Economopoulos, Kostas J.

Purpose To evaluate the clinical outcomes of patients with increased posterior tibial slope (PTS ≥12°) undergoing primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with concomitant lateral extra‐articular tenodesis (LET) and to determine whether the addition of LET mitigates the elevated risk of graft failure associated with increased tibial slope. Methods This single‐center retrospective cohort study included patients ≥16 years who underwent primary ACLR with LET between 2013 and 2022 with a minimum 2‐year follow‐up. Patients were stratified by PTS ≥12° versus <12° and required preoperative lateral radiographs for slope measurement and high‐risk features (pivot shift ≥2, Beighton ≥4, or return to pivoting sports). Outcomes included graft failure, residual pivot shift, complications, and patient‐reported outcomes (International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm). Achievement of minimal clinically important difference was assessed. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards analysis were performed to identify independent predictors of graft failure. Results A total of 289 patients (mean follow‐up, 38 months) were included: 45 with PTS ≥12° (13.0° ± 1.2°) and 244 with PTS <12° (8.1° ± 1.5°). Graft failure occurred in 24% versus 18%, respectively ( P = .411). On multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis, no independent predictor of graft failure was identified, including PTS (hazard ratio, 1.07 per degree; 95% confidence interval, 0.95‐1.19; P = .260). Complications and contralateral anterior cruciate ligament injury rates were similar between groups. On sex‐disaggregated analysis, similar patterns were observed in both male and female cohorts, with no significant between‐group differences in graft failure, retear, or complication rates by tibial slope. Patient‐reported outcomes were comparable at all time points. At final follow‐up, minimal clinically important difference achievement for International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm was 98% and 100%, respectively, with no between‐group differences. Conclusions In high‐risk patients with a PTS of ≥12°, primary ACLR with LET led to similar clinical results as patients with a PTS of 12 or less. A PTS of ≥12° may be considered an indication for the addition of an LET during primary ACLR. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective comparative case series.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to compare graft failure and clinical outcomes following primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) using quadriceps tendon autograft (QA), with or without a modified Lemaire lateral extra‐articular tenodesis (LET). Methods Patients with ACL deficiency who underwent primary QA ACLR with or without LET and completed at least 2‐year follow‐up were included. Patients with a Beighton score ≥4, a preoperative pivot shift grade ≥2, or an intention to return to cutting and pivoting sports were offered LET. The primary outcome variable assessed was graft failure as defined by graft rupture or grade ≥2 pivot shift at any point postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included return to sport clearance rates, the International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm scores and postoperative complications. Results There were 122 undergoing QA ACLR with LET (QA + LET group) and 152 undergoing isolated QA ACLR (QA group). The QA + LET group had a significantly lower failure rate of 14.8% versus 29.6% in the QA group ( P = .02). In addition, the QA + LET group had a lower residual pivot shift rate compared with the QA group (11.3% vs. 26.3% respectively; P = .01). There was no difference in graft retear rates between the 2 groups ( P = .37). The QA + LET returned to sport significantly faster at 8.8 months compared with 9.7 months in the QA group ( P = .038). Conclusions The addition of LET to QA ACLR was associated with a significantly lower overall graft failure rate and lower percentage of patients with residual pivot shifts after ACLR compared with QA alone at 2‐year follow up. However, there was no difference between the 2 groups with regard to graft retear rates. The addition of an LET to QA ACLR also allowed athletes to return to sports faster compared with QA alone. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Purpose To determine if preoperative femoral or tibial bone marrow edema (BME) is indicative of higher rates of re‐tear and conversion to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) after posterior medial meniscal root tear repair, and, secondarily, whether preoperative BME impacted patient‐reported outcome measures and rates of infection and arthrofibrosis. Methods Patients that underwent posterior medial meniscal root tear repair between 2013 and 2021 with a 2‐year minimum follow‐up were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcome measures included re‐tears and TKA conversion. Secondary outcomes included International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score and Lysholm score, infection, and arthrofibrosis. Cohort‐specific minimally clinically important difference and Patient Acceptable Symptomatic Scale rates were calculated. Two‐tailed t‐tests, Wilcoxon rank‐sum tests, and Fisher's exact tests were used where appropriate. Results The study population consisted of 97 knees (74 without BME [NBME], 23 with BME) with average follow‐up of 38.9 months (24‐68). Preoperatively, the NBME group had higher IKDC scores ( P = .008). Postoperatively, the NBME group had higher IKDC scores at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years (84.5 [6.0] vs 68.5 [11.0]) ( P = .041, <.001, <.001). IKDC minimally clinically important difference rates were not significantly different between groups at all follow‐ups. Patient Acceptable Symptomatic Scale rates were higher for the NBME group at 1‐year and final follow‐up (100.0% vs 60.9%) ( P < .001 for both). Lysholm scores were higher for the NBME group at 1‐year and final follow‐up (84.0 [5.6] vs 74.6 [12.8]) ( P = .019 and .008, respectively). Re‐tear occurred in 17.4% of the BME group and 0% of the NBME group ( P = .003). TKA conversion rates were 21.7% in the BME group and 2.7% in the NBME group ( P = .008). There was no difference in arthrofibrosis or infection rates. Conclusions Preoperative BME in patients undergoing posterior medial meniscal root tear repair is associated with higher rates of recurrent meniscal root tearing and conversion to TKA in addition to lower subjective IKDC and Lysholm scores compared to patients without preoperative BME. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective prognostic case control series.

