User login
Acute kidney injury linked with doubled inpatient VTEs
TORONTO – Hospitalized patients with acute kidney injury had more than double the inpatient rate of venous thromboembolism as had patients without acute kidney injury in a prospective, observational study of more than 6,000 hospitalized U.S. soldiers.
He offered four possible mechanisms to explain a link between AKI and VTE:
- Patients with AKI are in a hypercoagulable state.
- AKI alters the pharmacodynamics or pharmacokinetics of VTE prophylactic treatments.
- AKI is a marker of an illness that causes VTE.
- VTE leads to an increased rate of AKI rather than the other way around.
Dr. McMahon’s analysis also revealed that two other clinical conditions that are generally believed to raise VTE risk – obesity and impaired overall renal function identified with stagnant measures – did not correspond with a significantly elevated VTE rate in this study.
The data came from 6,552 adults hospitalized for at least 2 days at Walter Reed between September 2009 and March 2011. The study excluded patients with VTE at the time of admission and also those who had been treated with an anticoagulant at the time of admission. The patients averaged 55 years of age and were hospitalized for a median of 4 days. About 22% of patients received VTE prophylaxis with unfractionated heparin, about 41% received prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin, and about 39% received no VTE prophylaxis (percentages total 102% because of rounding).
About 16% of the patients had been diagnosed with AKI at the time of admission, and an additional 8% developed AKI while hospitalized, defined as an increase in serum creatinine during hospitalization of at least 50% above baseline levels or an increase of more than 0.3 mg/dL above the level at time of admission. During hospitalization, 160 patients (2%) developed a new onset VTE.
In an analysis that adjusted for baseline differences in type of surgery, body mass index, sex, age, and prior hospitalizations during the prior 90 days, the results showed that patients with preexisting or new onset AKI had a 2.2-fold higher rate of VTE, compared with patients without AKI, and this difference was statistically significant, Dr. McMahon reported.
The analysis also showed a significant 62% relatively higher rate of VTE among soldiers hospitalized for a deployment-related event, as well as a significant 63% relatively lower VTE rate among patients not receiving medical prophylaxis, compared with patients receiving an anticoagulant. Dr. McMahon suggested that this lower rate of VTEs among patients not on prophylaxis reflected success in identifying which patients had an increased risk for VTE and hence received prophylaxis.
[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
TORONTO – Hospitalized patients with acute kidney injury had more than double the inpatient rate of venous thromboembolism as had patients without acute kidney injury in a prospective, observational study of more than 6,000 hospitalized U.S. soldiers.
He offered four possible mechanisms to explain a link between AKI and VTE:
- Patients with AKI are in a hypercoagulable state.
- AKI alters the pharmacodynamics or pharmacokinetics of VTE prophylactic treatments.
- AKI is a marker of an illness that causes VTE.
- VTE leads to an increased rate of AKI rather than the other way around.
Dr. McMahon’s analysis also revealed that two other clinical conditions that are generally believed to raise VTE risk – obesity and impaired overall renal function identified with stagnant measures – did not correspond with a significantly elevated VTE rate in this study.
The data came from 6,552 adults hospitalized for at least 2 days at Walter Reed between September 2009 and March 2011. The study excluded patients with VTE at the time of admission and also those who had been treated with an anticoagulant at the time of admission. The patients averaged 55 years of age and were hospitalized for a median of 4 days. About 22% of patients received VTE prophylaxis with unfractionated heparin, about 41% received prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin, and about 39% received no VTE prophylaxis (percentages total 102% because of rounding).
About 16% of the patients had been diagnosed with AKI at the time of admission, and an additional 8% developed AKI while hospitalized, defined as an increase in serum creatinine during hospitalization of at least 50% above baseline levels or an increase of more than 0.3 mg/dL above the level at time of admission. During hospitalization, 160 patients (2%) developed a new onset VTE.
In an analysis that adjusted for baseline differences in type of surgery, body mass index, sex, age, and prior hospitalizations during the prior 90 days, the results showed that patients with preexisting or new onset AKI had a 2.2-fold higher rate of VTE, compared with patients without AKI, and this difference was statistically significant, Dr. McMahon reported.
The analysis also showed a significant 62% relatively higher rate of VTE among soldiers hospitalized for a deployment-related event, as well as a significant 63% relatively lower VTE rate among patients not receiving medical prophylaxis, compared with patients receiving an anticoagulant. Dr. McMahon suggested that this lower rate of VTEs among patients not on prophylaxis reflected success in identifying which patients had an increased risk for VTE and hence received prophylaxis.
[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
TORONTO – Hospitalized patients with acute kidney injury had more than double the inpatient rate of venous thromboembolism as had patients without acute kidney injury in a prospective, observational study of more than 6,000 hospitalized U.S. soldiers.
He offered four possible mechanisms to explain a link between AKI and VTE:
- Patients with AKI are in a hypercoagulable state.
- AKI alters the pharmacodynamics or pharmacokinetics of VTE prophylactic treatments.
- AKI is a marker of an illness that causes VTE.
- VTE leads to an increased rate of AKI rather than the other way around.
Dr. McMahon’s analysis also revealed that two other clinical conditions that are generally believed to raise VTE risk – obesity and impaired overall renal function identified with stagnant measures – did not correspond with a significantly elevated VTE rate in this study.
The data came from 6,552 adults hospitalized for at least 2 days at Walter Reed between September 2009 and March 2011. The study excluded patients with VTE at the time of admission and also those who had been treated with an anticoagulant at the time of admission. The patients averaged 55 years of age and were hospitalized for a median of 4 days. About 22% of patients received VTE prophylaxis with unfractionated heparin, about 41% received prophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin, and about 39% received no VTE prophylaxis (percentages total 102% because of rounding).
About 16% of the patients had been diagnosed with AKI at the time of admission, and an additional 8% developed AKI while hospitalized, defined as an increase in serum creatinine during hospitalization of at least 50% above baseline levels or an increase of more than 0.3 mg/dL above the level at time of admission. During hospitalization, 160 patients (2%) developed a new onset VTE.
In an analysis that adjusted for baseline differences in type of surgery, body mass index, sex, age, and prior hospitalizations during the prior 90 days, the results showed that patients with preexisting or new onset AKI had a 2.2-fold higher rate of VTE, compared with patients without AKI, and this difference was statistically significant, Dr. McMahon reported.
The analysis also showed a significant 62% relatively higher rate of VTE among soldiers hospitalized for a deployment-related event, as well as a significant 63% relatively lower VTE rate among patients not receiving medical prophylaxis, compared with patients receiving an anticoagulant. Dr. McMahon suggested that this lower rate of VTEs among patients not on prophylaxis reflected success in identifying which patients had an increased risk for VTE and hence received prophylaxis.
[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
AT CHEST 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Inpatients with AKI had an adjusted 2.2-fold higher rate of VTE, compared with other inpatients.
Data source: Prospective, observational data from 6,552 inpatients at a single U.S. military hospital.
Disclosures: Dr. McMahon had no disclosures.
From the Editors: Advice to young hopefuls
Most mature surgeons and surgical educators have been asked by hopeful young medical students: “What can I do to improve my chances of becoming a surgeon?” We all want to give our aspiring students encouraging yet truthful answers. The following are typical questions we get from students, and we have tried to provide responses that are both helpful and realistic given the individual circumstances. Do young hopefuls query you about what it takes to become a surgeon? If so, we invite you to let us know what kinds of questions you get and how you respond. We all want “the best and the brightest” to join our profession, and we can help make that happen by offering sound advice to those who come to us asking “How can I become a surgeon?”
Dear Dr. Hughes,
I am a first-year medical student and want to become a surgeon! Everyone tells me I have to have at least two publications to even be considered for an interview. Is this true? What is the best area of research for me to pursue to assure a match in a surgery residency?
Unpublished in the Midwest
Dear Unpublished,
Like almost everything in life, the answer to your question is “It depends.” Surgery is a field that covers such a wide range of opportunities and training options that there is no “perfect” path to residency. More than anything at the M1 level, you need to keep your options open for any discipline. During the next 3 years, you’ll find out much about yourself and about the breadth of medicine. You need to understand who you are as a person before deciding on a specialty and especially before embarking on a research project. Research is a crucial part of surgery, but research just to have a publication for your resume is not a good enough reason to take this on during medical school.
