Benefits of a Postoperative Hip Orthosis After Routine Arthroscopy of the Hip: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background: No consensus currently exists among orthopaedic surgeons regarding the benefits of hip orthosis after routine hip arthroscopy. Purpose: To compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and reoperation rates between patients who were braced versus those who were not braced after routine hip arthroscopy. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective review was conducted of 193 patients who underwent hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021, by 2 orthopedic surgeons at a single institution. Patients before July 1, 2019, were immobilized in a hip orthosis after hip arthroscopy (braced group; n = 101), whereas those after July 1, 2019, were not (nonbraced group; n = 92). Baseline PROMs (visual analog scale for pain, modified Harris Hip Score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and Veterans Rand 12-Item Health Survey [VR-12] Physical Component Summary and Mental Component Summary) were obtained for all patients and were repeated postoperatively at 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. The study groups were compared to evaluate differences in PROMs over time and 2-year postoperative reoperation rates. Group comparisons were also stratified by patient sex. Results: There were no significant differences on any PROM between the braced and nonbraced cohorts at any timepoint. There were also no significant group differences in reoperation rates, with 8 braced patients (7.9%) undergoing reoperation and 1 nonbraced patient (2.3%) undergoing reoperation (P = .208). In the sex-stratified analyses, nonbraced male patients had significantly higher VAS pain and lower VR-12 Mental Component Summary scores at 6 months postoperatively compared with braced male patients (P = .043 and .026, respectively). Conclusion: The study findings suggested that the use of an orthosis after routine hip arthroscopy for FAI does not improve patient-reported outcomes or negatively affect the 2-year reoperation rate. Postoperative bracing increases perioperative cost, and by foregoing routine bracing, patients may avoid the morbidity associated with wearing a brace for a prolonged period.

Publicly Available Rehabilitation Protocols Designated for Meniscal Repairs Are Highly Variable.

PURPOSE: To compare publicly available rehabilitation protocols designated for meniscal repairs published online to determine the variability in meniscus repair protocols including different types of tears (radial vs nonradial repairs). METHODS: From the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access System (FREIDA), a list of publicly available academic residency programs and orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships was obtained. With this list, an electronic search using Google was performed looking for meniscal repair rehabilitation protocols. In addition to academic institutions, private practice organizations with published meniscus repair rehabilitation protocols found during the search also were examined. RESULTS: Of 189 academic institutions, a total of 30 academic institutions had protocols that were included. Another 29 private practice programs were subsequently found and included. In total, 59 rehabilitation protocols fit the inclusion criteria. Six of the 59 specified radial repair and 53 did not. For return to full range of motion, nonradial protocols averaged 6.7 weeks and radial protocols averaged 7.3 weeks. For return to full weight-bearing, nonradial protocols averaged 6.2 weeks and radial protocols averaged 7.5 weeks. For return to sport, nonradial protocols averaged 17.8 weeks and radial protocols averaged 23.3 weeks. For time spent in a brace, nonradial protocols averaged 5.7 weeks and radial protocols averaged 6.7 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Of publicly available meniscal repair rehabilitation protocols, a small percentage (10.2%) changed their protocol in relation to tear type and there was a wide range of timeframes for each rehabilitation component. Protocols for radial tears tended to brace patients longer, limit their range of motion longer, delay full weight-bearing, and delay return to sport. However, it is recognized that some surgeons could be modifying their protocols in relation to tear type without publishing that information online. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As stated in the purpose, the point of this study was to access only the protocols that would be available to the public. If anything, awareness should be raised for surgeons to look at their existing protocols and update them if they are truly incomplete and outdated. More research needs to be done to structure a rehabilitation protocol that is specific to the meniscal tear type, as the current protocols have a wide range of variance.

Publicly Accessible Rehabilitation Protocols for Acromioclavicular Joint Reconstruction Are Widely Variable.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the availability and variability of publicly accessible acromioclavicular (AC) joint reconstruction rehabilitation protocols. METHODS: Protocols were identified by searching the websites of orthopedic surgery residency programs in the United States located from the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access System. Private practice groups with publicly available protocols were also included. RESULTS: Twenty-one protocols were included for review. Four of 14 (29%) protocols suggested starting passive range of motion (ROM) at postoperative week 2. Six of 20 (30%) protocols recommended initiation of full ROM at 6 weeks. Active ROM beginning at 6 weeks was recommended by 6 of 20 (30%) protocols. Six of 16 (38%) protocols recommended initiating active assisted ROM at 6 weeks. Sling immobilization for 6 weeks was recommended by 8 of 18 (44%) protocols. Shoulder isometric exercise initiated at 4 weeks was recommended by 4 of 13 (31%) protocols. Seven of 21 (33%) protocols recommended initiating shoulder strengthening at 12 weeks postoperatively. Return to sport time was included in 17 (81%) protocols with a range of 12 to 48 weeks (mean, 22 weeks). CONCLUSIONS: There was substantial variability in publicly accessible AC joint rehabilitation protocols, including a wide range in the recommendations for appropriate time to return to sport. Although strengthening exercises, active ROM, and active assisted ROM were recommended by most protocols, there were considerable differences in recommendations for when to initiate these rehabilitation components. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Rehabilitation is important for outcomes of AC joint reconstruction. This study shows the variability present in rehabilitation recommendations among online-accessible AC joint reconstruction rehabilitation protocols.

