Factors Associated With Clinically Significant Patient-Reported Outcomes After Primary Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy

A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Clinical Trial to Investigate the Efficacy of Autologous Bone Marrow Aspirate Concentrate During Arthroscopic Meniscectomy in Patients With Early Knee Osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Despite being recognized as a safe procedure with minimal reported complications, injecting autologous bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) as an adjuvant to arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) for symptomatic patients with meniscal tears and concomitant knee osteoarthritis (OA) has not been studied in randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE

To compare patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores and radiographic outcomes in symptomatic patients with meniscal tears and concomitant mild knee OA who underwent APM with and without an autologous BMAC injection administered at the time of surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1.

METHODS

Enrolled patients aged ≥18 years determined to have a symptomatic meniscal tear with concomitant mild knee OA suitable for APM and meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomized into 2 groups: BMAC and control (no BMAC). The primary endpoint of the study was the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score at 1 year postoperatively. Secondary endpoints included radiographic outcomes (Kellgren-Lawrence grade) at 1 year postoperatively and various PROM scores, including those for the IKDC, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), visual analog scale, and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey, at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years after meniscectomy.

RESULTS

Of the 95 enrolled patients, 83 (87.4%) were included for final analysis. No significant differences were found between the groups with regard to patient characteristics, intraoperative variables, concomitant procedures, preoperative PROM scores, or preoperative radiographic findings. At 1 year postoperatively, the BMAC group failed to demonstrate significantly better IKDC scores (P = .687) or radiographic outcomes (P > .05 for all radiographic measures) compared with the control group. Secondary PROM scores also did not significantly differ between the groups (P > .05 for all PROMs). However, there were higher achievement rates of the minimal clinically important difference for the KOOS Sport (100.0% vs 80.0%, respectively; P = .023) and KOOS Symptoms (92.3% vs 68.0%, respectively; P = .038) at 1 year postoperatively in the BMAC group than in the control group. All PROMs, excluding the VR-12 mental score, showed significant improvements compared with baseline at all postoperative time points for both the BMAC and control groups.

CONCLUSION

The addition of an autologous BMAC injection during APM did not result in significant changes in IKDC scores or radiographic outcomes at the 1-year postoperative mark. Secondary PROM scores were generally comparable between the 2 groups, but there was higher minimal clinically important difference achievement for the KOOS Sport and KOOS Symptoms at 1 year postoperatively in the BMAC group. In patients with symptoms consistent with a meniscal tear who had concomitant mild OA, the addition of BMAC to arthroscopic debridement did not affect the outcome.

REGISTRATION

NCT02582489 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Meniscal Comma Sign Responds to Partial Meniscectomy Despite Increased Levels of Arthritis

Purpose

To compare the outcomes of patients undergoing partial meniscectomy preoperatively identified with the "meniscal comma sign" with those undergoing meniscectomy with other tear patterns.

Methods

Patients with meniscal "comma sign," as indicated by a query of magnetic resonance imaging reports, were screened using the search terms "meniscotibial recess," "meniscus perched over the medial tibial margin," or other search terms by radiologists between January 2008 and November 2019. Patients were matched and chart review was done for demographics, revision surgery, and progression to total knee arthroplasty. Radiographs were used for osteoarthritis grading using the Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) scoring system. Preoperative and postoperative International Knee Documentation Committee, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Lysholm, and Short Form 12-item Survey scores were collected.

Results

A total of 406 patients met inclusion (comma sign = 197; control group = 209). The control group had an increased duration of symptoms at the initial visit (P = .001). More patients with the meniscal comma sign received corticosteroid knee injections before surgery (P = .011), and they also had greater mean KL scores (P = .001) as well as greater KL categorical scores (P = .002), indicating more advanced levels or arthritis. There were no differences in those receiving physical therapy (PT) before surgery (P = .966) or those receiving injections or PT after surgery (P = .631, P = .37, respectively). International Knee Documentation Committee, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Lysholm, and Short Form 12-Item Survey Physical scores improved preoperatively to postoperatively in both groups (P < .05), and there was no difference between the case and control group (P > .05). No significant difference was found in revisions or progression to total knee arthroplasty between cohorts. (P = .676 and P = .424).

Conclusions

Patients presenting with preoperative findings of meniscal comma sign fare similarly to those that do not. Patients with this meniscal injury tend to have more advanced grading of osteoarthritic changes in the knee at presentation and seek care earlier than those without. Arthroscopic meniscectomy is a good treatment option for patients with a meniscal fragment in the meniscotibial recess and shows outcomes comparable with those with other tear patterns.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective cohort.

Preoperative Predictors of Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of patient demographics and injury characteristics on post-arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (post-APM) patient-reported outcomes (PROs). We hypothesize that the presence of high-grade (Kellgren-Lawrence grades 3-4) arthritis at any location of the knee (medial and lateral compartments, patella, trochlea), comorbidities (psychiatric history, chronic pain, diabetes, smoking, body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30), and lower scores on preoperative patient-reported measures (36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36]) would predict poor outcomes after APM. We conducted a single-center prospective study of 92 patients who underwent APM surgery for associated knee pain. General demographic information and PROs were prospectively collected using SF-12, SF-36, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) surveys presurgery and at 6-month follow-up. Postsurgery outcomes were patient-reported satisfaction (yes/no) and obtaining a patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) on IKDC. Data were analyzed with odds ratios (ORs), binomial logistic regression, and Mann-Whitney U test using IBM SPSS software. Demographic and injury characteristics that were poor prognostic indicators (had a decreased likelihood of obtaining PASS on IKDC postsurgery) included having Medicaid insurance (OR: 0.056; 0.003-1.00), chronic pain (OR: 0.106; 0.013-0.873), acute injury (OR: 0.387; 0.164-0.914), and high-grade (KL grades 3-4) medial compartment arthritis (OR: 0.412; 0.174-0.980), and preoperative SF-36 physical health score (PHS; p = 0.023) and mental health score (MHS; p = 0.006) values less than 47 and 48, respectively. Additionally, former smoking history (OR: 0.271; 0.079-0.928) showed a lower likelihood of being satisfied postsurgery. Not having psychiatric history (OR: 14.925; p < 0.001; increased likelihood of obtaining PASS on IKDC score postsurgery) and not having patellar arthritis (OR: 4.082; p = 0.025; increased likelihood of PASS on IKDC) were positive prognostic indicators. This study identifies predictive factors of poor outcomes post-APM; particularly, it highlights the usefulness of SF-36 surveys prior to APM surgery. Patients with low SF-36 score preoperatively may not find APM acceptable. Additional attention should be put on patient demographics (such as psychiatric history, chronic pain, and insurance type) and injury characteristics (presence of arthritis and acute injury) prior to performing APM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:  II.

Preoperative subjective assessment of disease-specific quality of life significantly influenced the likelihood of achieving the minimal clinically important difference after surgical stabilization for recurrent lateral patellar instability

PURPOSE

To evaluate which factors exert a predictive value for not reaching the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in patients who underwent a tailored operative treatment for recurrent lateral patellar dislocation (RLPD).

METHODS

A total of 237 patients (male/female 71/166; 22.4 ± 6.8 years) were included. The Banff Patellofemoral Instability Instrument 2.0 (BPII 2.0) and subjective rating of knee function and pain (numeric analogue scale [NAS]; 0-10) were used to evaluate patients' outcomes from pre- to postoperatively. Gender, age at the time of surgery, body mass index (BMI), nicotine abuse, psychiatric diseases, cartilage status and pathoanatomic risk factors were evaluated as potential predictors for achieving the MCID using univariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The MCID for the BPII 2.0 was calculated at 9.5 points. Although the BPII 2.0 and NAS for knee function and pain improved significantly in the total cohort from pre- to postoperatively (all p < 0.001), 29 patients did not reach the MCID at the final follow-up. The analysis yielded that only the preoperative NAS for function and BPII 2.0 score values were significant predictors for reaching the MCID postoperatively. The optimal threshold was calculated at 7 (NAS function) and 65.2 points (BPII 2.0). Age at the time of surgery should be considered for patients with a preoperative BPII 2.0 score >62.5.

CONCLUSION

The probability of reaching BPII 2.0 MCID postoperatively depends only on the preoperative BPII 2.0 value and subjective rating of knee function, as well as age at the time of surgery for patients undergoing surgical treatment of RLPD. Here, presented results can assist clinicians in advising and presenting patients with potential outcomes following treatment for this often complex and multifactorial pathology.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Root Repair Has Superior Radiological and Clinical Outcomes Than Partial Meniscectomy and Nonoperative Treatment in the Management of Meniscus Root Tears: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To compile and analyze structural and clinical outcomes after meniscus root tear treatment as currently described in the literature.

METHODS

A review was conducted to identify studies published since 2011 on efficacy of repair, meniscectomy, and nonoperative management in the treatment of meniscus root tears. Patient cohorts were grouped into treatment categories, with medial and lateral root tears analyzed separately; data were collected on patient demographics, structural outcomes including joint space width, degree of medial meniscal extrusion, progression to total knee arthroplasty, and patient-reported outcome measures. Risk of bias was assessed using the MINORS (methodological index for non-randomized studies) criteria. Heterogeneity was measured using the I-statistic, and outcomes were summarized using forest plots without pooled means.

