Tagliero, Adam

Abstract Shoulder arthroscopy is a popular modality for the treatment of shoulder pathology. Since its advent in the 1970s, significant advancements have been made in both technology and technique. Shoulder arthroscopy is performed in either the beach‐chair or lateral decubitus positions, and each position has its unique benefits and considerations. Beach‐chair positioning, initially described in the 1980s, has become the preferred method of positioning for most arthroscopic procedures. In this work, we describe the history of beach‐chair positioning for shoulder arthroscopy. We outline a reproducible and teachable method for consistent and comprehensive diagnostic arthroscopy in the beach‐chair position. Pearls, pitfalls, advantages, and disadvantages of diagnostic arthroscopy in this position are discussed. When properly executed, diagnostic arthroscopy in the beach‐chair position can effectively identify and characterize intra‐articular shoulder pathologies. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Purpose To describe the clinical and radiographic features associated with isolated hypermobile lateral meniscus (HLM), and report patient outcomes following surgically repaired isolated HLM. Methods All patients diagnosed with HLM from 2000 to 2020 at a single academic institution were identified and reviewed. Patients were excluded if they had concomitant ligament injury or lacked 2‐year follow‐up. Preoperative and postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores were determined from clinical notes. Statistical analysis was performed in JMP, and statistical significance was determined with use of a paired t ‐test. Results Eighteen knees in 17 patients met inclusion criteria. Mean patient age was 24.1 (range: 6‐61) years. Mean follow‐up was 73 months (25‐151 months). All 18 knees reported pain at presentation; 94% (17/18) had mechanical symptoms. All 18 knees had preoperative MRIs, but only 1 (5.6%) knee was correctly diagnosed by a musculoskeletal trained radiologist. Most repairs were performed with an all‐inside technique (61%, 11/18). VAS score improved significantly from 7.2 ± 2.9 preoperatively to 0.7 ± 1.9 postoperatively, with average improvement of VAS score of 6.5 ( P < .001). Only one (5.6%) knee required revision meniscal surgery. Conclusions Hypermobile lateral meniscus patients commonly see multiple providers, fail to have their HLM diagnosed on MRI, and undergo various treatments prior to a successful diagnosis. Localized lateral joint line pain, mechanical symptoms, and absence of distinct meniscus tear on MRI are the most frequent clinical presentations. Surgery with meniscus repair is a reliable solution to improve pain and mechanical symptoms. Level of Evidence Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Background: Patients with upper limb dysfunction from a brain injury often have different goals of treatment and expectations following a fracture of the upper extremity. This study retrospectively reviewed outcomes of nonoperative management of acute humerus fractures in patients with severe ipsilateral hemiparesis or hemiplegia. Methods: Patients who had sustained an acute humerus fracture managed nonoperatively, greater than 1 year following an upper motor neuron (UMN) injury resulting in ipsilateral severe hemiparesis or hemiplegia at a single tertiary care center from 1988 to 2019, were reviewed. Fractures were classified using the AO-Müller/Orthopaedic Trauma Association and/or Neer classifications. Primary outcome measures included House classification level of function, pain, achievement of and time to radiographic union, and the need for subsequent surgical procedures. Results: Ten distinct nonoperatively managed humerus fractures—3 proximal (11A23), 5 mid-shaft (12A2b = 1, 12A2c = 2, 12A3a = 1, 12A2b = 1), and 2 distal (13A2 = 1, 13 C1 = 1)—were identified in 8 patients (6 women and 2 men) with ipsilateral hemiparesis or hemiplegia. The median radiographic follow-up was 20 months (range: 78 days to 12 years). The median clinical follow-up was 33.5 months (range: 100 days to 12 years). All patients presented with severe pain that was absent at final follow-up. Radiographic union was achieved in all patients with a mean time to union of 90.9 ± 39.3 days (range: 35-185 days). No patients required operative management. Conclusions: Nonoperative management of humerus fractures in patients with an ipsilateral UMN injury might result in reliable pain relief and union without the need for further surgical intervention. Management of humerus fractures in this patient population should be individualized toward their goals of care.

