Nissen, Carl W.

Background: Stable osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) lesions are primarily treated nonoperatively. Nonoperative treatment includes several recommendations, including the use of an unloader brace. However, little is known about the clinical effectiveness of unloader bracing and its influence on OCD healing, return to sports, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the impact of unloader bracing on patients with stable medial femoral condyle (MFC) OCD lesions treated nonoperatively. Purpose: To investigate the influence of valgus unloader bracing on the success of treating stable MFC OCD with nonoperative treatment strategies. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: The authors used a prospective cohort of patients receiving nonoperative care for stable MFC knee OCD lesions. The primary variable of interest was the efficacy of bracing. The primary outcomes were transition from nonoperative care to surgical intervention, return-to-play (RTP) clearance, and PROs. Bivariate testing was used to determine if there were differences between groups. Chi-square testing was used to determine if there were differences in rates of transition to surgery by group. The timing of the transition by each group was assessed using a Wilcoxon rank-sum test, given the nonparametric nature of the data. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to calculate time at risk, incidence rate, and survival times for each group. Results: A total of 185 knees (bracing group: 123 [66.5%] knees; no-bracing group: 62 [33.5%] knees) were analyzed. Overall, 142 (76.8%) knees were successfully treated nonoperatively. Transition to surgery occurred in 43 (23.2%) knees. There were no differences in transition to surgery by groups, with no differences seen by group. Of the knees that did not transition to surgical care, 65 (71.4%) in the bracing group and 38 (74.5%) in the no-bracing group received RTP clearance ( P = .693). PRO scores were similar between the 2 groups at the time of RTP clearance. Conclusion: The inclusion of an unloader brace in the nonoperative treatment for stable MFC OCD lesions did not decrease the likelihood of patients undergoing surgical intervention or improve their PRO scores at the time of RTP clearance. Registration: NCT02771496 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Background: Meniscal preservation has been demonstrated to contribute to long-term knee health and has been a successful intervention in isolation and in patients with anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). The long-term results of meniscal repair in the setting of revision ACLR have yet to be documented. Purpose: To report the incidence of meniscal repair failures at the 6-year follow-up in a cohort of patients who underwent concurrent revision ACLR and primary meniscal repair. Study Design: Prospective cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: All revision ACLRs with concomitant primary meniscal repair cases from a multicenter group between 2006 and 2011 were selected. Six-year follow-up was obtained to determine whether any subsequent surgery had occurred since their initial revision ACLR. If so, operative reports were obtained, whenever possible, to verify pathological condition and treatment. Results: In total, 221 patients from 1234 revision ACLRs underwent concurrent primary meniscal repairs (18% of the cohort). There were 238 repairs performed: 173 medial and 65 lateral. The majority of these repairs (n = 181; 76%) were performed with an all-inside technique. Six-year surgical follow-up was obtained in 77% (171/221) of the cohort, or 189 of 238 (79%) of the repairs (136 medial, 53 lateral). The meniscal repair failure rate, defined as reoperation, was 16% (31/189) at 6 years. Of the 31 failures, 28 were medial (24 all-inside, 4 inside-out; 28/136 = 20.6% failure rate) and 3 were lateral (2 all-inside, 1 inside-out; 3/53 = 5.7% failure rate). Three medial failures were treated in conjunction with a subsequent repeat revision ACLR. Medial tears underwent reoperation for failure at a significantly higher rate than lateral tears (20.6% vs 5.7%; P = .01) and had a significantly shorter survival time compared with lateral tears ( P = .02). No difference was found between the failure and nonfailure groups when it came to tear type, tear length, repair technique utilized, suture/implant type, or number of sutures used between the 2 groups. Conclusion: Meniscal repair in the revision ACLR setting has a 16% failure rate at 6 years. Failure rates for medial tears (20.6%) were found to be higher than that for lateral tears (5.7%), which aligns with previous studies in both the revision and primary ACLR setting.