RESULTS

The 56 included studies comprised a total of 3,191 patients. Mean age among the included studies ranged from 24.6 to 65.6 years, whereas mean follow-up ranged from 12 to 125.9 months. Heterogeneity analysis identified significant differences between studies. Change in joint space width ranged from -2.4 to -0.6 mm (i.e., decreased space) after meniscectomy (n = 186) and -0.9 to -0.1 mm after root repair (n = 209); change in medial meniscal extrusion ranged from -0.6 to 6.5 mm after root repair (n = 521) and 0.2 to 4.2 mm after meniscectomy (n = 66); and event rate for total knee arthroplasty ranged from 0.00 to 0.22 after root repair (n = 205), 0.35 to 0.60 after meniscectomy (n = 53), and 0.27 to 0.35 after nonoperative treatment (n = 93). Root repair produced the greatest numerical increase in International Knee Documentation Committee and Lysholm scores of the 3 treatment arms. In addition, root repair improvements in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Pain (range: 22-32), Sports and Recreational Activities (range: 23-36), Quality of Life (range: 22-42), and Symptoms subscales (range: 10-19), in studies with low risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature reporting on the treatment of meniscus root tears is heterogenous and largely limited to Level III and IV studies. Current evidence suggests root repair may be the most effective treatment strategy in lessening joint space narrowing of the knee and producing improvements in patient-reported outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level II-IV studies.

Revision and Primary Meniscal Allograft Transplantations Provide Clinical Benefit at Mid-Term Follow-Up: A Matched-Cohort Analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes, Reoperations, and Failures

PURPOSE

To report the mid-term outcomes of patients who underwent revision meniscal allograft transplantation (RMAT) and compare survivorship free from reoperation and failure with a matched cohort of patients who underwent primary meniscal allograft transplantation (PMAT).

METHODS

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data identified patients who underwent RMAT and PMAT between 1999 and 2017. A cohort of PMAT patients matched at a ratio of 2:1 with respect to age, body mass index, sex, and concomitant procedures served as the control group. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at baseline and at a minimum of 5 years postoperatively were collected. PROMs and the achievement of clinically significant outcomes were analyzed within groups. Graft survivorship free from meniscal reoperation and failure (arthroplasty or subsequent RMAT) was compared between cohorts using log-rank testing.

RESULTS

During the study period, 22 RMATs were performed in 22 patients. Of these RMAT patients, 16 met the inclusion criteria (73% follow-up rate). The mean age of RMAT patients was 29.7 ± 9.3 years, and the mean follow-up period was 9.9 ± 4.2 years (range, 5.4-16.8 years). There were no differences between the RMAT cohort and the 32 matched PMAT patients with respect to age (P = .292), body mass index (P = .623), sex (P = .537), concomitant procedures (P ≥ .286), or baseline PROMs (P ≥ .066). The patient acceptable symptomatic state was achieved by the RMAT cohort for the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee score (70%), Lysholm score (38%), and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales (Pain [73%], Symptoms [64%], Sport [45%], Activities of Daily Living [55%], and Quality of Life [36%]). In the RMAT cohort, 5 patients (31%) underwent subsequent reoperation at a mean of 4.7 ± 2.1 years (range, 1.7-6.7 years) and 5 patients met the criteria for failure at a mean of 4.9 ± 2.9 years (range, 1.2-8.4 years). There were no significant differences in survivorship free from reoperation (P = .735) or failure (P = .170) between the RMAT and PMAT cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

At mid-term follow-up, most patients who underwent RMAT achieved the patient acceptable symptomatic state for the subjective International Knee Documentation Committee score and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales of Pain, Symptoms, and Activities of Daily Living. Additionally, there were no differences in survival free from meniscal reoperation or failure between the PMAT and RMAT cohorts.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative cohort.

Systematic evaluation of the degree of joint amnesia in patients after total hip arthroplasty with direct anterior approach (DAA) compared with posterior approach (PA)

OBJECTIVE

A comparative study of joint amnesia in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty with the direct anterior approach and posterior approach was conducted through a comprehensive evaluation.

METHODS

The literature on joint amnesia in postoperative patients who underwent total hip arthroplasty by the direct anterior approach and the posterior approach was systematically searched in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, Wanfang, and VIP databases from the time of library construction until February 13, 2023. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software after independent searching, screening of the literature, data extraction, and quality assessment of the included studies by two investigators in strict accordance with the guidelines for conducting meta-analyses.

RESULTS

A total of one RCT and six cohort studies were included in this meta-analysis. Meta-analysis results indicated that at 1 month postoperatively (MD = 2.08, 95% CI (0.20, 3.96), P = 0.03), 3 months (MD = 10.08, 95% CI (1.20, 18.96), P = 0.03), and 1 year (MD = 6.74, 95% CI (1.30, 12.19), P = 0.02), DAA total hip arthroplasty was associated with better FJS compared to PA at 1 year postoperatively. However, there was no statistical significance in FJS between the two groups at 5 years postoperatively (MD = 1.35, 95% CI (- 0.58, 3.28), P = 0.17).

CONCLUSION

Current evidence suggests that the degree of joint amnesia after THA for DAA was not found to be superior to that of PA. Further, these findings require confirmation by including a larger number of high-quality randomized controlled studies.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3.

Effectiveness of a digital rehabilitation program based on computer vision and augmented reality for isolated meniscus injury: protocol for a prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The lack of access to physical therapists in developing countries and rural areas poses a significant challenge in supervising postsurgical rehabilitation, potentially impeding desirable outcomes following surgical interventions. For this reason, this study aims to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and effectiveness of utilizing a digital rehabilitation program based on computer vision and augmented reality in comparison with traditional care for patients who will undergo isolated meniscus repair, since to date, there is no literature on this topic.

METHODS

This study intends to enroll two groups of participants, each to be provided with informed consent before undergoing randomization into either the experimental or control group. The experimental group will undergo a digital rehabilitation program utilizing computer vision and augmented reality (AR) technology following their surgical procedure, while the control group will receive conventional care, involving in-clinic physical therapy sessions weekly. Both groups will adhere to a standardized rehabilitation protocol over a six-month duration. Follow-up assessments will be conducted at various intervals, including preoperatively, and at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks, and 24 weeks postoperatively. Imaging assessments and return-to-play evaluations will be conducted during the final follow-up. Clinical functionality will be assessed based on improvements in International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR2300070582.

Workers' Compensation Patients Undergoing Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome Experience Worse Mid-Term Outcomes but Similar Return-to-Work: A Propensity-Matched Analysis at 5-Year Follow-Up

PURPOSE

To investigate mid-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and return-to-work for workers' compensation (WC) patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy (HA) for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) versus propensity-matched, non-WC controls and to determine whether achievement rates of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) differ between these populations.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted on WC patients who underwent primary HA for FAIS from 2012 to 2017. WC and non-WC patients were propensity matched on a 1:4 basis by sex, age, and body mass index (BMI). PROs were compared preoperatively and at 5 years postoperatively, employing the Hip Outcome Score Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) and Sports-Specific (HOS-SS) subscales, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), 12-item international Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12), and visual analog scales (VAS) for pain and satisfaction. MCID and PASS were calculated using published thresholds for these measures. Preoperative and postoperative radiographs and the presence and timing of return to unrestricted work were evaluated.

RESULTS

Forty-three WC patients were successfully matched to 172 non-WC controls and followed for 64.2 ± 7.7 months. WC patients demonstrated lower preoperative scores for all measures (P ≤ .031) and worse HOS-ADL, HOS-SS, and VAS pain scores at 5-year follow-up (P ≤ .021). There were no differences in MCID achievement rates or magnitude of change between preoperative and 5-year postoperative PROs (P ≥ .093); however, WC patients achieved PASS at lower rates for HOS-ADL and HOS-SS (P ≤ .009). 76.7% of WC and 84.3% of non-WC patients returned to work without restrictions (P = .302) at 7.4 ± 4.4 versus 5.0 ± 3.8 months, respectively (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

WC patients undergoing HA for FAIS report worse preoperative pain and function than non-WC patients and experience worse pain, function, and PASS achievement at 5-year follow-up. However, they demonstrate similar MCID achievement and magnitude improvement between preoperative and 5-year postoperative PROs, and return to work without restrictions at a similar rate to non-WC patients, although they may take longer to do so.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Change in quality of life and return to work and sports after isolated closing-wedge distal femoral osteotomy

PURPOSE

To analyze return to work and sports, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after closing-wedge distal femoral osteotomy (CWDFO) for valgus deformity and lateral compartmental osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Thirty-three patients underwent isolated CWDFO in our center between January 2018 and June 2020 were enrolled, of whom 32 and 23 patients were included in the return-to-work and return-to-sports analyses, respectively. Short Form-36 (SF-36), Tegner score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and visual analog scale (VAS) pain score were compared preoperatively and postoperatively. And postoperative complications were recorded.

RESULTS

Overall, 33 patients were contacted at a mean follow-up of 37.94 ± 6.68 months, with a median age of 35 years (range: 26-63 years) at the surgery time. The physical component summary of SF-36 (p < 0.001) increased significantly at 1 year postoperatively. All patients returned to work, including 96.86% who returned to the same level of work in 1.89 ± 0.98 months, and to sports, including 78.26% who returned to the same sport level in 6.50 ± 2.05 months. Rates of returning to work (p = 0.215) and sports (p = 0.165) did not differ with work/sports intensity. Tegner scores (p = 0.025) and VAS pain scores (p < 0.001) decreased, and KOOS (p < 0.001) increased at 1 year postoperatively. Revision/conversion surgery was not required. In all, 30.43% patients reported a subjective decrease in sports ability; 82.61% patients considered their sports ability acceptable.

CONCLUSION

Patients returned to work/sports after isolated CWDFO, and had increased HRQoL. Patients playing high-impact sports had lower rates of returning to the same sport level, and may require preoperative counseling.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, Case series.

