Chahla, Jorge

➢ 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: Increased attention has been directed toward the acetabular morphology in the management of patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). Whether acetabular version influences patient-reported outcomes remains poorly understood. Purpose: To use computed tomography (CT)–based 3-dimensional (3D) bone models to (1) quantify acetabular version in patients with FAIS, (2) compare acetabular version on 3D bone models with current plain radiographic parameters, and (3) explore the relationship between the magnitude of acetabular version and minimum 2-year clinical outcomes after hip arthroscopy. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Three-dimensional models of the pelvis and femur were generated by semiautomated segmentation and aligned to a standard coordinate system. Acetabular version was quantified at the 3-o’clock position, and 3 groups were identified: acetabular retroversion (AR; <15°), normal acetabular version (NV; 15°-25°), and acetabular anteversion (AA; >25°). Patient demographic characteristics, plain radiographic parameters, and clinical outcomes were analyzed, including the Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living, Hip Outcome Score–Sports Subscale, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and satisfaction. Results: Preoperative CT scans were acquired in 105 consecutive patients before hip arthroscopy for FAIS, of which 84 (80.0%) completed minimum 2-year patient-reported outcomes. The mean ± SD age and body mass index of patients were 33.9 ± 12.6 years and 26.0 ± 5.4, respectively; 70.2% were female. The number of patients and the mean central acetabular version within each group were as follows: AR (n = 12; 11.3°± 2.7°), NV (n = 56; 20.7°± 2.9°), and AA (n = 16; 28.5°± 2.7°). Posterior wall sign was the only plain radiographic parameter that was significantly more observed in the AR group than in the other 2 groups. At minimum 2-year follow-up, significant between-group differences in the mHHS, iHOT-12, and VAS for pain and satisfaction ( P < .05) were appreciated, while post hoc analysis with Bonferroni correction ( P < .0167) found lower scores on the mHHS, iHOT-12, and VAS for pain and satisfaction in patients with AR as compared with NV. Lower scores on the VAS for satisfaction were reported in patients with AR when compared with AA ( P = .006) but not on the mHHS ( P = .023), iHOT-12 ( P = .032), or VAS for pain ( P = .072). Conclusion: Traditional plain radiographic indices to describe AR, including crossover sign and ischial spine sign, were not reliable in defining AR according to 3D models derived from CT scans. Only the posterior wall sign was observed in a higher proportion in the AR group. Patients with AR demonstrated inferior outcomes when compared with patients with NV and AA after hip arthroscopy for FAIS.

Background There is increased emphasis on properly allocating healthcare resources to optimize value within orthopedic surgery. Establishing time to maximal medical improvement (MMI) can inform clinical decision-making and practice guidelines. Purpose We sought (1) to evaluate the time to MMI as predicted by commonly used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for evaluation of shoulder stabilization and (2) to evaluate typical time to return to sports and employment following surgery. Methods A systematic review of the Medline database was conducted to identify outcome studies reporting sequential follow-up at multiple time points, up to a minimum of 2 years after shoulder stabilization surgery. The included studies examined the outcomes of arthroscopic or open surgical techniques on anterior instability. Clinically significant improvements were evaluated utilizing the minimal clinically important difference specific to each PROM. Secondary outcomes included range of motion, return to sport/work, and recurrent instability. Results Ten studies comprising 590 surgically managed cases of anterior shoulder instability were included (78% arthroscopic, 22% open). Clinically significant improvements in PROMs were achieved up to 1 year post-operatively for Rowe, Western Ontario Instability Index (WOSI), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and Simple Shoulder Test (SST) scores. For the three most utilized tools (Rowe, WOSI, ASES), the majority of improvement occurred in the first 6 post-operative months. Clinically significant improvements in Constant Score and Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (OSIS) were achieved up to 6 months and 2 years after surgery, respectively. No clinically significant improvements were achieved on the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) tool. Conclusion Maximal medical improvement as determined by commonly utilized PROMs occurs by 1 year after operative management of anterior shoulder instability. The DASH tool does not appear to demonstrate a reliable time frame for clinically significant outcome improvement.

