Citations

Abstract Purpose The aim of part one of this EU‐US consensus was to combine literature research and expertise to provide recommendations for the usage of rehabilitation (including physical therapy) of patients undergoing surgical treatment for degenerative meniscus lesions or acute meniscus tears (including meniscectomy, repair, or reconstruction). Prevention programmes, non‐operative treatment of acute tears and degenerative lesions, return to sports and patient‐reported outcome measures will be presented in a part II article. Methods This consensus followed the European Society for Sports Traumatology and Arthroscopy (ESSKA)'s ‘formal consensus’ methodology. For this combined ESSKA, American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine and American Academy of Sports Physical Therapy initiative, 67 experts (26 in the steering group and 41 in the rating group) from 14 countries (US and 13 European countries), including orthopaedic surgeons, sports medicine doctors and physiotherapists were involved. Steering group members established guiding questions, searched the literature and proposed statements. Rating group members assessed the statements according to a Likert scale and provided grades of recommendations, reaching a final agreement about rehabilitation of the knee after meniscus surgery. Final documents were then assessed by a peer review group to address the geographical adaptability. Results The overall level of evidence in the literature was low. Of the 19 questions (leading to 29 statements), 1 received a Grade A of recommendation, 2 a Grade B, 9 a Grade C and 17 a Grade D. Nevertheless, the mean median rating of all questions was 8.2/9 (9 being the highest rating on a scale of 1–9). The global mean rating was 8.4 ± 0.2, indicating a high agreement. Rehabilitation depends on the type of lesion, the treatment performed and is the same after medial or lateral meniscus surgery. Rehabilitation after meniscectomy should follow a criterion‐based rehabilitation protocol, based on milestones rather than a time‐based protocol. After meniscus repair and reconstruction, rehabilitation should be progressed according to both time and criterion‐based milestones. Conclusion Rehabilitation after meniscus surgery is a debated topic that may influence surgical outcomes if not optimally performed. This international formal consensus established clear, updated and structured recommendations for both surgeons and physiotherapists treating patients after meniscus surgery. Level of Evidence Level I, consensus.

Abstract The ability of the knee to resist valgus stress is largely a result of the integrity of the superficial medial collateral ligament (MCL) and neighboring supporting structures (i.e., deep MCL, semimembranosus, and posterior oblique ligament). The MCL is known to have a robust healing capacity; consequently, the decision to proceed with operative versus nonoperative management of even grade III MCL tears is controversial. When it comes to operative management of these injuries, the decision to proceed with repair or reconstruction is nuanced because the chronicity and location of the MCL tear (i.e., proximal, midsubstance, or distal) largely determine which technique is appropriate. In distal MCL avulsions, including the so‐called Stener lesion, with good tissue quality, direct MCL repair has shown excellent mid‐term outcomes. Consequently, there is a growing need to understand different techniques to address MCL incompetence. In this article, we present a method for primary MCL repair using a washer post–suture post construct. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Background Overhead athletes are susceptible to shoulder injuries, among which rotator cuff injuries are common and often directly associated with muscle weakness. Therefore, valid and reliable measures of rotator cuff strength at sport specific positions may be a vital part of sports physical therapy practice. Purpose: The current study aimed to determine the inter- and intra-tester reliability of measuring shoulder internal rotation (IR) and external rotation (ER) strength at a novel testing position, 130° of abduction and compared to the 90°/90° position. A secondary aim was to assess concurrent validity between measurements taken with the Humac® Norm™ Isokinetic Dynamometer (IKD) and Microfet® 2 hand-held dynamometer (HHD). Study Design Inter-Rater and Intra-Rater Reliability and Criterion Validity Methods Twenty-five (n=25) healthy participants were recruited for this study. Exclusion criteria included prior shoulder surgery, shoulder injury within the last three months, and contraindications to exercise according to ACSM guidelines. Participants performed maximal isometric shoulder external and internal rotation strength testing at both 90° and 130° of shoulder abduction. On the first day, participants were tested on the IKD at both positions, followed by each tester using the HHD. Participants returned 7-14 days later for repeat testing using the HHD only. ICC values were calculated for each rater, instrument, and testing position. Bland-Altman plots were created to establish limits of agreement. Minimal detectable change values were calculated. Results Inter- and intra-rater reliability for testing isometric strength using a hand-held dynamometer was good to excellent for both shoulder positions with ICC values consistently above 0.8. Concurrent validity between the HHD and IKD was poor to moderate with ICC values ranging from 0.1-0.4. However, Bland-Altman plots demonstrated that the difference in strength measures was within the limits of agreement. Conclusion Shoulder IR and ER strength testing at 130° of abduction shows strong inter-rater and intra-rater reliability for measurement in sport specific positions. Level of Evidence Level 3

