Exploring the potential of ChatGPT as a supplementary tool for providing orthopaedic information

PURPOSE

To investigate the potential use of large language models (LLMs) in orthopaedics by presenting queries pertinent to anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) surgery to generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT, specifically using its GPT-4 model of March 14th 2023). Additionally, this study aimed to evaluate the depth of the LLM's knowledge and investigate its adaptability to different user groups. It was hypothesized that the ChatGPT would be able to adapt to different target groups due to its strong language understanding and processing capabilities.

METHODS

ChatGPT was presented with 20 questions and response was requested for two distinct target audiences: patients and non-orthopaedic medical doctors. Two board-certified orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons and two expert orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons independently evaluated the responses generated by ChatGPT. Mean correctness, completeness, and adaptability to the target audiences (patients and non-orthopaedic medical doctors) were determined. A three-point response scale facilitated nuanced assessment.

RESULTS

ChatGPT exhibited fair accuracy, with average correctness scores of 1.69 and 1.66 (on a scale from 0, incorrect, 1, partially correct, to 2, correct) for patients and medical doctors, respectively. Three of the 20 questions (15.0%) were deemed incorrect by any of the four orthopaedic sports medicine surgeon assessors. Moreover, overall completeness was calculated to be 1.51 and 1.64 for patients and medical doctors, respectively, while overall adaptiveness was determined to be 1.75 and 1.73 for patients and doctors, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Overall, ChatGPT was successful in generating correct responses in approximately 65% of the cases related to ACL surgery. The findings of this study imply that LLMs offer potential as a supplementary tool for acquiring orthopaedic knowledge. However, although ChatGPT can provide guidance and effectively adapt to diverse target audiences, it cannot supplant the expertise of orthopaedic sports medicine surgeons in diagnostic and treatment planning endeavours due to its limited understanding of orthopaedic domains and its potential for erroneous responses.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

V.

Considerations of the Posterior Tibial Slope in Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: a Scoping Review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The significance of posterior tibial slope (PTS) in the setting of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury and reconstruction has been increasingly recognized in recent years. The purpose of this article is to review the biomechanical and clinical studies of PTS in conjunction with ACL injuries, providing an evidence-based approach for the evaluation and management of this patient population.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several biomechanical and clinical studies suggest that PTS > 12° may be considered with increased strain on the native ACL fibers (or reconstructed graft) and greater anterior tibial translation, predisposing patients to a recurrent ACL injury. The increased rates of ACL injury and graft failure seen in those with increased PTS have garnered attention to diagnose and surgically address increased PTS in the revision ACL setting; however, the role of a slope-reducing high tibial osteotomy (HTO) in primary ACL reconstruction (ACL-R) has yet to be defined. Various HTO techniques to decrease PTS during revision ACL-R have demonstrated promising outcomes, though conclusions are limited by the multifactorial nature of revision surgery and concomitant procedures performed. Recent evidence suggests that increased PTS is a risk factor for failure following ACL-R, which may be mitigated by a slope-reducing HTO. Further investigation is needed to elucidate abnormal PTS values and to determine appropriate indications for a slope-reducing HTO in primary ACL-R.

Different injury patterns exist among patients undergoing operative treatment of isolated PCL, combined PCL/ACL, and isolated ACL injuries: a study from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry

PURPOSE

To compare demographic characteristics and concomitant injury patterns in patients undergoing primary isolated posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (PCL-R) and combined posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) and anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (PCL-R/ACL-R) with isolated ACL reconstruction (ACL-R) as a reference using data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry (SNKLR).

METHODS

This cohort study based on the SNKLR comprised patients undergoing either PCL-R, ACL-R, or combined PCL-R/ACL-R between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2019 in Sweden. Demographic and surgery-related data with regards to injury mechanism, concomitant intraarticular lesions and their treatment, neurovascular damage, and concomitant ligamentous injuries were extracted. Exclusion criteria included concomitant fractures of the femur, fibula, patella or tibia, and quadriceps or patellar tendon injury.