Review of Variability in Rehabilitation Protocols after Lateral Ankle Ligament Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Ankle sprains are one of the most common athletic injuries. If a patient fails to improve through conservative management, surgery is an option to restore ankle stability. The purpose of this study was to analyze and assess the variability across different rehabilitation protocols for patients undergoing either lateral ankle ligament repair, reconstruction, and suture tape augmentation. METHODS: Using a web-based search for published rehabilitation protocols after lateral ankle ligament repair, reconstruction, and suture tape augmentation, a total of 26 protocols were found. Inclusion criteria were protocols for post-operative care after an ankle ligament surgery (repair, reconstruction, or suture tape augmentation). Protocols for multi-ligament surgeries and non-operative care were excluded. A scoring rubric was created to analyze different inclusion, exclusion, and timing of protocols such as weight-bearing, range of motion (ROM), immobilization with brace, single leg exercises, return to running, and return to sport (RTS). Protocols inclusion of different recommendations was recorded along with the time frame that activities were suggested in each protocol. RESULTS: Twenty-six protocols were analyzed. There was variability across rehabilitation protocols for lateral ankle ligament operative patients especially in the type of immobilizing brace, time to partial and full weigh bearing, time to plantar flexion, dorsiflexion, eversion and inversion movements of the ankle, and return to single leg exercise and running. For repair and reconstruction, none of these categories had greater than 60% agreement between protocols. All (12/12) repair, internal brace, and unspecified protocols and 86% (12/14) of reconstruction protocols recommended no ROM immediately postoperatively. Eighty-six percent (6/7) of repair and 78% (11/14) of reconstruction protocols recommended no weight-bearing immediately after surgery, making post-operative ROM and weight-bearing status the most consistent aspects across protocols. Five protocols allowed post-operative weight-bearing in a cast to keep ROM restricted. Sixty-six percent (2/3) of suture tape augmentation protocols allowed full weight-bearing immediately post-operatively. Suture tape augmentation protocols generally allowed rehabilitation to occur on a quicker time-line with full weight-bearing by week 4-6 in 100% (3/3) of protocols and full ROM by week 8-10 in 66% (2/3) protocols. RTS was consistent in repair protocols (100% at week 12-16) but varied more in reconstruction. CONCLUSION: There is significant variability in the post-operative protocols after surgery for ankle instability. ROM was highly variable across protocols and did not always match-up with supporting literature for early mobilization of the ankle. Return to sport was most likely to correlate between protocols and the literature. Weight-bearing was consistent between most protocols but requires further research to determine the best practice. Overall, the variability between programs demonstrated the need for standardization of rehabilitation protocols.

Early Versus Delayed Mobilization Postoperative Protocols for Lateral Ankle Ligament Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The majority of patients with an acute lateral ankle ligamentous injury are successfully treated nonoperatively with functional rehabilitation; however, a small proportion of these patients experience persistent chronic instability and may require surgical intervention. Delayed primary repair of the ruptured ligaments is most commonly indicated for these patients. Optimal rehabilitation after lateral ankle ligament repair remains unknown, as surgeons vary in how they balance protection of the surgical repair site with immobilization against the need for ankle joint mobilization to restore optimal postoperative ankle range of motion. PURPOSE: To compare early and delayed mobilization (EM and DM, respectively) postoperative protocols in patients undergoing primary lateral ankle ligament repair to determine optimal evidence-based rehabilitation recommendations. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a meta-analysis using the PubMed/Ovid MEDLINE database was performed (October 11, 1947 to October 16, 2017), searching for articles involving lateral ankle ligament repair. Postoperative protocols were reviewed and divided into 2 categories: EM (within 3 weeks of surgery) and DM (more than 3 weeks post surgery). Return to sport (RTS), outcome scores (American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society [AOFAS] ankle-hindfoot scale and Karlsson score), radiographic outcomes (talar tilt and anterior drawer), and complications of both populations were recorded and statistically analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 28 of 1574 studies met the criteria for the final analysis, comprising 1457 patients undergoing primary lateral ankle ligament repair. The postoperative AOFAS score was significantly greater in the EM versus DM group (98.8 vs 91.9, respectively; P < .001), as was the postoperative Karlsson score (92.2 vs 90.0, respectively; P < .001). However, the EM group had significantly greater postoperative laxity on both the anterior drawer test (6.3 vs 3.9 mm, respectively; P < .001) and talar tilt test (5.1° vs 4.5°, respectively; P < .001). Also, the DM group had significantly lower rates of overall complications (3.1% vs 11.4%, respectively; P < .001) and skin wound complications (1.3% vs 3.8%, respectively; P = .005). RTS was not significantly different between groups (P = .100). CONCLUSION: Patients with EM postoperative protocols demonstrated improved functional outcomes; however, the EM group had increased objective laxity and a higher complication rate. Additional randomized studies are needed to definitively evaluate early versus delayed rehabilitation protocol timetables to optimize functional outcomes without compromising long-term stability.

