Krych, Aaron J.

AbstractCartilage defects in the knee are common resulting in significant pain and morbidity over time. These defects can arise in isolation or concurrently with other associated injuries to the knee. The treatment of small (< 2–3 cm2) cartilage deficiencies has changed as our basic science knowledge of tissue healing has improved. Advancements have led to the development of new and more effective treatment modalities. It is important to address any associated knee injuries and limb malalignment. Surgical options are considered when nonoperative treatment fails. The specific procedure depends on individual patient characteristics, lesion size, and location. Debridement/chondroplasty, microfracture, marrow stimulation plus techniques, fixation of unstable osteochondral fragments, osteochondral autograft transfer, and osteochondral allograft transplantation, all have roles in the treatment of small cartilage defects.

AbstractPurposeThere is limited data comparing the outcomes of knee arthroplasty for arthritis secondary to meniscus root tear versus primary osteoarthritis. The aim of this 2:1 matched case control series was to compare outcomes in patients who underwent arthroplasty for arthritis following a meniscus root tear (root tear cohort—“RTC”) with a control group of patients with primary osteoarthritis (primary osteoarthritis—“controls”). The authors hypothesized that the meniscus root tear patients would have similar clinical outcomes, return to activity, complication and reoperation rates as their matched controls.MethodsA consecutive series of patients who had a clinically and radiographically confirmed meniscus root tear between 2002 and 2017 at a mean 4.8 year follow‐up that developed secondary arthritis were matched 2:1 by laterality, surgery, age at surgery, date of surgery, sex, and surgeon to a control group of patients with primary osteoarthritis, without a root tear, who underwent arthroplasty. No patients were lost to follow‐up. Patient demographics, Kellgren–Lawrence grades at the time of surgery, pre‐ and post‐operative Knee Society Score pain and function scores, Tegner score, complications, and survival free of reoperation were analyzed between groups.ResultsA total of 225 subjects were identified, including 75 root tear cohort patients (13 UKA, 62 TKA) and 150 control patients. The root tear cohort had significantly lower Kellgren–Lawrence grades than the control group at the time of arthroplasty (p ≤ 0.001), but similar baseline pre‐operative Knee Society Score pain, Knee Society Score function, and Tegner activity scale score. Post‐operatively, Knee Society Score pain scores were comparable, and root tear cohort Knee Society Score function scores statistically significantly improved (p ≤ 0.007). Complication rates and survival free of reoperation at final follow‐up were not statistically significantly different between groups.ConclusionPatients treated with arthroplasty for secondary arthritis after a meniscus root tear demonstrated less severe radiographic arthritis, but similar pre‐operative pain levels compared to matched controls with primary osteoarthritis. The root tear cohort patients demonstrated improved outcomes with respect to function, and similar outcomes with respect to pain, activity level, complication rates, and reoperation rates. The authors conclude that arthroplasty can be a reliable option for selected patients with an irreparable root tear and ongoing pain and dysfunction refractory to non‐operative management, even in the setting of less advanced osteoarthritis on X‐ray.Level of evidenceIII.

AbstractPurposeThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of preoperative patella alta on clinical outcomes, survivorship, and complication and reoperation rates on patellofemoral arthroplasty (PFA).MethodsAll patients who underwent PFA for isolated patellofemoral arthritis by a single surgeon at our institution were identified. Preoperative radiographs were measured by two independent observers for patellar height using the Caton Deschamps (CD), Insall‐Salvati (IS), and Blackburne‐Peele (BP) methods. Patients were classified as either “patella alta” or “non‐patella alta” for all three measurement methods. Clinical scores including KSS Pain, KSS Function, and Tegner Activity Scores were collected pre‐ and post‐operatively. Failure was defined as conversion to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Clinical outcomes and survivorship were compared between patients with “patella alta” and “non‐patella alta” height measurements.ResultsThere were 119 patients with 153 knees (86% female) included in the study with a mean age of 55.8 years. Outcome scores improved from pre‐operative to post‐operative for both patella alta and non‐patella alta patients for Tegner, KSS pain and KSS function scores. The mean change in Tegner scores for patella alta and non‐patella alta patients were not significantly different for CD (p = 0.24), IS (p = 0.25) or BP measurements (p = 0.39). The mean change in KSS pain scores between groups were not significantly different for CD (p = 0.33) or IS measurements (p = 0.22), but was improved more significantly in patella alta patients vs non‐patella alta patients (21.2 and 14.4; p = 0.02) for BP measurement. The mean change in KSS function scores between groups was not significantly different for CD (p = 0.61) IS (p = 0.90) or BP measurements (p = 0.79). The overall survivorship from conversion to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) was 94.1% at a mean follow‐up time of 5.0 (SD 2.6) years. There were no significant differences in survivorship from TKA between patella alta and non‐patella alta groups (CD: p = 0.72, IS: p = 0.63, BP: p = 0.66).ConclusionsThis study suggests that there are no significant differences in clinical outcome scores or survivorship from TKA between patella alta and non‐patella alta patients who underwent onlay design PFA. Both patella alta and non‐patella alta patients demonstrated excellent improvement in outcome scores from pre‐operative to post‐operative.Level of evidenceIV.

Background: Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is a common cause of hip pain and a known risk factor for hip osteoarthritis (OA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) at a young age. Unfortunately, little is known about the specific factors associated with an increased risk of OA. Purpose: To (1) report the overall rate of symptomatic hip OA and/or THA in patients with FAI without surgical intervention and (2) identify radiographic features and patient characteristics associated with hip OA. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A geographic database was used to identify all patients with hip pain and radiographs between 2000 and 2016. Chart review was performed to identify patients with FAI. Patient medical records were reviewed to obtain demographic information, clinical history, physical examination findings, imaging details, and treatment details. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine the rate of hip OA. Univariate and multivariate proportional hazard regression models were performed to determine risk factors for OA. Results: The study included 952 patients (649 female; 303 male; 1104 total hips) with FAI. The majority of hips had mixed type (n = 785; 71.1%), 211 (19.1%) had pincer type, and 108 (9.8%) had cam type. Mean age at time of presentation was 27.6 ± 8.7 years. Mean follow-up time was 24.7 ± 12.5 years. The rate of OA was 13.5%. THA was performed in 4% of patients. Male sex, body mass index (BMI) greater than 29, and increased age were risk factors for OA (male sex: hazard ratio [HR], 2.28; P < .01; BMI >29: HR, 2.11; P < .01; per year of increased age: HR, 1.11; P < .01.). Smoking and diabetes mellitus were not significant risk factors. No radiographic morphological features were found to be significant risk factors for OA. Conclusion: At mean follow-up of 24.7 years, 14% of hips had symptomatic OA and 4% underwent THA. BMI greater than 29, male sex, and increased age at the time of presentation with hip pain were risk factors for hip OA. The cohort consisted of a large percentage of mixed-type FAI morphologies, and no specific radiographic risk factors for OA were identified.