Arthroscopic Meniscectomy vs Meniscal Repair: Comparison of Clinical Outcomes

Background Meniscal tears are the most common injury of the knee. Surgical treatment has fallen into contention recently and includes arthroscopic meniscectomy and meniscal repair. The primary aim of this study was to quantitatively evaluate patients with isolated meniscal tears and compare their outcomes with patients who have undergone arthroscopic meniscus surgery. The secondary aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who have undergone arthroscopic meniscectomy with patients who have undergone arthroscopic meniscal repair. Methods This comparative clinical study screened 334 patients to identify subjects who underwent arthroscopic knee surgery for isolated meniscal tears and compare them to patients with symptomatic isolated meniscal tears awaiting surgery using validated patient-reported outcome measures. These included the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form, Lysholm score, Tegner score, EuroQol-5 Dimension, and the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey. Results A total of 117 patients (Meniscal Tear group (n=36), Meniscectomy group (n=64), and Meniscal Repair group (n=17)) were included in the final data analysis. Both the Meniscectomy group and the Meniscal Repair group (mean 55-month follow-up) showed significantly better clinical outcomes than patients in the Meniscal Tear group (p<0.05). Overall, the Meniscal Repair group demonstrated superior clinical outcomes when compared to the Meniscectomy group (p<0.05). Conclusion Arthroscopic knee surgery showed significant clinical benefit at medium-term follow-up in treating patients with isolated meniscal tears. When feasible, meniscal repair should be performed preferentially over meniscectomy.

Reprint of: Outcomes of Arthroscopic All-Inside Repair Are Improved Compared to Transtibial Pull-Out Repair of Medial Meniscus Posterior Root Tears

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent an all-inside repair (with a bony trough) versus transtibial pull-out repair in medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRTs).

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated consecutive patients who underwent MMPRT repairs in nonacute tears in age over 40 from November 2015 to June 2019. All patients were divided into a transtibial pull-out repair group and an all-inside repair group. Different surgical techniques were used during different time frames. All patients were followed-up for a minimum of 2 years. The data collected included the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective, Lysholm, and Tegner activity scores. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed at the 1-year follow-up to assess meniscus extrusion, signal intensity, and healing.

RESULTS

The final cohort consisted of 28 patients in the all-inside repair group and 16 in the transtibial pull-out repair group. In the all-inside repair group, the IKDC Subjective, Lysholm, and Tegner scores improved significantly at the 2-year follow-up. In the transtibial pull-out repair group, the IKDC Subjective, Lysholm, and Tegner scores did not improve significantly at the 2-year follow-up. Postoperative extrusion ratio increased in both groups, and patient-reported outcomes at follow-up did not differ between the two groups The change in the extrusion ratio was significantly less in the all-inside repair group (P = .009), as was the postoperative meniscus signal (P = .011). Postoperative MRI revealed significantly better healing in the all-inside group (P = .041).

CONCLUSION

All-inside repair improved the functional outcome scores. Radiologically, all-inside repair was better than transtibial pull-out repair. All-inside repair may be a viable MMPRT treatment option.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective cohort study.

Harmonising knee pain patient-reported outcomes: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) and individual participant data (IPD)

OBJECTIVE

In order to facilitate data pooling between studies, we explored harmonisation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in people with knee pain due to osteoarthritis or knee trauma, using the Patient Acceptable Symptom State scores (PASS) as a criterion.

METHODS

We undertook a systematic literature review (SLR) of PASS scores, and performed individual participant data (IPD) analysis of score distributions from concurrently completed PROM pairs. Numerical rating scales (NRS), visual analogue scales, KOOS and WOMAC pain questionnaires were standardised to 0 to 100 (worst) scales. Meta-regression explored associations of PASS. Bland Altman plots compared PROM scores within individuals using IPD from WebEx, KICK, MenTOR and NEKO studies.

RESULTS

SLR identified 18 studies reporting PASS in people with knee pain. Pooled standardised PASS was 27 (95% CI: 21 to 35; n = 6,339). PASS was statistically similar for each standardised PROM. Lower PASS was associated with lower baseline pain (β = 0.49, P = 0.01) and longer time from treatment initiation (Q = 6.35, P = 0.04). PASS scores were lowest in ligament rupture (12, 95% CI: 11 to 13), but similar between knee osteoarthritis (31, 95% CI: 26 to 36) and meniscal tear (27, 95% CI: 20 to 35). In IPD, standardised PROMs each revealed similar group mean scores, but scores within individuals diverged between PROMs (LoA between -7 to -38 and +25 to 52).

CONCLUSION

Different standardised PROMs give similar PASS thresholds in group data. PASS thresholds may be affected more by patient and treatment characteristics than between PROMs. However, different PROMs give divergent scores within individuals, possibly reflecting different experiences of pain.

Outcomes of Arthroscopic All-Inside Repair Are Improved Compared to Transtibial Pull-Out Repair of Medial Meniscus Posterior Root Tears

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients who underwent an all-inside repair (with a bony trough) versus transtibial pull-out repair in medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRTs).

METHODS

We retrospectively investigated consecutive patients who underwent MMPRT repairs in nonacute tears in age over 40 from November 2015 to June 2019. All patients were divided into a transtibial pull-out repair group and an all-inside repair group. Different surgical techniques were used during different time frames. All patients were followed-up for a minimum of 2 years. The data collected included the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective, Lysholm, and Tegner activity scores. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was performed at the 1-year follow-up to assess meniscus extrusion, signal intensity, and healing.

RESULTS

The final cohort consisted of 28 patients in the all-inside repair group and 16 in the transtibial pull-out repair group. In the all-inside repair group, the IKDC Subjective, Lysholm, and Tegner scores improved significantly at the 2-year follow-up. In the transtibial pull-out repair group, the IKDC Subjective, Lysholm, and Tegner scores did not improve significantly at the 2-year follow-up. Postoperative extrusion ratio increased in both groups, and patient-reported outcomes at follow-up did not differ between the two groups The change in the extrusion ratio was significantly less in the all-inside repair group (P = .009), as was the postoperative meniscus signal (P = .011). Postoperative MRI revealed significantly better healing in the all-inside group (P = .041).

CONCLUSION

All-inside repair improved the functional outcome scores. Radiologically, all-inside repair was better than transtibial pull-out repair. All-inside repair may be a viable MMPRT treatment option.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective cohort study.

Approximately One Half of Patients Greater Than 40 Years Old Achieve Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State 6 Months After Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy

Purpose

The purposes of this study were to 1) calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in a population of patients undergoing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) based on Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Scores (KOOS), 2) quantify the difference between the proportion of patients reaching MCID based on KOOS versus the proportion who considered surgery to be successful based on a "yes" answer to a patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) question, and 3) calculate the percentage of patients experiencing treatment failure (TF).

Methods

A large, single-institution clinical database was queried for patients undergoing isolated APM (>40 years of age). Data were collected at regular time intervals, including KOOS and PASS outcome measures. Calculation of MCID using a distribution-based model was performed using preoperative KOOS scores as baseline. Comparison of the proportion of patients surpassing MCID was made to the proportion of patients answering "yes" to a tiered PASS question at 6 months after APM. Proportion of patients experiencing TF was calculated using patients who responded "no" to a PASS question and "yes" to a TF question.

Results

Three-hundred and fourteen of 969 patients met inclusion criteria. At 6 months following APM, the percentage of patients meeting or exceeding the MCID for each respective KOOS subscore ranged from 64 to 72% compared to 48% who achieved a PASS (P < .0001 for each subscore). Fourteen percent of patients experienced TF.

Conclusions

Six months after APM, approximately one half of the patients achieved a PASS and 15% experienced TF. The difference between achieving MCID based on each of the KOOS subscores and achieving success via PASS ranged from 16% to 24%. Thirty-eight percent of patients undergoing APM did not fit neatly into overt success or failure categorization.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma combined with hyaluronic acid versus platelet-rich plasma alone for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To systematically evaluate the curative efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) combined with hyaluronic acid (HA) in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA), comparing with platelet-rich plasma alone.

Methods

Cochrane Library, PubMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and Embase were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies regarding the efficacy and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) combined with hyaluronic acid (HA) in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA) comparing with platelet-rich plasma alone before January 15, 2022. The methodological quality of the ultimately included studies was assessed comprehensively, and meta-analysis was implemented using RevMan 5.3 software.

Results

Thirteen articles (9 RCTs, 4 cohort studies), including 1118 patients, were covered. There was no significant difference between the PRP + HA therapy and PRP-alone therapy in VAS scores at 3 months, 6 months and 12 months, WOMAC total scores at 3 months and KOOS at 1 month and 6 months. Compared with PRP-alone therapy, PRP + HA therapy was associated with significantly better improvement in VAS scores at 1 month, WOMAC total scores at 6 months, KOOS at 3 months, IKDC scores at 6 months and Lequesne index scores at 3 and 6 months. However, the smallest treatment effect of VAS scores, WOMAC total scores, KOOS and IKDC scores did not exceed the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). However, PRP + HA therapy got a greater reduction in the rate of adverse events, compared with PRP-alone therapy.

Conclusion

The results of this meta-analysis indicated that PRP + HA therapy was not found to be superior to PRP-alone therapy in pain relief and function improvement for patients with KOA. However, combined PRP with HA injections was generally safer than PRP injections alone, by assessing the incidence of adverse events.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13018-022-03398-6.

What Is the Clinical Benefit of Common Orthopaedic Procedures as Assessed by the PROMIS Versus Other Validated Outcomes Tools?

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), are increasingly used to measure healthcare value. The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is a metric that helps clinicians determine whether a statistically detectable improvement in a PROM after surgical care is likely to be large enough to be important to a patient or to justify an intervention that carries risk and cost. There are two major categories of MCID calculation methods, anchor-based and distribution-based. This variability, coupled with heterogeneous surgical cohorts used for existing MCID values, limits their application to clinical care.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In our study, we sought (1) to determine MCID thresholds and attainment percentages for PROMIS after common orthopaedic procedures using distribution-based methods, (2) to use anchor-based MCID values from published studies as a comparison, and (3) to compare MCID attainment percentages using PROMIS scores to other validated outcomes tools such as the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) and Knee Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS).

