Adult Acquired Flatfoot Deformity.

Adult acquired flatfoot deformity (AAFD) is a condition commonly seen by orthopaedic surgeons. Posterior tibial tendon dysfunction is thought to be the initial pathoanatomic etiology that leads to this deformity. Successful resolution of the pain associated with AAFD can be achievable with nonsurgical methods. Patients who continue to have pain or functional limitations despite nonsurgical treatment can find improvement with appropriately selected surgical interventions. This article addresses new advances in treatment based on the stage of AAFD and will identify areas of continued development with a focus on surgical management. The literature continues to evolve as demonstrated by a recent update regarding the nomenclature and treatment of this condition to progressive collapsing flatfoot deformity. Future goals of research include understanding the natural history of the disease, from asymptomatic to symptomatic, and studying a wide array of newer treatments and implants that have not been prospectively evaluated.

More Than One-third of Orthopaedic Applicants Are in the Top 10%: The Standardized Letter of Recommendation and Evaluation of Orthopaedic Resident Applicants.

BACKGROUND: The American Orthopaedic Association (AOA) released the standardized letter of recommendation (SLOR) form to provide standardized information to evaluators of orthopaedic residency applicants. The SLOR associates numerical data to an applicant's letter of recommendation. However, it remains unclear whether the new letter form effectively distinguishes among orthopaedic applicants, for whom letters are perceived to suffer from "grade inflation." In addition, it is unknown whether letters from more experienced faculty members differ in important ways from those written by less experienced faculty. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What proportion of SLOR recipients were rated in the top 10th percentile and top one-third of the applicant pool? (2) Did letters from program leaders (program directors and department chairs) demonstrate lower aggregate SLOR scores compared with letters written by other faculty members? (3) Did letters from away rotation program leaders demonstrate lower aggregate SLOR scores compared with letters written by faculty at the applicant's home institution? METHODS: This was a retrospective, single institution study examining 559 applications from the 2018 orthopaedic match. Inclusion criteria were all applications submitted to this residency. Exclusion criteria included all letters without an associated SLOR. In all, 1852 letters were received; of these, 26% (476) were excluded, and 74% (1376) were analyzed for SLOR data. We excluded 12% (169 of 1376) of letters that did not include a final summative score. Program leaders were defined as orthopaedic chairs and program directors. Away rotation letters were defined as letters written by faculty during an applicant's away rotation. Our study questions were answered accounting for each subcategory on the SLOR (scale 1-10) and the final ranking (scale 1-5) to form an aggregated score from the SLOR form for each letter. All SLOR questions were included in the creation of these scores. Correlations between program leaders and other faculty letter writers were assessed using a chi-square test. We considered a 1-point difference on 5-point scales to be a clinically important difference and a 2-point difference on 10-point scales to be clinically important. RESULTS: We found that 36% (437 of 1207) of the letters we reviewed indicated the candidate was in the top 10th percentile of all applicants evaluated, and 51% (619 of 1207) of the letters we reviewed indicated the candidate was in the top one-third of all applicants evaluated. We found no clinically important difference between program leaders and other faculty members in terms of summative scores on the SLOR (1.9 ± 0.7 versus 1.7 ± 0.7, mean difference -0.2 [95% CI -0.3 to 0.1]; p < 0.001). We also found no clinically important difference between home program letter writers and away program letter writers in terms of the mean summative scores (1.9 ± 0.7 versus 1.7 ± 0.7, mean difference 0.2; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In light of these discoveries, programs should examine the data obtained from SLOR forms carefully. SLOR scores skew very positively, which may benefit weaker applicants and harm stronger applicants. Program leaders give summative scores that do not differ substantially from junior faculty, suggesting there is no important difference in grade inflation between these faculty types, and as such, there is no strong need to adjust scores by faculty level. Likewise, away rotation letter writers' summative scores were not substantially different from those of home institution letters writers, indicating that there is no need to adjust scores between these groups either. Based on these findings, we should interpret letters with the understanding that overall there is substantial grade inflation. However, while weight used to be given to letters written by senior faculty members and those obtained on away rotations, we should now examine them equally, rather than trying to adjust them for overly high or low scores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Patient-specific factors are associated with severity of chondrolabral injury in patients with femoroacetabular impingement.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between patient-specific factors, preoperative radiographic findings, and the presence and severity of chondrolabral damage identified during hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement. METHODS: Between 2014 and 2017, patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for FAI and labral tear were retrospectively reviewed. Patient-specific variables including age, gender, BMI, LCEA, and alpha angle were collected. Surgical reports were reviewed for labral tear position and size, as well as severity of acetabular and femoral chondromalacia. RESULTS: There were 205 patients who met inclusion criteria with a mean age of 33 years (range 15-66), BMI 26.5 (range 15.9-44.5), LCEA 32.2° (range 21.0°-56.0°) and alpha angle 59.1° (range 33.0°-86.0°). Greater age (p = 0.023), alpha angle (p = 0.011) and male gender (p < 0.001) significantly correlated with high-grade acetabular chondral damage. Increased LCEA (p < 0.001), increased alpha angle (p = 0.012), and greater age (p = 0.002) were significantly associated with increased labral tear size. CONCLUSIONS: Greater age, male gender, increased BMI and increased alpha angle were associated with more advanced acetabular chondromalacia. Additionally, greater age, increased LCEA, and increased alpha angle was associated with larger labral tear size. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Keloid and Hypertrophic Scar Formation, Prevention, and Management: Standard Review of Abnormal Scarring in Orthopaedic Surgery.