Objectives: There remains a paucity of data describing the efficacy of non-operative treatment following an index anterior instability event. The purpose of this study was to describe the long-term outcomes of non-operative treatment following index anterior instability event, define the success rate of initial non-operative treatment for anterior shoulder instability, and describe factors that predict conversion to surgery after initial non-operative management to help guide surgical decision making in these patients. Methods: An established geographic database was utilized to identify patients under the age of 40 treated for anterior shoulder instability between 1994 and 2016. Patient demographics, comorbidities, injury characteristics, instability history, activity level, x-rays, advanced imaging, treatment course, and outcomes were evaluated. Patients treated non-operatively for the first 6 months following index instability event were analyzed to determine long-term outcomes, success rate of continued non-operative treatment, and factors associated with conversion to surgery. Results: 739 patients met criteria with an average follow-up of 190 months (range 0.13 to 490 months). Average age was 23.8, mean BMI was 25.6, 9.1% had a history of hyperlaxity, and 83.9% of instability events were due to trauma. 29.7% of patients had a Hill-Sachs lesion on index x-ray, and 6.3% had a bony Bankart. 198 shoulders went on to operative treatment (26.8%) with a mean time to surgery of 62.7 months following initial instability event. At final follow-up, 24.0% reported mild pain, 6.2% as moderate, 0.2% as severe. 13.8% of patients had evidence of glenohumeral arthritis on final follow-up x-rays compared to 1.6% on initial radiographs. Factors associated with conversion to surgery included 2 or more dislocations prior to first clinical evaluation (OR=1.75, p<0.001), labor intense occupation (OR=1.49, p=0.031), Hill Sachs lesion on index x-ray (OR=1.31, p=0.034), and MRI findings including: anteroinferior labral tear (OR=2.15, p<0.001), posteroinferior labral tear (OR=1.38, p=0.049), SLAP tear (OR=1.29, p=0.054), Hill-Sachs lesion (OR=1.85, p<0.001), and glenohumeral cartilage injury (OR=1.26, p=0.041). Conclusion: The majority of patients less than 40 can be definitively treated non-operatively after an initial 6 month episode of non-operative treatment. A small proportion will report pain over the long-term and/or develop glenohumeral arthritis. Multiple factors upon initial evaluation were associated with future conversion to surgery including: increasing number of prior instability events, occupation, and degree of soft tissue injury on MRI.

Objectives: The rate of osteoarthritis (OA) in patients with anterior shoulder instability (ASI) varies within the literature, with the majority of studies investigating rates after surgical stabilization. ASI appears to lead to increased rates of OA, although risk factors for developing OA in non-operative and operative cohorts are not well defined. The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of clinically symptomatic OA and identify potential risk factors for the development of OA following ASI in a U.S. geographic population of patients under the age of 40. Methods: An established geographic database was used to identify patients less than 40 years old diagnosed with anterior should instability between 1994 and 2016. Patient information, including demographics, imaging and surgical details, was collected and comparative analysis was performed between groups with and without OA at final follow-up, as well as patients who underwent surgical and non-surgical management. Results: The study population consisted of 154 patients with a mean follow-up of 15.2 years (range 5.1-29.8). Overall, 22.7% of patients developed clinically symptomatic glenohumeral OA. Twenty-eight percent of patients who underwent at least 1 surgical intervention and 17% of patients who underwent non-operative management of anterior shoulder instability developed glenohumeral OA (p=0.176). Patients who developed arthritis were older at initial instability event (p=0.002) and had higher BMI (p=0.007). Additionally, patients with OA were more likely to be current or former smokers (p=0.004), have a seizure disorder (p=0.033), and be manual laborers (p=0.044). Risk factors for developing OA included seizure disorders (RR 2.61, 95 % CI 1.34-5.07), cartilage injury on initial MRI (RR 2.48, (1.00-6.13), current or former smoker (RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.37-4.42), laborer occupation (RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.14-4.01), and age at initial instability event (OR 1.09 per year, 95% 1.03-1.17). Athletes (RR 0.51, 95% CI 1.08-3.54), specifically contact athletes at the time of initial instability (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21-0.97), were less likely to develop OA. There was no difference in the number of dislocations or number of instability events in patients with and without symptomatic osteoarthritis. Conclusions: In a U.S. geographic population of patients less than 40 years old with ASI, approximately one-fourth of patients developed symptomatic OA at a mean follow-up of 15 years from their first instability event. When accounting for differences in patient demographics, there was no significant difference in the rates of OA in patients who underwent surgical and non-surgical management. Overall, there was an increased risk for the development of OA in patients with seizure disorders, cartilage injury on initial MRI, current or former smokers, laborer occupation and increased age at the initial instability event.