The pursuit of knowledge through research is best undertaken because you have a passion for a particular subject. Most program directors will see right through “insincere” research – that is, research done to puff up a resume but lacking underlying value or relevance to your personal interests.
Tyler Hughes, MD, FACS
Dear Dr. Deveney,
I am in the middle of my third year of medical school. I have wanted to be a rural general surgeon ever since I shadowed the surgeon in my home town and saw the impact he made on the lives of his patients – and they made on his. Unfortunately, I do not do well on standardized tests and scored only 216 on USMLE Step 1. I did earn “Honors” in my surgery clerkship, but only a “Pass” in Medicine, with other clerkships still pending. What can I do to maximize my chances of a successful match in a surgical residency?
Discouraged in Denver
Dear Discouraged,
Since medical students are applying to a larger number of programs every year, surgical training programs receive far more applicants than they can interview. Most programs use USMLE Step 1 score as a convenient way to filter applicants and interview only students who have scored above an arbitrary threshold, such as 220, 230, or 240. We all know that USMLE Step 1 score does not correlate well with how good a surgeon you will be, but it does correlate with the likelihood of passing the American Board of Surgery Qualifying Exam on the first attempt. Programs are in part judged on their Board passage rate by both applicants and by accrediting agencies. Your score of 216 means that you will need to apply widely to programs across the country.
I urge you to join the American College of Surgeons as a student member and attend the 2018 Clinical Congress meeting. Attend its medical student program, and meet as many program directors as you can at the “Meet and Greet” receptions.
Programs in which you will thrive are ones that value a person who pitches in and helps the team get the daily work done. Surgery is a team sport! You need to be unfailingly pleasant and positive and be able to tie a knot and suture an incision smoothly. Chance favors the prepared mind and hands! Good luck!
Karen E. Deveney, MD, FACS
Most mature surgeons and surgical educators have been asked by hopeful young medical students: “What can I do to improve my chances of becoming a surgeon?” We all want to give our aspiring students encouraging yet truthful answers. The following are typical questions we get from students, and we have tried to provide responses that are both helpful and realistic given the individual circumstances. Do young hopefuls query you about what it takes to become a surgeon? If so, we invite you to let us know what kinds of questions you get and how you respond. We all want “the best and the brightest” to join our profession, and we can help make that happen by offering sound advice to those who come to us asking “How can I become a surgeon?”
Dear Dr. Hughes,
I am a first-year medical student and want to become a surgeon! Everyone tells me I have to have at least two publications to even be considered for an interview. Is this true? What is the best area of research for me to pursue to assure a match in a surgery residency?
Unpublished in the Midwest
Dear Unpublished,
Like almost everything in life, the answer to your question is “It depends.” Surgery is a field that covers such a wide range of opportunities and training options that there is no “perfect” path to residency. More than anything at the M1 level, you need to keep your options open for any discipline. During the next 3 years, you’ll find out much about yourself and about the breadth of medicine. You need to understand who you are as a person before deciding on a specialty and especially before embarking on a research project. Research is a crucial part of surgery, but research just to have a publication for your resume is not a good enough reason to take this on during medical school.
The pursuit of knowledge through research is best undertaken because you have a passion for a particular subject. Most program directors will see right through “insincere” research – that is, research done to puff up a resume but lacking underlying value or relevance to your personal interests.
Tyler Hughes, MD, FACS
Dear Dr. Deveney,
I am in the middle of my third year of medical school. I have wanted to be a rural general surgeon ever since I shadowed the surgeon in my home town and saw the impact he made on the lives of his patients – and they made on his. Unfortunately, I do not do well on standardized tests and scored only 216 on USMLE Step 1. I did earn “Honors” in my surgery clerkship, but only a “Pass” in Medicine, with other clerkships still pending. What can I do to maximize my chances of a successful match in a surgical residency?
Discouraged in Denver
Dear Discouraged,
Since medical students are applying to a larger number of programs every year, surgical training programs receive far more applicants than they can interview. Most programs use USMLE Step 1 score as a convenient way to filter applicants and interview only students who have scored above an arbitrary threshold, such as 220, 230, or 240. We all know that USMLE Step 1 score does not correlate well with how good a surgeon you will be, but it does correlate with the likelihood of passing the American Board of Surgery Qualifying Exam on the first attempt. Programs are in part judged on their Board passage rate by both applicants and by accrediting agencies. Your score of 216 means that you will need to apply widely to programs across the country.
I urge you to join the American College of Surgeons as a student member and attend the 2018 Clinical Congress meeting. Attend its medical student program, and meet as many program directors as you can at the “Meet and Greet” receptions.
Programs in which you will thrive are ones that value a person who pitches in and helps the team get the daily work done. Surgery is a team sport! You need to be unfailingly pleasant and positive and be able to tie a knot and suture an incision smoothly. Chance favors the prepared mind and hands! Good luck!
Karen E. Deveney, MD, FACS
Most mature surgeons and surgical educators have been asked by hopeful young medical students: “What can I do to improve my chances of becoming a surgeon?” We all want to give our aspiring students encouraging yet truthful answers. The following are typical questions we get from students, and we have tried to provide responses that are both helpful and realistic given the individual circumstances. Do young hopefuls query you about what it takes to become a surgeon? If so, we invite you to let us know what kinds of questions you get and how you respond. We all want “the best and the brightest” to join our profession, and we can help make that happen by offering sound advice to those who come to us asking “How can I become a surgeon?”
Dear Dr. Hughes,
I am a first-year medical student and want to become a surgeon! Everyone tells me I have to have at least two publications to even be considered for an interview. Is this true? What is the best area of research for me to pursue to assure a match in a surgery residency?
Unpublished in the Midwest
Dear Unpublished,
Like almost everything in life, the answer to your question is “It depends.” Surgery is a field that covers such a wide range of opportunities and training options that there is no “perfect” path to residency. More than anything at the M1 level, you need to keep your options open for any discipline. During the next 3 years, you’ll find out much about yourself and about the breadth of medicine. You need to understand who you are as a person before deciding on a specialty and especially before embarking on a research project. Research is a crucial part of surgery, but research just to have a publication for your resume is not a good enough reason to take this on during medical school.
The pursuit of knowledge through research is best undertaken because you have a passion for a particular subject. Most program directors will see right through “insincere” research – that is, research done to puff up a resume but lacking underlying value or relevance to your personal interests.
Tyler Hughes, MD, FACS
Dear Dr. Deveney,
I am in the middle of my third year of medical school. I have wanted to be a rural general surgeon ever since I shadowed the surgeon in my home town and saw the impact he made on the lives of his patients – and they made on his. Unfortunately, I do not do well on standardized tests and scored only 216 on USMLE Step 1. I did earn “Honors” in my surgery clerkship, but only a “Pass” in Medicine, with other clerkships still pending. What can I do to maximize my chances of a successful match in a surgical residency?
Discouraged in Denver
Dear Discouraged,
Since medical students are applying to a larger number of programs every year, surgical training programs receive far more applicants than they can interview. Most programs use USMLE Step 1 score as a convenient way to filter applicants and interview only students who have scored above an arbitrary threshold, such as 220, 230, or 240. We all know that USMLE Step 1 score does not correlate well with how good a surgeon you will be, but it does correlate with the likelihood of passing the American Board of Surgery Qualifying Exam on the first attempt. Programs are in part judged on their Board passage rate by both applicants and by accrediting agencies. Your score of 216 means that you will need to apply widely to programs across the country.
I urge you to join the American College of Surgeons as a student member and attend the 2018 Clinical Congress meeting. Attend its medical student program, and meet as many program directors as you can at the “Meet and Greet” receptions.
Programs in which you will thrive are ones that value a person who pitches in and helps the team get the daily work done. Surgery is a team sport! You need to be unfailingly pleasant and positive and be able to tie a knot and suture an incision smoothly. Chance favors the prepared mind and hands! Good luck!