RESULTS

A total of 45,564 patients were included in this study. Isolated PCL-R, combined PCL-R/ACL-R, and isolated ACL-R were performed in 192 (0.4%), 203 (0.5%) and 45,169 (99.1%) patients, respectively. Sports were identified as the cause of 64% of PCL-Rs, 54% of PCL-R/ACL-Rs, and 89% of ACL-Rs, while a traffic-related mechanism was identified in 20% of PCL-Rs, 27% of PCL-R/ACL-Rs and 2% of ACL-Rs. Meniscus injury prevalence was 45% in ACL-Rs, 31% in PCL-R/ACL-Rs and 16% in isolated PCL-Rs (p < 0.001). Cartilage injuries were more common in PCL-R (37%) and PCL-R/ACL-R patients (40%) compared to ACL-R patients (26%, p < 0.001). Concomitant knee ligament injury was identified in 28-44% of PCL-R/ACL-R patients. Neurovascular injuries were present in 9% of PCL-R/ACL-Rs, 1% of PCL-Rs, and 0.3% of ACL-Rs (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Differences in injury mechanisms among patient groups confirm that operatively treated PCL tears are frequently caused by both traffic and sports. Cartilage and ligament injuries were more frequent in patients with PCL-R compared to ACL-R. Consequently, combined PCL and ACL tears should raise suspicion for concomitant knee lesions with clinical relevance during the operative treatment of these complex injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Scoping Review on ACL Surgery and Registry Data

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To present an overview of registry-based anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) research, as well as provide insight into the future of ACL registries.

RECENT FINDINGS

During the past decades, the ACL registries have had an important role in increasing our understanding of patients with ACL injuries and their treatment. The registry data has deepened our understanding of factors that have been associated with an increased risk of sustaining an ACL injury and for evaluation of treatment factors and their impact on patient-related outcomes. Recently, registry-based ACL research using artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) has shown potential to create clinical decision-making tools and analyzing outcomes. Thus, standardization of collected data between the registries is needed to facilitate the further collaboration between registries and to facilitate the interpretation of results and subsequently improve the possibilities for implementation of AI and ML in the registry-based research. Several studies have been based on the current ACL registries providing an insight into the epidemiology of ACL injuries as well as outcomes following ACL reconstruction. However, the current ACL registries are facing future challenges, and thus, new methods and techniques are needed to ensure further good quality and clinical applicability of study findings based on ACL registry data.

A practical guide to the implementation of artificial intelligence in orthopaedic research-Part 2: A technical introduction

Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI) present a broad range of possibilities in medical research. However, orthopaedic researchers aiming to participate in research projects implementing AI-based techniques require a sound understanding of the technical fundamentals of this rapidly developing field. Initial sections of this technical primer provide an overview of the general and the more detailed taxonomy of AI methods. Researchers are presented with the technical basics of the most frequently performed machine learning (ML) tasks, such as classification, regression, clustering and dimensionality reduction. Additionally, the spectrum of supervision in ML including the domains of supervised, unsupervised, semisupervised and self-supervised learning will be explored. Recent advances in neural networks (NNs) and deep learning (DL) architectures have rendered them essential tools for the analysis of complex medical data, which warrants a rudimentary technical introduction to orthopaedic researchers. Furthermore, the capability of natural language processing (NLP) to interpret patterns in human language is discussed and may offer several potential applications in medical text classification, patient sentiment analysis and clinical decision support. The technical discussion concludes with the transformative potential of generative AI and large language models (LLMs) on AI research. Consequently, this second article of the series aims to equip orthopaedic researchers with the fundamental technical knowledge required to engage in interdisciplinary collaboration in AI-driven orthopaedic research.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

A practical guide to the implementation of AI in orthopaedic research - part 1: opportunities in clinical application and overcoming existing challenges

Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform medical research by improving disease diagnosis, clinical decision-making, and outcome prediction. Despite the rapid adoption of AI and machine learning (ML) in other domains and industry, deployment in medical research and clinical practice poses several challenges due to the inherent characteristics and barriers of the healthcare sector. Therefore, researchers aiming to perform AI-intensive studies require a fundamental understanding of the key concepts, biases, and clinical safety concerns associated with the use of AI. Through the analysis of large, multimodal datasets, AI has the potential to revolutionize orthopaedic research, with new insights regarding the optimal diagnosis and management of patients affected musculoskeletal injury and disease. The article is the first in a series introducing fundamental concepts and best practices to guide healthcare professionals and researcher interested in performing AI-intensive orthopaedic research studies. The vast potential of AI in orthopaedics is illustrated through examples involving disease- or injury-specific outcome prediction, medical image analysis, clinical decision support systems and digital twin technology. Furthermore, it is essential to address the role of human involvement in training unbiased, generalizable AI models, their explainability in high-risk clinical settings and the implementation of expert oversight and clinical safety measures for failure. In conclusion, the opportunities and challenges of AI in medicine are presented to ensure the safe and ethical deployment of AI models for orthopaedic research and clinical application. Level of evidence IV.

Effect of Concomitant Lateral Meniscal Management on ACL Reconstruction Revision Rate and Secondary Meniscal and Cartilaginous Injuries

BACKGROUND

Simultaneous meniscal tears are often present with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, and in the acute setting, the lateral meniscus (LM) is more commonly injured than the medial meniscus.