Background: There are limited evidence-based guidelines to predict which osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) lesions will heal with nonoperative treatment. Purpose: To train a set of classification algorithms to predict nonoperative OCD healing while identifying new clinically meaningful predictors. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients with OCD of the knee with open physes undergoing nonoperative management were prospectively queried from the Research on OCD of the Knee (ROCK) cohort ( https://kneeocd.org ) in April 2022. Patients were included if they met the study criteria for nonoperative treatment success or failure. Nonoperative treatment success was defined as complete healing on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and total return to sports participation. Failure was defined as the crossover from nonoperative management to surgery at any point at or beyond the 3-month follow-up. If a patient did not meet one of these criteria, they were not included. Normalized lesion size, lesion location, patient characteristics, and symptoms were used as clinically relevant predictors. Results: A total of 64 patients were included, of whom 24 (37.5%) patients successfully healed with nonoperative management. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that a 1% increase in normalized lesion width was associated with an increase in the likelihood of nonoperative failure (odds ratio [OR], 1.41 [95% CI, 1.17-1.81]; P < .01). By contrast, lesions in the posterior sagittal zone (OR, 0.08 [95% CI, 0.009-0.43]; P < .01) or the medial-most coronal zone (for lesions of the medial femoral) and lateral-most coronal zone (for lesions of the lateral femoral condyle) on MRI (OR, 0.05 [95% CI, 0.004-0.44]; P < .01) were associated with a decrease in the likelihood of nonoperative treatment failure. Support vector machines had a cross-validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.89 and a classification accuracy of 83.3%. Conclusion: Lesion location in the posterior aspect of the condyle on sagittal MRI and lesion location in the medial-most or lateral-most locations on coronal MRI were identified as statistically significant predictors of increased nonoperative treatment success on multivariate analysis. Machine learning models can predict which OCD lesions will heal with nonoperative management with superior accuracy compared with previously published models.

Background: Osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) of the knee is a focal idiopathic alteration of subchondral bone and/or its precursor with risk for instability and disruption of adjacent cartilage. Treatment options focused on preventing premature osteoarthritis vary depending on multiple patient and lesion characteristics, including lesion mobility. Purpose: To differentiate lesion mobility before arthroscopy using a multivariable model that includes patient demographic characteristics and physical examination findings. Study Design: Cohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Demographic, preoperative physical examination, and radiographic data were collected from a multicenter national prospective cohort of patients with OCD of the knee. Inclusion criteria included patients <19 years of age and patients with arthroscopically confirmed mobility status based on the Research on Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee arthroscopy classification. Multivariable logistic regression analysis using stepwise model selection was used to determine factors associated with the likelihood of a mobile versus an immobile lesion. A 75% partition of the data was used for model training, and 25% was used as a validation cohort. Quantitative model fit statistics were computed using the holdout data, including sensitivity, specificity, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), along with the corresponding 95% CI. Results: A total of 407 patients in the prospective cohort met inclusion criteria, and 62% were male. The mean ± SD age was 13.7 ± 2.2 years, height 161.8 ± 5.3 cm, and weight 59.2 ± 42.2 kg. Arthroscopic evaluation yielded 235 immobile and 172 mobile lesions. Multivariable analysis determined that the best model to predict lesion mobility included chronologic age ≥14 years ( P < .001), effusion on physical examination ( P < .001), and any loss of range of motion on physical examination ( P = .07), while controlling for male sex ( P = .38) and weight >54.4 kg ( P = .12). In the 25% holdout validation sample (n = 102), a sensitivity of 83%, a specificity of 82%, and an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.82-0.95) were achieved with these predictive factors. Conclusion: Age, effusion, and loss of motion can predict knee OCD lesion mobility at the time of arthroscopy. Education about lesion mobility can help with surgical planning and patient and family counseling.

Background: As machine learning becomes increasingly utilized in orthopaedic clinical research, the application of machine learning methodology to cohort data from the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) presents a valuable opportunity to translate data into patient-specific insights. Purpose: To apply novel machine learning methodology to MARS cohort data to determine a predictive model of revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR) graft failure and features most predictive of failure. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: The authors prospectively recruited patients undergoing rACLR from the MARS cohort and obtained preoperative radiographs, surgeon-reported intraoperative findings, and 2- and 6-year follow-up data on patient-reported outcomes, additional surgeries, and graft failure. Machine learning models including logistic regression (LR), XGBoost, gradient boosting (GB), random forest (RF), and a validated ensemble algorithm (AutoPrognosis) were built to predict graft failure by 6 years postoperatively. Validated performance metrics and feature importance measures were used to evaluate model performance. Results: The cohort included 960 patients who completed 6-year follow-up, with 5.7% (n = 55) experiencing graft failure. AutoPrognosis demonstrated the highest discriminative power (model area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: AutoPrognosis, 0.703; RF, 0.618; GB, 0.660; XGBoost, 0.680; LR, 0.592), with well-calibrated scores (model Brier score: AutoPrognosis, 0.053; RF, 0.054; GB, 0.057; XGBoost, 0.058; LR, 0.111). The most important features for AutoPrognosis model performance were prior compromised femoral and tibial tunnels (placement and size) and allograft graft type used in current rACLR. Conclusion: The present study demonstrated the ability of the novel AutoPrognosis machine learning model to best predict the risk of graft failure in patients undergoing rACLR at 6 years postoperatively with moderate predictive ability. Femoral and tibial tunnel size and position in prior ACLR and allograft use in current rACLR were all risk factors for rACLR failure in the context of the AutoPrognosis model. This study describes a unique model that can be externally validated with larger data sets and contribute toward the creation of a robust rACLR bedside risk calculator in future studies. Registration: NCT00625885 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

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.

