Samuelsen, Brian T.

Aims Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) reliably improves shoulder pain and function for a variety of indications. However, the safety and efficacy of RSA in elderly patients is largely unknown. The purpose of this study was to report the mortality, morbidity, complications, reoperations, and outcomes of primary RSA in patients aged > 80 years. Patients and Methods Between 2004 and 2013, 242 consecutive primary RSAs were performed in patients aged > 80 years (mean 83.3 years (sd 3.1)). Of these, 53 were lost to follow-up before two years and ten had died within two years of surgery, leaving 179 for analysis of survivorship, pain, motion, and strength at a minimum of two years or until revision surgery. All 242 patients were considered for the analysis of 90-day, one-year, and overall mortality, medical complications (90-day and overall), surgical complications, and reoperations. The indications for surgery included rotator cuff arthropathy, osteoarthritis, fracture, the sequela of trauma, avascular necrosis, and rheumatoid arthritis. A retrospective review of the medical records was performed to collect all variables. Survivorship free of revision surgery was calculated at two and five years. Results One patient (0.4%) died within the first 90 days. A total of 45 patients (19%) were known to have died at the time of the final follow-up, with a median time to death of 67.7 months (interquartile range 40.4 to 94.7) postoperatively. Medical complications occurred in six patients (3%) and surgical complications occurred in 21/179 patients (12%). Survivorship free from revision was 98.9% at two years and 98.3% at five years; survivorship free from loosening was 99.5% at final follow-up. The presence of peripheral vascular disease correlated with a higher complication rate. Conclusion Primary RSA was safe and effective in patients aged > 80 years, with a relatively low rate of medical and surgical complications. Thus, age alone should not be a contraindication to primary RSA in patients aged > 80 years. However, a careful evaluation of comorbidities is required in this age group when considering primary RSA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1520–1525

Background: The training process and practice of orthopaedic surgery is demanding and arduous. Accordingly, grit, self-control, and conscientiousness are desirable qualities in orthopaedic surgeons. Some established orthopaedists have expressed concern that the future generation of surgeons may not possess the same level of grit as their predecessors. The purpose of this study was to evaluate levels of grit among attending orthopaedic surgeons, identify predictors of grit in orthopaedic surgeons, and compare grit scores between attending surgeons and orthopaedic residency applicants. We hypothesized that applicants would demonstrate lower grit and self-control scores but greater conscientiousness scores than attending surgeons. Methods: A total of 2,342 attending orthopaedic surgeons and 895 orthopaedic residency applicants from the 2016-2017 National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) were given surveys that quantified their grit, self-control, and conscientiousness. Demographic and career information also was collected. Results: Assessments were completed by 655 (28%) of 2,342 practicing orthopaedic surgeons and 455 (50.8%) of 895 orthopaedic residency applicants. The residency applicants demonstrated higher mean grit scores (4.12 of 5.0) than the attending orthopaedic surgeons (4.03) (p < 0.01). These average scores placed applicants and attending surgeons at the 70th and 65th percentile, respectively, when compared with the general population. There were no differences in self-control (p = 0.68) or conscientiousness (p = 0.93) between the 2 groups. Attending surgeons with more publications had increased grit (p < 0.01), self-control (p = 0.04), and conscientiousness (p = 0.01) scores. Attending surgeons who had been inducted into the Alpha Omega Alpha honor society as medical students demonstrated greater conscientiousness scores than those who were not members (p = 0.04). Conclusions: Orthopaedic residency applicants were at least as gritty, consistent in their interest, persevering in their efforts, and ambitious as currently practicing orthopaedic surgeons. Although these results may be encouraging and diverge from some preconceived perceptions of “millennials,” it is unclear if they will be predictive of career success in the next generation of orthopaedists.

Purpose: The goal of this study was to evaluate patient and surgical factors predictive of excellent functional and isokinetic test results 6-months following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction in a group of pediatric patients with open physes. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of all patients 14 years of age or younger that underwent ACL reconstruction from 2000 to 2015. An excellent 6-month outcome was defined as greater than 85% in isokinetic strength and greater than 90% in functional tests when compared to the non-operative extremity. We then utilized univariate and multivariate statistical models to identify patient and/or surgical factors associated with excellent 6-month outcomes. Results: Eighty-six patients (46 male, 42 female) with open physes on preoperative radiographs were included in the study, with a mean age of 13.6 (range, 8.4-14.9), body mass index (BMI) of 22.1 (range, 15.6-36.0), Tegner activity score of 8.8 (6.0-9.0). Thirty-four patients (40%) met the criteria for the excellent 6-month group, which left 52 (60%) in the delayed 6-month group. In univariate analysis, no single preoperative factor correlated with excellent 6-month outcome. The two groups were statistically similar in terms of age, BMI, time to surgery, preoperative arc of motion, presence of concomitant meniscal tear, cartilage damage, graft size, use of a nerve block or tourniquet, operative time, and tourniquet time. Use of a nerve block trended towards delayed outcomes (p = 0.051). Conclusion: Children undergoing ACL reconstruction only have a 40% chance of achieving an excellent rehabilitation result at 6 months. We found no statistically significant patient or surgical characteristics that could predict this outcome. Utilizing a nerve block is a factor which will need to be further evaluated. Significance: Studies in the adult population have identified preoperative patient and surgical factors associated with excellent 6-month isokinetic and functional test results. This pediatric cohort did not find similar results as many of these children were young, healthy and fit. However, the variability of the outcome casts doubts on applying adult rehabilitation protocols to children.