PURPOSE

To investigate how a concomitant LM injury, repaired, resected, or left in situ during primary ACL reconstruction (ACLR), affects the ACL revision rate and cartilaginous and meniscal status at the time of revision within 2 years after the primary ACLR.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Data for 31,705 patients with primary ACLR, extracted from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry, were used. The odds of revision ACLR, and cartilaginous as well as meniscal injuries at the time of revision ACLR, were assessed between the unexposed comparison group (isolated ACLR) and the exposed groups of interest (ACLR + LM repair, ACLR + LM resection, ACLR + LM repair + LM resection, or ACLR + LM injury left in situ).

RESULTS

In total, 719 (2.5%) of the included 29,270 patients with 2 years follow-up data underwent revision ACLR within 2 years after the primary ACLR. No significant difference in revision rate was found between the groups. Patients with concomitant LM repair (OR, 3.56; 95% CI, 1.57-8.10; P = .0024) or LM resection (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.18-2.62; P = .0055) had higher odds of concomitant meniscal injuries (medial or lateral) at the time of revision ACLR than patients undergoing isolated primary ACLR. Additionally, higher odds of concomitant cartilage injuries at the time of revision ACLR were found in patients with LM resection at index ACLR compared with patients undergoing isolated primary ACLR (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.14-2.63; P = .010).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study demonstrated higher odds of meniscal and cartilaginous injuries at the time of revision ACLR within 2 years after primary ACLR + LM resection and higher odds of meniscal injury at the time of revision ACLR within 2 years after primary ACLR + LM repair compared with isolated ACLR. Surgeons should be aware of the possibility of concomitant cartilaginous and meniscal injuries at the time of revision ACLR after index ACLR with concomitant LM injury, regardless of the index treatment type received.

Failure Rates and Complications After Multiple-Revision ACL Reconstruction: Comparison of the Over-the-Top and Transportal Drilling Techniques

Background

Multiple-revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) presents several technical challenges, often due to residual hardware, tunnel widening, malposition, or staged surgeries.

Purpose

To compare failure and complication rates between the over-the-top (OTT) and transportal drilling (TD) techniques in patients undergoing surgery for failed revision ACLR.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

The medical records of patients with at least 2 revision ACLRs using either the OTT or TD technique were reviewed retrospectively. Data on patient demographics, graft characteristics, number of revisions, concomitant procedures, complications, and failures were collected. Between-group comparisons of continuous and categorical variables were conducted with the independent-samples t test and the Fisher exact or chi-square test, respectively.

Results

A total of 101 patients undergoing multiple-revision ACLR with OTT (n = 37, 37%) and TD (n = 64, 63%) techniques were included for analysis. The mean follow-up time was 60 months (range, 12-196 months). There were no significant differences in age, sex, body mass index, laterality, or follow-up length between groups (P > .05). Allograft was the graft used most frequently (n = 64; 67.3%) with no significant differences between groups in graft diameter (P > .05). There were no statistically significant differences between groups regarding rate of concurrent medial and lateral meniscus, cartilage, or lateral extra-articular procedures (P > .05). There was also no significant66 between-group difference in complication rate (OTT: n = 2 [5.4%]; TD: n = 8 [13%]) or graft failure rate (OTT: n = 4 [11%]; TD: n = 14 [22%]) (P > .05 for both).

Conclusion

The results of this study showed notably high failure and complication rates in challenging multiple-revision ACLR. Complication and failure rates were similar between techniques, demonstrating that the OTT technique is a valuable alternative that can be used in a revision ACLR, particularly as a single-stage approach when the single-stage TD technique is not possible.

Increased rate of surgery for loss of motion following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction during COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the incidence and risk factors associated with loss of motion after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic (COVID-19).

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients undergoing primary ACLR between March 2017 and November 2022 by a senior high-volume orthopaedic surgeon was performed. Exclusion criteria included revision ACLR, multiligamentous knee surgery, and age <14 years. The COVID-19 group was categorized according to the United States Centers for Disease Control Public Health Emergency declaration dates (January 31, 2020-May 11, 2023). To minimize confounding variables associated with the early stages of COVID-19, patients who underwent ACLR between December 1, 2019 and February 29, 2020 were excluded. Loss of motion was defined using the International Knee Documentation Committee criteria for loss of motion of the knee (i.e. an extension deficit >5° or flexion deficit >15° compared to the contralateral knee) 3-12 months after ACLR or as requiring surgery to restore motion within 12 months of ACLR.