A Review of Online Rehabilitation Protocols Designated for Rotator Cuff Repairs.

PURPOSE: To compare publicly available rehabilitation protocols designated for rotator cuff (RTC) repairs published online by academic residency programs and private practice institutions. METHODS: A systematic electronic search using the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access System (FREIDA) was performed for RTC repair rehabilitation protocols. Private practice programs with published rehabilitation protocols that were discovered during the Google search were also included for review, but no comprehensive search for private practice protocols was performed. The main exclusion criteria consisted of non-English-language protocols and protocols without any of the time-based components in question. Included protocols were assessed independently based on the specified RTC tear size (small [≤1 cm], medium [1-4 cm], large or massive [≥5 cm], or no mention of size). Protocols were compared based on the inclusion, exclusion, and timing of certain rehabilitation components. RESULTS: A total of 96 rehabilitation protocols were included for review, from 39 academic institutions and 28 private practice programs. Specific instructions for concomitant biceps tenodesis were included in 26 protocols (27.1%). Of the 96 protocols, 88 (91.7%) did not place restrictions on early postoperative passive range of motion (PROM) of the shoulder. Isolated PROM with restrictions on active range of motion was most commonly recommended for the first 4 or 6 weeks postoperatively (80.2%). Use of a sling or immobilizer was most frequently recommended for the first 4 or 6 weeks postoperatively (78.1%). Wide variation was noted in recommendations for returning to resistance strengthening, with the highest incidence being 27 protocols recommending returning at 12 weeks (28.1%); this further varied based on the size of the tear. A total of 21 protocols (21.9%) recommended the use of cryotherapy postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Although certain rehabilitation components were common, such as duration of PROM and sling or immobilizer use, a large degree of variation remains among published rehabilitation protocols after RTC repair, and this variability is still seen even when subdividing by the size or severity of the RTC tear. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Rehabilitation after RTC repair is crucial to patient outcomes. This study summarizes the variability among online rehabilitation protocols for RTC repair in the United States and emphasizes the importance of appropriate rehabilitation after RTC surgery.

Return to Sport After Turf Toe Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of turf toe injuries has increased in recent years. However, uncertainty remains as to how to optimally treat turf toe injuries and the implications that the severity of the injury has on outcomes, specifically return to sport (RTS). PURPOSE: To determine RTS based on treatment modality and to provide clinicians with additional information when comparing operative versus nonoperative treatment of turf toe injuries in athletes. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed using the PubMed/Ovid MEDLINE/PubMed Central databases (May 1964 to August 2018) per PRISMA-IPD (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Individual Participant Data) guidelines. RTS, treatment, severity of injury, athletic position, and sport were recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Of 858 identified studies, 12 met the criteria for the final meta-analysis. The studies included 112 athletes sustaining a total of 121 turf toe injuries; 63 (52.1%) of these injuries were treated surgically, while 58 (47.9%) were treated nonoperatively, and 53.7% were classified by the grade of injury (grade I, n = 1; grade II, n = 9; grade III, n = 55). Overall, 56 (46.3%) injuries could not be classified based on the data provided and were excluded from the final analysis. The median time to RTS for patients treated nonoperatively was 5.85 weeks (range, 3.00-8.70 weeks) compared with 14.70 weeks (range, 6.00-156.43 weeks) for patients treated surgically (P < .001); however, there was variability in the grade of injury between the 2 groups. Similarly, patients who sustained grade II injuries returned to sport more quickly (8.70 weeks) than patients who had a grade I (13.04 weeks) or grade III injury (16.50 weeks) (P = .016). The amount of time required to RTS was significantly influenced by the athlete's level of play (16.50 weeks for both high school and college levels; 14.70 weeks for professional level) (P = .018). CONCLUSION: The time to RTS for an athlete who suffers from a turf toe injury is significantly influenced by the severity of injury and the athlete's level of competition. Professional athletes who suffer from turf toe injuries RTS sooner than both high school and college athletes. However, there are a limited number of high-level studies evaluating turf toe injuries in the athletic population. Further research is necessary to clearly define the appropriate treatment and RTS protocols based on sport, position, and level of play.

