No abstract

Effective treatment for bipolar articular cartilage lesions in the knee remains a clinical challenge. Lower extremity malalignment is a risk factor for treatment failures, which can be addressed by tibial or femoral osteotomy. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes among patients who underwent knee joint restoration by osteochondral allograft (OCA) transplantation with concurrent or staged realignment osteotomy. With Institutional Review Board approval, patients undergoing bipolar OCA transplantation with concurrent or staged distal femoral osteotomy (DFO) or high tibial osteotomy (HTO) were analyzed. Patients were categorized by osteotomy type (DFO and HTO) and timing (concurrent and staged). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), revisions, failures, and complications were examined preoperatively (baseline), 3, 6, 12, and 24 months after OCA transplantation; change scores from preoperative values were used for analysis. A total of 23 patients met inclusion criteria (15 males); 13 (56.5%) received HTO (5 concurrent), while 10 (43.5%) received DFO (5 concurrent). There were no significant differences in complication rates between concurrent and staged osteotomies. Primary bipolar OCA transplantation with osteotomy was associated with successful outcomes in 70% of patients; four patients underwent revision (17.4%) and three (13.0%) failed and were treated by total knee arthroplasty. Further, the four patients undergoing revision met functional criteria for success at final follow-up, resulting in a 2-year functional survival rate of 87.4%. Aside from Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function, all PROMs for concurrent and staged osteotomies improved from baseline to 2 years postoperatively. Concurrent osteotomies of both types were associated with significantly lower pain scores at 12 months (p = 0.04), compared with staged osteotomies. Apart from Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE), more PROM improvement was observed for concurrent osteotomies at 2 years. Improvements in PROMs for patients undergoing OCA transplantation combined with osteotomy were observed at 2-year follow-up. PROMs for concurrent osteotomy were consistently greater than staged osteotomy, lending support to addressing lower extremity malalignment with bipolar OCA transplantation in the knee during a single surgery when possible.

No abstract

Background: The extent to which individual clinical departments use Twitter™ is largely unknown. Further, impact of use has not been extensively studied. The purpose of this study was to identify and analyze Twitter™ utilization by orthopaedic surgery departments and to gauge the implications Twitter™ use has on the status of the department. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of Twitter utilization for all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited orthopaedic surgery training programs. Tweets between May 1 and December 1, 2018 were categorized and Tweet impact was assessed using public interaction. Program rankings, as measured by Doximity and US News and World Report (USNWR), were correlated with various Twitter variables. Correlations were calculated with Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Results: Of the 153 ACGME-accredited orthopaedic surgery departments, 24 (15.7%) had Twitter accounts. The departments averaged 1079.35±713.47 followers and a mean of 16.16±13.83 tweets per month. Most tweets were internally generated “unique” tweets. Unique tweets had a mean of 4.50±0.04 likes and 1.10±0.12 retweets per tweet. Twitter account profile data and tweet content demonstrated equal numbers of tweets categorized as “educational” and “other”. Both Doximity and USNWR had more favorable ranks with increasing variables of all Twitter categories, and there was a statistically significant correlation between greater number of post “likes” and a higher USNWR score. Conclusions: Twitter is underutilized by orthopaedic surgery departments and has a small correlation with the reputation of the department. Level of Evidence: Level IV.

The purpose of this study is to determine factors associated with the need for revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) after multiligament knee injury (MLKI) and to report outcomes for patients undergoing revision ACLR after MLKI. This involves a retrospective review of 231 MLKIs in 225 patients treated over a 12-year period, with institutional review board approval. Patients with two or more injured knee ligaments requiring surgical reconstruction, including the ACL, were included for analyses. Overall, 231 knees with MLKIs underwent ACLR, with 10% (n = 24) requiring revision ACLR. There were no significant differences in age, sex, tobacco use, diabetes, or body mass index between cohorts requiring or not requiring revision ACLR. However, patients requiring revision ACLR had significantly longer follow-up duration (55.1 vs. 37.4 months, p = 0.004), more ligament reconstructions/repairs (mean 3.0 vs. 1.7, p < 0.001), more nonligament surgeries (mean 2.2 vs. 0.7, p = 0.002), more total surgeries (mean 5.3 vs. 2.4, p < 0.001), and more graft reconstructions (mean 4.7 vs. 2.7, p < 0.001). Patients in both groups had similar return to work (p = 0.12) and activity (p = 0.91) levels at final follow-up. Patients who had revision ACLR took significantly longer to return to work at their highest level (18 vs. 12 months, p = 0.036), but similar time to return to their highest level of activity (p = 0.33). Range of motion (134 vs. 127 degrees, p = 0.14), pain severity (2.2 vs. 1.7, p = 0.24), and Lysholm's scores (86.3 vs. 90.0, p = 0.24) at final follow-up were similar between groups. Patients requiring revision ACLR in the setting of a MLKI had more overall concurrent surgeries and other ligament reconstructions, but had similar final outcome scores to those who did not require revision surgery. Revision ligament surgery can be associated with increased pain, stiffness, and decrease patient outcomes. Revision surgery is often necessary after multiligament knee reconstructions, but patients requiring ACLR in the setting of a MLKI have good overall outcomes, with patients requiring revision ACLR at a rate of 10%.