Karen E. Deveney, MD, FACS
TNFi response evaluations may conflict when fibromyalgia, axial SpA coexist
The concomitant presence of both axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and fibromyalgia affects response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers through increased symptom severity on patient-reported outcomes but not on more objective measurements, according to findings from a prospective, longitudinal study.
Although reports have less frequently examined the relationship between fibromyalgia diagnosis and disease activity in patients who have rheumatologist-diagnosed axSpA than they have in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, those reports have indicated that patients with axSpA and concomitant fibromyalgia tend to present with higher disease activity on measures such as the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), the investigators wrote in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
In this prospective, longitudinal study, a total of 508 adult patients with axSpA from 65 centers first attended a baseline visit, then 12 weeks after commencing treatment with TNF blockers, they attended an “effectiveness visit” in which they were evaluated for a response on the BASDAI. This response was defined as a reduction of at least 50% or two units, compared with baseline measurements. Furthermore, a total of 37.8% tested positive at baseline on the self-reported Fibromyalgia Rapid Screening Tool (FiRST) questionnaire, defined as a score of 5 or 6 out of 6.
These patients testing positive on FiRST at baseline were more likely to be female (55.7% vs. 41.1%), to have a history of peripheral enthesitis (64.7% vs. 47.8%), and to have a higher disease severity at baseline on the BASDAI and Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score at baseline (6.5 vs. 5.1 and 3.5 vs. 3.2, respectively). They were also were more likely to be taking antidepressants (26.8% vs. 16.2%).
Patients who had fibromyalgia according to FiRST presented less frequently with a BASDAI response (87 of 192; 45.3%) after 12 weeks, compared with patients who had only axSpA at baseline (171 of 316; 54.1%). But this difference did not reach statistical significance in both univariate or multivariate analyses. However, nearly all of the secondary endpoints of response, such as various levels of response on the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society criteria and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score, were achieved significantly less often among patients who also had fibromyalgia.
Although BASDAI response was not different between the groups, the investigators said that fibromyalgia had a negative effect on TNF blocker response that “seems related to the instruments used in its evaluation rather than a different treatment effect of the molecule.”
Sensitivity analyses that used the 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria to define the presence of fibromyalgia rather than the FiRST questionnaire result at baseline did not find any differences in TNF blocker responses between the groups on the main endpoint and most of the secondary endpoints. The ACR criteria classified fibromyalgia in 16.1% of the patients.
Another set of sensitivity analyses that used only the FiRST results at 12 weeks to diagnose fibromyalgia found that fibromyalgia patients had lower responses to treatment on nearly all endpoints. Only 18.7% of patients tested positive on the FiRST questionnaire at 12 weeks.
The change in C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 12 weeks was not different between the groups of patients regardless of the definition used for fibromyalgia.
The researchers observed a decreased frequency of HLA-B27 positivity, radiographic sacroiliitis, and MRI sacroiliitis in people with both diseases. The authors called this finding “intriguing” and said it “might suggest that some patients participating in the trial might have been misdiagnosed and were in fact suffering from [fibromyalgia] only.”
But other clinical features suggestive of axSpA, such as uveitis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease, were equally present across the different groups.
Overall, “these results suggest that there is indeed an impact on the treatment response, but seems more related to the patient-reported outcomes used in the effectiveness endpoints, as suggested by the absence of difference across groups for the objective biological parameters (i.e., CRP).”
Dr. Moltó and her colleagues said their findings highlighted the importance not only of evaluating the presence of coexisting fibromyalgia in patients with axSpA when evaluating treatment response but also in determining treatment targets.
“This seems particularly important for decision of the treatment target in patients with axSpA when applying a treat-to-target strategy: For example, remission might not be a feasible target for these patients [with concomitant fibromyalgia] who will not likely reach this state, but should rather aim for a significant change or focus in only on objective parameters (i.e., CRP),” they concluded.
The study was funded by an unrestricted grant from Merck Sharp & Dohme. The authors declared having no competing interests.
SOURCE: Moltó A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Nov 28. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-212378.
The concomitant presence of both axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and fibromyalgia affects response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers through increased symptom severity on patient-reported outcomes but not on more objective measurements, according to findings from a prospective, longitudinal study.
Although reports have less frequently examined the relationship between fibromyalgia diagnosis and disease activity in patients who have rheumatologist-diagnosed axSpA than they have in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, those reports have indicated that patients with axSpA and concomitant fibromyalgia tend to present with higher disease activity on measures such as the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), the investigators wrote in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
In this prospective, longitudinal study, a total of 508 adult patients with axSpA from 65 centers first attended a baseline visit, then 12 weeks after commencing treatment with TNF blockers, they attended an “effectiveness visit” in which they were evaluated for a response on the BASDAI. This response was defined as a reduction of at least 50% or two units, compared with baseline measurements. Furthermore, a total of 37.8% tested positive at baseline on the self-reported Fibromyalgia Rapid Screening Tool (FiRST) questionnaire, defined as a score of 5 or 6 out of 6.
These patients testing positive on FiRST at baseline were more likely to be female (55.7% vs. 41.1%), to have a history of peripheral enthesitis (64.7% vs. 47.8%), and to have a higher disease severity at baseline on the BASDAI and Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score at baseline (6.5 vs. 5.1 and 3.5 vs. 3.2, respectively). They were also were more likely to be taking antidepressants (26.8% vs. 16.2%).
Patients who had fibromyalgia according to FiRST presented less frequently with a BASDAI response (87 of 192; 45.3%) after 12 weeks, compared with patients who had only axSpA at baseline (171 of 316; 54.1%). But this difference did not reach statistical significance in both univariate or multivariate analyses. However, nearly all of the secondary endpoints of response, such as various levels of response on the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society criteria and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score, were achieved significantly less often among patients who also had fibromyalgia.
Although BASDAI response was not different between the groups, the investigators said that fibromyalgia had a negative effect on TNF blocker response that “seems related to the instruments used in its evaluation rather than a different treatment effect of the molecule.”
Sensitivity analyses that used the 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria to define the presence of fibromyalgia rather than the FiRST questionnaire result at baseline did not find any differences in TNF blocker responses between the groups on the main endpoint and most of the secondary endpoints. The ACR criteria classified fibromyalgia in 16.1% of the patients.
Another set of sensitivity analyses that used only the FiRST results at 12 weeks to diagnose fibromyalgia found that fibromyalgia patients had lower responses to treatment on nearly all endpoints. Only 18.7% of patients tested positive on the FiRST questionnaire at 12 weeks.
The change in C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 12 weeks was not different between the groups of patients regardless of the definition used for fibromyalgia.
The researchers observed a decreased frequency of HLA-B27 positivity, radiographic sacroiliitis, and MRI sacroiliitis in people with both diseases. The authors called this finding “intriguing” and said it “might suggest that some patients participating in the trial might have been misdiagnosed and were in fact suffering from [fibromyalgia] only.”
But other clinical features suggestive of axSpA, such as uveitis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease, were equally present across the different groups.
Overall, “these results suggest that there is indeed an impact on the treatment response, but seems more related to the patient-reported outcomes used in the effectiveness endpoints, as suggested by the absence of difference across groups for the objective biological parameters (i.e., CRP).”
Dr. Moltó and her colleagues said their findings highlighted the importance not only of evaluating the presence of coexisting fibromyalgia in patients with axSpA when evaluating treatment response but also in determining treatment targets.
“This seems particularly important for decision of the treatment target in patients with axSpA when applying a treat-to-target strategy: For example, remission might not be a feasible target for these patients [with concomitant fibromyalgia] who will not likely reach this state, but should rather aim for a significant change or focus in only on objective parameters (i.e., CRP),” they concluded.
The study was funded by an unrestricted grant from Merck Sharp & Dohme. The authors declared having no competing interests.
SOURCE: Moltó A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Nov 28. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-212378.
The concomitant presence of both axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and fibromyalgia affects response to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) blockers through increased symptom severity on patient-reported outcomes but not on more objective measurements, according to findings from a prospective, longitudinal study.