Background: Patellofemoral instability is due to a combination of bony and soft tissue factors. While recurrent patellar dislocations are rare, evaluation and treatment of these conditions require addressing patellar height and lateralization of the tibial tubercle (TT), restraint to lateral patellar subluxation, and trochlear dysplasia. Other factors to consider are coronal limb-length alignment outside of the physiologic 5 to 8° of valgus, which may significantly alter the Q angle and contribute to lateral instability. Other ligaments around the patella contribute to soft-tissue restraint, including the medial and lateral patellotibial ligaments, patellomeniscal ligaments, and the medial quadriceps tendon femoral ligament. Patellar tilt is assessed with and without quadriceps contraction to further evaluate the patella’s relationship to the trochlear groove. The Caton-Deschamps Index, as well as patellar trochlear index (PTI), are used to measure patellar height for patella alta or baja. Technique Description: The technique is to surgically manage a patient in neutral mechanical alignment on standing limb radiographs, with moderate-to-severe DeJour type B trochlear dysplasia and a trochlear sulcus angle of around 145°, patella alta with a Caton-Deschamps Index of 1.6 and PTI of 0.22, a TT to trochlear groove (TT-TG) distance of 8 mm, and a deficient medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL). The MPFL reconstruction is done first, with harvesting of the ipsilateral quadriceps tendon and maintenance of its distal attachment on the superior patellar pole. The quadriceps tendon graft is folded medially upon its distal attachment and fixed in this position with suture anchors. Tibial tubercle osteotomy is accomplished by spacing drill holes 2 mm apart, medially and laterally, on the TT and connecting the drill holes with an osteotome and reciprocating saw. A distalized location to secure the TT is selected and superficial bone is excised. A medial parapatellar arthrotomy is performed, and bur attachments are used to drill into the subchondral bone beneath the femoral articular surface to create a V-shaped flap of trochlear cartilage. An arthroscope is inserted under the trochlear flap during this process to visualize the appropriate depth. The trochlear flap is then secured with screws passed over guide pins to secure the flap to the desired location. Cannulated screws and washers are then used to secure the TT to its distalized and/or medialized position, with fluoroscopic verification of screw depth and location. The arthrotomy is then closed with the knee at 45°. The quadriceps graft is passed through a subretinacular channel and secured with suture anchors, adjacent to the adductor tubercle, to complete the MPFL reconstruction. Before closure, appropriate tracking and translation of the patella is verified. Results: Sulcus-deepening trochleoplasty, with or without MPFL reconstruction, has been reported to obtain satisfactory outcomes at 2 years, with close to 85% return to sport and 100% return to work, with improvements in International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) scores from 50.8 to 79.1 in some studies. MPFL reconstruction with tibial tubercle osteotomy (TTO) has yielded a 94.5% patient satisfaction rate in the literature. Discussion/Conclusion: In patients with recurrent patellar instability and DeJour types B-D trochlear dysplasia, MPFL reconstruction with TTO and sulcus-deepening trochleoplasty provides excellent subjective outcomes and restores patellar tracking with elimination of recurrent subluxation.

Background Little information exists to guide decision-making with regard to distal radius fractures in the setting of ipsilateral hemiparesis or hemiplegia. Methods Patients who sustained a distal radius fracture in the setting of ipsilateral hemiparesis or hemiplegia secondary to brain injury were evaluated. Investigated variables included perioperative pain, preinjury House functional classification score, length of immobilization, radiographic outcome measurements, and time to union. Results There were 15 patients with distal radius fractures with a mean age of 65.9 years. The mean clinical and radiographic follow-up was 2.8 and 2.9 years, respectively. Wrists were placed into the nonoperative group (NOG, n = 10) and operative group (OG, n = 5). Pain significantly decreased at final follow-up for both groups. Baseline House functional classification scores averaged 1.3 and 1.6 for the NOG and OG, respectively, and were maintained at final follow-up. Length of immobilization for the NOG was 46 days and OG was 37 days, P = .15. Radiographic outcomes at final follow-up in the NOG and OG, respectively, were a mean radial height of 9.3 versus. 11.6 mm, radial inclination of 18.3° versus 22.3°, 4.2° dorsal tilt versus 5.3° volar tilt, and tear drop angle of 45.6° versus 44.5°. There were no significant differences in these measurements. Time to radiographic union averaged 58 days for the NOG and 67 days for the OG, P = .42. There were no revision surgeries. Conclusions Based on this small case series, patients with distal radius fracture and ipsilateral hemiparesis or hemiplegia may have similar clinical, functional, and radiographic outcomes, regardless of nonoperative or operative treatment.

AbstractIntroductionAll‐polyethylene (AP) tibial components have demonstrated equivalent or improved long‐term survivorship and reduced cost compared with metal‐backed (MB) components in primary total knee arthroplasty; however, there is a lack of data comparing these outcomes in the setting of an oncologic endoprosthetic reconstruction.MethodsA total of 115 (88 AP:27 MB) patients undergoing cemented distal femur endoprosthetic reconstruction following oncologic resection were reviewed. Mean age was 40 years and 51% were females. Cumulative incidences of all‐cause revision, tibial component revision, reoperation, and infection were calculated utilizing a competing risk analysis with death as the competitor. Mean follow‐up was 14 years.ResultsThe 10‐year cumulative incidence of all‐cause revision was 19.9% in the AP group and 16.3% in the MB group (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.93, p = 0.88). The cumulative incidence of tibial component revision was significantly lower in AP compared with MB at 10 years (1.1% vs. 12.5%, HR = 0.18, p = 0.03). There was no difference in infection‐free survival when comparing the two groups (p = 0.72).ConclusionsReconstruction utilizing an MB or AP tibia component resulted in equivalent overall outcome; however, the tibial component in the AP group was less likely to be revised. AP tibial component should be considered for all primary oncologic reconstructions in the distal femur.Level of EvidenceLevel III Therapeutic.