Abstract There are multiple underlying etiologies of patellar instability including both osseous and soft‐tissue factors. Obligate flexion dislocation consists of lateral dislocation of the patella, occurring each time the knee flexes. This generally results from a predominantly lateral contracture of the extensor mechanism and can be technically challenging to manage. Quadricepsplasty can be of particular clinical utility for obligate flexion dislocation and constitutes a realignment of the proximal soft‐tissue attachments of the patella. The described technique features isolation of the 4 muscles of the quadriceps and subsequent stepwise lengthening of the vastus lateralis, advancement of the vastus medialis obliquus, and Z‐lengthening of the rectus femoris and vastus intermedius. This technique can be used in isolation or in combination with other procedures, such as medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction, to surgically address patellofemoral maltracking. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Background: While patients may report painful or prominent hardware after tibial tubercle osteotomy (TTO), little is known about the frequency, associated factors, and outcomes after removal of symptomatic hardware. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to investigate the incidence of hardware removal after TTO due to pain or complications, factors associated with hardware removal, and postoperative outcomes after removal. It was hypothesized that clinical outcomes would be similar between patients who underwent TTO without hardware removal and those who underwent TTOs and subsequently hardware removal. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients who underwent TTO at a single institution from 2000 to 2023. Age at the time of the index surgery, sex, race, body mass index, number and size of screws, tibial tubercle–trochlear groove distance, and reason for hardware removal were collected retrospectively. Knee radiographs were reviewed for measurement of soft tissue–hardware distance. Patients were contacted via email to capture final patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). A univariate logistic regression model was used to determine factors associated with hardware removal. Results: A total of 152 patients representing 171 knees were included. Of the overall cohort, 38 knees (22.2%) in 32 patients underwent TTO with subsequent hardware removal. The most common reason for hardware removal was anterior knee pain (79%). Compared with patients aged 11 to 20 years, patients aged 21 to 30 years demonstrated higher odds of undergoing hardware removal (OR, 3.67; 95% CI, 1.51-9.44; P = .009). Compared with a soft tissue–hardware distance of 0 to 4.9 mm, a distance of 10.0 to 14.9 mm demonstrated lower odds of hardware removal (OR, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.07-0.84; P = .027). Visual analog scale scores (0-10 scale) improved by a mean of 3.6 points after hardware removal ( P = .003). In patients undergoing hardware removal for pain, no difference in final PROMs was found compared with patients who underwent TTO without hardware removal. Conclusion: Hardware removal in patients undergoing TTO was mainly attributed to hardware-related pain/irritation. On average, pain scores improved after hardware removal. There was no difference in final PROMs between patients who had their hardware removed due to pain (eg, without any clinically relevant concomitant pathology) and patients who did not require hardware removal. Size and number of screws were not associated with a subsequent hardware removal procedure. The thickness of the soft tissue envelope overlying implanted hardware was inconsistently associated with lower odds of hardware removal.

