Changes in landing mechanics in patients following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction when wearing an extension constraint knee brace.

BACKGROUND: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is associated with a high incidence of second tears (graft tears and contralateral ACL tears). These secondary tears have been attributed to asymmetrical lower extremity mechanics. Knee bracing is one potential intervention that can be used during rehabilitation that has the potential to normalize lower extremity asymmetry; however, little is known about the effect of bracing on movement asymmetry in patients following ACL reconstruction. HYPOTHESIS: Wearing a knee brace would increase knee joint flexion and joint symmetry. It was also expected that the joint mechanics would become more symmetrical in the braced condition. OBJECTIVE: To examine how knee bracing affects knee joint function and symmetry over the course of rehabilitation in patients 6 months following ACL reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3. METHODS: Twenty-three adolescent patients rehabilitating from ACL reconstruction surgery were recruited for the study. The subjects all underwent a motion analysis assessment during a stop-jump activity with and without a functional knee brace on the surgical side that resisted extension for 6 months following the ACL reconstruction surgery. Statistical analysis utilized a 2 × 2 (limb × brace) analysis of variance with a significant alpha level of 0.05. RESULTS: Subjects had increased knee flexion on the surgical side when they were braced. The brace condition increased knee flexion velocity, decreased the initial knee flexion angle, and increased the ground reaction force and knee extension moment on both limbs. Side-to-side asymmetry was present across conditions for the vertical ground reaction force and knee extension moment. CONCLUSION: Wearing a knee brace appears to increase lower extremity compliance and promotes normalized loading on the surgical side. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Knee extension constraint bracing in postoperative ACL patients may improve symmetry of lower extremity mechanics, which is potentially beneficial in progressing rehabilitation and reducing the incidence of second ACL tears.

Outcomes After Total Ankle Replacement in Association With Ipsilateral Hindfoot Arthrodesis.

BACKGROUND: Ipsilateral hindfoot arthrodesis in combination with total ankle replacement (TAR) may diminish functional outcome and prosthesis survivorship compared to isolated TAR. We compared the outcome of isolated TAR to outcomes of TAR with ipsilateral hindfoot arthrodesis. METHODS: In a consecutive series of 404 primary TARs in 396 patients, 70 patients (17.3%) had a hindfoot fusion before, after, or at the time of TAR; the majority had either an isolated subtalar arthrodesis (n = 43, 62%) or triple arthrodesis (n = 15, 21%). The remaining 334 isolated TARs served as the control group. Mean patient follow-up was 3.2 years (range, 24-72 months). RESULTS: The SF-36 total, AOFAS Hindfoot-Ankle pain subscale, Foot and Ankle Disability Index, and Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment scores were significantly improved from preoperative measures, with no significant differences between the hindfoot arthrodesis and control groups. The AOFAS Hindfoot-Ankle total, function, and alignment scores were significantly improved for both groups, albeit the control group demonstrated significantly higher scores in all 3 scales. Furthermore, the control group demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in VAS pain score compared to the hindfoot arthrodesis group. Walking speed, sit-to-stand time, and 4-square step test time were significantly improved for both groups at each postoperative time point; however, the hindfoot arthrodesis group completed these tests significantly slower than the control group. There was no significant difference in terms of talar component subsidence between the fusion (2.6 mm) and control groups (2.0 mm). The failure rate in the hindfoot fusion group (10.0%) was significantly higher than that in the control group (2.4%; p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this study represents the first series evaluating the clinical outcome of TARs performed with and without hindfoot fusion using implants available in the United States. At follow-up of 3.2 years, TAR performed with ipsilateral hindfoot arthrodesis resulted in significant improvements in pain and functional outcome; in contrast to prior studies, however, overall outcome was inferior to that of isolated TAR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative series.