Background: Meniscal and chondral damage is common in the patient undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Purpose: To determine if meniscal and/or articular cartilage pathology at the time of revision ACL surgery significantly influences a patient’s outcome at 6-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction were prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Data collection included baseline demographics, surgical technique, pathology, treatment, and scores from 4 validated patient-reported outcome instruments: International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Marx Activity Rating Scale. Patients were followed up at 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of outcome instruments. Regression analysis assessed the meniscal and articular cartilage pathology risk factors for clinical outcomes 6 years after revision ACL reconstruction. Results: An overall 1234 patients were enrolled (716 males, 58%; median age, 26 years). Surgeons reported the pathology at the time of revision surgery in the medial meniscus (45%), lateral meniscus (36%), medial femoral condyle (43%), lateral femoral condyle (29%), medial tibial plateau (11%), lateral tibial plateau (17%), patella (30%), and trochlea (21%). Six-year follow-up was obtained on 79% of the sample (980/1234). Meniscal pathology and articular cartilage pathology (medial femoral condyle, lateral femoral condyle, lateral tibial plateau, trochlea, and patella) were significant drivers of poorer patient-reported outcomes at 6 years (IKDC, KOOS, WOMAC, and Marx). The most consistent factors driving outcomes were having a medial meniscal excision (either before or at the time of revision surgery) and patellofemoral articular cartilage pathology. Six-year Marx activity levels were negatively affected by having either a repair/excision of the medial meniscus (odds ratio range, 1.45-1.72; P≤ .04) or grade 3-4 patellar chondrosis (odds ratio, 1.72; P = .04). Meniscal pathology occurring before the index revision surgery negatively affected scores on all KOOS subscales except for sports/recreation ( P < .05). Articular cartilage pathology significantly impaired all KOOS subscale scores ( P < .05). Lower baseline outcome scores, higher body mass index, being a smoker, and incurring subsequent surgery all significantly increased the odds of reporting poorer clinical outcomes at 6 years. Conclusion: Meniscal and chondral pathology at the time of revision ACL reconstruction has continued significant detrimental effects on patient-reported outcomes at 6 years after revision surgery.

Background: Lytic or malpositioned tunnels may require bone grafting during revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR) surgery. Patient characteristics and effects of grafting on outcomes after rACLR are not well described. Purpose: To describe preoperative characteristics, intraoperative findings, and 2-year outcomes for patients with rACLR undergoing bone grafting procedures compared with patients with rACLR without grafting. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 1234 patients who underwent rACLR were prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Baseline revision and 2-year characteristics, surgical technique, pathology, treatment, and patient-reported outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and Marx Activity Rating Scale [Marx]) were collected, as well as subsequent surgery information, if applicable. The chi-square and analysis of variance tests were used to compare group characteristics. Results: A total of 159 patients (13%) underwent tunnel grafting—64 (5%) patients underwent 1-stage and 95 (8%) underwent 2-stage grafting. Grafting was isolated to the femur in 31 (2.5%) patients, the tibia in 40 (3%) patients, and combined in 88 patients (7%). Baseline KOOS Quality of Life (QoL) and Marx activity scores were significantly lower in the 2-stage group compared with the no bone grafting group ( P≤ .001). Patients who required 2-stage grafting had more previous ACLRs ( P < .001) and were less likely to have received a bone–patellar tendon–bone or a soft tissue autograft at primary ACLR procedure ( P≤ .021) compared with the no bone grafting group. For current rACLR, patients undergoing either 1-stage or 2-stage bone grafting were more likely to receive a bone–patellar tendon–bone allograft ( P≤ .008) and less likely to receive a soft tissue autograft ( P≤ .003) compared with the no bone grafting group. At 2-year follow-up of 1052 (85%) patients, we found inferior outcomes in the 2-stage bone grafting group (IKDC score = 68; KOOS QoL score = 44; KOOS Sport/Recreation score = 65; and Marx activity score = 3) compared with the no bone grafting group (IKDC score = 77; KOOS QoL score = 63; KOOS Sport/Recreation score = 75; and Marx activity score = 7) ( P≤ .01). The 1-stage bone graft group did not significantly differ compared with the no bone grafting group. Conclusion: Tunnel bone grafting was performed in 13% of our rACLR cohort, with 8% undergoing 2-stage surgery. Patients treated with 2-stage grafting had inferior baseline and 2-year patient-reported outcomes and activity levels compared with patients not undergoing bone grafting. Patients treated with 1-stage grafting had similar baseline and 2-year patient-reported outcomes and activity levels compared with patients not undergoing bone grafting.