METHODS

This was a retrospective study at two academic medical centers and three community hospitals. The inclusion criteria for this study were patients who were age 18 years or older and who underwent elective THA for osteoarthritis, TKA for osteoarthritis, one-level posterior lumbar fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis or spondylolisthesis, anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthritis or rotator cuff arthropathy, arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, arthroscopic partial meniscectomy, or arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. This yielded 14,003 patients. Patients undergoing revision operations or surgery for nondegenerative pathologies and patients without preoperative PROMs assessments were excluded, leaving 9925 patients who completed preoperative PROMIS assessments and 9478 who completed other preoperative validated outcomes tools (HOOS, KOOS, numerical rating scale for leg pain, numerical rating scale for back pain, and QuickDASH). Approximately 66% (6529 of 9925) of patients had postoperative PROMIS scores (Physical Function, Mental Health, Pain Intensity, Pain Interference, and Upper Extremity) and were included for analysis. PROMIS scores are population normalized with a mean score of 50 ± 10, with most scores falling between 30 to 70. Approximately 74% (7007 of 9478) of patients had postoperative historical assessment scores and were included for analysis. The proportion who reached the MCID was calculated for each procedure cohort at 6 months of follow-up using distribution-based MCID methods, which included a fraction of the SD (1/2 or 1/3 SD) and minimum detectable change (MDC) using statistical significance (such as the MDC 90 from p < 0.1). Previously published anchor-based MCID thresholds from similar procedure cohorts and analogous PROMs were used to calculate the proportion reaching MCID.

RESULTS

Within a given distribution-based method, MCID thresholds for PROMIS assessments were similar across multiple procedures. The MCID threshold ranged between 3.4 and 4.5 points across all procedures using the 1/2 SD method. Except for meniscectomy (3.5 points), the anchor-based PROMIS MCID thresholds (range 4.5 to 8.1 points) were higher than the SD distribution-based MCID values (2.3 to 4.5 points). The difference in MCID thresholds based on the calculation method led to a similar trend in MCID attainment. Using THA as an example, MCID attainment using PROMIS was achieved by 76% of patients using an anchor-based threshold of 7.9 points. However, 82% of THA patients attained MCID using the MDC 95 method (6.1 points), and 88% reached MCID using the 1/2 SD method (3.9 points). Using the HOOS metric (scaled from 0 to 100), 86% of THA patients reached the anchor-based MCID threshold (17.5 points). However, 91% of THA patients attained the MCID using the MDC 90 method (12.5 points), and 93% reached MCID using the 1/2 SD method (8.4 points). In general, the proportion of patients reaching MCID was lower for PROMIS than for other validated outcomes tools; for example, with the 1/2 SD method, 72% of patients who underwent arthroscopic partial meniscectomy reached the MCID on PROMIS Physical Function compared with 86% on KOOS.

CONCLUSION

MCID calculations can provide clinical correlation for PROM scores interpretation. The PROMIS form is increasingly used because of its generalizability across diagnoses. However, we found lower proportions of MCID attainment using PROMIS scores compared with historical PROMs. By using historical proportions of attainment on common orthopaedic procedures and a spectrum of MCID calculation techniques, the PROMIS MCID benchmarks are realizable for common orthopaedic procedures. For clinical practices that routinely collect PROMIS scores in the clinical setting, these results can be used by individual surgeons to evaluate personal practice trends and by healthcare systems to quantify whether clinical care initiatives result in meaningful differences. Furthermore, these MCID thresholds can be used by researchers conducting retrospective outcomes research with PROMIS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Benefits of Meniscal Repair in Selected Patients Aged 60 Years and Older

Background

Little is known about the benefits and outcomes of meniscal repair in patients older than 60 years.

Purpose

To (1) report the clinical and radiographic outcomes of meniscal repair in patients aged ≥60 years and compare them with matched patients who underwent meniscectomy and (2) identify procedural failures.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2.

Methods

We included 32 knees in 32 patients aged ≥60 years (20 female, 12 male; mean age, 64.5 ± 4.6 years) who underwent meniscal repair surgery at a single medical institution between 2010 and 2020. Patients were matched according to age, sex, body mass index, and meniscal tear type with a comparison cohort who underwent meniscectomy (n = 49 patients [49 knees]; 32 female, 17 male). For all patients, demographic information, clinical history, physical examination findings, treatment details, and radiographic images were reviewed and analyzed. At final follow-up (mean, 42.2 months; range, 13-128 months), patients completed the 2000 International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Evaluation Form, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and Lysholm score. Clinical failure was defined as revision surgery and/or progression to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). A matched-pairs t test was used to analyze differences between the 2 treatment groups, and Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to determine the rates of knee osteoarthritis and progression to TKA.

Results

The majority of patients had a medial meniscal tear (72.8%), whereas the lateral meniscus was torn in 27.2% of cases. Most tears were located in the meniscal root (56.8%), followed by the posterior horn (34.6%) and midbody (8.6%). At final follow-up, all outcome scores were higher in the repair group compared with the meniscectomy group (IKDC, 78.9 ± 13.4 vs 56.0 ± 15.4; KOOS, 86.6 ± 11.9 vs 61.7 ± 16.2; Lysholm, 88.3 ± 13.3 vs 68.7 ± 15.2, respectively; P < .001 for all). Clinical failure was observed in 22% of patients in the repair group.

Conclusion

All clinical outcome scores were higher in the meniscal repair group compared with the matched meniscectomy group at final follow-up. The clinical failure rate of the repair group was 22%. These findings support meniscal repair in selected patients aged ≥60 years.

Time to Achieving Clinically Significant Outcomes After Meniscal Allograft Transplantation

PURPOSE

To determine the time to achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for commonly administered patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures and risk factors affecting achievement of clinically significant outcomes in patients undergoing meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT).

METHODS

A prospectively maintained MAT registry was retrospectively reviewed from April 2014 to May 2019. Patients who underwent revision MAT or did not complete preoperative PROs or one post operative time point were excluded. Patients who underwent concomitant procedures were included in the analysis. PROs were administered preoperatively and at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. Previously defined MCID and PASS thresholds were utilized and Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis with interval censoring was used to calculate the cumulative percentages of MCID and PASS achievement at each follow-up time interval (5-7, 11-13, and 23-25 months).

RESULTS

Eighty patients (age: 28.35 ± 9.76, 50% male) who completed preoperative, 6-month (n = 69, 86% compliance), and 1-year (n = 76, 95% compliance) PROs were included. The majority of patients (>50%) achieved MCID and PASS on most included PROs. Workers' compensation status was found to significantly delay achievement of MCID and PASS on all PROs except for PASS on Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) quality of life (QoL). Higher body mass index (BMI) significantly delayed time to achieving MCID on KOOS Pain and activities of daily living (ADL), as well as PASS on KOOS Symptoms and KOOS QoL.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that the majority of patients have clinically significant improvements in pain and function after MAT, with more than 50% of patients experiencing clinically significant improvement within the first postoperative year. Workers' compensation status and high BMI may prolong time to achievement of MCID and PASS after MAT.

Establishing Clinically Significant Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction in Pediatric Patients

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to establish clinically significant outcome values for the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) in the pediatric and adolescent populations and to assess factors that were associated with achieving these outcomes.

METHODS

Patients between the age of 10 to 21 who underwent ACLR between 2016 and 2018 were identified and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected preoperatively and postoperatively. Intraoperative variables collected included graft choice, graft size (diameter), graft fixation method, and concomitant procedures. PROs collected for analysis were the International Knee Documentation Committee Score (IKDC) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). MCID and PASS were calculated using receiver operating characteristic with area under the curve analyses for delta (ie, baseline-to-postoperative change) and absolute postoperative PRO scores, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 59 patients were included in the analysis. Of the entire study population, 53 (89.8%) reported satisfaction with their surgical outcome. The established MCID threshold values based on the study population were 33.3 for IKDC, 28.6 for (KOOS) Symptoms, 19.4 for Pain, 2.9 for activities of daily living (ADL), 45.0 for Sport, and 25.0 for Quality of Life (QoL). Postoperative scores greater than the following values corresponded to the PASS: 80.5 for IKDC, 75.0 (KOOS) Symptoms, 88.9 for Pain, 98.5 for ADL, 75.0 for Sport, and 68.8 for QoL.

CONCLUSION

Clinically meaningful outcomes including MCID and PASS were established for pediatric ACLR surgery using selected PRO measures, IKDC, and KOOS. Patient age, sex, graft type, and graft size were not associated with greater achievement of these outcomes. In contrast, collision sports, fixed-object high-impact rotational landing sports, and concomitant meniscectomy surgery were associated with a decreased likelihood of achieving clinically significant improvement. However, findings must be interpreted with caution due to limitations in follow-up and sample size.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV: case series.

Maximum subjective outcome improvement is reported by 3 Months following arthroscopic partial meniscectomy: A systematic review

Purpose

To review patient outcomes in the literature following arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) in order to identify when patients report reaching subjective maximal improvement postoperatively.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature from January 2004 to August 2019 was conducted using PRISMA guidelines to identify articles evaluating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) up to a minimum of 6 months after APM in patients >18 years old. Studies were excluded if additional interventions were performed such as repairs, ligamentous reconstruction or repair, cartilaginous manipulation, or revision surgery. PROMs were pooled between studies at preoperative, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 year time points. Weighted averages were used within a mixed model method in order to account for the differences in sample size and variance among studies. Significant improvements in PROMs at various time intervals were statistically analyzed using minimal clinically important difference.

Results

A total of 12 studies including 1663 patients who underwent APM were selected for the review. The pooled cohort consisted of 1033 (62%) males and 630 (38%) females. Significant improvements were demonstrated from preoperative scores to 3 months postoperatively in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subcategories, Lysholm, and visual analog scale scores while no differences were found for Tegner and International Knee Documentation Committee scores. Although statistically significant improvement in PROMs remained at all postoperative time points compared to preoperative scores, no significant differences were observed after 3 months postoperatively.