Background: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tear and meniscal injury often co-occur. The protective effect of early ACL reconstruction (ACLR) on meniscal injury and its repair is not clear. Critical literature review can support or change clinical strategies and identify gaps in the available evidence. Purpose: To assess the protective effect of ACLR on the meniscus and provide clinical guidelines for managing ACL tears and subsequent meniscal injury. We aimed to answer the following questions: (1) Does ACLR protect the meniscus from subsequent injury? (2) Does early ACLR reduce secondary meniscal injury compared with delayed ACLR? (3) Does ACLR protect the repaired meniscus? Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review was performed through use of MEDLINE and Embase electronic databases according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Search terms included ACL, reconstruction, and meniscus. Studies describing primary ACLR and nonoperative treatment in adult patients were included, as well as studies indicating timing of ACLR. The included articles were assessed individually for risk of bias through use of the modified Cochrane Risk of Bias and MINORS (Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies) tools. Results: One level 2 randomized controlled trial and several level 3 and 4 studies indicated a protective effect of ACLR on meniscal injury compared with nonoperative treatment. There was weak (level 3) evidence of the protective effect of early ACLR on the meniscus. Meniscal repair failure was less frequent in patients with ACL reconstruction than in patients with ACL deficiency (level 4). Conclusion: The evidence collected in this review suggests a protective effect of ACLR for subsequent meniscal injury (level 2 evidence). ACLR should be performed within 3 months of injury (level 3 evidence). Meniscal injury requiring surgical repair in the ACL-deficient knee should be treated with repair accompanied by ACLR (level 3 evidence). The paucity of level 2 studies prevents the formation of guidelines based on level 1 evidence. There is a strong clinical need for randomized or prospective trials to provide guidelines on timing of ACLR and meniscal repair.

Background: The most commonly damaged structures of the knee are the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), medial collateral ligament (MCL), and menisci. Given that these injuries present as either isolated or concomitant, it follows that these events are driven by specific mechanics versus coincidence. This study was designed to investigate the multiplanar mechanisms and determine the important biomechanical and demographic factors that contribute to classification of the injury outcome. Hypothesis: Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) would accurately classify each injury type generated by the mechanical impact simulator based on biomechanical input variables (ie, ligament strain and knee kinetics). Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: In vivo kinetics and kinematics of 42 healthy, athletic participants were measured to determine stratification of injury risk (ie, low, medium, and high) in 3 degrees of knee forces/moments (knee abduction moment, anterior tibial shear, and internal tibial rotation). These stratified kinetic values were input into a cadaveric impact simulator to assess ligamentous strain and knee kinetics during a simulated landing task. Uniaxial and multiaxial load cells and implanted strain sensors were used to collect mechanical data for analysis. LDA was used to determine the ability to classify injury outcome by demographic and biomechanical input variables. Results: From LDA, a 5-factor model (Entropy R 2 = 0.26) demonstrated an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for all 5 injury outcomes (ACL, MCL, ACL+MCL, ACL+MCL+meniscus, ACL+meniscus) of 0.74 or higher, with “good” prediction for 4 of 5 injury classifications. A 10-factor model (Entropy R 2 = 0.66) improved the AUC to 0.86 or higher, with “excellent” prediction for 5 injury classifications. The 15-factor model (Entropy R 2 = 0.85), produced 94.1% accuracy with the AUC 0.98 or higher for all 5 injury classifications. Conclusion: Use of LDA accurately predicted the outcome of knee injury from kinetic data from cadaveric simulations with the use of a mechanical impact simulator at 25° of knee flexion. Thus, with clinically relevant kinetics, it is possible to determine clinical risk of injury and also the likely presentation of singular or concomitant knee injury. Clinical Relevance: LDA demonstrates that injury outcomes are largely characterized by specific mechanics that can distinguish ACL, MCL, and medial meniscal injury. Furthermore, as the mechanics of injury are better understood, improved interventional prehabilitation can be designed to reduce these injuries.

