Explore the vast range of titles available.

Symptomatic neuromas of the sural nerve are a rare but significant cause of pain and debilitation in athletes. Presentation is usually in the form of chronic pain and dysesthesias or paresthesias of the lateral foot and ankle. Treatment traditionally ranges from conservative measures, such as removing all external compressive forces, to administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, vitamin B6, tricyclic antidepressants, antiepileptics, or topical anesthetics. This article reports a case of sural nerve entrapment in a 34-year-old male triathlete with a history of recurrent training-induced right-sided gastrocnemius strains. The patient presented with numbness in the right lateral foot and ankle that had persisted for 3 months, after he was treated unsuccessfully with extensive nonoperative measures, including anti-inflammatory drugs, activity modification, and a dedicated physical therapy program of stretching and strengthening. Orthopedic assessment showed worsening pain with forced passive dorsiflexion and manual pressure applied over the distal aspect of the gastrocnemius. Plain radiographs showed normal findings, but in-office ultrasound imaging showed evidence of sural nerve entrapment with edema and neuromatous scar formation in the absence of gastrocnemius or soleus pathology. Percutaneous ultrasound-guided hydrodissection of the sural nerve at the area of symptomatic neuroma and neural edema was performed the same day. The patient had complete relief of symptoms and full return to the preinjury level of participation in competitive sports. This case report shows that hydrodissection, when performed by an experienced physician, can be an effective, minimally invasive technique for neurolysis in the setting of sural nerve entrapment, resulting in improvement in clinical symptoms. [Symptomatic neuromas of the sural nerve are a rare but significant cause of pain and debilitation in athletes. Presentation is usually in the form of chronic pain and dysesthesias or paresthesias of the lateral foot and ankle. Treatment traditionally ranges from conservative measures, such as removing all external compressive forces, to administration of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, vitamin B6, tricyclic antidepressants, antiepileptics, or topical anesthetics. This article reports a case of sural nerve entrapment in a 34-year-old male triathlete with a history of recurrent training-induced right-sided gastrocnemius strains. The patient presented with numbness in the right lateral foot and ankle that had persisted for 3 months, after he was treated unsuccessfully with extensive nonoperative measures, including anti-inflammatory drugs, activity modification, and a dedicated physical therapy program of stretching and strengthening. Orthopedic assessment showed worsening pain with forced passive dorsiflexion and manual pressure applied over the distal aspect of the gastrocnemius. Plain radiographs showed normal findings, but in-office ultrasound imaging showed evidence of sural nerve entrapment with edema and neuromatous scar formation in the absence of gastrocnemius or soleus pathology. Percutaneous ultrasound-guided hydrodissection of the sural nerve at the area of symptomatic neuroma and neural edema was performed the same day. The patient had complete relief of symptoms and full return to the preinjury level of participation in competitive sports. This case report shows that hydrodissection, when performed by an experienced physician, can be an effective, minimally invasive technique for neurolysis in the setting of sural nerve entrapment, resulting in improvement in clinical symptoms. [ Orthopedics. 2015; 38(11):e1046–e1050.]