RESULTS

A total of 336 individuals who underwent 352 primary ACLRs (164 pre-COVID-19, 188 during COVID-19) were included (mean age: 25.2 ​± ​10.6 years, 44% female). The overall rate of postoperative loss of motion was 15% (n = 53), and 9% (n = 31) required surgery to restore motion within 12 months of ACLR. More patients underwent surgery for loss of motion during COVID-19 compared to pre-COVID-19, which was statistically significant (12% (n = 23) vs 5% (n = 8), respectively, P = 0.02). However, a statistically significant difference in the rate of loss of motion was not detected (18% (n = 33) vs 12% (n = 20), respectively, P = 0.16). A statistically significant increased median time from injury to ACLR was observed during COVID-19 compared to pre-COVID-19 (55 vs 37 days, P <0.01). More patients were unable to achieve terminal extension (0°) at minimum 9 months postoperatively during COVID-19 compared to pre-COVID-19 (10% vs 3%, P = 0.04) and motion was worse at this interval (0°-136° vs -2°-138°, P <0.01).

CONCLUSION

Surgery for loss of motion following ACLR was more common during COVID-19. Decreased access to elective medical care, changed activity level, psychological effects, or COVID-19 itself may explain the increased rate of surgery for loss of motion during COVID-19.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Case series; level IV.

Revision Rates After Primary Allograft ACL Reconstruction by Allograft Tissue Type in Older Patients

Background

While there is extensive literature on the use of allograft versus autograft in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, there is limited clinical evidence to guide the surgeon in choice of allograft tissue type.

Purpose

To assess the revision rate after primary ACL reconstruction with allograft and to compare revision rates based on allograft tissue type and characteristics.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

Patients who underwent primary allograft ACL reconstructions at a single academic institution between 2015 and 2019 and who had minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Exclusion criteria were missing surgical or allograft tissue type data. Demographics, operative details, and subsequent surgical procedures were collected. Allograft details included graft tissue type (Achilles, bone-patellar tendon-bone [BTB], tibialis anterior or posterior, semitendinosus, unspecified soft tissue), allograft category (all-soft tissue vs bone block), donor age, irradiation duration and intensity, and chemical cleansing process. Revision rates were calculated and compared by allograft characteristics.

Results

Included were 418 patients (age, 39 ± 12 years; body mass index, 30 ± 9 kg/m2). The revision rate was 3% (11/418) at a mean follow-up of 4.9 ± 1.4 years. There were no differences in revision rate according to allograft tissue type across Achilles tendon (3%; 3/95), BTB (5%; 3/58), tibialis anterior or posterior (3%; 5/162), semitendinosus (0%; 0/46), or unspecified soft tissue (0%; 0/57) (P = .35). There was no difference in revision rate between all-soft tissue versus bone block allograft (6/283 [2%] vs 5/135 [4%], respectively; P = .34). Of the 51% of grafts with irradiation data, all grafts were irradiated, with levels varying from 1.5 to 2.7 Mrad and 82% of grafts having levels of <2.0 Mrad. There was no difference in revision rate between the low-dose and medium-to high-dose irradiation cohorts (4% vs 6%, respectively; P = .64).

Conclusion

Similarly low (0%-6%) revision rates after primary ACL reconstruction were seen regardless of allograft tissue type, bone block versus all-soft tissue allograft, and sterilization technique in 418 patients with mean age of 39 years. Surgeons may consider appropriately processed allograft tissue with or without bone block when indicating ACL reconstruction in older patients.

To achieve the unachievable-Patients' experiences of opting for delayed anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction after trying rehabilitation alone as primary treatment: A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

About 50% of patients who sustain an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury are treated without ACL reconstruction (ACL-R). A significant proportion of these patients opt for late ACL-R. Patients' experience of changing treatment has not yet been investigated and presented in the scientific literature.

AIM

To explore patients' experiences before and after changing treatment from ACL rehabilitation alone to ACL-R.

METHOD

Fifteen patients were interviewed in semi-structured interviews, which were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed with qualitative content analysis, based on the method described by Graneheim and Lundman. Patients were between 26 and 58 years old, and had tried rehabilitation for a minimum of 9 months prior to ACL-R.

RESULTS

Two themes, "Expecting what could not be achieved: the struggle to recover and not becoming stable", and "Internal completeness: expectations can be achieved", emerged from the analysis. Each theme was supported by three main categories and 5-6 subcategories. The first theme represents the journey before ACL-R, where patients experienced getting stronger, but perceived the knee as unstable. The second theme represents the journey after ACL-R, where patients expressed that they felt whole after their ACL-R, and where able to achieve their expections. Patients experienced a greater support from the healthcare system, and ultimately expressed a feeling of having achieved the unachievable after ACL-R.

SUMMARY

Patients who cross over from ACL rehabilitation to ACL-R experienced rehabilitation alone as insufficient to achieve the desired outcomes, which resulted in a need to opt for delayed ACL-R. Healthcare providers need to support patients, who primarily choose to undergo rehabilitation alone and later opt for ACL-R, throughout the whole rehabilitation process.