Conclusions

Patients undergoing APM had significant mean changes in legacy PROMs by 3 months postoperatively that exceeded given minimal clinically important difference values, without further clinically important improvement reported up to 2 years postoperatively.

Study design

Level III, systematic review.

Impact of Preoperative Opioid Use on 2-Year Patient-Reported Outcomes in Knee Surgery Patients

The objectives of this study are to assess perioperative opioid use in patients undergoing knee surgery and to examine the relationship between preoperative opioid use and 2-year postoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs). We hypothesized that preoperative opioid use and, more specifically, higher quantities of preoperative opioid use would be associated with worse PROs in knee surgery patients. We studied 192 patients undergoing knee surgery at a single urban institution. Patients completed multiple PRO measures preoperatively and 2-year postoperatively, including six patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) domains; the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) questionnaire, numeric pain scale (NPS) scores for the operative knee and the rest of the body, Marx's knee activity rating scale, Tegner's activity scale, International Physical Activity Questionnaire, as well as measures of met expectations, overall improvement, and overall satisfaction. Total morphine equivalents (TMEs) were calculated from a regional prescription monitoring program. Eighty patients (41.7%) filled an opioid prescription preoperatively, and refill TMEs were significantly higher in this subpopulation. Opioid use was associated with unemployment, government insurance, smoking, depression, history of prior surgery, higher body mass index, greater comorbidities, and lower treatment expectations. Preoperative opioid use was associated with significantly worse 2-year scores on most PROs, including PROMIS physical function, pain interference, fatigue, social satisfaction, IKDC, NPS for the knee and rest of the body, and Marx's and Tegner's scales. There was a significant dose-dependent association between greater preoperative TMEs and worse scores for PROMIS physical function, pain interference, fatigue, social satisfaction, NPS body, and Marx's and Tegner's scales. Multivariable analysis confirmed that any preoperative opioid use, but not quantity of TMEs, was an independent predictor of worse 2-year scores for function, activity, and knee pain. Preoperative opioid use and TMEs were neither independent predictors of met expectations, satisfaction, patient-perceived improvement, nor improvement on any PROs. Our findings demonstrate that preoperative opioid use is associated with clinically relevant worse patient-reported knee function and pain after knee surgery.

Patient Perception of Being "Completely Better" After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Contextualizing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) by defining clinically relevant differences is important. Considering that anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) ideally results in the restoration of normal knee function, an assessment of patients' perception of being "completely better" (CB) may be of particular value.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence and characteristics of patients who self-report a CB status after ACLR. Additionally, we aimed to determine whether PROs were associated with a CB status after ACLR as well as to determine CB status thresholds for 2-year and change in values.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data from an orthopaedic registry at a single institution. Patients were administered the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF), PROMIS Pain Interference (PI), and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) Subjective Knee Form preoperatively and at 2 years after ACLR. Additionally, patients completed a CB anchor question at 2 years after ACLR. Thresholds for 2-year and change in PRO scores associated with achieving a CB status were identified with 90% specificity.

RESULTS

Overall, 95 of the 136 patients (69.9%) considered their condition to be CB at 2 years after surgery. The 2-year and change in PROMIS PF, PROMIS PI, and IKDC scores were significantly better in the CB group than in the non-CB group. Thresholds associated with a CB status for 2-year PROMIS PF, PROMIS PI, and IKDC scores were more reliable than those for changes in scores and were ≥63, ≤44, and ≥80, respectively. Thresholds for the change in PROMIS PF, PROMIS PI, and IKDC scores were ≥19, ≤-16, and ≥44, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients reported that they were CB at 2 years after ACLR. This study may serve as a reference for orthopaedic surgeons and researchers when considering outcomes after ACLR.

Predictive Factors Associated With Short-Term Clinical Outcomes and Time to Return to Activity After Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy in Nonathletes

Background:

Although arthroscopic partial meniscectomy is a widely implemented surgical procedure, studies investigating the time to return to activity (RTA) are rare.

Purpose:

To explore which factors are associated with the RTA times after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy and to investigate whether those factors can also improve short-term patient-reported outcomes.

Study Design:

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

The authors reviewed the records of patients who underwent isolated partial meniscectomy in their institution from January 2017 to December 2019. Patient and injury characteristics were documented, and time to RTA was obtained via phone interview in January 2021. Pre- and postoperative outcomes were assessed with the Lysholm score and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score. The chi-square test and independent-samples t test were used to evaluate differences in outcome scores and time to RTA according to the patient and injury characteristics, and risk factors with a P value <.1 in the univariate analysis were used in the binary regression.

Results:

Included were 215 patients (87 men and 128 women; mean age, 33.7 years [range, 24-75 years]). Of these patients, 204 provided information on time to RTA (mean, 3.3 months). By 3 months postoperatively, 49.5% (101/204) of patients could perform activities without knee-related restriction; this improved to 69.6% (142/204) at 6 months and 90.2% (184/204) at 12 months. On multivariate logistic regression analysis, age (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.21-1.19; P = .044) and injury duration (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.19-1.07; P = .032) were significantly associated with the time to RTA. IKDC scores improved significantly from 41.2 preoperatively to 76.7 postoperatively, and in the multivariate logistic regression model, female sex (OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.10-6.47; P = .030), body mass index (BMI) ≥27 kg/m² (OR, 2.96; 95% CI, 1.02-8.66; P = .047), and medial meniscal tear (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.04-1.00; P = .050) were associated with inferior outcome scores.

Conclusion:

Patients aged 40 years and younger who underwent partial meniscectomy surgery within 6 months after a meniscal tear were more likely to have a shorter time to RTA, and female patients with obesity (BMI ≥27 kg/m2), especially those with medial meniscal tears, tended to have inferior clinical outcomes.

Predictors of Disparities in Patient-Reported Outcomes before and after Arthroscopic Meniscectomy

The purpose of this study is to identify predictors of disparities in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) before and after arthroscopic meniscectomy. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was used in this study. All patients who underwent single-knee arthroscopic meniscectomy from January 2012 to March 2018 performed by a single surgeon at an academic safety-net hospital were identified. We excluded patients who had undergone ipsilateral previous knee surgery, bilateral meniscectomy, or concomitant ligament, cartilage, or osteotomy procedures, and those with severe radiographic osteoarthritis in the operated knee, missing preoperative data, or military insurance. Data abstracted from medical records included demographics (age, sex, race, insurance type), clinical characteristics (body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, and Kellgren-Lawrence [KL] grade), procedure codes, and KOOS assessed before and 90 days after surgery. Multivariable analyses investigated the associations between patient characteristics and the KOOS Pain, other Symptoms, and Function in activities of daily living (ADL) subscales. Among 251 eligible patients, most were female (65.5%), half were of nonwhite race (50.2%), and almost one third were insured by Medicaid (28.6%). Medicaid and black race were statistically significant (p < 0.05) predictors of worse preoperative values for all three KOOS subscales. Medicaid insurance also predicted a lower likelihood of successful surgery, defined as meeting the 10-point minimal clinically important difference, for the KOOS symptoms (p < 0.05) and KOOS ADL (p < 0.05) subscales. Compared with patients without definitive evidence of radiographic osteoarthrosis (KL grade 1), those with moderate radiographic osteoarthritis (KL grade 3) were less likely to have a successful surgical outcome (p < 0.05 for all subscales). Worse preoperative KOOS values predicted worse postoperative KOOS values (p < 0.001 for all subscales) and a lower likelihood of surgical success (p < 0.01 for all subscales). Insurance-based disparities in access to orthopaedic care for meniscus tears may explain worse preoperative PROMs and lower success rates of meniscectomy among Medicaid patients. Patients with meniscus tears and radiological and/or magnetic resonance imaging evidence of osteoarthritis should be carefully evaluated to determine the appropriateness of arthroscopic meniscectomy.

Differences in Baseline Characteristics and Outcome Among Responders, Late Responders, and Never-Responders After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BACKGROUND

Loss to follow-up in registry studies might affect generalizability and interpretation of results.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of nonresponder bias in our anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) registry.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A total of 2042 patients with ACL reconstruction in the Hospital for Special Surgery ACL Registry between 2009 and 2013 were included in the study. Patients who completed the patient-reported outcome measures at 2 or 5 years were considered responders (n = 808). Baseline data and patient characteristics were compared between responders and nonresponders (n = 1234). Both responders and nonresponders were contacted and invited to complete the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and Marx scores electronically and respond to questions regarding return to sports and subsequent surgeries. Nonresponders who completed the questionnaires after reminders were considered late responders. The remaining nonresponders were considered never-responders. The late responders (n = 367) completed the questionnaires after a mean follow-up of 7.8 years (range, 6.7-9.6 years), while follow-up for the responders was 6.8 years (range, 5.0-9.7 years). Responders and late responders were then compared in terms of differences in IKDC and Marx scores from baseline to final follow-up.

RESULTS

Nonresponders were younger (28.5 vs 31.5 years; P < .001) and more often male (60% vs 53%; P = .003) compared with responders. Responders had a higher level of education and were more likely to be White (79% vs 74%; P = .04). There were no substantial differences in patient characteristics or baseline IKDC and Marx scores between the late responders and never-responders. There were no statistically significant differences in patient-reported outcomes, return to sports, or subsequent surgeries between responders and late responders at a mean follow-up time of 8.8 years (range, 6.7-9.7 years). Repeat email reminders and telephone calls increased response rate by 18% (from 40% to 58%).

CONCLUSION

There was no difference in clinical outcome as evaluated using IKDC and Marx scores between responders and late responders.

Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient-Acceptable Symptomatic State After Arthroscopic Meniscal Repair and Associated Variables for Achievement

PURPOSE

To establish the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient-acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) after arthroscopic meniscal repair and identify the factors associated with achieving these outcomes.