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is one of the most common orthopaedic procedures and one of the most well studied. Despite extensive research dedicated to ACLR, there is limited understanding of how chronic inflammatory systemic diseases (CIDs) such as rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus affect outcomes. Purpose: To compare the outcomes of ACLR in cohorts of patients with and without CID. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective query of a regional data set was conducted for all patients who underwent ACLR from 1990 to 2021 for traumatic ACL rupture. All patients with CID were identified and propensity matched to non-CID controls. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were identified through retrospective chart review, and patients were contacted for subjective outcomes. Results: A total of 30 patients with ACLR and a diagnosis of CID were identified. These patients were propensity matched to 120 non-CID controls. Baseline demographic and surgical characteristics demonstrated no statistical differences. Follow-up duration was similar between the CID and non-CID groups (mean, 14.6 vs 14.2 years; P = .868). The CID cohort had a higher arthrofibrosis rate (16.7% vs 4.3%; P = .031), higher osteoarthritis rate (33.3% vs 16.7%; P = .041), higher total knee arthroplasty (TKA) rate (16.7% vs 3.3%; P = .016), and earlier time to TKA (14.7 vs 23.5 years; P = .032). Knee range of motion, infection rate, retear rate, time to retear, and time to osteoarthritis were not statistically different between the cohorts. The CID cohort had higher visual analog scale pain scores (mean, 2.00 vs 1.20; P = .043) but slightly higher satisfaction (mean, 3.92 vs 3.39; P = .043). There were no differences in preinjury Tegner, postoperative Tegner, change in Tegner, or IKDC score. In a univariate Cox regression model, the CID cohort had a retear hazard ratio of 1.43 (95% CI, 0.46-4.51; P = .537). Kaplan-Meier survival revealed no significant differences in retear-free survival between the CID and non-CID cohorts at 25 years (85.7% vs 87.3%; P = .53). The CID cohort had a TKA hazard ratio of 3.94 (95% CI, 1.05-14.8; P = .042). Kaplan-Meier survival demonstrated significantly decreased TKA-free survival at 25 years in the CID cohort (64.9% vs 91.2%; P = .029). Conclusion: CID increases the incidence of arthrofibrosis, osteoarthritis, and TKA in those undergoing ACLR. Patients with CID also undergo TKA significantly sooner than non-CID counterparts. Notably, the majority of patient-reported outcome measures are no worse in patients who have a CID diagnosis. Thus, ACLR constructs themselves may not necessarily fare worse in patients with CID. Nonetheless, these patients need to be cautiously counseled on the clinical outlook after their ACLR.

Background: Surgical repair of full thickness biceps tears has demonstrated adequate outcomes in short and mid-term studies. However, data on the long-term outcomes of full thickness distal biceps injuries and their treatment are currently lacking. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to report on patient demographics, injury characteristics, and long-term outcomes for patients with full-thickness distal biceps tears. It was hypothesized that complete distal biceps tears managed operatively would demonstrate robust clinical success at long-term follow-up. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Patients with magnetic resonance imaging–confirmed, complete distal biceps tendon rupture sustained between 1996 and 2016 were identified. Patients were cross-referenced with a regional geographic database. Results: A total of 66 patients (3 female, 63 male) with a median age of 50.8 years (IQR, 41.5-60.4) and a median clinical follow-up of 14.7 years (IQR, 9.6-17.9 years) were included. Patients who sustained a full-thickness distal biceps tendon tear were likely to be in their early 50s, male, right-hand dominant, current/former smokers, and laborers with a history of traumatic injury during an intentional movement. Most of these patients had pain and supination weakness but no loss of range of motion. All included tears were treated operatively. At final follow-up, patients maintained a majority of near-normal range of motion (median total arc of flexion/extension 140° and supination/pronation 80°), excellent elbow flexion strength (91% of patients had full strength), and adequate elbow supination strength (76% of patients had full strength). The overall complication rate was 24%, with 16 out of 66 patients experiencing some type of complication between infection, rerupture, heterotopic ossification, reoperation, and nerve complications. Overall return to work was 98%, and 85% of those who returned to work did so without restrictions. Conclusion: Complete tears of the distal biceps were most common in patients 50 years of age, male sex, right-hand dominant, and current/former smokers. The most common profession was laborer, and injuries were primarily traumatic in nature during intentional activity. Patients managed operatively demonstrated high rates of success at long-term follow-up with respect to elbow function and clinical outcomes.