Background: When meniscal repair is performed during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR), the effect of ACL graft type on meniscal repair outcomes is unclear. Hypothesis: The authors hypothesized that meniscal repairs would fail at the lowest rate when concomitant ACLR was performed with bone--patellar tendon--bone (BTB) autograft. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients who underwent meniscal repair at primary ACLR were identified from a longitudinal, prospective cohort. Meniscal repair failures, defined as any subsequent surgical procedure addressing the meniscus, were identified. A logistic regression model was built to assess the association of graft type, patient-specific factors, baseline Marx activity rating score, and meniscal repair location (medial or lateral) with repair failure at 6-year follow-up. Results: A total of 646 patients were included. Grafts used included BTB autograft (55.7%), soft tissue autograft (33.9%), and various allografts (10.4%). We identified 101 patients (15.6%) with a documented meniscal repair failure. Failure occurred in 74 of 420 (17.6%) isolated medial meniscal repairs, 15 of 187 (8%) isolated lateral meniscal repairs, and 12 of 39 (30.7%) of combined medial and lateral meniscal repairs. Meniscal repair failure occurred in 13.9% of patients with BTB autografts, 17.4% of patients with soft tissue autografts, and 19.4% of patients with allografts. The odds of failure within 6 years of index surgery were increased more than 2-fold with allograft versus BTB autograft (odds ratio = 2.34 [95% confidence interval, 1.12-4.92]; P = .02). There was a trend toward increased meniscal repair failures with soft tissue versus BTB autografts (odds ratio = 1.41 [95% confidence interval, 0.87-2.30]; P = .17). The odds of failure were 68% higher with medial versus lateral repairs (P < .001). There was a significant relationship between baseline Marx activity level and the risk of subsequent meniscal repair failure; patients with either very low (0-1 points) or very high (15-16 points) baseline activity levels were at the highest risk (P = .004). Conclusion: Meniscal repair location (medial vs lateral) and baseline activity level were the main drivers of meniscal repair outcomes. Graft type was ranked third, demonstrating that meniscal repairs performed with allograft were 2.3 times more likely to fail compared with BTB autograft. There was no significant difference in failure rates between BTB versus soft tissue autografts. Registration: NCT00463099 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Background: The impact of preoperative opioid use on outcomes after shoulder surgery is unknown. Purpose/Hypothesis: To examine the role of preoperative opioid use on outcomes in patients after shoulder surgery. We hypothesized that preoperative opioid use in shoulder surgery will result in increased postoperative pain and functional deficits when compared with nonuse. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A systematic review was performed using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Included were all English-language studies comparing clinical outcomes of shoulder surgery in patients who used opioids preoperatively (opioid group) as well as patients who did not (nonopioid group) with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Outcomes included range of motion, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Constant-Murley score, and visual analog scale for pain. Study quality was evaluated with the Modified Coleman Methodology Score and the MINORS score (Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies). Results: Included were 5 studies (level 2, n = 1; level 3, n = 4): Two studies were on total shoulder arthroplasty, 2 on reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, 1 on both, and 1 on arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. There were 827 patients overall: 290 in the opioid group (age, 63.2 ± 4.0 years [mean ± SD]; follow-up, 38.9 ± 7.5 months) and 537 in the nonopioid group (age, 66.0 ± 4.7 years; follow-up, 39.5 ± 8.1 months). The opioid group demonstrated significantly worse pre- and postoperative visual analog scale and Constant-Murley score pain scores as compared with the nonopioid group. Mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores were significantly lower in the opioid group at pre- and postoperative time points as compared with the nonopioid group (P < .05 for all). However, both groups experienced similar improvement in outcomes pre- to postoperatively. One study showed that the opioid group consumed significantly more opioids postoperatively than the nonopioid group and for a longer duration (P < .05). The overall mean Modified Coleman Methodology Score and MINORS score were 64.2 ± 14 and 15.8 ± 1.0, respectively. Conclusion: Opioid use prior to various shoulder surgical procedures negatively affected postoperative pain and functionality. Although the opioid group showed significantly worse scores postoperatively, the groups experienced similar improvements.

Background: Injuries to the posterolateral corner (PLC) may occur concurrently with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury. Purpose/Hypothesis: This study evaluated the outcomes of patients who underwent operative management of PLC injuries concurrently with ACL reconstruction in a prospective multicenter cohort. We hypothesized that there would be no differences in outcomes between patients who were treated with PLC repair and PLC reconstruction. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients undergoing ACL reconstruction were enrolled into a prospective longitudinal multicenter cohort between 2002 and 2008. Those with complete 6-year follow-up data (patient-reported outcomes and subsequent surgery information) were identified. Excluded from the study were patients with posterior cruciate ligament injuries. Patients who underwent PLC repair were compared with those who underwent PLC reconstruction with regard to interval from injury to surgery, need for revision surgery, and long-term outcomes at 6 years. Results: During the identified time frame, 3026 identified patients underwent primary ACL reconstruction; 34 (1.1%) also underwent concurrent PLC surgery (15 repairs, 19 reconstructions [18 allografts, 1 autograft]). With the numbers available, we did not detect significant differences between groups regarding the rate of meniscal or chondral injuries. Median time to PLC reconstruction was 121 days as compared with 19 days for concurrent ACL reconstruction and PLC repair (P = .01). There were no between-group differences in Marx activity scores prior to surgery (P = .4). At 6-year follow-up, there were no between-group differences in Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (P = .36-.83) or International Knee Documentation Committee score (P = .84); however, patients treated with PLC reconstructions had lower Marx activity scores (4.1 vs 9.4; P = .02). There was 1 ACL revision in the PLC reconstruction group, and 1 of the PLC repairs was revised to a reconstruction during the follow-up period. Conclusion: Good outcomes were achieved at 6-year follow-up with both repair and reconstruction of PLC injuries treated concurrently with ACL reconstruction. The PLC reconstruction group had lower activity levels 6 years after surgery. The present data suggest that, for appropriately selected patients undergoing acute surgical treatment of combined ACL and PLC injuries, PCL repair can achieve good long-term outcomes.