Higher odds of meniscectomy compared with meniscus repair in a young patient population with increased neighbourhood disadvantage

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the impact of demographic and socioeconomic factors on the management of isolated meniscus tears in young patients and to identify trends in surgical management of meniscus tears based on surgeon volume.

METHODS

Data from a large healthcare system on patients aged 14-44 years who underwent isolated meniscus surgery between 2016 and 2022 were analysed. Patient demographics, socioeconomic factors and surgeon volume were recorded. Patient age was categorised as 14-29 years and 30-44 years old. Area Deprivation Index (ADI), a measure of neighbourhood disadvantage with increased ADI corresponding to more disadvantage, was grouped as <25th, 25-75th and >75th percentile. Multivariate comparisons were made between procedure groups while univariate comparisons were made between surgeon groups.

RESULTS

The study included 1552 patients treated by 84 orthopaedic surgeons. Older age and higher ADI were associated with higher odds of undergoing meniscectomy. Patients of older age and with non-private insurance were more likely to undergo treatment by a lower-volume knee surgeon. Apart from the year 2022, higher-volume knee surgeons performed significantly higher rates of meniscus repair compared with lower-volume knee surgeons. When controlling for surgeon volume, higher ADI remained a significant predictor of undergoing meniscectomy over meniscus repair.

CONCLUSION

Significant associations exist between patient factors and surgical choices for isolated meniscus tears in younger patients. Patients of older age and with increased neighbourhood disadvantage were more likely to undergo meniscectomy versus meniscus repair. While higher-volume knee surgeons favoured meniscus repair, a growing trend of meniscus repair rates was observed among lower-volume knee surgeons.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective cohort study, level III.

Registry-based cohort study comparing percentages of patients reaching PASS for knee function outcomes after revision ACLR compared to primary ACLR

OBJECTIVES

Reaching the Patient-Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) threshold for the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) has previously been reported to successfully identify individuals experiencing clinical success after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Thus, the objectives of this study were to examine and compare the percentages of patients meeting PASS thresholds for the different KOOS subscales 1 year postoperatively after primary ACLR compared with revision ACLR (rACLR) and multiply revised ACLR (mrACLR), and second, to examine the predictors for reaching PASS for KOOS Quality of Life (QoL) and Function in Sport and Recreation (Sport/Rec) after mrACLR.

DESIGN

Prospective observational registry study.

SETTING

The data used in this study was obtained from the Swedish National Ligament Registry and collected between 2005 and 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

The study sample was divided into three different groups: (1) primary ACLR, (2) rACLR and (3) mrACLR. Data on patient demographic, injury and surgical characteristics were obtained as well as mean 1-year postoperative scores for KOOS subscales and the per cent of patients meeting PASS for each subscale. Additionally, the predictors of reaching PASS for KOOS Sport/Rec, and QoL subscales were evaluated in patients undergoing mrACLR.

RESULTS

Of the 22 928 patients included in the study, 1144 underwent rACLR and 36 underwent mrACLR. Across all KOOS subscales, the percentage of patients meeting PASS thresholds was statistically lower for rACLR compared with primary ACLR (KOOS Symptoms 22.5% vs 32.9%, KOOS Pain 84.9% vs 92.9%, KOOS Activities of Daily Living 23.5% vs 31.4%, KOOS Sport/Rec 26.3% vs 45.6%, KOOS QoL 26.9% vs 51.4%). Percentages of patients reaching PASS thresholds for all KOOS subscales were comparable between patients undergoing rACLR versus mrACLR. No predictive factors were found to be associated with reaching PASS for KOOS QoL and KOOS Sport/Rec 1 year postoperatively after mrACLR.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing ACLR in the revision setting had lower rates of reaching acceptable symptom states for functional knee outcomes than those undergoing primary ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prospective observational registry study, level of evidence II.

Arthroscopic all-inside repair of challenging meniscus tears

Meniscus tears are prevalent in isolation and in combination with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Meniscus lesions can be difficult to access and often display complex tear patterns, which result in technical challenges for the operating surgeon during surgical treatment. The aim of this video article is to demonstrate technical tips and tricks for performing all-inside repair of challenging meniscus tears. The presented techniques are indicated in young, physically active patients with symptomatic tears of the lateral and medial menisci, with or without concomitant ACL injury. The procedure is performed using standard anterolateral and anteromedial arthroscopic portals for direct visualization of complex meniscus tear patterns and all-inside instrument access. A suture passing device is used for the placement of suture loops for meniscus root repair. All-inside repair devices are used to repair the radial meniscal tears along the native circumferential fibers using a horizontal mattress suture configuration, with curved devices to achieve optimal access to challenging tears affecting the anterior and posterior aspects at the mid-body of the meniscus. Repair of radial tears at the avascular zone of the meniscus may be augmented with an autologous fibrin clot delivered using an arthroscopic cannula.