METHODS

This is a retrospective study with prospectively collected data. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected from April 2017 to March 2020. All patients who underwent arthroscopic meniscal repair and completed both preoperative and postoperative PROMs were included in the analysis. MCID and PASS were calculated via half the standard deviation of the delta PRO change from baseline (for International Knee Documentation Committee Score [IKDC]) and via anchor-based methodology (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS] subscales).

RESULTS

Sixty patients were included in the final analysis. The established MCID threshold values were 10.9 for IKDC, 12.3 for KOOS Symptoms, 11.8 for KOOS Pain, 11.4 for KOOS Activities of Daily Living (ADL), 16.7 for KOOS Sport, and 16.9 for KOOS Quality of Life (QoL). Postoperative scores greater than the following values corresponded to the PASS: 69.0 for IKDC, 75.0 for KOOS Symptoms, 80.6 for KOOS Pain, 92.7 for KOOS ADL, 80.0 for KOOS Sport, and 56.3 for KOOS QoL. Higher preoperative PRO scores were associated with lower likelihood of achieving MCID. Concomitant ligament procedures were associated with a higher likelihood of achieving PASS. Tears to both menisci were associated with decreased likelihood of achieving MCID and PASS for IKDC. Horizontal tears were associated with decreased likelihood of achieving PASS for IKDC and KOOS. Complex tears were associated with decreased likelihood of achieving MCID for KOOS.

CONCLUSION

Clinically meaningful outcomes such as MCID and PASS were established for meniscal repair surgery using selected PROMs for IKDC and KOOS subscales. Variables more likely to be associated with achieving these outcomes include lower preoperative PRO score and concomitant ligament procedure, whereas higher preoperative PRO score, tearing of both medial and lateral menisci, and horizontal and complex tear classifications were associated with decreased likelihood of achieving these outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective case series.

Preoperative pain sensitivity questionnaire helps customize pain management after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy

PURPOSE

To evaluate correlations between preoperative pain sensitivity and postoperative analgesic consumption together with pain perception shortly after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy in non-arthritic knees.

METHODS

Ninety-nine patients who underwent primary arthroscopic meniscectomy were prospectively divided into three postoperative treatment groups that were prescribed with betamethasone injection (at the end of surgery), oral celecoxib or rescue analgesia (control). Preoperative pain sensitivity was evaluated by pain sensitivity questionnaires (PSQ). Patients were followed for the first three postoperative weeks to evaluate knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) pain scores and analgesics consumption. Statistical analysis included correlations among preoperative pain sensitivity, postoperative pain levels and analgesics consumption. A receiver operating characteristic curve was plotted to investigate the cutoff values of the PSQ score to predict insufficient postoperative pain reduction.

RESULTS

There were no differences at baseline among all study groups in age, sex, BMI, level of activity, comorbidities and surgical findings. At the final follow-up, KOOS pain scores improved in all groups (p < 0.001). Mean final KOOS pain scores were 76.1 ± 15.2 for the betamethasone group, 70.8 ± 12.6 for the celecoxib group and 78.7 ± 11.6 for the control group. No differences in scores were observed among groups (n.s.). In the control group, a negative correlation was observed between PSQ score and KOOS-pain scores at the end of the follow-up in addition to a positive correlation between PSQ score and rescue analgesia consumption at the first postoperative week. The optimal cutoff value for PSQ score to predict insufficient improvement in KOOS-pain subscale was 5.0 points.

CONCLUSIONS

A cutoff value of pain sensitivity questionnaire score above 5.0 points was determined to identify patients with higher sensitivity to pain who underwent arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. These patients reported relatively increased pain and consumed more rescue analgesics postoperatively unless treated with a single intraoperative corticosteroids injection or oral non-steroidal anti-inflammatories. Therefore, surgeons can use pain sensitivity questionnaire score as a preoperative tool to identify patients with high sensitivity to pain and customize their postoperative analgesics protocol to better fit their pain levels.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Establishing clinically significant outcomes of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity questionnaire after primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS

Since its introduction, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity (PROMIS UE) assessment has been increasingly used in shoulder arthroplasty outcome measurement. However, determination of clinically significant outcomes using the PROMIS UE has yet to be investigated following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). We hypothesized that we could establish clinically significant outcomes of the PROMIS UE outcome assessment in patients undergoing primary RTSA and identify significant baseline patient factors associated with achievement of these measures.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing primary RTSA between 2018 and 2019 who received preoperative baseline and follow-up PROMIS UE assessments at 12 months after surgery were retrospectively reviewed. Domain-specific anchor questions pertaining to pain and function assessed at 12 months after surgery were used to determine minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) values for the PROMIS UE using receiver operating characteristic curve and area-under-the-curve (AUC) analysis. Univariate logistic regression analysis was then performed to identify significant patient factors associated with achieving the MCID, SCB, or PASS.

RESULTS

A total of 95 patients met all inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. By use of an anchor-based method, the PASS value was 36.68 (sensitivity, 0.795; specificity, 0.765; AUC, 0.793) and the SCB value was 11.62 (sensitivity, 0.597; specificity, 1.00; AUC, 0.806). By use of a distribution-based method, the MCID value was calculated to be 4.27. Higher preoperative PROMIS UE scores were a positive predictor in achievement of the PASS (odds ratio [OR], 1.107; P = .05), whereas lower preoperative PROMIS UE scores were associated with obtaining SCB (OR, 0.787; P < .001). Greater baseline forward flexion was negatively associated with achievement of the PASS (OR, 0.986; P = .033) and MCID (OR, 0.976, P = .013). Of the patients, 83.2%, 69.5%, and 47.4% achieved the MCID, PASS, and SCB, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study defines the MCID, SCB, and PASS for the PROMIS UE outcome assessment in patients undergoing primary RTSA, of whom the majority achieved meaningful outcome improvement at 12 months after surgery. These values may be used in assessing the outcomes and extent of functional improvement following RTSA.

Cutoff Values to Interpret Short-term Treatment Outcomes After Arthroscopic Meniscal Surgery, Measured With the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score

OBJECTIVE

To determine the proportions of patients who (1) perceived their symptoms to be satisfactory, (2) perceived their treatment to have failed, or (3) perceived that they improved to an important degree at 3 months after arthroscopic meniscal surgery; and to determine Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscale scores corresponding to the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), treatment failure, and the minimal important change (MIC) for improvement.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

METHODS

Patients from the Knee Arthroscopy Cohort Southern Denmark who had arthroscopic meniscal surgery were included. The PASS, treatment failure, and MIC improvement values were calculated for the KOOS subscales with anchor-based approaches, using the adjusted predictive modeling method. Subgroup analyses were performed by stratifying by age (40 years or younger versus older than 40 years) and surgery type.

RESULTS

Six hundred fourteen patients (44% female; mean ± SD age, 50 ± 13 years) were included. At 3 months after arthroscopic meniscal surgery, 45% of patients perceived their symptoms to be satisfactory, 19% perceived the treatment to have failed, and 44% to 60% perceived that they had improved to an important degree across the 5 KOOS subscales (for PASS/treatment failure, respectively: pain, 74 and 60 points; symptoms, 72 and 61 points; function in activities of daily living, 81 and 68 points; sport and recreational function, 43 and 26 points; and knee-related quality of life, 52 and 40 points; for MIC improvement: pain, 12 points; symptoms, 8 points; function in activities of daily living, 12 points; sport and recreational function, 17 points; and knee-related quality of life, 9 points). The PASS values were 6 to 17 points higher for patients 40 years or younger compared to patients older than 40 years.

CONCLUSION

At 3 months after meniscal surgery, approximately half of the patients perceived their symptoms to have improved to an important degree, 4 in every 10 patients perceived their symptoms to be satisfactory, and 2 in every 10 patients perceived the treatment to have failed. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2021;51(6):281-288. Epub 30 Jan 2021. doi:10.2519/jospt.2021.10149.

Outcomes at 20 Years After Meniscectomy in Patients Aged 50 to 70 Years

PURPOSE

To report the outcomes of arthroscopic meniscectomy (AM) at 20 years of follow-up through timing/rate of conversion to total knee replacement (TKR) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), focusing on detection of specific predictor variables for these outcomes, in patients 50 to 70 years old.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 289 patients, ages at surgery 50 to 70 years, with diagnosis of degenerative meniscal tear who underwent arthroscopic meniscectomy. We collected the following baseline data: age, sex, injured meniscus (medial, lateral, or both), knee alignment, osteoarthritis (OA), associated lesion identified during arthroscopy, and associated procedure performed during arthroscopy. At 20 years of follow-up, we collected rate and timing of TKR conversion, and we evaluated clinical outcomes with KOOS.

RESULTS

Female sex (P < .01), older age (P < .01), lateral meniscectomy (P = .02), malalignment (P = .03), and advanced chondral lesion (P < .01) were found to be significantly related to subsequent TKR. No significant correlation was found between amount of resection and subsequent TKR (P = .26). Negative predictor factors to obtain equal or superior to age- and sex-adjusted KOOS scores were age 60 to 70 years at time of AM (P = .03) and lateral meniscectomy (P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

We report a 15.7% conversion rate at 20 years from AM to TKR and a mean time between surgeries of 7 years. Subsequent TKR in the 20 years after AM for degenerative meniscus tears were significantly associated with preoperative OA and chondral lesion (Kellgren Lawrence 2; Outerbridge >2), lateral meniscectomy, age at surgery, female sex, and malalignment. Furthermore, age >60 years, lateral meniscectomy, and concurrent anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction were negative predictors for poor clinical outcomes at 20 years. Therefore, if patients present with negative predictor factors, the AM should not be proposed as second-line treatment, and nonoperative management should be continued until TKR is unavoidable.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, case series.