Introduction: It is unknown whether functional and isokinetic testing at 6 months following ACL reconstruction in patients with open-physes correlates with longer term outcomes. The purpose of this study was to compare subsequent ACL rupture risk, knee function, and activity level in patients with open-physes who had excellent 6-month testing to those who did not. Methods: Between the years of 2000 and 2015, 86 patients with open-physes underwent ACL reconstruction and had functional and isokinetic testing performed at 6-months post-operatively. Thirty-four (40%) tested in the excellent range in all categories of both functional and isokinetic testing and were labeled the excellent group. The remaining 52 (60%) patients were labeled the delayed testing group. Data regarding patient, injury, and surgical characteristics were retrospectively collected. The rate of second ACL injury as well as clinical outcome scores were collected postoperatively. Results: Graft rupture rate was 23.4% (n = 8) in the excellent group and 15.4% (n = 8) in the delayed group (p = 0.51). In the excellent group, 20.5% (n = 7) had a contralateral ACL tear versus 11.5% (n = 6) in the delayed group (p = 0.40). Five patients in the excellent group and 4 patients in the delayed group sustained both graft failure and contralateral ACL tear. The overall prevalence of second ACL injury was 29% in the excellent group and 23% in the delayed group. The delayed group returned to sport at an average of 8.8 months whereas the excellent group returned at an average of 6.6 months (p < 0.01). At mean follow up of 3.59 years, the excellent group had a higher Tegner activity level (8.9 versus 8.3) than the delayed group (p < 0.02). Conclusion: Pediatric patients with open-physes who had excellent isokinetic strength and functional testing 6-months postoperatively returned to sport sooner than those who did not. There was no statistical difference in either graft failure or contralateral ACL disruption between these groups. However, both groups had unacceptably high rates of second ACL injury (29% for the excellent group and 23% for the delayed group). Significance: Excellent 6 month return of strength and function was not protective of subsequent ACL disruption, the rate of which remains dismal within this pediatric population. Development of more sensitive functional measures for children could help to change these poor outcomes and guide clinicians when to allow return to sport.