Purpose (1) To determine the area of posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) insertion sites on the lateral wall of the medial femoral condyle (LWMFC) that demonstrates the least amount of length change through full range of motion (ROM) and (2) to identify a range of flexion that would be favorable for graft tensioning for single‐bundle (SB) and double‐bundle (DB) PCL reconstruction. Methods Six fresh‐frozen cadaveric knees were obtained. Three‐dimensional computed tomography point‐cloud models were obtained from 0° to 135°. A point grid was placed on the LWMFC and the tibial PCL facet. Intra‐articular length was calculated for each point on the femur to the tibia at all flexion angles and grouped to represent areas for bone tunnels of SB and DB PCLR. Normalized length changes were evaluated. Results Femoral tunnel location and angle of graft fixation were significant contributors to mean, minimum, and maximum normalized length of the PCL (all p < .001). Tibial tunnel location was not significant in any case (all p < .22). A femoral tunnel in the location of the posteromedial bundle of the PCL resulted in the least length change at all tibial positions (maximum change 13%). Fixation of the anterolateral bundle in extension or at 30° flexion resulted in significant overconstraint of the PCL graft. The femoral tunnel location for a SB PCLR resulted in significant laxity at lower ranges of flexion. Conclusion PCL length was significantly dependent on femoral tunnel position and angle of fixation, whereas tibial tunnel position did not significantly contribute to observed differences. All PCL grafts demonstrated anisometry, with the anterolateral bundle being more anisometric than the posteromedial bundle. For DB PCLR, the posteromedial bundle demonstrated the highest degree of isometry throughout ROM, although no area of the LWMFC was truly isometric. The anterolateral bundle should be fixed at 90° to avoid overconstraint, and SB PCLR demonstrated significant laxity at lower ranges of flexion. Clinical Relevance Surgeons can apply the results of this investigation to surgical planning in PCLR to optimize isometry, which may ultimately reduce graft strain and the risk of graft failure. Additionally, DB PCLR demonstrated superiority compared with SB PCLR regarding graft isometry, as significant laxity was encountered at lower ranges of flexion in SB PCLRs. Fixation of the ALB at 90° flexion should be performed to avoid overconstraint in knee extension.

Background: The lack of a standardized system for describing cell therapies acts as a barrier to advancement in clinical and basic research and practice. The aim of this study was to establish an international expert consensus on strategies to improve standardization and transparency when describing cell therapies. The secondary aim was to develop a consensus among experts on the contents of a standardized tool for describing cell therapies. Methods: The need for expert consensus on strategies to improve cell therapy communication was confirmed at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons/National Institutes of Health Optimizing Clinical Use of Biologics Symposium in 2018. A working group of 6 experts convened an international consensus process involving clinicians and basic scientists using validated Delphi methodology. This iterative process was used to define statements on communication of cell therapies and develop a standardized tool for describing cell therapies. Results: Thirty-four experts completed 3 rounds survey with use of the Delphi process. After 3 rounds, 27 statements relating to existing nomenclature, solutions to improve communication, ideal characteristics of a framework, mandatory elements of a new framework, and future work to facilitate application reached consensus with >80% agreement and <5% disagreement. Consensus was reached on the contents of a tool for improving standardization and transparency when describing cell therapies. This tool, dubbed “DOSES,” is based on the reporting of 5 core items: donor (i.e., autologous, allogeneic, xenogeneic), origin of tissue, separation from other cell types/preparation method, exhibited cell characteristics associated with behavior, and the site of delivery. Conclusions: This study has established expert consensus on the communication of cell therapies. The DOSES tool has been developed to improve standardization and transparency in describing cell therapies. Clinical Relevance: The DOSES tool for describing cell therapies can be utilized by researchers, clinicians, regulators, and industry professionals to improve standardization and transparency when describing cell therapies. The use of this tool may allow clinicians and patients to better understand the characteristics of current and future cell preparations.

Background: Medial meniscus root tears are a common knee injury and can lead to accelerated osteoarthritis, which might ultimately result in a total knee replacement. Purpose: To compare meniscus repair, meniscectomy, and nonoperative treatment approaches among middle-aged patients in terms of osteoarthritis development, total knee replacement rates (clinical effectiveness), and cost-effectiveness. Study Design: Meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted. Progression to osteoarthritis was pooled and meta-analyzed. A Markov model projected strategy-specific costs and disutilities in a cohort of 55-year-old patients presenting with a meniscus root tear without osteoarthritis at baseline. Failure rates of repair and meniscectomy procedures and disutilities associated with osteoarthritis, total knee replacement, and revision total knee replacement were accounted for. Utilities, costs, and event rates were based on literature and public databases. Analyses considered a time frame between 5 years and lifetime and explored the effects of parameter uncertainty. Results: Over 10 years, meniscus repair, meniscectomy, and nonoperative treatment led to 53.0%, 99.3%, and 95.1% rates of osteoarthritis and 33.5%, 51.5%, and 45.5% rates of total knee replacement, respectively. Meta-analysis confirmed lower osteoarthritis and total knee replacement rates for meniscus repair versus meniscectomy and nonoperative treatment. Discounted 10-year costs were $22,590 for meniscus repair, as opposed to $31,528 and $25,006 for meniscectomy and nonoperative treatment, respectively; projected quality-adjusted life years were 6.892, 6.533, and 6.693, respectively, yielding meniscus repair to be an economically dominant strategy. Repair was either cost-effective or dominant when compared with meniscectomy and nonoperative treatment across a broad range of assumptions starting from 5 years after surgery. Conclusion: Repair of medial meniscus root tears, as compared with total meniscectomy and nonsurgical treatment, leads to less osteoarthritis and is a cost-saving intervention. While small confirmatory randomized clinical head-to-head trials are warranted, the presented evidence seems to point relatively clearly toward adopting meniscus repair as the preferred initial intervention for medial meniscus root tears.