Establishing clinically significant outcome thresholds for the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation 2 years following total shoulder arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE) is a simple, time-efficient patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) used to assess postoperative shoulder function. Clinically significant outcome values and ability to correlate with longer legacy PROM scores at 2 years following shoulder arthroplasty are unknown.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed using SANE, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), and Constant scores that were collected at a minimum 2-year follow-up. A total of 153 patients who underwent anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) were included. A distribution-based method was used to determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). An anchor-based method was used to determine substantial clinical benefit (SCB). The following anchor question was collected alongside the PROMs and graded on a 15-point Likert-type scale to establish the SCB: "Since your surgery, has there been any change in the pain in your shoulder?" Linear regression was used to assess correlations between PROMs.

RESULTS

SANE showed moderate correlation with ASES (R² = 0.493) and Constant (R² = 0.586) scores (P < .001). The MCID value was 14.9, and the SCB absolute value was 80.4 (area under the curve = 0.663) for SANE. Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that patients undergoing RTSA were less likely to achieve SCB on all 3 outcome measures (P < .02).

CONCLUSIONS

This study establishes concurrent construct validity for SANE and suggests that it is a valid metric to assess the MCID and SCB at 2 years following anatomic TSA and RTSA. SANE demonstrated moderate correlations with ASES and Constant scores. Patients undergoing RTSA demonstrated a lower propensity to achieve SCB at 2 years postoperatively compared with anatomic TSA.

Timeline for maximal subjective outcome improvement following total ankle arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Maximal medical improvement (MMI) establishes the timepoint when patients no longer experience clinically significant improvements following surgery. The purpose of this investigation is to establish when patients achieve MMI following total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) through the use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

A systematic review to identify studies on TAA which reported consecutive PROMs for two years postoperatively was performed. Pooled analysis was done at 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months. Clinically significant improvement was defined as improvement between time intervals exceeding the minimal clinically important difference.

RESULTS

Twelve studies and 1514 patients met inclusion criteria. Clinically significant improvement was seen up to 6 months postoperatively in both the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society Ankle Hindfoot Score and Visual Analog Scale scoring systems. The Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Dysfunction and Bother subsections showed maximal clinically significant improvement by 1 year postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Following TAA, MMI is seen by one year postoperatively. Physicians may allocate the majority of resources within the first year when most of the improvement is perceived. This data may help inform preoperative counseling as it establishes a timeline for MMI.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

The Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State in Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Predictors of Achievement

PURPOSE

To identify thresholds for patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) achievement in a cohort of primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) recipients, and to identify factors predictive of PASS achievement.

METHODS

A prospective clinical registry was queried for primary ACLR patients from January 2014 to April 2017 with serial patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) completion at 6, 12, and 24 months. Exclusion criteria included significant concomitant procedures. Knee-based PROMs included the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscores. PASS threshold values were calculated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves with area under the curve (AUC) analysis. A stepwise multivariate regression identified preoperative and operative predictors of PASS achievement.

RESULTS

A total of 144 primary ACLR patients (30.86 ± 12.78 years, body mass index 25.51 ± 4.64, 41.0% male) were included in the analysis. PASS threshold values were established using ROC curve analysis, all of which exceeded 0.7 on AUC analysis (0.742 to 0.911). Factors impacting odds of PASS achievement in the ACLR cohort included preoperative exercises (odds ratio [OR] 2.95 to 4.74, P = .003 to .038), worker's compensation status (OR 0.25 to 0.28, P = .014 to .033), preoperative scores (OR 1.03 to 1.07, P = .005 to <.001), iliotibial band tenodesis (OR 11.08, P = .010), and anteromedial approach (OR 18.03 to 37.05, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Factors predictive of PASS achievement in recipients of primary ACLR include functional status (e.g., preoperative exercise, preoperative KOOS Sport/Recreation score), worker's compensation status, technique (e.g., anteromedial) and preoperative PROMs. The results of our study are important in better informing shared decision-making models and improving evidence-based guidelines to optimize patient outcomes.

Editorial Commentary: Preoperative Exercise, Workers' Compensation, Diabetes, Lateral Extra-Articular Tenodesis, and Return to Sport Determine Patient Satisfaction After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been developed and used as the primary determinant of successful patient-centered results. The patient acceptable symptomatic state delineates an absolute value for PROMs indicating that patients are satisfied with their outcome. When this metric is used for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, patients reach a satisfactory outcome at between 6 and 8 months postoperatively, and more than 90% reach a satisfactory outcome at 12 months. Preoperative variables such as preoperative exercise, Workers' Compensation, and diabetes impact patient outcomes, whereas preoperative PROMs and use of the anteromedial portal technique for femoral tunnel drilling have a limited impact on satisfaction. Iliotibial band tenodesis shows a large impact on satisfactory outcomes; however, this result may be affected by patient demographic issues (selection bias). Ultimately, a "satisfactory" outcome is a very general term and may not necessarily apply to active athletes desiring a return to competitive sport. Thus, the patient acceptable symptomatic state should be interpreted in combination with a surgeon's experience. Ultimately, the success of a surgical procedure could be determined, in large part, based on the patient's individual preoperative expectations.

Intermediate-Term Outcomes Following Operative and Nonoperative Management of Midshaft Clavicle Fractures in Children and Adolescents: Internal Fixation May Improve Outcomes

Although multiple prospective comparative studies exist for adults with midshaft clavicle fractures, few comparative studies exist in older children and adolescents. This study compares intermediate-term functional, pain, radiographic, and complication outcomes in children and adolescents with midshaft clavicle fractures treated operatively or nonoperatively.

Regenerative Potential of Mesenchymal Stem Cells for the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis and Chondral Defects: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the effects of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) on cartilage regeneration and patient-reported pain and function.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines using a PRISMA checklist. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed (2008-2019), EMBASE (2008-2019), and MEDLINE (2008-2019) were queried in July 2019 for literature reporting use of stem cells to treat knee osteoarthritis or chondral defects. Data describing administered treatment, subject population, injection type, duration of follow-up, pain and functional outcomes, and radiographic and magnetic resonance imaging findings were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Downs and Black scale. Meta-analyses adjusted for random effects were performed, calculating pooled effect sizes in terms of patient-reported pain and function, cartilage quality, and cartilage volume.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies with 439 subjects were identified. There was no significant difference in pain improvement between MSC treatment and controls (pooled standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.23, P = .30). However, MSC treatment was significantly favored for functional improvement (SMD = 0.66, P < .001). There was improvement in cartilage volume after MSC treatment (SMD = 0.84, P < .001). Regarding cartilage quality, meta-analysis resulted in a small, nonsignificant effect size of 0.37 (95%, -0.03 to 0.77, P = .07). There was risk for potential bias among included studies, with 17 (68%) receiving either a grade of "poor" or "fair."

CONCLUSIONS

The pooled SMD from meta-analyses showed statistically significant effects of MSC on self-reported physical function but not self-reported pain. MSCs provided functional benefit only in patients who underwent concomitant surgery. However, this must be interpreted with caution, as there was substantial variability in MSC composition and mode of delivery. MSC treatment provided significant improvement in cartilage volume but not cartilage quality. Preliminary data regarding therapeutic properties of MSC treatment suggest significant heterogeneity in the current literature, and risk of bias is not negligible.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II, Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Intra-Articular Mesenchymal Stromal Cell Injections Are No Different From Placebo in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of intra-articular mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) injections for knee osteoarthritis (OA) treatment.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library through April 2020 to identify level I randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the clinical efficacy of MSCs versus control treatments for knee OA. Outcomes were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis with random-effects models.

RESULTS

A total of 13 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, there was no significant difference in VAS for pain (mean difference [MD] 1.62, 95% confidence interval [CI -0.60 to 3.85), WOMAC pain score (MD 1.88, 95% CI -0.21 to 3.98), WOMAC function score (MD -0.67, 95% CI -6.54 to 5.19), or WOMAC stiffness score (MD 0.64, 95% CI -0.86 to 2.14) for MSCs. Moreover, the smallest treatment effect of VAS for pain, WOMAC pain score, WOMAC function score, and WOMAC stiffness score did not exceed the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Additionally, there was no significant difference in percentage of patients crossing the MCID threshold between MSC and placebo groups for VAS for pain (relative risk [RR] 0.93, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.57) or WOMAC total score (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.21). Compared with hyaluronic acid (HA), MSC injection was associated with significantly better improvement in VAS for pain (MD 2.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 3.07), WOMAC pain score (MD 4.58, 95% CI 0.49 to 8.67), WOMAC total score (MD 14.86, 95% CI 10.59 to 19.13), and WOMAC stiffness score (MD 1.85, 95% CI 0.02 to 3.69). However, the smallest treatment effect of VAS for pain, WOMAC pain score, WOMAC function score, and WOMAC stiffness score did not exceed the MCID. Moreover, there was no significant difference in percentage of patients crossing the MCID threshold between MSC and HA groups for WOMAC total score (RR 0.57, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.55). We also found that MSCs did not increase adverse events compared with HA and placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Intra-articular MSC injection was not found to be superior to placebo in pain relief and functional improvement for patients with symptomatic knee OA. However, additional direct testing and combination trials of different type of cells, doses, and number of injections of MSCs are required to further enhance clinical decision making for people with symptomatic knee OA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I, meta-analysis of level I studies.

Time to Achievement of Clinically Significant Outcomes After Isolated Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy: A Multivariate Analysis

Purpose

To define the time required to achieve the minimally clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for isolated arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM), and define preoperative and intraoperative factors that predict both early and late achievement of the stated metrics.