Although reports have less frequently examined the relationship between fibromyalgia diagnosis and disease activity in patients who have rheumatologist-diagnosed axSpA than they have in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, those reports have indicated that patients with axSpA and concomitant fibromyalgia tend to present with higher disease activity on measures such as the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI), the investigators wrote in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
In this prospective, longitudinal study, a total of 508 adult patients with axSpA from 65 centers first attended a baseline visit, then 12 weeks after commencing treatment with TNF blockers, they attended an “effectiveness visit” in which they were evaluated for a response on the BASDAI. This response was defined as a reduction of at least 50% or two units, compared with baseline measurements. Furthermore, a total of 37.8% tested positive at baseline on the self-reported Fibromyalgia Rapid Screening Tool (FiRST) questionnaire, defined as a score of 5 or 6 out of 6.
These patients testing positive on FiRST at baseline were more likely to be female (55.7% vs. 41.1%), to have a history of peripheral enthesitis (64.7% vs. 47.8%), and to have a higher disease severity at baseline on the BASDAI and Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score at baseline (6.5 vs. 5.1 and 3.5 vs. 3.2, respectively). They were also were more likely to be taking antidepressants (26.8% vs. 16.2%).
Patients who had fibromyalgia according to FiRST presented less frequently with a BASDAI response (87 of 192; 45.3%) after 12 weeks, compared with patients who had only axSpA at baseline (171 of 316; 54.1%). But this difference did not reach statistical significance in both univariate or multivariate analyses. However, nearly all of the secondary endpoints of response, such as various levels of response on the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society criteria and the Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Score, were achieved significantly less often among patients who also had fibromyalgia.
Although BASDAI response was not different between the groups, the investigators said that fibromyalgia had a negative effect on TNF blocker response that “seems related to the instruments used in its evaluation rather than a different treatment effect of the molecule.”
Sensitivity analyses that used the 1990 American College of Rheumatology criteria to define the presence of fibromyalgia rather than the FiRST questionnaire result at baseline did not find any differences in TNF blocker responses between the groups on the main endpoint and most of the secondary endpoints. The ACR criteria classified fibromyalgia in 16.1% of the patients.
Another set of sensitivity analyses that used only the FiRST results at 12 weeks to diagnose fibromyalgia found that fibromyalgia patients had lower responses to treatment on nearly all endpoints. Only 18.7% of patients tested positive on the FiRST questionnaire at 12 weeks.
The change in C-reactive protein (CRP) levels at 12 weeks was not different between the groups of patients regardless of the definition used for fibromyalgia.
The researchers observed a decreased frequency of HLA-B27 positivity, radiographic sacroiliitis, and MRI sacroiliitis in people with both diseases. The authors called this finding “intriguing” and said it “might suggest that some patients participating in the trial might have been misdiagnosed and were in fact suffering from [fibromyalgia] only.”
But other clinical features suggestive of axSpA, such as uveitis, psoriasis, and inflammatory bowel disease, were equally present across the different groups.
Overall, “these results suggest that there is indeed an impact on the treatment response, but seems more related to the patient-reported outcomes used in the effectiveness endpoints, as suggested by the absence of difference across groups for the objective biological parameters (i.e., CRP).”
Dr. Moltó and her colleagues said their findings highlighted the importance not only of evaluating the presence of coexisting fibromyalgia in patients with axSpA when evaluating treatment response but also in determining treatment targets.
“This seems particularly important for decision of the treatment target in patients with axSpA when applying a treat-to-target strategy: For example, remission might not be a feasible target for these patients [with concomitant fibromyalgia] who will not likely reach this state, but should rather aim for a significant change or focus in only on objective parameters (i.e., CRP),” they concluded.
The study was funded by an unrestricted grant from Merck Sharp & Dohme. The authors declared having no competing interests.
SOURCE: Moltó A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Nov 28. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-212378.
FROM ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Patients with both axSpA and fibromyalgia presented less frequently with a BASDAI response after 12 weeks than did patients without both diseases (45.3% vs. 54.1%), but the finding did not reach statistical significance.
Data source: Prospective, longitudinal study of 508 adult patients with rheumatologist-diagnosed axSpA.
Disclosures: The study was funded by an unrestricted grant from Merck Sharp & Dohme. The authors declared having no competing interests.
Source: Moltó A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2017 Nov 28. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2017-212378.
VIDEO: 5 years of additional AI no better than 2 in HR+ breast cancer
SAN ANTONIO – Clinical trials have shown a clear benefit for preventing breast cancer recurrence with aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy following 5 years of tamoxifen. Yet the optimal duration for additional AI therapy following 5 years of endocrine therapy with tamoxifen, an AI, or sequential therapies is not known, according to Michael Gnant, MD, from the Medical University of Vienna.
In the ABCSG-16 trial, Dr. Gnant and his colleagues reported that 5 years of additional therapy with anastrozole (Arimidex) was no more effective than 2 additional years following the standard 5 years of initial endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer.
In this video interview at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, Dr. Gnant notes that, although some patients may still benefit from 5 years of additional therapy, the trial results suggest that most patients can be spared from such adverse events as risk for fractures associated with three additional and evidently unnecessary years of therapy.
The ABCSG-16 study was supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Gnant disclosed research funding, honoraria, and travel funding from the company and others.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
SAN ANTONIO – Clinical trials have shown a clear benefit for preventing breast cancer recurrence with aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy following 5 years of tamoxifen. Yet the optimal duration for additional AI therapy following 5 years of endocrine therapy with tamoxifen, an AI, or sequential therapies is not known, according to Michael Gnant, MD, from the Medical University of Vienna.
In the ABCSG-16 trial, Dr. Gnant and his colleagues reported that 5 years of additional therapy with anastrozole (Arimidex) was no more effective than 2 additional years following the standard 5 years of initial endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer.
In this video interview at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, Dr. Gnant notes that, although some patients may still benefit from 5 years of additional therapy, the trial results suggest that most patients can be spared from such adverse events as risk for fractures associated with three additional and evidently unnecessary years of therapy.
The ABCSG-16 study was supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Gnant disclosed research funding, honoraria, and travel funding from the company and others.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
SAN ANTONIO – Clinical trials have shown a clear benefit for preventing breast cancer recurrence with aromatase inhibitor (AI) therapy following 5 years of tamoxifen. Yet the optimal duration for additional AI therapy following 5 years of endocrine therapy with tamoxifen, an AI, or sequential therapies is not known, according to Michael Gnant, MD, from the Medical University of Vienna.
In the ABCSG-16 trial, Dr. Gnant and his colleagues reported that 5 years of additional therapy with anastrozole (Arimidex) was no more effective than 2 additional years following the standard 5 years of initial endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+) breast cancer.
In this video interview at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium, Dr. Gnant notes that, although some patients may still benefit from 5 years of additional therapy, the trial results suggest that most patients can be spared from such adverse events as risk for fractures associated with three additional and evidently unnecessary years of therapy.
The ABCSG-16 study was supported by AstraZeneca. Dr. Gnant disclosed research funding, honoraria, and travel funding from the company and others.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
REPORTING FROM SABCS 2017
Expanded hospital testing improves respiratory pathogen detection
SAN DIEGO – Systematic testing of acute respiratory illness patients can increase the likelihood of finding relevant pathogens, according to a study presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.
Currently, hospitals conduct either nonroutine assessments or rely heavily on clinical laboratory testing among severe acute respiratory illness patients, which can lead to missing clinically key viruses.
Systematic testing expands on tests ordered and carried out at hospitals, expanding on them by testing for influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), human metapneumovirus, rhinovirus and enterovirus, adenovirus, coronavirus, and parainfluenza viruses 1-4. To test the efficacy of systematic testing, investigators studied 2,216 severe acute respiratory illness patients hospitalized in one of three hospitals in Minnesota during September 2015-August 2016. Patients were predominantly younger than 5 years old (57%) and had one or more chronic medical condition (63%).
Detection of at least one virus increased from 1,062 patients (48%) to 1,600 patients (72%) when comparing clinically ordered tests against expanded, systematic RT-PCR testing conducted through the Minnesota Health Department (MDH).