Background: Value-based decision-making regarding nonoperative management versus early surgical stabilization for first-time anterior shoulder instability (ASI) events remains understudied. Purpose: To perform (1) a systematic review of the current literature and (2) a Markov model–based cost-effectiveness analysis comparing an initial trial of nonoperative management to arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) for first-time ASI. Study Design: Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A Markov chain Monte Carlo probabilistic model was developed to evaluate the outcomes and costs of 1000 simulated patients (mean age, 20 years; range, 12-26 years) with first-time ASI undergoing nonoperative management versus ABR. Utility values, recurrence rates, and transition probabilities were derived from the published literature. Costs were determined based on the typical patient undergoing each treatment strategy at the authors’ institution. Outcome measures included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: The Markov model with Monte Carlo microsimulation demonstrated mean (± standard deviation) 10-year costs for nonoperative management and ABR of $38,649 ± $10,521 and $43,052 ± $9352, respectively. Total QALYs acquired over the 10-year time horizon were 7.67 ± 0.43 and 8.44 ± 0.46 for nonoperative management and ABR, respectively. The ICER comparing ABR with nonoperative management was found to be just $5725/QALY, which falls substantially below the $50,000 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. The mean numbers of recurrences were 2.55 ± 0.31 and 1.17 ± 0.18 for patients initially assigned to the nonoperative and ABR treatment groups, respectively. Of 1000 samples run over 1000 trials, ABR was the optimal strategy in 98.7% of cases, with nonoperative management the optimal strategy in 1.3% of cases. Conclusion: ABR reduces the risk for recurrent dislocations and is more cost-effective despite higher upfront costs when compared with nonoperative management for first-time ASI in the young patient. While all these factors are important to consider in surgical decision-making, ultimate treatment decisions should be made on an individual basis and occur through a shared decision-making process.

Background: Rupture of the pectoralis major is most commonly seen with eccentric contraction mechanisms, and surgical options in the setting of acute tear include direct repair, endocortical buttons, suture anchors, and transosseous tunnel fixation. This technique video will detail repair using a unicortical endobutton fixation construct. Indications: Surgical repair is indicated for acute, complete pectoralis major tears; incomplete tears involving rupture of the sternal head with intact clavicular head; and tears in the young, active, high-demand demographic. Delay in diagnosis increases the risk of tendon retraction and fatty atrophy. Recent literature has shown that acute repair is superior to chronic repair in functional outcome, pain relief, and overall cosmesis. Technique Description: A beach-chair position and a deltopectoral approach are used to identify and mobilize the torn and retracted sternal head of the pectoralis major. A No. 2 SutureTape is then passed through the disrupted sternal head in a Krackow fashion to allow for a 6-strand repair. Two of the suture strands are then shuttled through the endocortical button. A drill is used to create a corticectomy for endobutton placement, which is secured into place by sequentially tightening each limb. Two additional endobuttons are placed in a similar fashion to complete the construct. Results: Outcomes studies regarding patients with pectoralis major tendon ruptures who underwent endocortical button fixation reveal that 83% of patients had good or excellent outcomes in a recent systematic review. Another study showed no significant difference in functional outcomes, return to activity, or complication rate with endocortical button fixation compared with other mechanisms of fixation. Discussion/Conclusion: Unicortical endobutton fixation can provide another fixation strategy for acute pectoralis major tears in young, active high-demand individuals. Patient Consent Disclosure Statement: The author(s) attests that consent has been obtained from any patient(s) appearing in this publication. If the individual may be identifiable, the author(s) has included a statement of release or other written form of approval from the patient(s) with this submission for publication.

Abstract Radial meniscal tears can be challenging to address and require advanced arthroscopic techniques for satisfactory repair. When radial tears occur in older patients, the surgeon often encounters suboptimal tissue integrity that presents its own challenges. Incorporating ripstop sutures in tie‐grip repair constructs for radial tears has been documented in the literature with favorable biomechanical properties. This Technical Note and accompanying video present a reproducible method for incorporating tie‐grip and mobile ripstop stitches to fortify traditional meniscal repair configurations for radial tears. This technique augments the biomechanical strength of repair and may prove useful in poor tissue quality and areas of small focal deficiency, especially in scenarios with repairable but degenerative meniscal tissue. This is particularly relevant considering many repairs fail due to pull‐through of sutures within the meniscal tissue. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.