Pediatric patellofemoral instability is an increasingly common and debilitating problem. In recent years, there has been an improvement in diagnostic capabilities and greater knowledge of unique pediatric patellofemoral anatomy and pathophysiology. The spectrum of disease varies from a single traumatic dislocation, to recurrent dislocation, to obligatory dislocation in flexion or even fixed dislocation in severe or syndrome-associated cases. When treating pediatric patellofemoral instability, it is important to understand the benefits and limitations of nonoperative management. It is important to recognize the challenges imparted by the anatomy of the skeletally immature knee, specifically with regards to the physis, when considering surgical treatment.  One must have a thorough understanding of common anatomic and pathophysiologic contributors to patellofemoral instability, such as coronal or axial plane malalignment, and concomitant osteochondral injury. For the very severe cases such as obligatory dislocation in flexion, special techniques may be required to achieve stability of the patellofemoral joint.

Background: Safe return to play (RTP) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is critical to patient satisfaction. Enhanced rehabilitation after ACL reconstruction with appropriate objective criteria for RTP may reduce the risk of subsequent injury. The cost-effectiveness of an enhanced RTP (eRTP) strategy relative to standard post-ACL reconstruction rehabilitation has not been investigated. Purpose: To determine if an eRTP strategy after ACL reconstruction is cost-effective compared with standard rehabilitation. Study Design: Economic and decision analysis. Methods: A decision-analysis model was utilized to compare standard rehabilitation with an eRTP strategy, which includes additional neuromuscular retraining, advanced testing, and follow-up physician visits. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from a payer perspective. Costs of surgical procedures and rehabilitation protocols, risks of graft rupture and contralateral ACL injury, risk reductions as a result of the eRTP strategy, and relevant health utilities were derived from the literature. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of <$100,000/quality-adjusted life-year was used to determine cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses were performed on pertinent model parameters to assess their effect on base case conclusions. In the base case analysis, the eRTP strategy cost was conservatively estimated to be $969 more than the standard rehabilitation protocol. Completion of the eRTP strategy was considered to confer a 25% risk reduction for graft rupture in comparison with standard rehabilitation. Results: The eRTP strategy was more cost-effective than standard rehabilitation alone. Based on 1-way threshold analyses, the eRTP strategy was cost-effective as long as its additional cost over standard rehabilitation was <$2092 or the eRTP strategy decreased the incidence of contralateral ACL rupture by >13.8%. Conclusion: The eRTP strategy in this study adds additional neuromuscular retraining and additional physician follow-up—as well as advanced testing goals upon which RTP is contingent—to traditional physical therapy. Our data suggest that these additions are cost-effective, even assuming only modest associated decreases in ACL graft failure. This study also determined that the only variable that had the potential to change the cost-effectiveness conclusion based on predetermined ranges was the additional cost of rehabilitation based on 1-way sensitivity analysis. Clinical Relevance: This study provides evidence of cost-effectiveness for payers, supporting the use of enhanced RTP programs. The sensitivity analyses herein may be used to determine if any given RTP program going forward is cost-effective, regardless of the exact components of the program.

The shift to telehealth due to COVID-19 revealed that a new care model for the young athlete, which combines in-person and virtual visits, could be an enhancement to in-person care alone. This clinical suggestion is novel as it discusses the utility of a hybrid care model for the young athlete, which has not yet been described. Interacting with the patient and family virtually in the home environment offers benefits that are difficult to achieve in the clinic. Opportunities such as the ability to custom tailor the home program with consideration of the patient's learning abilities, provide movement quality feedback outside of the clinical environment, observe parent/caregiver feedback, involve family members who may not be available to attend in-person visits, and the possibility of converting an in-person cancelation to a telehealth visit in order to maintain continuity of care, are examples of how this model may optimize treatment. Consideration of investigating the impact on clinical outcomes and cost effectiveness is recommended.

No abstract

Background: Rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) is a common injury in young athletes. Safe return-to-play (RTP, i.e. sports competition) is important to patient satisfaction, and appropriate criteria for RTP may reduce the risk of graft injury. Purpose: The purpose of this study is to assess the cost-effectiveness of a comprehensive RTP rehabilitation protocol relative to standard post-ACL reconstruction rehabilitation. Methods: A decision-analysis model was utilized to compare standard rehabilitation with an RTP program which included supplemental neuromuscular retraining, functional testing, and clinical follow-up. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated from a payer perspective. Costs of surgical procedures and rehabilitation protocols, risks of ipsilateral graft rupture and contralateral ACL injury, risk reductions due to the RTP program, and relevant utilities based on International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) outcomes were derived from the available literature. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of <$100,000/QALY was used to determine cost-effectiveness. Sensitivity analyses were performed on pertinent model parameters to measure their effect on base-case conclusions. In the base-case analysis, the cost of an RTP program was conservatively assumed to be $1,721 more than the standard rehabilitation protocol. The relative risk of ACL graft rupture following completion of the RTP program was assumed to be 0.75 (25% reduction). Results: In the base-case analysis, the RTP program was cost-effective compared with the standard rehabilitation protocol (ICER $54,939/QALY). Based on one-way threshold analyses, the RTP program was cost-effective as long as the additional cost was <$2,092 or the RTP program decreased the incidence of graft rupture by >7.7%. Conclusion: Our data suggests that, assuming modest associated decreases in graft failure, the addition of neuromuscular retraining, functional testing, and clinical follow-up to a formal rehabilitation program is cost-effective. The cost-effectiveness of such additions is related to the costs as well as any associated decreases in subsequent event risk, as shown in Figure 1. Figures: [Figure: see text]