When ACL reconstruction does not help: risk factors associated with not achieving the minimal important change for the KOOS Sport/Rec and QoL

OBJECTIVES

To determine factors associated with not achieving a minimal important change (MIC) in the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Function in Sport and Recreation (Sport/Rec), and Knee-Related Quality of Life (QoL) subscales 1 year after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACL-R).

METHODS

This study used data from the Swedish National Knee Ligament Registry. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to identify factors associated with not achieving a MIC. The change in the preoperative and postoperative KOOS Sport/Rec and QoL subscale scores were dichotomised based on not achieving MIC for both subscales versus achieving MIC for either one or both subscales. The MICs for the Sport/Rec and QoL subscales were 12.1 and 18.3, respectively, and were used to combine both subscales into a single variable (Sport & QoL).

RESULTS

Of 16 131 included patients, 44% did not achieve the MIC for the combined Sport/Rec and QoL subscales 1 year after ACL-R. From the multivariable stepwise logistic regression, older patients (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.94; p<0.0001), males (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.99; p=0.034) and patients receiving hamstring tendon autograft ACL-R (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.81; p<0.0001) had lower odds of not achieving the MIC 1 year after ACL-R compared with younger patients, females and patients receiving patellar tendon autograft. Furthermore, patients with cartilage injuries (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.27; p<0.0001) and higher pre-operative KOOS Sport/Rec and QoL scores (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.31 to 1.36; p<0.0001) had higher odds of not achieving the MIC.

CONCLUSION

Younger patients, females and patients with cartilage injuries and higher pre-operative Sport/Rec and QoL KOOS scores are less likely to benefit from ACL-R and subsequently, have a lower probability for improved Sport/Rec and QoL scores after ACL-R. Furthermore, graft choice may also affect the risk of not achieving the MIC.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective cohort study, level III.

Anterior Glenohumeral Instability: Clinical Anatomy, Clinical Evaluation, Imaging, Nonoperative and Operative Management, and Postoperative Rehabilitation

➢ Anterior glenohumeral instability is a complex orthopaedic problem that requires a detailed history, a thorough physical examination, and a meticulous review of advanced imaging in order to make individualized treatment decisions and optimize patient outcomes.➢ Nonoperative management of primary instability events can be considered in low-demand patients, including elderly individuals or younger, recreational athletes not participating in high-risk activities, and select in-season athletes. Recurrence can result in increased severity of soft-tissue and osseous damage, further increasing the complexity of subsequent surgical management.➢ Surgical stabilization following primary anterior instability is recommended in young athletes who have additional risk factors for failure, including participation in high-risk sports, hyperlaxity, and presence of bipolar bone loss, defined as the presence of both glenoid (anteroinferior glenoid) and humeral head (Hill-Sachs deformity) bone loss.➢ Several surgical treatment options exist, including arthroscopic Bankart repair with or without additional procedures such as remplissage, open Bankart repair, and osseous restoration procedures, including the Latarjet procedure.➢ Favorable results can be expected following arthroscopic Bankart repair with minimal (<13.5%) bone loss and on-track Hill-Sachs lesions following a primary instability event. However, adjunct procedures such as remplissage should be performed for off-track lesions and should be considered in the setting of subcritical glenoid bone loss, select high-risk patients, and near-track lesions.➢ Bone-grafting of anterior glenoid defects, including autograft and allograft options, should be considered in cases with >20% glenoid bone loss.

Shoulder Periprosthetic Joint Infection: Principles of Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment

➢ Shoulder periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a potentially devastating complication after arthroplasty and is projected to rise with increasing numbers of performed arthroplasties, particularly reverse shoulder arthroplasties.➢ Important considerations for the diagnosis and treatment of shoulder PJI include age, sex, implant type, primary compared with revision shoulder surgery, comorbidities, and medications (i.e., corticosteroids and disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs). ➢ Diagnosis and management are unique compared with lower-extremity PJI due to the role of lower-virulence organisms in shoulder PJI, specifically Cutibacterium acnes.➢ Treatment pathways depend on chronicity of infection, culture data, and implant type, and exist on a spectrum from irrigation and debridement to multistage revision with temporary antibiotic spacer placement followed by definitive revision arthroplasty.

'Real world' clinical implementation of blood flow restriction therapy does not increase quadriceps strength after quadriceps tendon autograft ACL reconstruction

PURPOSE

To retrospectively compare strength outcomes of individuals undergoing postoperative rehabilitation following quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with and without blood flow restriction therapy.