Background: There remains a paucity of literature comparing clinical outcomes after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) between skiers and non-skiers, particularly in older patient populations. Purpose: To compare clinical outcomes after ACLR between skiers and non-skiers, with a subanalysis based on age. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A nested cohort of 128 patients from the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network cohort who underwent primary ACLR completed a series of patient-reported outcomes pre- and postoperatively at 2 and 6 years including the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Marx Activity Rating Scale, and subjective International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score. Data including patient sex, age at surgery, graft type, and sport participation were analyzed. Patients were stratified by participation in skiing (skiers vs non-skiers) and by age subgroup (≤29, 30-39, and ≥40 years). Student t tests and analysis of variance were used to compare mean improvement between pre- and postoperative outcomes. Results: A total of 44 skiers (female, 59.1%; age, 35.3 ± 11.6 years) and 84 non-skiers (female, 34.5%; age, 27.7 ± 11.3 years) were included. ACLR was performed using allograft in 36.7% (22 skiers, 25 non-skiers), autograft in 58.6% (19 skiers, 56 non-skiers), or hybrid autograft-allograft in 4.7% (3 skiers, 3 non-skiers). Although both non-skiers and skiers demonstrated improvements in outcomes from baseline to 2 and 6 years, non-skiers demonstrated significantly less overall improvement from 2 to 6 years postoperatively in KOOS Symptoms (P = .01), KOOS Pain (P = .002), and KOOS Activities of Daily Living (P = .03) subscales compared with skiers. There were 15 skiers who were 29 years or younger (34.1%), 14 skiers between 30 and 39 years (31.8%), and 15 skiers 40 years or older (34.1%). Skiers 40 years and older demonstrated significantly greater mean improvement in KOOS Symptoms (P = .02) and KOOS Quality of Life (QoL) (P = .01) subscales at 2 years and KOOS QoL (P = .01) at 6 years postoperatively compared with skiers 29 years or younger. Conclusion: Compared with non-skiers, skiers demonstrated significantly greater mean improvements in KOOS scores between 2 and 6 years after ACLR. In addition, skiers 40 years or older showed greater improvement in KOOS QoL compared with younger skiers. This information can be used to counsel skiers, especially those older than 40 years, as to their expected outcomes after ACLR.

Background: Knot tying is a crucial component of successful arthroscopic shoulder surgery. It is currently unknown whether sliding or nonsliding techniques result in superior clinical outcomes. Purpose: To assess the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic sliding knot (SK)– versus nonsliding knot (NSK)–tying techniques during arthroscopic shoulder surgery, including rotator cuff repair, Bankart repair, and superior labral anterior-posterior (SLAP) repair. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic search of the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was performed using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. All English-language literature published between 2000 and 2018 reporting clinical outcomes utilizing SK- or NSK-tying techniques during rotator cuff repair, Bankart repair, and SLAP repair with a minimum 24-month follow-up was reviewed by 2 independent reviewers. Information on type of surgery, knot used, failure rate, patient satisfaction, and patient-reported outcomes was collected. Patient-reported outcome measures included the Constant-Murley score, Rowe score, and visual analog scale for pain. Study quality was evaluated using the modified Coleman Methodology Score. Results: Overall, 9 studies (6 level 3 and 3 level 4) with a total of 671 patients (mean age, 52.8 years [range, 16-86 years]; 65.7% male; 206 SK and 465 NSK) were included. There were 4 studies that reported on Bankart repair in 148 patients (63 SK and 85 NSK), 3 on SLAP repair in 59 patients (59 SK), and 2 on rotator cuff repair in 464 patients (84 SK and 380 NSK). Also, 6 studies compared knot-tying with knotless techniques (3 Bankart repair studies and 3 SLAP repair studies), while the studies reporting the outcomes of SLAP repair evaluated SK-tying techniques only. The failure rate for Bankart repair was 3.2% (2/63) for SKs and 4.7% (4/85) for NSKs. The failure rate for rotator cuff repair was 2.4% (2/84) for SKs and 6.3% (24/380) for NSKs. The failure rate for SLAP repair was 11.9% (7/59). Because of inconsistencies in outcomes and procedures, no quantitative analysis was possible. The mean modified Coleman Methodology Score for all studies was 65.1 ± 8.77, indicating adequate methodology. Conclusion: The literature on clinical outcomes using SKs or NSKs for shoulder procedures is limited to level 4 evidence. Future studies should be prospective and focus on comparing the use of SKs and NSKs for shoulder procedures to elucidate which arthroscopic knot results in superior clinical outcomes.