Comparison of extramedullary versus intramedullary referencing for tibial component alignment in total ankle arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The majority of total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) systems use extramedullary alignment guides for tibial component placement. However, at least 1 system offers intramedullary referencing. In total knee arthroplasty, studies suggest that tibial component placement is more accurate with intramedullary referencing. The purpose of this study was to compare the accuracy of extramedullary referencing with intramedullary referencing for tibial component placement in total ankle arthroplasty. METHODS: The coronal and sagittal tibial component alignment was evaluated on the postoperative weight-bearing anteroposterior (AP) and lateral radiographs of 236 consecutive fixed-bearing TAAs. Radiographs were measured blindly by 2 investigators. The postoperative alignment of the prosthesis was compared with the surgeon's intended alignment in both planes. The accuracy of tibial component alignment was compared between the extramedullary and intramedullary referencing techniques using unpaired t tests. Interrater and intrarater reliabilities were assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). RESULTS: Eighty-three tibial components placed with an extramedullary referencing technique were compared with 153 implants placed with an intramedullary referencing technique. The accuracy of the extramedullary referencing was within a mean of 1.5 ± 1.4 degrees and 4.1 ± 2.9 degrees in the coronal and sagittal planes, respectively. The accuracy of intramedullary referencing was within a mean of 1.4 ± 1.1 degrees and 2.5 ± 1.8 degrees in the coronal and sagittal planes, respectively. There was a significant difference (P < .001) between the 2 techniques with respect to the sagittal plane alignment. Interrater ICCs for coronal and sagittal alignment were high (0.81 and 0.94, respectively). Intrarater ICCs for coronal and sagittal alignment were high for both investigators. CONCLUSIONS: Initial sagittal plane tibial component alignment was notably more accurate when intramedullary referencing was used. Further studies are needed to determine the effect of this difference on clinical outcomes and long-term survivability of the implants. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of the diagnosis of meniscus tears.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic imaging represents the fastest growing segment of costs in the US health system. This study investigated the cost-effectiveness of alternative diagnostic approaches to meniscus tears of the knee, a highly prevalent disease that traditionally relies on MRI as part of the diagnostic strategy. PURPOSE: To identify the most efficient strategy for the diagnosis of meniscus tears. STUDY DESIGN: Economic and decision analysis; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: A simple-decision model run as a cost-utility analysis was constructed to assess the value added by MRI in various combinations with patient history and physical examination (H&P). The model examined traumatic and degenerative tears in 2 distinct settings: primary care and orthopaedic sports medicine clinic. Strategies were compared using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: In both practice settings, H&P alone was widely preferred for degenerative meniscus tears. Performing MRI to confirm a positive H&P was preferred for traumatic tears in both practice settings, with a willingness to pay of less than US$50,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Performing an MRI for all patients was not preferred in any reasonable clinical scenario. The prevalence of a meniscus tear in a clinician's patient population was influential. For traumatic tears, MRI to confirm a positive H&P was preferred when prevalence was less than 46.7%, with H&P preferred above that. For degenerative tears, H&P was preferred until the prevalence reaches 74.2%, and then MRI to confirm a negative was the preferred strategy. In both settings, MRI to confirm positive physical examination led to more than a 10-fold lower rate of unnecessary surgeries than did any other strategy, while MRI to confirm negative physical examination led to a 2.08 and 2.26 higher rate than H&P alone in primary care and orthopaedic clinics, respectively. CONCLUSION: For all practitioners, H&P is the preferred strategy for the suspected degenerative meniscus tear. An MRI to confirm a positive H&P is preferred for traumatic tears for all practitioners. Consideration should be given to implementing alternative diagnostic strategies as well as enhancing provider education in physical examination skills to improve the reliability of H&P as a diagnostic test. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Alternative diagnostic strategies that do not include the use of MRI may result in decreased health care costs without harm to the patient and could possibly reduce unnecessary procedures.

Mid-term results and factors affecting outcome of a metal-backed unicompartmental knee design: a case series.

BACKGROUND: Controversies exist regarding the indications for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. The objective of this study is to report the mid-term results and examine predictors of failure in a metal-backed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty design. METHODS: At a mean follow-up of 60 months, 80 medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (68 patients) were evaluated. Implant survivorship was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method. The Knee Society objective and functional scores and radiographic characteristics were compared before surgery and at final follow-up. A Cox proportional hazard model was used to examine the association of patient's age, gender, obesity (body mass index > 30 kg/m2), diagnosis, Knee Society scores and patella arthrosis with failure. RESULTS: There were 9 failures during the follow up. The mean Knee Society objective and functional scores were respectively 49 and 48 points preoperatively and 95 and 92 points postoperatively. The survival rate was 92% at 5 years and 84% at 10 years. The mean age was younger in the failure group than the non-failure group (p < 0.01). However, none of the factors assessed was independently associated with failure based on the results from the Cox proportional hazard model. CONCLUSION: Gender, pre-operative diagnosis, preoperative objective and functional scores and patellar osteophytes were not independent predictors of failure of unicompartmental knee implants, although high body mass index trended toward significance. The findings suggest that the standard criteria for UKA may be expanded without compromising the outcomes, although caution may be warranted in patients with very high body mass index pending additional data to confirm our results. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

A pilot study of orthopaedic resident self-assessment using a milestones' survey just prior to milestones implementation.

OBJECTIVE: To pilot test if Orthopaedic Surgery residents could self-assess their performance using newly created milestones, as defined by the Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education. METHODS: In June 2012, an email was sent to Program Directors and administrative coordinators of the 154 accredited Orthopaedic Surgery Programs, asking them to send their residents a link to an online survey. The survey was adapted from the Orthopaedic Surgery Milestone Project. Completed surveys were aggregated in an anonymous, confidential database. SAS 9.3 was used to perform the analyses. RESULTS: Responses from 71 residents were analyzed. First and second year residents indicated through self-assessment that they had substantially achieved Level 1 and Level 2 milestones. Third year residents reported they had substantially achieved 30/41, and fourth year residents, all Level 3 milestones. Fifth year, graduating residents, reported they had substantially achieved 17 Level 4 milestones, and were extremely close on another 15. No milestone was rated at Level 5, the maximum possible. Earlier in training, Patient Care and Medical Knowledge milestones were rated lower than the milestones reflecting the other four competencies of Practice Based Learning and Improvement, Systems Based Practice, Professionalism, and Interpersonal Communication. The gap was closed by the fourth year. CONCLUSIONS: Residents were able to successfully self-assess using the 41 Orthopaedic Surgery milestones. Respondents' rate improved proficiency over time. Graduating residents report they have substantially, or close to substantially, achieved all Level 4 milestones. Milestone self-assessment may be a useful tool as one component of a program's overall performance assessment strategy.