METHODS

A retrospective review of consecutive patients undergoing ACLR with QT autograft with a minimum of two quantitative postoperative isometric strength assessments via an electromechanical dynamometer (Biodex) was included. Demographics, surgical variables and strength measurement outcomes were compared between patients undergoing blood flow restriction therapy as part of postoperative rehabilitation versus those who did not.

RESULTS

Eighty-one (81) patients met the inclusion criteria. No differences were found in demographic and surgical characteristics between those who received blood flow restriction compared with those who did not. While both groups had improvements in quadriceps peak torque and limb symmetry index (LSI; defined as peak torque of the operative limb divided by the peak torque of the nonoperative limb) over the study period, the blood flow restriction group had significantly lower mean peak torque of the operative limb at first Biodex strength measurement (95.6 vs. 111.2 Nm; p = 0.03). Additionally, the blood flow restriction group had a significantly lower mean LSI than those with no blood flow restriction at the second Biodex measurement timepoint (81% vs. 90%; p = 0.02). No other significant differences were found between the strength outcomes measured.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study show that the 'real world' clinical implementation of blood flow restriction therapy to the postoperative rehabilitation protocol following QT autograft ACLR did not result in an increase in absolute or longitudinal changes in quadriceps strength measurements. A better understanding and standardisation of the use of blood flow restriction therapy in the rehabilitation setting is necessary to delineate the true effects of this modality on strength recovery after QT autograft ACLR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Overhead athletes have comparable intraoperative injury patterns and clinical outcomes to non-overhead athletes following surgical stabilization for first-time anterior shoulder instability at average 6-year follow-up

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS

Anterior shoulder instability is a common problem affecting young, athletic populations that results in potential career-altering functional limitations. However, little is known regarding the differences in clinical outcomes after operative management of overhead vs. non-overhead athletes presenting with first-time anterior shoulder instability. We hypothesized that overhead athletes would have milder clinical presentations, similar surgical characteristics, and diminished postoperative outcomes when compared with non-overhead athletes after surgical stabilization following first-time anterior shoulder instability episodes.

METHODS

Patients with first-time anterior shoulder instability events (subluxations and dislocations) undergoing operative management between 2013 and 2020 were included. The exclusion criteria included multiple dislocations and multidirectional shoulder instability. Baseline demographic characteristics, imaging data, examination findings, and intraoperative findings were retrospectively collected. Patients were contacted to collect postoperative patient-reported outcomes including American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score, Brophy activity index score, and Subjective Shoulder Value, in addition to return-to-work and -sport, recurrent dislocation, and revision rates.

RESULTS

A total of 256 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 178 (70%) were non-overhead athletes. The mean age of the entire population was 23.1 years. There was no significant difference in concomitant shoulder pathology, preoperative range of motion, or preoperative strength between cohorts. A greater proportion of overhead athletes presented with instability events not requiring manual reduction (defined as subluxations; 64.1% vs. 50.6%; P < .001) and underwent arthroscopic surgery (97% vs. 76%, P < .001) compared with non-overhead athletes. A smaller proportion of overhead athletes underwent open soft-tissue stabilization compared with non-overhead athletes (1% vs. 19%, P < .001). Outcome data were available for 60 patients with an average follow-up period of 6.7 years. No significant differences were found between groups with respect to recurrent postoperative instability event rate (13.0% for overhead athletes vs. 16.8% for non-overhead athletes), revision rate (13.0% for overhead athletes vs. 11.1% for non-overhead athletes), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score, Brophy score, Subjective Shoulder Value, or rates of return to work or sport.

CONCLUSION

Overhead athletes who underwent surgery after an initial instability event were more likely to present with subluxations compared with non-overhead athletes. With limited follow-up subject to biases, this study found no differences in recurrence or revision rates, postoperative patient-reported outcomes, or return-to-work or -sport rates between overhead and non-overhead athletes undergoing shoulder stabilization surgery following first-time instability events. Although larger prospective studies are necessary to draw firmer conclusions, the findings of this study suggest that overhead athletes can be considered in the same treatment pathway for first-time dislocation as non-overhead athletes.

Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction

Background

Recurrentlateral patellar dislocation is a devastating condition associated with different pathologies, including medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) injury, increased tibial tubercle to trochlear groove (TT-TG) distance, and trochlear dysplasia. This video aims to provide an overview of isolated MPFL reconstruction in a patient with recurrent patellar dislocation and chronic MPFL injury.

Indications

Isolated MPFL reconstruction is indicated for patients with recurrent lateral patellar instability following an initial trial of nonoperative management, in the absence of other contributing anatomic factors. Candidates for isolated MPFL reconstruction should have a TT-TG distance of <20 mm, and normal or Dejour type A trochlear morphology.

