Smoking Negatively Effects Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy

Influence of smoking on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients undergoing surgery for adult spinal deformity: a propensity score-matched analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the isolated influence of smoking in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery excluding known tobacco-related complications.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of a prospective multicenter ASD database. Patients operated on ASD with 2 year post-operative follow-up were included. Former smokers (non-active smokers) and patients developing mechanical or infectious complications were excluded. Changes of PROMs over time were analyzed using mixed models for repeated measures (MMRM). Propensity score matching (PSM) (1:1 ratio, caliper 0.10) was performed without replacement using optimum algorithm, tolerance ≤ 0.001, and estimated with 95% confidence interval (CI). PROMS in both groups were compared by paired t test or Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

RESULTS

692 out of 1246 surgical patients met our inclusion criteria. 153 smokers were matched with 153 non-smokers according to age, BMI, number of fused levels, and global tilt. After PSM both groups were homogeneous regarding baseline parameters, surgical data, and complications (mechanical complications and infection excluded). Smokers had worse baseline results for SRS-total, SRS-pain COMI-back, and ODI; smokers also showed worse 2-year outcomes for SRS-total, SRS-function, SRS-pain, SRS-self-image, and ODI. However, no differences between the two groups were found in the improvement from baseline to 2-year follow-up or in the timing of this improvement (MMRM). The proportion of patients reaching the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) after surgery was similar in the two groups, but the proportion of patients reaching patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) was significantly lower in smokers for SRS-Subtotal, SRS-function, and SRS-image.

CONCLUSION

Even in the absence of smoking-related complications, smokers had worse PROMs at baseline and 2 years after surgery with less patients achieving PASS, but similar degrees on improvement compared to non-smokers. The proportion achieving MCID was also similar between the two cohorts.

Examining the Evidence Regarding Smoking and Patient Outcomes for Isolated Meniscus Pathology: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Smoking is a well-known cause of impairment in wound healing and postoperative outcomes; however, its effects on treating meniscus issues remain unclear. This study assesses the relationship between smoking and meniscus treatment outcomes. PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and CINAHL were searched from inception to 24 December 2023. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies examining smoking's impact on patient outcomes regarding meniscus pathology. A secondary PubMed search targeted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the top ten orthopedic journals focusing on meniscus pathology and smoking as a demographic variable. Meta-analysis of six studies (n = 528) assessed meniscus failure rate based on smoking status. Eighteen observational studies (n = 8353 patients; 53.25% male; mean age: 51.35 ± 11.53 years; follow-up: 184.11 ± 117.34 months) were analyzed, covering meniscus repair, meniscectomy, allograft transplant, conservative care, and arthroscopy. Results showed four studies (36.36%) linked smoking with worse meniscus repair outcomes, while seven studies (63.64%) did not find significant associations. Meta-analysis from six studies showed no significant impact of smoking on repair failure (p = 0.118). Regarding meniscectomy, one study (33.33%) identified a significant association with smoking, but two did not. Only one (3.8%) of the RCTs in leading orthopedic journals included smoking as a factor. The evidence on smoking's effect on meniscus treatment is mixed, necessitating further investigation.

Surgeon Performance as a Predictor for Patient-Reported Outcomes After Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy

Background

Surgeon performance has been investigated as a factor affecting patient outcomes after orthopaedic procedures to improve transparency between patients and providers.

Purpose/Hypothesis

The purpose of this study was to identify whether surgeon performance influenced patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) 1 year after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM). It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in PROMs between patients who underwent APM from various surgeons.

Study Design

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

A prospective cohort of 794 patients who underwent APM between 2018 and 2019 were included in the analysis. A total of 34 surgeons from a large multicenter health care center were included. Three multivariable models were built to determine whether the surgeon-among demographic and meniscal pathology factors-was a significant variable for predicting the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)-Pain subscale, the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), and a 10-point improvement in the KOOS-Pain at 1 year after APM. Likelihood ratio (LR) tests were used to determine the significance of the surgeon variable in the models.

Results

The 794 patients were identified from the multicenter hospital system. The baseline KOOS-Pain score was a significant predictor of outcome in the 1-year KOOS-Pain model (odds ratio [OR], 2.1 [95% CI, 1.77-2.48]; P < .001), the KOOS-Pain 10-point improvement model (OR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.44-0.73), and the 1-year PASS model (OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.15-1.76]; P = .002) among articular cartilage pathology (bipolar medial cartilage) and patient-factor variables, including body mass index, Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey-Mental Component Score, and Area Deprivation Index. The individual surgeon significantly impacted outcomes in the 1-year KOOS-Pain mixed model in the LR test (P = .004).

Conclusion

Patient factors and characteristics are better predictors for patient outcomes 1 year after APM than surgeon characteristics, specifically baseline KOOS-Pain, although an individual surgeon influenced the 1-Year KOOS-Pain mixed model in the LR test. This finding has key clinical implications; surgeons who wish to improve patient outcomes after APM should focus on improving patient selection rather than improving the surgical technique. Future research is needed to determine whether surgeon variability has an impact on longer-term patient outcomes.

Prognostic Factors for the Clinical Outcome after Microfracture Treatment of Chondral and Osteochondral Defects in the Knee Joint: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to establish which patient and lesion characteristics are related to the clinical outcome after microfracture of cartilage defects in the knee.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

After preregistration, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane were searched for studies that analyzed prognostic factors for the outcome of microfracture treatment in the knee. The criteria for inclusion were outcome measured using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), a clinical study with ≥10 participants receiving microfracture, and a minimal follow-up period of 1 year.

RESULTS

For none of the investigated prognostic factors, effect size reporting was sufficiently homogeneous to conduct a meta-analysis. However, a majority of the included studies identified higher age, larger lesion size, longer preoperative symptom duration, and previous surgery on the ipsilateral knee, especially meniscectomy and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, as factors that are reported to be correlated to a less favorable outcome. A lesion location that does not include the trochlea or the patellofemoral joint and is not weightbearing, a nondegenerative mechanism of injury, and a single lesion were reported as factors that predict a favorable outcome. As to gender, body mass index, preoperative activity level, smoking, and concomitant knee surgery, the included articles were inconclusive or no effect was reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Several factors correlated with the clinical result after microfracture treatment. However, the information on the effect sizes of the influence on clinical outcome is incomplete due to poor reporting. Large-scale registries or pooling of homogeneous, well-reported data is needed to work toward prognostic models. That would be an important step toward personalized treatment.