Citations

Background: Revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been documented to have inferior outcomes compared with primary ACL reconstruction. The reasons why remain unknown. Purpose: To determine whether surgical factors performed at the time of revision ACL reconstruction can influence a patient’s outcome at 6-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients who underwent revision ACL reconstruction were identified and prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Data collected included baseline patient characteristics, surgical technique and pathology, and a series of validated patient-reported outcome instruments: Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective form, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Marx activity rating score. Patients were followed up for 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of outcome instruments. Regression analysis was used to control for baseline patient characteristics and surgical variables to assess the surgical risk factors for clinical outcomes 6 years after surgery. Results: A total of 1234 patients were enrolled (716 men, 58%; median age, 26 years), and 6-year follow-up was obtained on 79% of patients (980/1234). Using an interference screw for femoral fixation compared with a cross-pin resulted in significantly better outcomes in 6-year IKDC scores (odds ratio [OR], 2.2; 95% CI, 1.2-3.9; P = .008) and KOOS sports/recreation and quality of life subscale scores (OR range, 2.2-2.7; 95% CI, 1.2-4.8; P < .01). Use of an interference screw compared with a cross-pin resulted in a 2.6 times less likely chance of having a subsequent surgery within 6 years. Use of an interference screw for tibial fixation compared with any combination of tibial fixation techniques resulted in significantly improved scores for IKDC (OR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.3-2.9; P = .001); KOOS pain, activities of daily living, and sports/recreation subscales (OR range, 1.5-1.6; 95% CI, 1.0-2.4; P < .05); and WOMAC pain and activities of daily living subscales (OR range, 1.5-1.8; 95% CI, 1.0-2.7; P < .05). Use of a transtibial surgical approach compared with an anteromedial portal approach resulted in significantly improved KOOS pain and quality of life subscale scores at 6 years (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.02-2.2; P≤ .04). Conclusion: There are surgical variables at the time of ACL revision that can modify clinical outcomes at 6 years. Opting for a transtibial surgical approach and choosing an interference screw for femoral and tibial fixation improved patients’ odds of having a significantly better 6-year clinical outcome in this cohort.

Three-dimensional reconstruction of airways has shown increased luminal area in patients with COVID-19 and post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 when compared with healthy controls. These findings suggest the role of large conducting airways in the pathogenesis of post-acute sequelae of COVID 19.

Abstract Objective Limb girdle muscular dystrophies (LGMDs) are a group of genetically heterogeneous autosomal conditions with some degree of phenotypic homogeneity. LGMD is defined as having onset >2 years of age with progressive proximal weakness, elevated serum creatine kinase levels and dystrophic features on muscle biopsy. Advances in massively parallel sequencing have led to a surge in genes linked to LGMD. Methods The ClinGen Muscular Dystrophies and Myopathies gene curation expert panel (MDM GCEP, formerly Limb Girdle Muscular Dystrophy GCEP) convened to evaluate the strength of evidence supporting gene–disease relationships (GDR) using the ClinGen gene–disease clinical validity framework to evaluate 31 genes implicated in LGMD. Results The GDR was exclusively LGMD for 17 genes, whereas an additional 14 genes were related to a broader phenotype encompassing congenital weakness. Four genes ( CAPN3 , COL6A1 , COL6A2 , and COL6A3 ) were split into two separate disease entities, based on each displaying both dominant and recessive inheritance patterns, resulting in curation of 35 GDRs. Of these, 30 (86%) were classified as definitive, 4 (11%) as moderate, and 1 (3%) as limited. Two genes, POMGNT1 and DAG1 , though definitively related to myopathy, currently have insufficient evidence to support a relationship specifically with LGMD. Interpretation The expert‐reviewed assertions on the clinical validity of genes implicated in LGMDs form an invaluable resource for clinicians and molecular geneticists. We encourage the global neuromuscular community to publish case‐level data that help clarify disputed or novel LGMD associations.