Background Adductor canal block (ACB) is an alternative method to femoral nerve block (FNB) for post-operative analgesia for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in pediatric and adolescent patients. Prior studies have suggested that FNB is associated with persistent strength deficits at 6 months after ACLR in this population. Proponents of the ACB consider that this method may result in a decreased incidence of quadriceps strength deficits during post-operative rehabilitation. The purpose of this study was to compare knee strength and function at 6 and 9 months after ACLR in pediatric and adolescent patients who received FNB versus ACB peri-operatively. Methods Patients 18 years or younger who underwent primary ACLR between 2002 and 2017 at a single institution were identified. ACLR was performed with either a patellar tendon autograft or hamstring autograft. A transphyseal ACLR was performed in patients with open physes. All patients participated in a comprehensive rehabilitation program which included isokinetic strength testing and functional testing at 6 and/or 9 months postoperatively. Patients were excluded if they underwent multiligamentous knee reconstruction, concomitant cartilage restoration procedures, did not receive perioperative FNB or ACB, or if they did not complete isokinetic strength and functional testing at 6 or 9 months. The included cohort was separated into FNB group and ACB group for comparison. Isokinetic extension and flexion strength deficits and functional deficits in vertical jump, single hop, and triple hop between the two groups were compared at both time points. A strength deficit of 15% or less and a functional deficit of 10% or less compared to the contralateral side were considered satisfactory. Univariate analysis was performed to assess for differences in patient demographics and surgical variables. A 1:1 matched subgroup analysis between the two groups was performed to account for possible differences in outcomes associated to graft types, concomitant meniscus repair, and BMI. Results Of the 240 patients identified, 85 patients (64 FNB, 21 ACB) with a mean age of 15.9 years (Range: 11-18) met inclusion criteria for comparison at 6 months and 76 patients (40 FNB, 36 ACB) with a mean age of 15.5 years (Range: 12-17) met inclusion criteria for comparison at 9 months. Univariate analysis showed significantly greater deficits at 6 months in the FNB with respect to fast isokinetic flexion strength (7.7% vs. -4.9%; p = .03). There were no differences in slow isokinetic flexion (10.5% vs. 6.8%; p = .79) and fast isokinetic extension (11.9% vs. 13.9%; p = .68) strength deficits between the groups. There were clinically relevant greater deficits in the FNB group with respect to slow isokinetic extension (19.3% vs. 12.0%; p = .24), but this did not reach statistical significance. This clinical difference in satisfactory scores between the groups with respect to slow isokinetic extension was accentuated with the 1:1 matched outcome trial (23.9% vs. 12.1%; p = .20). With respect to function, there were no differences in deficits for vertical jump (8.4% vs. 4.3%; p = .55), single hop (7.4% vs. 9.3%; p = .65), or triple hop (6.0% vs. 7.1%; p = .77) between the two groups. Univariate analysis showed significant greater deficits at 9 months in the FNB with respect to slow isokinetic flexion strength (9.6% vs. 0.4%; p = .01). There were no differences in fast isokinetic flexion (-0.2% vs. 0.7%; p = .87) and fast isokinetic extension (6.0% vs. 2.7%; p = .51) strength deficits between the groups. There were clinically relevant greater deficits in the FNB group with respect to slow isokinetic extension (17.3% vs -14.0%, p = .19), but this did not reach statistical significance. With respect to function, there were no differences in deficits for vertical jump (5.2% vs. 6.5%, p = .85), single hop (7.7% vs. 6.2%; p = .79), or triple hop (1.9% vs. 3.9%; p = .35) between the two groups. Conclusion Because previous studies have shown a significant delay in return of strength with FNB, ACB began to be employed at our center for post-operative pain control following ACLR in pediatric and adolescent patients. This study showed that pediatric and adolescent patients treated with FNB as a method of post-operative analgesia after ACLR had significantly greater deficits in fast isokinetic flexion at 6 months and slow isokinetic flexion at 9 months compared to those who received ACB. These differences may or may not have clear clinical relevance. However, patients treated with FNB showed clinically relevant greater deficits in slow isokinetic extension strength at 6 and 9 months postoperatively compared to those who received ACB if 85% strength return is used as criteria to return to sport. Pediatric and adolescent patients could benefit from undergoing perioperative analgesia with ACB instead of FNB, but comparison between these two methods of regional anesthesia may require a prospective trial. Level of Evidence Retrospective cohort study, Level IV [Table: see text][Table: see text]

Background: There are limited data comparing the outcomes of all-inside versus inside-out meniscal repair techniques. Purpose: To assess failure rates and clinical outcomes after the surgical repair of bucket-handle meniscal tears utilizing either an all-inside or inside-out technique. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients with bucket-handle meniscal tears undergoing all-inside or inside-out repair at a single institution between 2003 and 2013 were analyzed. A total of 28 mensici repaired utilizing second-generation all-inside suturing devices and 42 menisci repaired using an inside-out technique were eligible for inclusion. Rigorous propensity matching was performed on the basis of age, sex, tear laterality, rim width, and concomitant anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), resulting in a total of 40 patients equally distributed between the 2 repair techniques for comparison. Retear-free survival as well as preoperative and postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Tegner scores and physical examination findings were subsequently analyzed. Results: Twenty patients who underwent all-inside repair (14 male; mean age, 23.7 ± 6.7 years) were successfully propensity matched to 20 patients who underwent inside-out meniscal repair (15 male; mean age, 22.5 ± 7.6 years), with a mean retear-free follow-up of 4.4 years (range, 2.5-7.4 years). Four (20%) all-inside repairs and 4 (20%) inside-out repairs failed over the course of follow-up ( P > .999), with a mean time to failure of 2.7 years (range, 1.3-4.4 years) and 5.0 years (range, 0.8-7.5 years), respectively ( P = .25). Increasing patient age trended toward a decreased clinical retear rate, independent of the repair technique (hazard ratio, 0.86; P = .056). There were no significant differences in the Tegner scores, IKDC scores, or range of motion between the groups as a whole or when subcategorizing by age, sex, body mass index, tear complexity, rim width, isolated versus concomitant ACLR, or medial- versus lateral-sided repair. There were no complications in the all-inside group, while there was a 10% rate of minor complications in the inside-out group ( P = .49). Conclusion: Overall, satisfactory clinical outcomes are achievable at short-term to midterm follow-up with both inside-out and all-inside repair techniques of bucket-handle meniscal tears in rigorously matched patients with similar meniscal tear patterns.