By patient age, viral detection increased by 27%, 24%, 18%, and 21% for patients aged younger than 5 years, 5-17 years, 18-64 years, and 65 years and older, respectively. Except for influenza viruses and RSV, the proportions of viruses identified, regardless of age, were all lower in hospital testing, compared with MDH testing.
“RSV targeting was almost systematic among children less than 5 years, but [accounted for] only 28% of RSV detection,” said Dr. Steffen in her presentation. “A smaller proportion of other respiratory viruses, including the human metapneumovirus, were detected at the hospital, and this was especially true for adults.”
Patients with rhinovirus and enterovirus saw a difference between hospital and expanded testing, increasing from a little over 300 patients detected, to nearly 800 patients.
“Patients admitted to the ICU were less likely to have a pathogen detection than those not admitted to the ICU, and those with one or more chronic medical condition had lower viral detection than those without,” Dr. Steffens said. “While testing at MDH did increase the percent of patients in each category, trends remained consistent and significant.”
Since testing information was only collected for patients with positive test results at the hospital, investigators were not able to compare testing practices between patients with and without viruses. This study may also have underrepresented pathogens detected through means other than the hospital laboratory, like rapid tests in emergency departments. The study was also limited by the short time frame of only 1 year.
The presenters reported no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Steffens A et al. Abstract 885.
SAN DIEGO – Systematic testing of acute respiratory illness patients can increase the likelihood of finding relevant pathogens, according to a study presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.
Currently, hospitals conduct either nonroutine assessments or rely heavily on clinical laboratory testing among severe acute respiratory illness patients, which can lead to missing clinically key viruses.
Systematic testing expands on tests ordered and carried out at hospitals, expanding on them by testing for influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), human metapneumovirus, rhinovirus and enterovirus, adenovirus, coronavirus, and parainfluenza viruses 1-4. To test the efficacy of systematic testing, investigators studied 2,216 severe acute respiratory illness patients hospitalized in one of three hospitals in Minnesota during September 2015-August 2016. Patients were predominantly younger than 5 years old (57%) and had one or more chronic medical condition (63%).
Detection of at least one virus increased from 1,062 patients (48%) to 1,600 patients (72%) when comparing clinically ordered tests against expanded, systematic RT-PCR testing conducted through the Minnesota Health Department (MDH).
By patient age, viral detection increased by 27%, 24%, 18%, and 21% for patients aged younger than 5 years, 5-17 years, 18-64 years, and 65 years and older, respectively. Except for influenza viruses and RSV, the proportions of viruses identified, regardless of age, were all lower in hospital testing, compared with MDH testing.
“RSV targeting was almost systematic among children less than 5 years, but [accounted for] only 28% of RSV detection,” said Dr. Steffen in her presentation. “A smaller proportion of other respiratory viruses, including the human metapneumovirus, were detected at the hospital, and this was especially true for adults.”
Patients with rhinovirus and enterovirus saw a difference between hospital and expanded testing, increasing from a little over 300 patients detected, to nearly 800 patients.
“Patients admitted to the ICU were less likely to have a pathogen detection than those not admitted to the ICU, and those with one or more chronic medical condition had lower viral detection than those without,” Dr. Steffens said. “While testing at MDH did increase the percent of patients in each category, trends remained consistent and significant.”
Since testing information was only collected for patients with positive test results at the hospital, investigators were not able to compare testing practices between patients with and without viruses. This study may also have underrepresented pathogens detected through means other than the hospital laboratory, like rapid tests in emergency departments. The study was also limited by the short time frame of only 1 year.
The presenters reported no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Steffens A et al. Abstract 885.
SAN DIEGO – Systematic testing of acute respiratory illness patients can increase the likelihood of finding relevant pathogens, according to a study presented at an annual scientific meeting on infectious diseases.
Currently, hospitals conduct either nonroutine assessments or rely heavily on clinical laboratory testing among severe acute respiratory illness patients, which can lead to missing clinically key viruses.
Systematic testing expands on tests ordered and carried out at hospitals, expanding on them by testing for influenza, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), human metapneumovirus, rhinovirus and enterovirus, adenovirus, coronavirus, and parainfluenza viruses 1-4. To test the efficacy of systematic testing, investigators studied 2,216 severe acute respiratory illness patients hospitalized in one of three hospitals in Minnesota during September 2015-August 2016. Patients were predominantly younger than 5 years old (57%) and had one or more chronic medical condition (63%).
Detection of at least one virus increased from 1,062 patients (48%) to 1,600 patients (72%) when comparing clinically ordered tests against expanded, systematic RT-PCR testing conducted through the Minnesota Health Department (MDH).
By patient age, viral detection increased by 27%, 24%, 18%, and 21% for patients aged younger than 5 years, 5-17 years, 18-64 years, and 65 years and older, respectively. Except for influenza viruses and RSV, the proportions of viruses identified, regardless of age, were all lower in hospital testing, compared with MDH testing.
“RSV targeting was almost systematic among children less than 5 years, but [accounted for] only 28% of RSV detection,” said Dr. Steffen in her presentation. “A smaller proportion of other respiratory viruses, including the human metapneumovirus, were detected at the hospital, and this was especially true for adults.”
Patients with rhinovirus and enterovirus saw a difference between hospital and expanded testing, increasing from a little over 300 patients detected, to nearly 800 patients.
“Patients admitted to the ICU were less likely to have a pathogen detection than those not admitted to the ICU, and those with one or more chronic medical condition had lower viral detection than those without,” Dr. Steffens said. “While testing at MDH did increase the percent of patients in each category, trends remained consistent and significant.”
Since testing information was only collected for patients with positive test results at the hospital, investigators were not able to compare testing practices between patients with and without viruses. This study may also have underrepresented pathogens detected through means other than the hospital laboratory, like rapid tests in emergency departments. The study was also limited by the short time frame of only 1 year.
The presenters reported no relevant financial disclosures.
SOURCE: Steffens A et al. Abstract 885.
REPORTING FROM ID WEEK 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Among 2,216 patients studied, 1,600 (72%) were found to have at least one respiratory virus through expanded testing, compared with 1,062 (48%) patients tested through clincian-directed testing.
Study details: 2,351 severe acute respiratory illness patients hospitalized in one of three hospitals in Minnesota.
Disclosures: The presenter reported no relevant financial disclosures.
Source: Steffens A et al. Abstract 885.
Does Treating Sleep Apnea Improve Seizure Outcomes?
WASHINGTON, DC—Treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) with positive airway pressure (PAP) is associated with better one-year seizure outcomes in patients with epilepsy, according to a study presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.
Prior research has suggested that sleep disturbances are more common in people with epilepsy than in age-matched controls and that more than 40% of people with epilepsy have OSA. PAP therapy has been associated with seizure reduction in small case series.
To compare long-term seizure control between patients with PAP-treated OSA, patients with untreated OSA, and patients without OSA, Thapanee Somboon, MD, a research fellow at the Sleep Disorders Center at Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of adults with epilepsy who underwent polysomnography at Cleveland Clinic between 1997 and 2015. Researchers compared patients’ seizure outcomes at one, three, and five years after polysomnography.
The study included 197 people with epilepsy, 122 of whom had OSA (ie, an apnea–hypopnea index of 5 or greater). Of the patients with OSA, 73 received PAP therapy. Mean age was about 44, 58% were female, and 70% had focal epilepsy. Patients with OSA were more likely to be older, have a higher BMI, and be male than those without OSA.
At one year, 63% of patients treated with PAP had a 50% or greater reduction in seizures from baseline, compared with 14% of patients with OSA who were not treated and 44% of patients who did not have OSA. Researchers also assessed successful seizure outcomes, which were defined as not having seizures at baseline and remaining seizure-free for a year, or having seizures at baseline but reporting a 50% or greater reduction in seizures over one year. Successful outcomes occurred in 85% of patients who were treated with PAP, 55% of patients with OSA who were untreated, and 65% of patients who did not have OSA.
After adjusting for baseline seizure freedom and antiepileptic drug standardized dose, patients with treated OSA remained more likely to have successful outcomes at one year. Comparisons at three and five years included fewer patients, and the differences at those time points were not statistically significant.