Methods

Patients who underwent isolated APM between 2014 and 2017 were retrospectively included. Patients without preoperative and 6-month patient-reported outcome measure scores, revision procedures, and significant concomitant procedures were excluded. The MCID, SCB, and PASS were calculated for knee-based patient-reported outcome measure scores using receiver operating curve analysis. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis established the time required to achieve MCID, SCB and PASS. Hazard ratios from multivariate Cox regression allowed for the isolation of demographic and intraoperative factors predictive of the delayed time required to achieve MCID, SCB and PASS.

Results

A total of 126 patients (42.86% female, age: 48.9 ± 12.4 years) were included. Overall achievement rates ranged between 73.0% and 89.7% for MCID, 43.7% and 68.2% for SCB, and 50.8% and 68.3% for PASS. Median achievement time for MCID was 5.68-5.78 months, 5.73-6.05 months for SCB and 6.54-7.72 months for PASS. Multivariate Cox regression identified older age, workers' compensation status, diabetes, and various tear types (i.e., longitudinal, transverse, bucket handle, complex) as predictors of early clinically significant outcome achievement (hazard ratio: 1.02-24.72), whereas subsequent steroid injection, higher preoperative scores and root and flap tears predicted delays in clinically significant outcome achievement (hazard ratio: 0.12-0.99).

Conclusions

The majority of patients undergoing APM achieve benefit within 6 months of surgery, with diminishing proportions at later timepoints. Important factors for consideration of the the timeline of achieving clinically significant outcome include age, diabetes, workers' compensation, preoperative score, and tear type. The timeline for achieving improvement that was established by this study may aid in setting patient expectations and designing future outcome studies involving APM.

Study design

Level IV, Therapeutic Case Series.

Threshold Values for Success After Hip Arthroscopy Using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Assessment: Determining the Minimum Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State

BACKGROUND

Threshold values for patient-reported outcome measures, such as the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS), are important for relating postoperative outcomes to meaningful functional improvement.

PURPOSE

To determine the PASS and MCID after hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) questionnaire.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A consecutive series of patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement were administered preoperative and minimum 1-year postoperative PROMIS surveys focusing on physical function (PF) and pain interference (PI). External anchor questions for the MCID and PASS were given with the postoperative PROMIS survey. Receiver operator curves were constructed to determine the threshold values for the MCID and PASS. Curves were generated for the study population as well as separate cohorts segregated by median baseline PF or PI scores and preoperative athletic participation. A multivariate post hoc analysis was then constructed to evaluate factors associated with achieving the PASS or MCID.

RESULTS

There were 113 patients (35% male; mean ± SD age, 32.8 ± 12.5 years; body mass index, 25.8 ± 4.8 kg/m²), with 60 (53%) reporting preoperative athletic participation. Survey time averaged 77.5 ± 49.2 seconds. Anchor-based MCID values were 5.1 and 10.9 for the PF and PI domains, respectively. PASS thresholds were 51.8 and 51.9 for the PF and PI, respectively. PASS values were not affected by baseline scores, but athletic patients had a higher PASS threshold than did those not participating in a sport (53.1 vs 44.7). MCID values were affected by preoperative baseline scores but were largely independent of sports participation. A post hoc analysis found that 94 (83%) patients attained the MCID PF while 66 (58%) attained the PASS PF. A multivariate nominal logistic regression found that younger patients (P = .01) and athletic patients (P = .003) were more likely to attain the PASS.

CONCLUSION

The PROMIS survey is an efficient metric to evaluate preoperative disability and postoperative function after primary hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement. The MCID and PASS provide surgeons with threshold values to help determine PROMIS scores that are clinically meaningful to patients, and they can assist with therapeutic decision making as well as expectation setting.

The efficacy of intra-articular fentanyl supplementation for knee arthroscopy: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies

INTRODUCTION

The efficacy of intra-articular fentanyl supplementation for pain control after knee arthroscopy remains controversial. We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the influence of intra-articular fentanyl supplementation for pain intensity after arthroscopic knee surgery.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases through May 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and safety of intra-articular fentanyl supplementation for arthroscopic knee surgery. This meta-analysis is performed using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

Four RCTs are included in the meta-analysis. Overall, compared with control group after knee arthroscopy, intra-articular fentanyl supplementation is associated with reduced pain scores at 1 h (standard mean difference (Std MD) = -3.50; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -5.68 to -1.32; p = 0.002), 2 h (Std MD = -4.73; 95% CI = -8.75 to -0.71; p = 0.02), and 8 h (Std MD = -5.02; 95% CI = -9.73 to -0.30; p = 0.04) but shows no substantial impact on pain scores at 4 h (Std MD = -3.94; 95% CI = -7.93 to 0.05; p = 0.05) or the supplementary analgesia (risk ratio = 0.56; 95% CI = 0.09-3.59; p = 0.54).

CONCLUSIONS

Intra-articular fentanyl supplementation does benefit in pain control after knee arthroscopy.

Return to Work Following High Tibial Osteotomy With Concomitant Osteochondral Allograft Transplantation

PURPOSE

To assess the timeline of return to work (RTW) following opening-wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO) with concomitant osteochondral allograft transplantation (OCA) of the medial femoral condyle.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing HTO + OCA due to focal chondral deficiency and varus deformity were retrospectively identified and reviewed at a minimum of 2 years following surgery. Patients completed a subjective work questionnaire, a visual analog scale for pain, Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation, and a satisfaction questionnaire.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients (average age: 36.0 ± 7.9 years) were included at 6.7 ± 4.1 years postoperatively. Twenty-six patients were employed before surgery and 25 patients (96.2%) returned to work following HTO + OCA. However, only 88.5% of patients were able to return to the same level of occupational intensity by 3.5 ± 2.9 months postoperatively. The rate of RTW to the same occupational intensity for sedentary, light, medium, and heavy intensity occupations was 100%, 100%, 88.9%, and 80% (P = .8), whereas the duration of RTW was 9.0 ± 7.1 months, 1.7 ± 1.4 months, 2.7 ± 0.9 months, and 4.2 ± 1.9 months (P = .006), respectively. Two patients (7.7%) underwent knee replacement by 5.3 ± 3.1 years postoperatively due to progression of osteoarthritis in the medial compartment.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with focal chondral deficiency and varus deformity, HTO + OCA provides a high rate of RTW (96.2%) by 3.5 ± 2.9 months postoperatively. However, patients with greater-intensity occupations may take longer to return to work than those with less physically demanding occupations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, Retrospective Case Series.

Tranexamic acid is effective in decreasing postoperative intraarticular bleeding in arthroscopic knee surgery

: Arthroscopic knee surgery to perform partial meniscectomy and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is frequent and effective, although a possible complication is postoperative hemarthrosis. When intraarticular bleeding occurs, in addition to the associated pain, the patient usually requires joint aspiration (arthrocentesis) to avoid loss of range of motion (ROM). Sometimes this complication ends up associated with a poor result of surgery due to a loss of ROM. The aim of this narrative review of the literature is to attempt to clarify whether tranexamic acid (TXA) should be utilized in arthroscopic ACL reconstruction and arthroscopic meniscectomy and by what route (intraarticular or intravenous). A number of studies seem to favor the use of intravenous TXA in patients undergoing ACL reconstruction and arthroscopic synovectomy to diminish articular postoperative bleeding and its consequences (pain, swelling, loss of ROM, and the need for arthrocentesis). Regarding the use of intraarticular TXA, one in-vitro study has indicated that TXA in high concentrations is cytotoxic to chondrocytes. Common sense leads me to conclude that until better designed studies can confirm that intraarticular TXA is not cytotoxic to chondrocytes, its use should not be advised. Currently, for patients undergoing arthroscopic ACL reconstruction and arthroscopic meniscectomy, it seems safer to use intravenous TXA.

Editorial Commentary: Defining Improvement After Arthroscopic Meniscal Surgery-How Much of a Difference Does a Difference Make?

Patient-centered metrics including the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state have been proposed to determine the clinical significance of patient-reported outcome scores. These values allow clinically meaningfully interpretation of changes in scores such that the degree of improvement (minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit) and satisfaction (patient acceptable symptom state) can be determined. When derived in the same study, these values allow analyses to be approached from the perspective of which patients are likely to respond to treatment and what level of improvement and satisfaction they might attain. Although limited to the sample from which they are derived, these metrics go beyond a mean value of an outcome score to provide a patient-centered perspective that informs the clinical significance of patient-reported outcome scores.

Should We Question the External Validity of Database Studies? A Comparative Analysis of Demographics

PURPOSE

To define the external validity of national and institutional databases for common sports medicine procedures.

METHODS

Patient demographic data including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and 4 racial categories were aggregated between 2007 and 2016 across 2 databases for 4 common sports medicine procedures: anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR), partial meniscectomy (PMx), and both arthroscopic and open shoulder stabilization. The first database of interest was a prospectively collected institutional database. The second was the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database. Two-sample t tests were performed to examine mean differences (MDs) in age and BMI, and χ² testing was used to test differences in sex and race.

RESULTS

A total of 7,019 institutional and 108,881 NSQIP patients were examined. The NSQIP cohort was significantly older (MD, 1.40 years), included more female patients (42.60% female patients vs 35.67% female patients), and showed a different racial distribution compared with the institutional data (all P < .0001). The NSQIP PMx cohort (MD, 7.38 years) was significantly older and the NSQIP RCR cohort (MD, 1.97 years) was significantly younger than their institutional counterparts (all P < .0001). The NSQIP anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction cohort (MD, 2.53) showed a greater average BMI (P < .0001). The NSQIP RCR cohort (41.8% female patients vs 33.3% female patients) and PMx cohort (46.0% female patients vs 37.9% female patients) also included more female patients. Race was distributed variably between databases for each procedure code (all P < .0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences in age, BMI, sex, and race distributions were observed between an institutional database and the NSQIP database. This study underlines the importance of defining the generalizability of database research, particularly when significant demographic differences between databases may underlie differences in postoperative outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, cross-sectional study.