AbstractIntroductionThe proximal humerus is a common location for primary and non‐primary tumors. Reconstruction of the proximal humerus is commonly performed with an endoprosthesis with low rates of structural failure. The incidence and risk factors for stress shielding are under reported.MethodsThirty‐nine (19 male, 20 female) patients underwent resection of the proximal humerus and reconstruction with a cemented modular endoprosthesis between 2000 and 2018. The mean resection length was 12 ± 4 cm and was most commonly performed for metastatic disease (n = 26, 67%).ResultsStress shielding was observed in 9 (23%) patients at a mean of 29 (6–132) months postoperatively. Patients with stress shielding were noted to have shorter intramedullary stem length (87 vs. 107 mm, p < .001), longer extramedullary implant length (16 vs. 14 cm, p = .01) and a higher extramedullary implant to stem length ratio (2.1 vs. 1.1, p < .001). The incidence of stress shielding was higher (p = .003) in patients reconstructed with 75 mm stem (n = 6, 67%) lengths.ConclusionStress shielding of the humerus was associated with the use of shorter stems and long extramedullary implants. The long‐term ramifications of stress shielding on implant stability, complications at the time of revision surgery, and overall patient outcomes remain unknown.

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.

Purpose To determine (1) the demographic characteristics as well as radiographic findings of medial versus lateral meniscal root tears at time of presentation, (2) treatment decisions and clinical outcomes of patients undergoing medial versus lateral root repair, and (3) risk factors for worse clinical and radiographic outcomes. Methods A retrospective review was performed to identify patients with symptomatic, medial, or lateral meniscus posterior root tears with a minimum 2‐year follow‐up. Radiographs were graded using Kellgren‐Lawrence scores. Subanalysis was performed on 62 patients who underwent root repair. Tegner, Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee scores, and progression to arthroplasty were analyzed in the repair groups. Patient demographics, radiographic findings, and clinical outcomes were compared between medial meniscus posterior horn root tear (MMRT) and lateral meniscus root repair (LMRT). Results Of the 141 root tears, 109 were MMRTs, 30 were LMRTs, and 2 patients had both. At the time of injury, patients with MMRTs had a significantly higher age (MMRT = 51.4 vs LMRT=24.6, P < .0001), body mass index (MMRT = 32.1 vs LMRT 25.8, P < .0001), Kellgren‐Lawrence score (MMRT = 1.3 vs LMRT=0.6, P < .0001), and higher rate of major meniscal extrusion (MMRT = 72% vs LMRT = 20%, P < .0001). Of the 30 LMRT, 30/30 (100.0%) were treated with meniscal repair. With MMRT, 52/109 (48%) were treated nonoperatively, 27/109 (25%) with partial meniscectomy, and 30/109 (27%) with meniscal repair. Sixty‐two patients underwent meniscus root repair with an average 41‐month follow‐up. LMRT had significantly increased International Knee Documentation Committee (LMRT = 89.5, MMRT = 80.4, P = .02) and Tegner scores (LMRT = 6.5, MMRT = 5.1, P < .05) compared with MMRT. Conclusions Compared with MMRTs, LMRTs occur in younger male patients with lower body mass index, less cartilage degeneration, less extrusion on magnetic resonance imaging, and more commonly with a ligament injury. Although good to excellent clinical outcomes were attained in select patients for both medial and lateral meniscus root repair, LMRTs may have better results after repair, suggesting that differences in injury and patient characteristics may contribute to differences in these outcomes. Level of Evidence Retrospective comparative study, Level III.

Background: There are limited data comparing the outcomes of similarly matched patients with a medial meniscus posterior root tear (MMPRT) treated with nonoperative management, partial meniscectomy, or repair. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to compare treatment failure, clinical outcome scores, and radiographic findings for a matched cohort of patients who underwent either nonoperative management, partial meniscectomy, or transtibial pull-through repair for an MMPRT. We hypothesized that patients who underwent meniscus root repair will have lower rates of progression to arthroplasty than patients who were treated with nonoperative management or partial meniscectomy. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients who underwent transtibial medial meniscus posterior horn root repair were matched by meniscal laterality, age, sex, and Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) grades to patients treated nonoperatively or with a partial meniscectomy. Progression to arthroplasty rates, International Knee Documentation Committee and Tegner scores, and radiographic outcomes were analyzed between groups. Results: Forty-five patients were included in this study (15 nonoperative, 15 partial meniscectomy, 15 root repair). Progression to arthroplasty demonstrated significant differences among treatment groups at a mean of 74 months (nonoperative, 4/15; partial meniscectomy, 9/15; meniscal repair, 0/15; P = .0003). The meniscus root repair group had significantly less arthritic progression, as measured by change in K-L grade from pre- to postoperatively (nonoperative, 1.0; partial meniscectomy, 1.1; meniscal repair, 0.1; P = .001). Conclusion: Meniscus root repair leads to significantly less arthritis progression and subsequent knee arthroplasty compared with nonoperative management and partial meniscectomy in a matched cohort based on patient characteristics.