—Jake Remaly
WASHINGTON, DC—Treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) with positive airway pressure (PAP) is associated with better one-year seizure outcomes in patients with epilepsy, according to a study presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.
Prior research has suggested that sleep disturbances are more common in people with epilepsy than in age-matched controls and that more than 40% of people with epilepsy have OSA. PAP therapy has been associated with seizure reduction in small case series.
To compare long-term seizure control between patients with PAP-treated OSA, patients with untreated OSA, and patients without OSA, Thapanee Somboon, MD, a research fellow at the Sleep Disorders Center at Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of adults with epilepsy who underwent polysomnography at Cleveland Clinic between 1997 and 2015. Researchers compared patients’ seizure outcomes at one, three, and five years after polysomnography.
The study included 197 people with epilepsy, 122 of whom had OSA (ie, an apnea–hypopnea index of 5 or greater). Of the patients with OSA, 73 received PAP therapy. Mean age was about 44, 58% were female, and 70% had focal epilepsy. Patients with OSA were more likely to be older, have a higher BMI, and be male than those without OSA.
At one year, 63% of patients treated with PAP had a 50% or greater reduction in seizures from baseline, compared with 14% of patients with OSA who were not treated and 44% of patients who did not have OSA. Researchers also assessed successful seizure outcomes, which were defined as not having seizures at baseline and remaining seizure-free for a year, or having seizures at baseline but reporting a 50% or greater reduction in seizures over one year. Successful outcomes occurred in 85% of patients who were treated with PAP, 55% of patients with OSA who were untreated, and 65% of patients who did not have OSA.
After adjusting for baseline seizure freedom and antiepileptic drug standardized dose, patients with treated OSA remained more likely to have successful outcomes at one year. Comparisons at three and five years included fewer patients, and the differences at those time points were not statistically significant.
—Jake Remaly
WASHINGTON, DC—Treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) with positive airway pressure (PAP) is associated with better one-year seizure outcomes in patients with epilepsy, according to a study presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.
Prior research has suggested that sleep disturbances are more common in people with epilepsy than in age-matched controls and that more than 40% of people with epilepsy have OSA. PAP therapy has been associated with seizure reduction in small case series.
To compare long-term seizure control between patients with PAP-treated OSA, patients with untreated OSA, and patients without OSA, Thapanee Somboon, MD, a research fellow at the Sleep Disorders Center at Cleveland Clinic, and colleagues conducted a retrospective study of adults with epilepsy who underwent polysomnography at Cleveland Clinic between 1997 and 2015. Researchers compared patients’ seizure outcomes at one, three, and five years after polysomnography.
The study included 197 people with epilepsy, 122 of whom had OSA (ie, an apnea–hypopnea index of 5 or greater). Of the patients with OSA, 73 received PAP therapy. Mean age was about 44, 58% were female, and 70% had focal epilepsy. Patients with OSA were more likely to be older, have a higher BMI, and be male than those without OSA.
At one year, 63% of patients treated with PAP had a 50% or greater reduction in seizures from baseline, compared with 14% of patients with OSA who were not treated and 44% of patients who did not have OSA. Researchers also assessed successful seizure outcomes, which were defined as not having seizures at baseline and remaining seizure-free for a year, or having seizures at baseline but reporting a 50% or greater reduction in seizures over one year. Successful outcomes occurred in 85% of patients who were treated with PAP, 55% of patients with OSA who were untreated, and 65% of patients who did not have OSA.
After adjusting for baseline seizure freedom and antiepileptic drug standardized dose, patients with treated OSA remained more likely to have successful outcomes at one year. Comparisons at three and five years included fewer patients, and the differences at those time points were not statistically significant.
—Jake Remaly
New curriculum teaches value-based health care
While value has become an imperative in both training and health care delivery, few tools exist to teach hospitalists and other providers the basic concepts of value.
“Hospitalists are on the front lines of health care value delivery, and it is critical that we understand and embrace the concepts of value; however, we also need to be able to deliver upon these ideals,” said Christopher Moriates, MD, assistant dean for health care value at the University of Texas at Austin.
“As a hospitalist, I ensured that the content would be specifically applicable to our day-to-day world and experience,” Dr. Moriates said. “Using the modules, hospitalists can better understand how emerging tools, such as the University of Utah’s Value-Drive Outcome tool, can be used by hospitalists to improve value. The modules also dig into thorny subjects like understanding health care costs – for example, what really is the difference between costs and charges?”
The course is adaptive and interactive, using the latest in instructional technology, he said. Hospitalists can take the course independently and earn free CME credits; those who complete all three modules in this first collection will receive a certificate of completion and CME credit.
The goal is to release 10 modules over the course of this academic year, Dr. Moriates said. Future collections will cover “value-based health care delivery,” “how to deliver high-value care at the bedside,” and “how to deliver high-value care in systems.”
“As value-based health care is increasingly taught in medical schools and residency training, it is important for hospitalists – especially any of us that work with trainees – to be able to speak the same language and understand what our trainees now will know,” he said.
While value has become an imperative in both training and health care delivery, few tools exist to teach hospitalists and other providers the basic concepts of value.
“Hospitalists are on the front lines of health care value delivery, and it is critical that we understand and embrace the concepts of value; however, we also need to be able to deliver upon these ideals,” said Christopher Moriates, MD, assistant dean for health care value at the University of Texas at Austin.
“As a hospitalist, I ensured that the content would be specifically applicable to our day-to-day world and experience,” Dr. Moriates said. “Using the modules, hospitalists can better understand how emerging tools, such as the University of Utah’s Value-Drive Outcome tool, can be used by hospitalists to improve value. The modules also dig into thorny subjects like understanding health care costs – for example, what really is the difference between costs and charges?”
The course is adaptive and interactive, using the latest in instructional technology, he said. Hospitalists can take the course independently and earn free CME credits; those who complete all three modules in this first collection will receive a certificate of completion and CME credit.
The goal is to release 10 modules over the course of this academic year, Dr. Moriates said. Future collections will cover “value-based health care delivery,” “how to deliver high-value care at the bedside,” and “how to deliver high-value care in systems.”
“As value-based health care is increasingly taught in medical schools and residency training, it is important for hospitalists – especially any of us that work with trainees – to be able to speak the same language and understand what our trainees now will know,” he said.
While value has become an imperative in both training and health care delivery, few tools exist to teach hospitalists and other providers the basic concepts of value.
“Hospitalists are on the front lines of health care value delivery, and it is critical that we understand and embrace the concepts of value; however, we also need to be able to deliver upon these ideals,” said Christopher Moriates, MD, assistant dean for health care value at the University of Texas at Austin.
“As a hospitalist, I ensured that the content would be specifically applicable to our day-to-day world and experience,” Dr. Moriates said. “Using the modules, hospitalists can better understand how emerging tools, such as the University of Utah’s Value-Drive Outcome tool, can be used by hospitalists to improve value. The modules also dig into thorny subjects like understanding health care costs – for example, what really is the difference between costs and charges?”
The course is adaptive and interactive, using the latest in instructional technology, he said. Hospitalists can take the course independently and earn free CME credits; those who complete all three modules in this first collection will receive a certificate of completion and CME credit.
The goal is to release 10 modules over the course of this academic year, Dr. Moriates said. Future collections will cover “value-based health care delivery,” “how to deliver high-value care at the bedside,” and “how to deliver high-value care in systems.”
“As value-based health care is increasingly taught in medical schools and residency training, it is important for hospitalists – especially any of us that work with trainees – to be able to speak the same language and understand what our trainees now will know,” he said.
Clinical trial: Study underway of robot-assisted surgery for pelvic prolapse
Robotic Assisted Sacral Colpopexy: A Prospective Study Assessing Outcomes With Learning Curves is an open-label study that is being conducted on a new pelvic floor program for women with pelvic organ prolapse.
A prospective cohort of 100 patients will be recruited and the study will assess surgical time (total and specific essential portions), simulator training, and observed surgeon skills. Secondary endpoints include subjective outcomes for issues of sexual function and incontinence and adverse events such as genitourinary injury, blood loss, wound infection, and mesh erosion.