Technique Description

Semitendinosus allograft is used to reconstruct the torn or attenuated MPFL. Following diagnostic arthroscopy, an incision is made over the medial border of the patella and dissection is carried through the skin and subcutaneous tissue to the fascia. Two K-wires are over-drilled and two 3.5-mm Arthrex SwiveLock anchors are placed. The allograft is prepared and whipstitched on both sides. The central portion of the graft is tide down to the anchors. A second incision is then made on the medial side of the knee over the epicondyle. Dissection is carried down to the fascia, and palpation is used to identify Schottles' point. This is confirmed with fluoroscopy. An 8-mm drill bit is then used to drill to a depth of 60 mm on the femoral side. The grafts are passed one at a time through the femoral tunnel. The femoral side is fixed with an Arthrex BioComposite Interference Screw and the incisions are subsequently irrigated and closed in a layered fashion.

Results

MPFL reconstruction demonstrates good functional and clinical outcomes with high rates of patient satisfaction and low rates of failure. A recent systematic review demonstrated an 84% rate of return to sport, improved postoperative outcomes, and pooled risks of recurrent instability and reoperation of less than 5% following isolated MPFL reconstruction.

Conclusion

Isolated MPFL reconstruction should be considered for patients with recurrent patellar instability in the absence of other clinical risk factors.The author(s) attests that consent has been obtained from any patient(s) appearing in this publication. If the individual may be identifiable, the author(s) has included a statement of release or other written form of approval from the patient(s) with this submission for publication.

Low-Volume Surgeons Use Allograft in Younger Patients and Show Greater Rates of Revision Following Primary Allograft Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Compared With High-Volume Surgeons

Purpose

To determine whether surgeon volume affects revision rate following primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) with allograft and to determine whether surgeon volume impacts allograft tissue type used.

Methods

All patients aged 14 years or older who underwent primary allograft ACLR at a large hospital system between January 2015 to December 2019 with minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Patients with double-bundle ACLR, multiligament reconstruction, and absent allograft type data were excluded. Surgeon volume was categorized as 35 or more ACLR/year for high-volume surgeons and less than 35 ACLR/year for low-volume surgeons. Revision was defined as subsequent ipsilateral ACLR. Patient characteristics, operative details, allograft type, and revision ACLR rates were retrospectively collected. Revision rate and allograft type were analyzed based on surgeon volume.

Results

A total of 457 primary allograft ACLR cases (mean age: 38.8 ± 12.3 years) were included. Low-volume surgeons experienced greater revision rates (10% vs 5%, P = .04) and used allograft in a younger population (37.6 vs 40.0 years old, P = .03) than high-volume surgeons. Subgroup analysis of the total cohort identified a significantly increased failure rate in patients <25 years old compared with ≥25 years old (30% vs 4%, P < .001). Allograft type selection varied significantly between surgeon volume groups, with low-volume surgeons using more bone-patellar tendon-bone (P < .001) and less semitendinosus allograft (P = .01) than high-volume surgeons. No differences in revision rate were observed based on allograft type (P = .71).

Conclusions

There was a greater revision rate following primary allograft ACLR among low-volume surgeons compared with high-volume surgeons. Low-volume surgeons also used allograft in a younger population than did high-volume surgeons.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective comparative prognostic trial.

Around-the-knee osteotomies part 1: definitions, rationale and planning-state of the art

Knee osteotomies are essential orthopedic procedures with the ability to preserve the joint and correct ligament instabilities. Literature supports the correlation between lower limb malalignment and outcomes after knee ligament reconstruction and cartilage procedures. Concepts such as joint line obliquity, posterior tibial slope angle, and intra-articular deformity correction are integral components of both preoperative planning and postoperative evaluations. The concept of preserving and/or restoring joint line congruence during simultaneous correction of varus or valgus deformity can be achieved through several different approaches. With advancements in osteotomy research and surgical planning technology, the surgical decision-making has increased in complexity. Based upon a patient's specific deformity, decisions need to be made whether to perform a single-level (proximal tibia or distal femur) versus double-level (both proximal tibia and distal femur) osteotomy, and whether to correct deformity in a single plane (coronal or sagittal) or perform a biplanar osteotomy, correcting two of the malalignments in either coronal, sagittal, or axial planes. Osteotomy procedures prioritize safety, reproducibility, precision, and meticulous planning. Equally important is the proactive management of possible complications and the implementation of preventive strategies for complications such as hinge fractures and unintentional changes to alignment in other planes. This review navigates the intricate landscape of lower limb alignment, commencing with foundational definitions and rationale for performing osteotomies, progressing through the planning phase, and addressing the critical aspect of complication prevention, all while looking ahead to anticipate future advancements in this field. However, rotational osteotomies and tibial tubercle osteotomies in isolation or as an adjunct procedure are beyond the scope of this review.