Purpose The goal of this paper is to compare patient factors, intra-operative findings, and surgical techniques between patients followed in large cohorts in France, Norway, and North America. Methods Data collected on 2,286 patients undergoing revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) were obtained. These data included 1,216 patients enrolled in the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) in North America, 793 patients undergoing revision ACLR and recorded in the Norwegian Knee Ligament Registry (NKLR), and 277 patients recorded in the revision ACL database of the Société Française d’Arthroscopie (SFA) in France. Data collected from each database included patient demographics (age, sex, height, and weight), graft choice and reason for failure of the primary ACLR, time from primary to revision ACLR, pre-revision patient-reported outcome scores (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, subjective International Knee Documentation Committee), associated intra-articular findings and treatments at revision, and graft choice for revision reconstruction. Results Patient demographics in the three databases were relatively similar. Graft choice for primary and revision ACLR varied significantly, with more allografts used in the MARS cohort. Hamstring autograft was favoured in the NKRL, while bone–patellar tendon–bone autograft was most common in the SFA cohort. Reasons for failure of the primary ACLR were comparable, with recurrent trauma noted in 46–56 % of patients in each of the three cohorts. Technical error was cited in 44–51 % of patients in the MARS and SFA cohorts, but was not clearly elucidated in the NKLR cohort. Biologic failure of the primary graft was more common in the MARS cohort. Differences in associated intra-articular findings were noted at the time of revision ACLR, with significantly more high-grade cartilage lesions noted in the MARS group. Conclusions Significant differences exist between patient populations followed in revision ACL cohorts throughout the world that should be considered when applying findings from such cohorts to different patient populations. Level of evidence Retrospective comparative study, Level III.

Data from large prospectively collected anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) cohorts are being utilized to address clinical questions regarding ACL injury demographics and outcomes of ACL reconstruction. These data are affected by patient and injury factors as well as surgical factors associated with the site of data collection. The aim of this article is to compare primary ACL reconstruction data from patient cohorts in the United States and Norway, demonstrating the similarities and differences between two large cohorts. Primary ACL reconstruction data from the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network (MOON) in the United States and the Norwegian National Knee Ligament Registry (NKLR) were compared to identify similarities and differences in patient demographics, activity at injury, preoperative Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), time to reconstruction, intraarticular pathology, and graft choice. Seven hundred and thirteen patients from the MOON cohort were compared with 4,928 patients from the NKLR. A higher percentage of males (NKLR 57%, MOON 52%; P  < 0.01) and increased patient age (NKLR 27 years, MOON 23 years; P  < 0.001) were noted in the NKLR population. The most common sports associated with injury in the MOON cohort were basketball (20%), soccer (17%), and American football (14%); while soccer (42%), handball (26%), and downhill skiing (10%) were most common in the NKLR. Median time to reconstruction was 2.4 (Interquartile range [IQR] 1.2–7.2) months in the MOON cohort and 7.9 (IQR 4.2–17.8) months in the NKLR cohort ( P  < 0.001). Both meniscal tears (MOON 65%, NKLR 48%; P  < 0.001) and articular cartilage defects (MOON 46%, NKLR 26%; P  < 0.001) were more common in the MOON cohort. Hamstring autografts (MOON 44%, NKLR 63%) and patellar tendon autografts (MOON 42%, NKLR 37%) were commonly utilized in both cohorts. Allografts were much more frequently utilized in the MOON cohort (MOON 13%, NKLR 0.04%; P  < 0.001). Significant diversity in patient, injury, and surgical factors exist among large prospective cohorts collected in different locations. Surgeons should investigate and consider the characteristics of these cohorts when applying knowledge gleaned from these groups to their own patient populations.