Kaiser Permanente is the trial sponsor, and patients aged 18-80 years who are undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with or without other procedures for pelvic organ prolapse are being recruited. For more details about the trial, visit https://goo.gl/pWq7qe.
SOURCE: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01535833.
Robotic Assisted Sacral Colpopexy: A Prospective Study Assessing Outcomes With Learning Curves is an open-label study that is being conducted on a new pelvic floor program for women with pelvic organ prolapse.
A prospective cohort of 100 patients will be recruited and the study will assess surgical time (total and specific essential portions), simulator training, and observed surgeon skills. Secondary endpoints include subjective outcomes for issues of sexual function and incontinence and adverse events such as genitourinary injury, blood loss, wound infection, and mesh erosion.
Kaiser Permanente is the trial sponsor, and patients aged 18-80 years who are undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with or without other procedures for pelvic organ prolapse are being recruited. For more details about the trial, visit https://goo.gl/pWq7qe.
SOURCE: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01535833.
Robotic Assisted Sacral Colpopexy: A Prospective Study Assessing Outcomes With Learning Curves is an open-label study that is being conducted on a new pelvic floor program for women with pelvic organ prolapse.
A prospective cohort of 100 patients will be recruited and the study will assess surgical time (total and specific essential portions), simulator training, and observed surgeon skills. Secondary endpoints include subjective outcomes for issues of sexual function and incontinence and adverse events such as genitourinary injury, blood loss, wound infection, and mesh erosion.
Kaiser Permanente is the trial sponsor, and patients aged 18-80 years who are undergoing robotic-assisted laparoscopic sacrocolpopexy with or without other procedures for pelvic organ prolapse are being recruited. For more details about the trial, visit https://goo.gl/pWq7qe.
SOURCE: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01535833.
SUMMARY FROM CLINICALTRIALS.GOV
Timing of Surgical Reduction and Stabilization of Talus Fracture-Dislocations
Take-Home Points
- There is a 41% rate of AVN or PTOA after operatively managed talus fracture.
- Surgical timing does not affect development of AVN or PTOA.
- Open fractures are associated with development of AVN and PTOA.
- Quality of reduction is likely more important than timing of reduction.
- Urgent surgical treatment is necessary for threatened soft tissue or neurovascular compromise.
Talus fractures are rare injuries that present a significant treatment dilemma.1-12 These fractures represent <1% of all fractures4 and are second only to calcaneus fractures in fractures of the hindfoot. Talus fractures with associated dislocations are even rarer and may provide treating surgeons with a significant surgical quandary.6,13-16
Talus fractures historically have been characterized by their anatomical location: head, neck, or body. Two systems are commonly used to classify talus fractures: Hawkins and AO/OTA (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopaedic Trauma Association). The first, developed by Hawkins7 and modified by Canale and Kelly2 and Vallier and colleagues,1 identifies 4 basic fracture types with associated dislocations. The other system, published in 199617 and republished in 2007,18 uses the combined methods of AO and OTA to systematically describe talus fractures. Although these classification systems accurately describe talus fractures with associated dislocation, both have difficulty predicting clinical outcomes.1,19,20
Talus fractures commonly result in avascular necrosis (AVN) of the talus and posttraumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) of the tibiotalar and subtalar joints.3,8,9,12,14-16 Hawkins7 initially described subchondral lucency as indicating revascularization of the talus after injury. AVN and PTOA rates traditionally have been thought to be related to a blood supply disruption, given the prognostic value of the Hawkins sign.1,7,12,21 New methods, including a dual-incision approach and expedited transfer to foot and ankle surgeons or orthopedic traumatologists, have improved reduction quality21-24 but not patient outcomes.3,5,8,9,12,14
Recently, time from injury to surgical intervention has been a topic of much discussion, and there have been studies on the specific effects of timing with respect to outcome.1,15,16 Vallier and colleagues,1 who wanted to identify injury characteristics predictive of osteonecrosis, found that delaying reduction and surgical fixation did not increase the risk of AVN. Another study found that urgent reduction of fracture-dislocation with delayed open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) using a dual approach may improve clinical outcomes.21
In this vein, we conducted a study to evaluate the effect of time to surgical reduction of talus fractures and talus fracture-dislocations on the development of AVN and PTOA. We hypothesized that time to surgical reduction of talus fracture-dislocation as classified with the AO/OTA system would have no effect of the development of AVN/PTOA.
Methods
After this study received Institutional Review Board approval, we retrospectively reviewed the records on talus fractures surgically managed at a level I trauma center during the 10-year period 2003 to 2013. Of the 119 potential cases identified using Current Procedural Terminology code 28445 (ORIF of talus), 13 were excluded (12 for inaccurate coding or missing documentation, 1 for being a pediatric case), leaving 106 for analysis. Using the Hawkins and AO/OTA systems, 3 independent reviewers classified the injuries on plain radiographs.
Injury dates and times were obtained from the medical records. Operating room start times were also obtained. Surgical timing was defined as time from injury to operating room start. For cases without an injury time, time of presentation to emergency department was used.
Open fracture-dislocations were managed with intravenous antibiotics, urgent surgical irrigation, débridement, and immediate fixation or temporizing external fixation after reduction. All fractures were definitively managed with standard ORIF with an anteromedial, anterolateral, or dual approach and mini-fragment implants. After fixation, weight-bearing typically was restricted for 6 to 12 weeks.
Follow-up radiographs were evaluated. Presence or absence of Hawkins sign7 was noted on radiographs at 6 or 8 weeks, and all follow-up radiographs were evaluated for AVN as defined by increased radiographic density within the talar dome or collapse of the articular surface. All radiographs were evaluated for PTOA as defined by loss of joint space within the tibiotalar, subtalar, or talonavicular joint on follow-up radiographs.
Clinical outcomes were analyzed for development of AVN, PTOA, or secondary corrective surgery or arthrodesis. Continuous variables were evaluated with the t test, and the χ2 test was used to compare distributions of categorical variables. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare non-normally distributed variables. Significance was set at P < .05.
Results
Classification Analysis (Table 1)
Subject Analysis (Table 2)
The mechanisms of injury were motor vehicle accident (70/106; 66%), fall from height (25; 24%), misstep (4), sports related (2), object falling on ankle (2), and not reported (3).
Of the 106 patients, 45 (42%) had isolated talus injuries, 35 had concomitant ipsilateral lower extremity injuries, 25 had concomitant contralateral lower extremity injuries, and 1 had a concomitant upper extremity injury.
Smoking status was everyday (14 patients), past (10), never (34), and unreported (48). Five patients reported a history of alcohol abuse, and 4 patients reported illicit drug use. Two had a history of atrial fibrillation, 9 had hypertension, 3 had hyperlipidemia, 3 had renal disease, 3 had heart disease, 4 had diabetes, 3 had lung disease, and 1 had a history of lung cancer.
Overall Analysis of AVN/PTOA (Table 3)
Analysis of AVN/PTOA in 81-B3 Fracture-Dislocations (Table 4)
Analysis of AVN/PTOA in All Other Talus Fractures (Table 5)
Discussion
Our results showed that time from talus fracture-dislocation to surgical reduction had no effect on development of AVN/PTOA. The findings in this largest series to date agree with earlier findings1,8,15,16,24 and add to the volume of literature suggesting that time to surgical reduction of talus fractures and talus fracture-dislocations does not markedly affect outcome.
Talus fractures continue to present a significant treatment dilemma. Despite recent improvements in surgical techniques and overall management of these injuries, rates of AVN and PTOA have not significantly decreased.1,16,23 At most treating facilities, talus fracture-dislocations are considered surgical emergencies/urgencies, and every effort is made to reduce and surgically address these injuries as soon as possible.1,13
In this study, rates of AVN/PTOA were 41% (all talus fractures) and 50% (displaced talar neck fractures), and the difference was not significant (Table 3). These rates are higher but consistent with previously reported rates (range, 14%-49%).1,2,7-9,12,14,24 There was no difference in surgical timing for development of AVN/PTOA. We analyzed the cases of all patients who had talus fractures and developed AVN/PTOA (43/106). Within this group, there were no significant differences in surgical timing, age, sex, polytrauma, or BMI between patients who developed AVN/PTOA and those who did not. Compared with patients who did not develop AVN/PTOA, those who developed AVN/PTOA were significantly more likely to have open injuries. This finding, consistent with those in other reports9,12,13 (Table 3), indicates outcome is more likely related to injury severity and not necessarily injury class.
