscal repair, or failure as defined in the previous sentence. Results: A total of 174 patients undergoing MAT met the inclusion criteria and were followed for a mean of 12.7 ± 2.7 years (range, 10.0-21.0 years). The mean age at surgery was 28.3 ± 10.1 years. The patients were predominantly female (n = 92; 53%), and medial MAT was the most commonly performed procedure (n = 91; 52%). Concomitant procedures were performed in 115 patients (66%), with the most common procedure being osteochondral allograft transplantation (n = 59; 34%). Patients demonstrated statistically significant postoperative improvements at all time points for all patient-reported outcome measures ( P ≤ .0001). A total of 65 patients (37%) underwent a meniscal reoperation at a mean time of 6.6 ± 5.5 years (range, 0.3-16.7 years) postoperatively. A total of 40 patients (23%) met the criteria for failure at a mean time of 7.3 ± 5.0 years (range, 1.0-17.4 years) after MAT, with 22 of these patients having undergone a previous meniscal reoperation. At the final follow-up, 13 patients (7%) had undergone revision MAT and 27 (15%) had converted to arthroplasty. The MAT survival rates free of meniscal reoperation and failure were 73% and 85% at 10 years and 60% and 72% at 15 years, respectively. At the time of the final follow-up, 86% of patients reported that they were satisfied with their overall postoperative condition. Conclusion: Primary MAT demonstrates efficacy and durability with high rates of patient satisfaction at a minimum 10-year follow-up. Patients should be counseled that although reoperation rates may approach 40% at 15 years, rates of overall revision MAT and conversion to arthroplasty remain low at long-term follow-up.

Background: Studies suggest that similar clinical results are achieved via arthroscopic and open biceps tenodesis (BT) techniques. Purpose: To quantify the postoperative migration of the BT construct between arthroscopic suprapectoral BT (ASPBT) and open subpectoral BT (OSPBT) techniques via interference screw (IS) or single-suture suture anchor (SSSA) fixation using radiostereometric analysis. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Distal migration of the biceps tendon after OSPBT with a polyetheretherketone IS, OSPBT with 1 SSSA, ASPBT with polyetheretherketone IS, and ASPBT with 2 SSSAs was measured prospectively. Patients with symptomatic biceps tendinopathy and preoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including Constant-Murley subjective, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, or Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System–Upper Extremity scores were included. A tantalum bead was sutured on the proximal end of the long head of the biceps tendon before fixation of tendon tissue. Anteroposterior radiographs were performed immediately postoperatively, at 1 week, and at 3 months. Bead migration was measured, and preoperative PROMs were compared with those at latest follow-up. Results: Of 115 patients, 94 (82%) were available for final follow-up. IS fixation yielded the least tendon migration with no difference between the open and arthroscopic approaches (4.31 vs 5.04 mm; P = .70). Fixation with 1 suture anchor demonstrated significantly greater migration than that achieved with an IS at both 1 week (6.47 vs 0.1 mm, 6.47 vs 1.75 mm, P < .001;) and 3 months (14.76 vs 4.31 mm, 14.76 vs 5.04 mm, P < .001) postoperatively. Two-suture anchor fixation yielded significantly greater migration than IS fixation at 1 week (7.02 vs 0.1 mm, P < .001; 7.02 vs 1.75 mm, P = .003) but not 3 months postoperatively (8.06 vs 4.31 mm, P = .10; 8.06 vs 5.04 mm, P = .07). Four patients with suture anchor fixation (3 patients in the OSPBT 1 SSSA group, 9.4%, and 1 patient in the ASPBT 2 SSSAs group, 3.8%) developed a Popeye deformity, whereas no Popeye deformities occurred in the IS groups. Mean 3-month bead migration in patients with and without a Popeye deformity was 60.8 and 11.2 mm, respectively ( P < .0001). PROMs did not differ among groups at final follow-up. Conclusion: Interference screw fixation yielded the least tendon migration whether achieved arthroscopically or open. The available data indicated that fixation with 1 SSSA but not 2 SSSAs resulted in significantly greater migration than that achieved with an IS. Despite variations in tendon migration, PROMs were similar among all groups. When SSSAs are used, tendon migration may be minimized by using ≥2 anchors.

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.

➢ Pathologic meniscal extrusion can compromise meniscal function, leading to increased contact forces in the tibiofemoral compartment and the acceleration of osteoarthritic changes. ➢ Extrusion is typically defined as radial displacement of ≥3 mm outside the tibial border and is best diagnosed via magnetic resonance imaging, although ultrasonography has also demonstrated encouraging diagnostic utility. ➢ Surgical management of meniscal extrusion is based on the underlying etiology, the patient’s symptom profile, the preexisting health of the articular surface, and the risk of future chondral injury and osteoarthritis.