Abstract: Paratesticular mesothelioma (malignant mesothelioma arising from the tunica vaginalis of the testis) represents a small proportion of mesothelial neoplasms, and cutaneous involvement by paratesticular mesothelioma is very rare. Cutaneous involvement can manifest as scrotal subcutaneous nodules from regional spread, distant metastasis, or direct extension through surgical scars. Mesothelioma has 3 histopathologic classifications that include epithelioid, biphasic, and sarcomatoid, which is rarely seen in paratesticular mesothelioma. Given the rarity of this condition, cutaneous mesothelioma may be misdiagnosed as histologic mimics, such as metastatic adenocarcinoma or adnexal neoplasms; thus, appropriate immunohistochemical workup and clinical correlation are required to make an accurate diagnosis. In this case, a 75-year-old man with a history of paratesticular mesothelioma, status postorchiectomy, presented with right-sided scrotal swelling, erythema, and subcutaneous nodules. These nodules were identified as local recurrence with cutaneous involvement by paratesticular mesothelioma on histopathologic examination. This case highlights the clinical and histopathologic features of this diagnosis and underscores the importance of dermatopathologists being aware of this condition to ensure accurate diagnosis.

Background: In addition to the morbidity and mortality associated with acute infection, COVID-19 has been associated with persistent symptoms (>30 days), often referred to as Long COVID (LC). LC symptoms often cluster into phenotypes, resembling conditions such as fibromyalgia, postural orthostatic tachycardiac syndrome (POTS), and myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). LC clinics have been established to best address the needs of LC patients and continuity of care. We developed a cross-sectional survey to assess treatment response through our LC Clinic (LCC). Methods: A 25-question survey (1-10 Likert scale) was expert- and content-validated by LCC clinicians, patients, and patient advocates. The survey assessed LC symptoms and the helpfulness of different interventions, including medications and supplements. A total of 852 LCC patients were asked to complete the survey, with 536 (62.9%) responding. Results: The mean time from associated COVID-19 infection to survey completion was 23.2 ± 6.4 months. The mean age of responders was 52.3 ± 14.1 (63% females). Self-reported symptoms were all significantly improved ( P < .001) from the initial visit to the LCC (baseline) to the time of the follow-up survey. However, only 4.5% (24/536) of patients rated all symptoms low (1-2) at the time of the survey, indicating low levels of full recovery in our cohort. The patients rated numerous interventions as being helpful, including low-dose naltrexone (45/77; 58%), vagal nerve stimulation (18/34; 53%), and fisetin (28/44; 64%). Conclusions: Patients report general improvements in symptoms following the initial LCC visit, but complete recovery rates remain low at 23.2 ± 6.4 months.

Background: Over 30% of patients with COVID-19 have persistent symptoms that last beyond 30 days and referred to as Long COVID. Long COVID has been associated with a persistent elevation in peripheral cytokines including interleukin-6, interleukin-1β, and tumor necrosis factor-α. This study reports cytokine profiles of patients in our clinic across SARS-COV-2 variant epochs. Methods: The clinical cytokine panel was analyzed in patients with Long COVID during periods that were stratified according to variant epoch. The 4 variant epochs were defined as: (1) wild-type through alpha, (2) alpha/beta/gamma, (3) delta, and (4) omicron variants. Results: A total of 390 patients had the clinical cytokine panel performed; the median age was 48 years (IQR 38-59) and 62% were female. Distribution by variant was wild-type and alpha, 50% (n = 196); alpha/beta/gamma, 7.9% (n = 31); delta, 18% (n = 72); and omicron, 23% (n = 91). Time to cytokine panel testing was significantly longer for the earlier epochs. Tumor necrosis factor-α ( P < .001) and interleukin 1β ( P < .001) were significantly more elevated in the earlier epochs (median of 558 days in wild-type through Alpha epoch vs 263 days in omicron epoch, P < .001)). Nucleocapsid antibodies were consistently detected across epochs. Discussion: When stratified by variant epoch, patients with early epoch Long COVID had persistently elevated peripheral pro-inflammatory cytokine levels when compared to later epoch Long COVID. Patients with Long COVID have similar clusters of symptoms across epochs, suggesting that the underlying pathology is independent of the peripheral cytokine signature.