Purpose To compare clinical outcomes between augmented subchondral drilling (aSCD) and nonsubchondral drilling (NoSCD) techniques, both using a cartilage scaffold, in the treatment of isolated patellar cartilage lesions. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent surgical treatment for isolated patellar cartilage using either an aSCD technique (a subchondral drilling augmented with a particulated cartilage allograft scaffold or a flexible osteochondral allograft scaffold) or a NoSCD technique (a particulated juvenile articular cartilage scaffold or a flexible osteochondral allograft scaffold implanted without performing a subchondral drilling). Patients were included if they had a minimum 2‐year follow‐up and excluded if they underwent concomitant meniscal or ligamentous procedures. While tibial tubercle osteotomy (TTO) was commonly performed, it was not a strict inclusion criterion. All procedures were performed through arthrotomy with a standardized postoperative rehabilitation protocol. Clinical outcomes included International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores, reoperation rates, conversion to total knee arthroplasty, and complications. Results A total of 65 knees were included: 31 in the aSCD group and 34 in the NoSCD group, with a mean follow‐up of 50.4 months (range, 24‐88 months). In the aSCD group, particulated allograft cartilage hydrated with platelet‐rich plasma was used in 80.7% of cases and flexible osteochondral allograft in 19.3%, while the NoSCD group was treated with Cartiform (Arthrex) in 70.6% and particulated juvenile articular cartilage in 29.4% of cases. TTO was performed in 87.0% of aSCD and 91.2% of NoSCD cases. Average defect sizes were 3.7 cm 2 (aSCD) and 4.0 cm 2 (NoSCD). At final follow‐up, the NoSCD group had significantly better outcomes, with higher median IKDC scores (81.0 vs 74.0; P < .001) and median Lysholm scores (83.0 vs 77.0; P < .001). A significantly greater proportion of NoSCD patients exceeded the minimal clinically important difference for IKDC (100% vs 80.6%; P = .024) but not for Lysholm (97.1% vs 93.5%; P = .935) at final follow‐up. In multivariable regression adjusting for scaffold type, TTO, and defect size, aSCD remained a significant independent predictor of lower final IKDC (β = –8.97; P = .001) and Lysholm (β = –12.71; P < .001) scores. The aSCD group had a significantly higher rate of repeat surgery (45.2% vs 14.7%; P = .015). There was no significant difference in conversion to total knee arthroplasty between groups ( P = .432). Conclusions For the treatment of isolated patellar cartilage lesions, a nonsubchondral drilling technique with scaffolding was associated with improved patient‐reported outcomes and fewer complications compared to a subchondral drilling technique with scaffolding, although there was no difference in the rate of conversion to total knee arthroplasty. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Background: Chronic hamstring tears can result in challenging surgical repairs. Allografts may be used to augment the repair; however, there is limited clinical evidence supporting their use. Purposes: To (1) evaluate clinical outcomes of patients who underwent proximal hamstring repair with allograft augmentation or interposition and (2) compare them to matched controls who underwent primary hamstring repair. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 117 patients who underwent proximal hamstring repair were included, consisting of 19 allograft augmentations, 20 allograft interpositions, and 78 primary repairs. Allograft cohorts were propensity-matched with those who underwent primary repair in a 1 to 2 ratio. Clinical outcomes were obtained at the final follow-up. Data were extracted using continuous variables, with normality reported as mean values ± standard deviation, and non-normality reported as median values with interquartile ranges (IQR). Results: The median follow-up of the augmentation cohort was 1.9 [IQR, 0.8-3.9] years, while it was 3.2 [IQR, 1.6-5.1] years ( P = .182) for the primary repair cohort. The mean follow-up for the interposition cohort was 3.5 ± 2.4 years, while it was 4.2 ± 2.5 years for the primary repair cohort ( P = .227). Forty-two percent of the augmentation cohort had undergone previous surgery, compared with 5% of the interposition cohort. The time from injury to surgery for the augmentation and primary repair cohorts was 6.4 and 1.3 months, respectively ( P < .001). For the interposition and primary repair cohorts, the durations were 17.8 and 1 months, respectively ( P < .001). Clinical outcomes, including the Tegner Activity Scale (3 vs 3), pain with activity (47.4% vs 23.7%), and muscle spasms (36.8% vs 26.3%), did not show significant differences between the augmentation and primary repair cohorts. The augmentation cohort had a significantly worse Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) score (64 vs 75; P < .001) and were more likely to experience pain with sitting (52.6% vs 21.1%; P = .034) than the primary repair cohort. There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the interposition and primary repair cohorts (LEFS: 69 vs 75.5, Tegner Activity Scale: 4 vs 4; pain with sitting: 26.3% vs 27.5%; pain with activity: 42.1% vs 30%; muscle spasms: 26.3% vs 30%). Revision rates were similar between cohorts ( P ≥ .255). Conclusion: Proximal hamstring repair for chronic tears with allograft augmentation or interposition is a reproducible procedure that results in satisfactory, yet poorer clinical outcomes compared with patients who underwent primary hamstring repair. These procedures should be considered in symptomatic patients with chronic tears that are not amenable to primary repair.