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: Clinically significant outcomes (CSOs) connect patient-reported outcome measures data to patient-perceived benefit. Although investigators have established threshold values for various CSOs, the timeline to achieve these outcomes after isolated biceps tenodesis (BT) has yet to be defined. Purpose: To define the time-dependent nature of minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) achievement after isolated BT. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES), the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and the Constant-Murley score (CMS) were administered preoperatively and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively to patients undergoing isolated BT between 2014 and 2018 at our institution. Cumulative probabilities for achieving MCID, SCB, and PASS were calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Weibull parametric regression evaluated the hazard ratios (HRs) of achieving earlier MCID, SCB, and PASS. Results: Overall cohort (N = 190) achievement rates ranged between 77.8% and 83.2% for MCID, between 42.2% and 80.2% for SCB, and between 59.7% and 62.9% for PASS. Median achievement time was 5.3 to 6.1 months for MCID, 5.9 to 6.4 months for SCB, and 6.07 to 6.1 months for PASS. Multivariate Weibull parametric regression identified older age, male sex, higher body mass index, preoperative thyroid disease, smoking history, and higher preoperative CMS as predictors of delayed CSO achievement (HR, 1.01-6.41), whereas normal tendon on arthroscopy, defined as absence of tenosynovitis or tendon tear on arthroscopy, predicted earlier CSO achievement (HR, 0.19-0.46). Location of tenodesis and worker compensation status did not significantly predict the time to achieve CSOs on multivariate analysis. Conclusion: After isolated BT, patients can expect to attain CSO by 13 months postoperatively, with most patients achieving this between 5 and 8 months. Patients tend to take longer to achieve PASS than MCID and SCB.

Abstract Orthoregeneration is defined as a solution for orthopaedic conditions that harnesses the benefits of biology to improve healing, reduce pain, improve function, and optimally, provide an environment for tissue regeneration. Options include drugs, surgical intervention, scaffolds, biologics as a product of cells, and physical and electro‐magnetic stimuli. The goal of regenerative medicine is to enhance the healing of tissue after musculoskeletal injuries as both isolated treatment and adjunct to surgical management, using novel therapies to improve recovery and outcomes. Various orthopaedic biologics (orthobiologics) have been investigated for the treatment of pathology involving the shoulder including the rotator cuff tendons, glenohumeral articular cartilage, glenoid labrum, the joint capsule, and bone. Promising and established treatment modalities include hyaluronic acid (HA); platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) and platelet rich concentrates (PRC); bone marrow aspirate (BMA) comprising mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs alternatively termed medicinal signaling cells and frequently, misleadingly labelled “mesenchymal stem cells”); MSC harvested from adipose, umbilical, or placental sources; factors including vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGF), basic fibroblast growth factor (FGF), platelet‐derived growth factor (PDGF), transforming growth factor‐beta (TGFβ), bone morphogenic protein (BMP), and matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs); prolotherapy; pulsed electromagnetic field therapy; microfracture and other marrow‐stimulation techniques; biologic resurfacing using acellular dermal allografts, allograft Achilles tendons, allograft lateral menisci, fascia lata autografts, and porcine xenografts; osteochondral autograft or allograft); and autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI). Studies involving hyaluronic acid, platelet rich plasma, and medicinal signaling cells of various origin tissues have shown mixed results to‐date as isolated treatments and as surgical adjuncts. Despite varied results thus far, there is great potential for improved efficacy with refinement of current techniques and translation of burgeoning preclinical work. Level of Evidence Level V, expert opinion.

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.

ObjectivePatients with meniscal tears reporting meniscal symptoms such as catching or locking have traditionally undergone arthroscopy. The present study was undertaken to investigate whether patients with meniscal tears who report meniscal symptoms have greater improvement with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) than physical therapy (PT).MethodsWe used data from the Meniscal Tear in Osteoarthritis Research (MeTeOR) trial, which randomized participants with knee osteoarthritis (OA) and meniscal tear to APM or PT. The frequency of each meniscal symptom (clicking, catching, popping, intermittent locking, giving way, swelling) was measured at baseline and 6 months. We used linear regression models to determine whether the difference in improvement in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) pain score at 6 months between patients treated with APM versus PT was modified by the presence of each meniscal symptom. We also determined the percentage of participants with resolution of meniscal symptoms by treatment group.ResultsWe included 287 participants. The presence (versus absence) of any of the meniscal symptoms did not modify the improvement in KOOS pain score between APM versus PT by >0.5 SD (all P interaction >0.05). APM led to greater resolution of intermittent locking and clicking than PT (locking 70% versus 46%, clicking 41% versus 25%). No difference in resolution of the other meniscal symptoms was observed.ConclusionMeniscal symptoms were not associated with improved pain relief. Although symptoms of clicking and intermittent locking had a greater reduction in the APM group, the presence of meniscal symptoms in isolation should not inform clinical decisions surrounding APM versus PT in patients with meniscal tear and knee OA.