Background: Osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) occurs most commonly in the knees of young individuals. This condition is known to cause pain and discomfort in the knee and can lead to disability and early knee osteoarthritis. The cause is not well understood, and treatment plans are not well delineated. The Research in Osteochondritis Dissecans of the Knee (ROCK) group established a multicenter, prospective cohort to better understand this disease. Purpose: To provide a baseline report of the ROCK multicenter prospective cohort and present a descriptive analysis of baseline data for patient characteristics, lesion characteristics, and clinical findings of the first 1000 cases enrolled into the prospective cohort. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients were recruited from centers throughout the United States. Baseline data were obtained for patient characteristics, sports participation, patient-reported measures of functional capabilities and limitations, physical examination, diagnostic imaging results, and initial treatment plan. Descriptive statistics were completed for all outcomes of interest. Results: As of November 2020, a total of 27 orthopaedic surgeons from 17 institutions had enrolled 1004 knees with OCD, representing 903 patients (68.9% males; median age, 13.1 years; range, 6.3-25.4 years), into the prospective cohort. Lesions were located on the medial femoral condyle (66.2%), lateral femoral condyle (18.1%), trochlea (9.5%), patella (6.0%), and tibial plateau (0.2%). Most cases involved multisport athletes (68.1%), with the most common primary sport being basketball for males (27.3% of cases) and soccer for females (27.6% of cases). The median Pediatric International Knee Documentation Committee (Pedi-IKCD) score was 59.9 (IQR, 45.6-73.9), and the median Pediatric Functional Activity Brief Scale (Pedi-FABS) score was 21.0 (IQR, 5.0-28.0). Initial treatments were surgical intervention (55.4%) and activity restriction (44.0%). When surgery was performed, surgeons deemed the lesion to be stable at intraoperative assessment in 48.1% of cases. Conclusion: The multicenter ROCK group has been able to enroll the largest knee OCD cohort to date. This information is being used to further understand the pathology of OCD, including its cause, associated comorbidities, and initial presentation and symptoms. The cohort having been established is now being followed longitudinally to better define and elucidate the best treatment algorithms based on these presenting signs and symptoms.

Background: Although graft choice may be limited in the revision setting based on previously used grafts, most surgeons believe that graft choice for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is an important factor related to outcome. Hypothesis: In the ACL revision setting, there would be no difference between autograft and allograft in rerupture rate and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at 6-year follow-up. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Patients who had revision surgery were identified and prospectively enrolled in this cohort study by 83 surgeons over 52 sites. Data collected included baseline characteristics, surgical technique and pathology, and a series of validated PRO measures. Patients were followed up at 6 years and asked to complete the identical set of PRO instruments. Incidence of additional surgery and reoperation because of graft failure were also recorded. Multivariable regression models were used to determine the predictors (risk factors) of PROs, graft rerupture, and reoperation at 6 years after revision surgery. Results: A total of 1234 patients including 716 (58%) men were enrolled. A total of 325 (26%) underwent revision using a bone-patellar tendon-bone (BTB) autograft; 251 (20%), soft tissue autograft; 289 (23%), BTB allograft; 302 (25%), soft tissue allograft; and 67 (5%), other graft. Questionnaires and telephone follow-up for subsequent surgery information were obtained for 809 (66%) patients, while telephone follow-up was only obtained for an additional 128 patients for the total follow-up on 949 (77%) patients. Graft choice was a significant predictor of 6-year Marx Activity Rating Scale scores ( P = .024). Specifically, patients who received a BTB autograft for revision reconstruction had higher activity levels than did patients who received a BTB allograft (odds ratio [OR], 1.92; 95% CI, 1.25-2.94). Graft rerupture was reported in 5.8% (55/949) of patients by their 6-year follow-up: 3.5% (16/455) of patients with autografts and 8.4% (37/441) of patients with allografts. Use of a BTB autograft for revision resulted in patients being 4.2 times less likely to sustain a subsequent graft rupture than if a BTB allograft were utilized ( P = .011; 95% CI, 1.56-11.27). No significant differences were found in graft rerupture rates between BTB autograft and soft tissue autografts ( P = .87) or between BTB autografts and soft tissue allografts ( P = .36). Use of an autograft was found to be a significant predictor of having fewer reoperations within 6 years compared with using an allograft ( P = .010; OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36-0.87). Conclusion: BTB and soft tissue autografts had a decreased risk in graft rerupture compared with BTB allografts. BTB autografts were associated with higher activity level than were BTB allografts at 6 years after revision reconstruction. Surgeons and patients should consider this information when choosing a graft for revision ACL reconstruction.