Keloid and hypertrophic scar formation after orthopaedic surgical closure is a complex issue. The nature and location of procedures maximize wound tension, leave foreign bodies, and diminish dermal supply, all potentiating keloid formation. There is little discussion regarding the pathophysiology and management of this recurrent problem in orthopaedic literature. Keloid formation is a fibroproliferative disorder resulting in extensive production of extracellular matrix and collagen, but prevention and treatment is poorly understood. Patient and surgical factors contributing to the development of this condition are discussed. The treatments include both medical and surgical therapies that work at a biologic level and attempt to produce a cosmetic and complication-free management strategy. Medical options that have been investigated include combinations of intralesional steroid therapy, laser therapy, and biologics. Preventive surgical closure and excision remain mainstays of treatment. Radiation therapy has also been used in refractory cases with mixed results. Despite medical therapies and surgical excision aimed at treating the resulting scar, recurrence rate is very high for all modalities that have been studied to this point. Future work is being done to better understand the pathophysiology leading to keloid and hypertrophic scar formation in an effort to find preventive methods as compared to treatment strategies.

Ultrasound Examination for Infants Born Breech by Elective Cesarean Section With a Normal Hip Exam for Instability.

INTRODUCTION: Because of the risk of developmental dysplasia of the hip in infants born breech-despite a normal physical exam-the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines recommend ultrasound (US) hip imaging at 6 weeks of age for breech females and optional imaging for breech males. The purpose of this study is to report US results and follow-up of infants born breech with a normal physical exam. METHODS: The electronic medical record for children born at 1 hospital from 2008 to 2011 was reviewed. Data were analyzed for sex, birth weight, breech position, birth order, ethnicity, US and x-ray results, follow-up, and cost. RESULTS: A total of 237 infants were born breech with a normal physical examination, all delivered by cesarean section. Of the infants, 55% were male and 45% female. About 151 breech infants (64%) with a normal Barlow and Ortolani exam had a precautionary hip US as recommended by the AAP performed at an average of 7 weeks of age. Eighty-six breech infants (35%) did not have an US and were followed clinically. Of the 151 infants that had an US, 140 (93%) were read as normal. None had a dislocated hip. Two patients had a normal physical exam but laxity on US. These 2 patients were the only infants treated in a Pavlik harness. A pediatric orthopaedic surgeon followed those with subtle US findings and no laxity until normal. CONCLUSIONS: The decision by the AAP to recommend US screening at 6 weeks of age for infants with a normal physical exam but breech position was based on an extensive literature review and expert opinion. Not all pediatricians are following the AAP guidelines. The decision to perform an US should be done on a case-by-case basis by the examining physician. A more practical, cost-effective strategy would be to skip the US if the physical exam is normal and simply obtain an AP pelvis x-ray at 4 months. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-this is a case-control study investigating the outcomes of infants on data drawn from the electronic medical record.