Objectives: Tobacco use is a known modifiable risk factor for postoperative complications and revision surgery after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Prior studies focus on “tobacco” as a broad categorization of traditional cigarette smoking, smokeless tobacco, and other forms of nicotine use. It is unclear if differences in the type of nicotine used lead to similar adverse outcomes after ACLR. Thus, the purpose of this study was to (1) assess the incidence of postoperative complications among ACLR patients who use smokeless tobacco, and (2) compare these outcomes with those of patients who do not use tobacco and those who smoke cigarettes. Methods: A retrospective cohort study utilizing a large insurance database was conducted. Patients undergoing primary ACLR without concomitant knee procedures with a minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Smokeless tobacco only users, cigarette only users, and non-tobacco users were matched based on demographic variables and comorbidities. Postoperative complications within 90 days of surgery and subsequent knee surgery within 2 years were compared among groups. Multivariable logistic regressions were employed to control for confounding variables. Results: After applying exclusion criteria, there were 241,194 ALCR patients eligible for analysis. Of these, there were 898 (0.37%) patients that used smokeless tobacco only, 22,062 (9.1%) patients that exclusively used cigarettes, and 207,462 (86%) patients that did not use any tobacco products. Compared to non-users, smokeless tobacco users demonstrated increased risk of emergency department (ED) utilization (20.4% vs 8.7%, OR: 6.29; 95% CI: 3.70-10.9, p<0.001), pneumonia (1.2% vs 0.5%, OR: 3.36; 95% CI: 1.41-7.90, p=0.005), and acute kidney injury (AKI) (1.2% vs 0.1%, OR:12.7; 95% CI: 3.77-52.8, p<0.001) within 90 days of surgery. Additionally, smokeless tobacco users had a markedly increased risk of subsequent ACLR (13.5% vs 3.2%, OR: 4.75; 95% CI: 3.60-6.26, p<0.001) and meniscus surgery (12.9% vs 4.9%, OR: 2.89; 95% CI: 2.23-3.73, p<0.001) within 2 years compared to controls. When compared to cigarette smokers, smokeless tobacco users showed increased risk of ED visits (20.6% vs 19.3%, OR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.25-1.90, p<0.001), pneumonia (1.2% vs 0.6%, OR: 3.25; 95% CI: 1.33-7.78, p=0.008), and AKI (1.3% vs 0.3%, OR: 7.63; 95% CI: 2.72-22.5, p<0.001) within 90 days. They also demonstrated a significantly increased risk of subsequent ACLR (13.4% vs 4.1%, OR: 4.81; 95% CI: 3.58-6.47, p<0.001) and meniscus surgery (12.8% vs 5.5%, OR: 2.45; 95% CI: 2.45-4.26, p<0.001) within 2 years when compared to cigarette smokers. Conclusions: Smokeless tobacco use was associated with increased risk of medical complications, ED utilization, and subsequent procedures compared to non-user controls and traditional smokers. These findings highlight the importance of considering specific forms of tobacco use in preoperative screening for patients undergoing ACLR.

Abstract Like all diagnoses and comorbidities, patients with hip pain should be managed with individualized treatment plans. Patients with fibromyalgia undergoing hip arthroscopy are no different. Even if their absolute scores remain lower than those without fibromyalgia, these patients can achieve clinically meaningful improvements in patient‐reported outcomes after treatment of femoroacetabular impingement. As orthopaedic providers, we should be aware of potential bias against patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain and critically evaluate the literature that supports clinically relevant improvement after surgical intervention. Fibromyalgia should not be viewed as a condition that excludes or increases the threshold for hip arthroscopy but rather as a factor requiring nuanced, multidisciplinary perioperative care and realistic goal‐setting.