Increased rates of knee arthroplasty and cost of patients with meniscal tears treated with arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus non-operative management.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the cost of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM), one of the most common surgeries performed by orthopaedic surgeons, and the associated rate of progression to knee arthroplasty (KA) compared to patients treated non-operatively after diagnosis of meniscal tear. METHODS: Utilizing data mining software (PearlDiver, Colorado Springs, CO), a national insurance database of approximately 23.5 million orthopaedic patients was queried for patients diagnosed with a meniscal tear. Patients were classified by treatment: non-operative and arthroscopic partial meniscectomy and were followed after initial diagnosis for cost and progression to knee arthroplasty. RESULTS: There were 176,407 subjects in the non-op group and 114,194 subjects in the arthroscopic partial meniscectomy group. Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy generated more cost than non-operative ($3842.57 versus $411.05, P < 0.001). Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy demonstrated greater propensity to need future knee arthroplasty (11.4% at 676 days) than those treated non-operatively (9.5% at 402 days) (P < 0.001). Female patients demonstrated a higher rate of progression to knee arthroplasty in the arthroscopic partial meniscectomy and non-operative groups (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Compared to non-operative treatment for meniscal tears, arthroscopic partial meniscectomy is more expensive and does not appear to decrease the rate of progression to knee arthroplasty. Patients undergoing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy yielded on average a delay of only 9 months (274 days) before undergoing knee arthroplasty. Female patients experienced a significantly higher rate of progression to knee arthroplasty. The authors recognize the limitations of this type of study including its retrospective nature, reliance upon accurate coding and billing information, and the inability to determine whether symptoms including mechanical locking played a role in the decision to perform an APM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Gout Presenting as Acute Hip Pain in a Young Woman: A Case Report.

CASE: A 28-year-old previously healthy woman developed worsening right hip pain without any preceding trauma or injury. Because of concern for septic arthritis, she underwent arthroscopic irrigation and debridement. The culture specimens were negative; crystal analysis showed monosodium urate crystals, which are consistent with an acute gout flare. The patient was started on naproxen and prednisone therapy and had substantial improvement in hip pain. CONCLUSION: Gout is a common cause of joint pain in older individuals. While rare in younger patients, our case report shows that gout should be included in the differential diagnosis when a patient presents with acute monoarthritis, regardless of age.

Simultaneous Bilateral Knee Dislocation During Weight Training: A Case Report and Review of the Literature.

CASE: We describe the clinical course and treatment of a patient who sustained simultaneous bilateral knee dislocation under low-velocity atraumatic conditions, and provide a review of the literature. Dislocations of the native knee joint are uncommon orthopaedic injuries but they are true emergencies because of the concern for concomitant neurovascular injury; therefore, they may be limb-threatening injuries. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, there are few reports of simultaneous bilateral knee dislocation and no reports of this occurring during weight training. The risk of knee dislocation can be reduced by avoiding locking and hyperextension of the knees during any type of leg press or squatting exercise.

Cost comparison and complication rate of Lisfranc injuries treated with open reduction internal fixation versus primary arthrodesis.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding optimal primary management of Lisfranc injuries. Whether open reduction internal fixation (ORIF) or primary arthrodesis is superior remains unknown. METHODS: A national insurance database of approximately 23.5 million orthopedic patients was retrospectively queried for subjects who were diagnosed with a Lisfranc injury from 2007 to 2016 based on international classification of diseases (ICD) codes (PearlDiver, Colorado Springs, CO). Patients with lisfranc injuries then progressed to either nonoperative treatment, ORIF, or primary arthrodesis. Associated treatment costs were determined along with complication rate and hardware removal rate. RESULTS: 2205 subjects with a diagnosis of Lisfranc injury were identified in the database. 1248 patients underwent nonoperative management, 670 underwent ORIF, and 212 underwent primary arthrodesis. The average cost of care associated with primary arthrodesis was greater ($5005.82) than for ORIF ($3961.97,P = 0.045). The overall complication rate was 23.1% (155/670) for ORIF and 30.2% (64/212) for primary arthrodesis (P = 0.04). Rates of hardware removal were 43.6% (292/670) for ORIF and 18.4% (39/212) for arthrodesis (P < 0.001). Furthermore, 2.5% (17/670) patients in the ORIF group progressed to arthrodesis at a mean of 308 days, average cost of care associated with this group of patients was $9505.12. DISCUSSION: Primary arthrodesis is both significantly more expensive and has a higher complication rate than ORIF. Open reduction and internal fixation demonstrated a low rate of progression to arthrodesis, although there was a high rate of hardware removal, which may represent a planned second procedure in the management of a substantial number of patients treated with ORIF. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III Retrospective Cohort Study.