Background: Donor site morbidity after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction with a bone–patellar tendon–bone (BTB) autograft is clinically significant, but evidence with contemporary techniques is lacking. Purpose: To (1) evaluate donor site morbidity at a single institution using modern techniques of BTB autograft harvest at 2-year follow-up, (2) develop a 10-question donor site morbidity instrument, and (3) compare this instrument against traditional outcome tools. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: We analyzed the 2-year follow-up outcomes of 200 consecutive patients who underwent ACL reconstruction with a BTB autograft performed by 2 surgeons at a single institution. The surgical technique utilized modern and consistent BTB autograft harvest, including graft sizing, patellar tendon and peritenon closure, and patellar and tibial donor site bone grafting. There were 187 patients included, with 13 patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction excluded. An original 10-question scoring instrument evaluating donor site morbidity was administered to each patient (score, 0-100) and compared against each patient’s International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Lysholm scores. Results: Overall, 13.9% of patients were noted to have anterior knee pain with activity at 2-year follow-up. Moreover, 3.7% of patients reported an inability to kneel on hard surfaces but had no problems on soft surfaces; 5.9% of patients reported mild discomfort but were able to kneel on all surfaces. Additionally, 75.4% of patients had a perfect (100/100) donor site morbidity score. The mean donor site morbidity score at 2-year follow-up was 98.3 ± 3.4. There was a very strong correlation between the IKDC and Lysholm scores but only a strong and moderate correlation when the donor site morbidity score was compared with the IKDC and Lysholm scores, respectively. Conclusion: Donor site morbidity after ACL reconstruction with a BTB autograft was less frequent than reported in the existing literature. Some patients developed anterior knee pain; therefore, an informed discussion is advised. IKDC and Lysholm scores may not capture donor site symptoms after surgery. The 10-question donor site morbidity instrument may provide a more accurate assessment.

AbstractPurposeTo compare rates of recurrent instability, revision surgery and functional outcomes following arthroscopic anterior capsulolabral repair for recurrent anterior instability using knot‐tying versus knotless suture anchor techniques.MethodsPatients who had undergone arthroscopic anterior labrum and capsular repair for recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability using knotless anchors were identified. Those with minimum 2‐year follow‐up were matched (1:2) to knot‐tying anchor repair patients. Rates of failure and recurrent instability were compared, as well as Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QuickDASH), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and Rowe scores.ResultsOne hundred and two patients (89 males, 13 females) with a mean age of 24.3 ± 9.6 were included. Repair was performed with knotless anchors in 34 and knot‐tying anchors in 68 shoulders. At mean follow‐up of 4.8 ± 2.5 years, re‐dislocation rates between groups were not significantly different (knotless anchor: 9% versus knot‐tying group: 15%, n.s.), but the knot‐tying group showed a higher re‐subluxation rate (p = 0.039). 12 (18%) revisions were performed in the knot‐tying group at a mean 2.9 years after surgery and 1 (3%) revision in the knotless anchors group at 1.4 years (n.s.). There was no difference in mean VAS with use (1.3 ± 1.9 versus 0.8 ± 1.5, n.s.), SANE scores (91.8 ± 12.7 versus 92.0 ± 11.0, n.s.), QuickDASH scores (4.1 ± 5.5 versus 3.0 ± 6.5, n.s.), UCLA Shoulder Score (32.5 ± 3.6 versus 33.2 ± 3.1, n.s.), or Rowe scores (90.5 ± 18.5 versus 92.2 ± 16.6, n.s.) between knotless and knot‐tying groups, respectively. VAS at rest was higher in the knotless group (0.7 ± 1.5 vs 0.1 ± 0.4, p = 0.021).ConclusionsKnotless anchors demonstrated similar rates of re‐dislocation and revision surgery, and lower rates of recurrent subluxation, compared to knot‐tying anchors. Patients achieved good‐to‐excellent functional outcomes. This supports the efficacy of knotless anchors as an alternative to knot‐tying anchors for arthroscopic anterior labral repair of recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation.Level of evidenceIII.