Background: The number of multiply revised anterior cruciate ligament reconstructions (rrACLRs) performed each year continues to increase. The most reliable graft type and surgical technique in the young, active patient remains to be determined. Purpose: To determine the outcomes of rrACLR using quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft with lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET). Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A retrospective review was performed of all competitive athletes undergoing rrACLR with QT autograft and LET at a single institution with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Patient demographics, physical examination, and radiological findings, and previous surgical details were documented. Patient outcomes were noted, including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores, ability to return to sport and return at the same level of play, retear rate, and other complications. Results: A total of 19 rrACLRs were performed and met inclusion criteria in the 10-year study period. All participants were high school, collegiate, or professional athletes with a mean age of 22 years, and 63.2% were female. The mean follow-up was 42.3 months, and IKDC scores increased from 51.6 preoperatively to 74.7 at the final follow-up ( P < .001). Likewise, the Lysholm score increased significantly from a preoperative value of 53.6 to 76.8 at the final follow-up ( P < .001). Return to play was possible in 52.6% of the patients at a mean of 11.5 months, with 31.6% returning to the same or higher level of play. One (5.3%) patient experienced a recurrent ACL tear, and 2 (10.5%) experienced a contralateral tear. Arthrofibrosis requiring surgical intervention occurred in 26.3% of the athletes. Conclusion: Short- to midterm results demonstrated that competitive athletes who received an rrACLR using a QT autograft with LET had statistically significant improvements in both IKDC and Lysholm scores, with more than half of patients being able to return to sport and nearly a third returning at the same or higher level of play. In the setting of a third ACL reconstruction, quadriceps tendon autograft with LET is a reasonable option even in high-risk patients.

Background: Osteochondral allograft transplant and autograft transplant for femoral head defects have emerged as promising treatments for concomitant cartilage and subchondral bone injuries in young patients. Purpose: To evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of patients who underwent osteochondral allograft or autograft transplant for femoral head defects and identify any risk factors that may lead to conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA). Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: All patients who underwent osteochondral allograft or autograft transplant for femoral head defects across 2 institutions were analyzed. Clinical outcomes were assessed at final follow-up with the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL), Hip Outcome Score–Sport-Specific Subscale (HOS-SSS), and International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12). Complications and reoperations were recorded. Patients were assessed radiographically preoperatively and at final follow-up for osteoarthritis using Tönnis grading. Results: A total of 27 patients were included in this study (19 osteochondral allograft transplant, 8 osteochondral autograft transplant). The mean follow-up for the allograft and autograft cohorts was 2.8 and 9.5 years, respectively. The mean defect size for patients who underwent allograft and autograft transplant was 2.8 × 2.1 cm and 1.6 × 1.0 cm, respectively. The mean mHHS, HOS-ADL, HOS-SSS, and iHOT-12 for the allograft cohort were 86.7, 92.8, 81.4, and 79.0, respectively, and for the autograft cohort were 87.6, 92.7, 83.1, and 82.0, respectively. No significant difference in outcomes was noted for patients who underwent femoral head allograft versus nonorthotopic femoral condyle allograft transplant. For the allograft cohort, 4 patients (21.1%) underwent conversion to THA at a mean of 1.9 years. Of the remaining 15 allograft patients, only 1 patient (6.7%) had radiographic osteoarthritis progression. None of the patients in the autograft cohort underwent conversion to THA. Conclusion: Osteochondral allograft and autograft transplant for femoral head defects demonstrated overall favorable clinical outcomes and rates of conversion to THA. Additionally, nonorthotopic femoral condyle allografts demonstrated similar outcomes to femoral head allografts. Both osteochondral allograft and autograft transplant should be considered for patients with focal femoral head defects.

ABSTRACT The Team Physician Consensus Statement delineates qualifications, duties, and responsibilities of the team physician and provides guidelines to individuals and organizations in selecting team physicians. These delineations and guidelines provide a foundation for best practices in the medical care of athletes and teams. The team physician’s education, training, and experience uniquely qualify them to provide the best medical care for the athlete. This document is not intended as a standard of care and should not be interpreted as such. It is only a guide and, as such, is of a general nature, consistent with the reasonable, objective practice of the healthcare profession. Adequate insurance should be in place to help protect the physician, the athlete, and the sponsoring organization. This document was originally developed as the first in the team physician consensus series, representing an ongoing project-based alliance of the major professional associations concerned about clinical sports medicine issues. The organizations are as follows: American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, American College of Sports Medicine, American Medical Society for Sports Medicine, American Orthopedic Society for Sports Medicine, and the American Osteopathic Academy of Sports Medicine.