We retrospectively analyzed talus fractures and talus fracture-dislocations to determine if urgent surgical management affects outcomes. Current practice at our institution is to routinely reduce and surgically address these fractures urgently, often during the middle of the night, when orthopedic resources are reduced. Our study found a significant difference in surgical timing for patients with talus fracture-dislocations and patients with talus fractures without dislocations (Table 2). Given our findings, urgent surgical reduction and fixation are not indicated to preserve the talus blood supply and prevent AVN/PTOA, though we still recommend urgent surgical management in the setting of an open wound, skin necrosis, or soft-tissue/neurovascular compromise.
This study had several limitations, primarily related to its retrospective nature. Surgical timing was defined as time from injury, as noted in the medical record, to operating room start. In some instances, time of injury was not noted in the medical record, and time of presentation to emergency room was used instead. Thus, surgical timing for these patients may have been longer than identified. In addition, given the rare injury pattern and the retrospective design, this study was susceptible to type II error and may have been underpowered to detect whether time to surgical reduction predicted complications. Also, the study did not address functional outcome as measured by validated outcome scores. Outcome measures were obtained in many but not all cases, making functional outcome measurement difficult. Similarly, the quality of the anatomical reductions was not assessed, potentially affecting complication rates. Postoperative reduction assessment, possibly performed with computed tomography, is an avenue of further study.
Strengths of this study include its large sample size (this was one of the largest studies of talus fractures), long follow-up (mean, 150 weeks), and novel use of AO/OTA classification.
We postulate that development of AVN/PTOA is not necessarily related to the urgency or timing of surgical reduction and fixation and is more likely related to injury severity. This idea is supported by the finding that development of AVN/PTOA was significantly correlated to open injuries in all talus fractures, including talus fracture-dislocations and isolated talus fractures.
Conclusion
Talus fracture-dislocations are devastating injuries with high rates of complications. In this study, open talus fractures, and fractures with associated tibiotalar or subtalar dislocations, had higher complication rates. Given the evidence presented, we recommend basing surgical timing on injury severity, not necessarily for AVN/PTOA prevention. Specifically, in the absence of an open wound, skin necrosis, or soft-tissue/neurovascular compromise, talus fracture-dislocations can be surgically reduced and stabilized when optimal resources are available.
1. Vallier HA, Reichard SG, Boyd AJ, Moore TA. A new look at the Hawkins classification for talar neck fractures: which features of injury and treatment are predictive of osteonecrosis? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(3):192-197.
2. Canale ST, Kelly FB Jr. Fractures of the neck of the talus. Long-term evaluation of seventy-one cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60(2):143-156.
3. Ebraheim NA, Patil V, Owens C, Kandimalla Y. Clinical outcome of fractures of the talar body. Int Orthop. 2008;32(6):773-777.
4. Fortin PT, Balazsy JE. Talus fractures: evaluation and treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2001;9(2):114-127.
5. Fournier A, Barba N, Steiger V, et al. Total talar fracture—long-term results of internal fixation of talar fractures. A multicentric study of 114 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98(4 suppl):S48-S55.
6. Grob D, Simpson LA, Weber BG, Bray T. Operative treatment of displaced talus fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;(199):88-96.
7. Hawkins LG. Fractures of the neck of the talus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970;52(5):991-1002.
8. Lindvall E, Haidukewych G, DiPasquale T, Herscovici D Jr, Sanders R. Open reduction and stable fixation of isolated, displaced talar neck and body fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(10):2229-2234.
9. Ohl X, Harisboure A, Hemery X, Dehoux E. Long-term follow-up after surgical treatment of talar fractures: twenty cases with an average follow-up of 7.5 years. Int Orthop. 2011;35(1):93-99.
10. Rammelt S, Zwipp H. Talar neck and body fractures. Injury. 2009;40(2):120-135.
11. Schulze W, Richter J, Russe O, Ingelfinger P, Muhr G. Surgical treatment of talus fractures: a retrospective study of 80 cases followed for 1-15 years. Acta Orthop Scand. 2002;73(3):344-351.
12. Vallier HA, Nork SE, Barei DP, Benirschke SK, Sangeorzan BJ. Talar neck fractures: results and outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(8):1616-1624.
13. Patel R, Van Bergeyk A, Pinney S. Are displaced talar neck fractures surgical emergencies? A survey of orthopaedic trauma experts. Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26(5):378-381.
14. Sanders DW, Busam M, Hattwick E, Edwards JR, McAndrew MP, Johnson KD. Functional outcomes following displaced talar neck fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18(5):265-270.
15. Elgafy H, Ebraheim NA, Tile M, Stephen D, Kase J. Fractures of the talus: experience of two level 1 trauma centers. Foot Ankle Int. 2000;21(12):1023-1029.
16 Frawley PA, Hart JA, Young DA. Treatment outcome of major fractures of the talus. Foot Ankle Int. 1995;16(6):339-345.
17. Fracture and dislocation compendium. Orthopaedic Trauma Association committee for coding and classification. J Orthop Trauma. 1996;10(suppl 1):v-ix, 1-154.
18. Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J, et al. Fracture and dislocation classification compendium—2007: Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification, database and outcomes committee. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21(10 suppl):S1-S133.
19. Williams T, Barba N, Noailles T, et al. Total talar fracture—inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of two classification systems (Hawkins and AO) for central talar fractures. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98(4 suppl):S56-S65.
20. Zwipp H, Baumgart F, Cronier P, et al. Integral classification of injuries (ICI) to the bones, joints, and ligaments—application to injuries of the foot. Injury. 2004;35(suppl 2):SB3-SB9.
21. Xue Y, Zhang H, Pei F, et al. Treatment of displaced talar neck fractures using delayed procedures of plate fixation through dual approaches. Int Orthop. 2014;38(1):149-154.
22. Vallier HA, Nork SE, Benirschke SK, Sangeorzan BJ. Surgical treatment of talar body fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(9):1716-1724.
23. Fleuriau Chateau PB, Brokaw DS, Jelen BA, Scheid DK, Weber TG. Plate fixation of talar neck fractures: preliminary review of a new technique in twenty-three patients. J Orthop Trauma. 2002;16(4):213-219.
24. Vallier HA, Nork SE, Benirschke SK, Sangeorzan BJ. Surgical treatment of talar body fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(suppl 1, pt 2):180-192.
Take-Home Points
- There is a 41% rate of AVN or PTOA after operatively managed talus fracture.
- Surgical timing does not affect development of AVN or PTOA.
- Open fractures are associated with development of AVN and PTOA.
- Quality of reduction is likely more important than timing of reduction.
- Urgent surgical treatment is necessary for threatened soft tissue or neurovascular compromise.
Talus fractures are rare injuries that present a significant treatment dilemma.1-12 These fractures represent <1% of all fractures4 and are second only to calcaneus fractures in fractures of the hindfoot. Talus fractures with associated dislocations are even rarer and may provide treating surgeons with a significant surgical quandary.6,13-16
Talus fractures historically have been characterized by their anatomical location: head, neck, or body. Two systems are commonly used to classify talus fractures: Hawkins and AO/OTA (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopaedic Trauma Association). The first, developed by Hawkins7 and modified by Canale and Kelly2 and Vallier and colleagues,1 identifies 4 basic fracture types with associated dislocations. The other system, published in 199617 and republished in 2007,18 uses the combined methods of AO and OTA to systematically describe talus fractures. Although these classification systems accurately describe talus fractures with associated dislocation, both have difficulty predicting clinical outcomes.1,19,20
Talus fractures commonly result in avascular necrosis (AVN) of the talus and posttraumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) of the tibiotalar and subtalar joints.3,8,9,12,14-16 Hawkins7 initially described subchondral lucency as indicating revascularization of the talus after injury. AVN and PTOA rates traditionally have been thought to be related to a blood supply disruption, given the prognostic value of the Hawkins sign.1,7,12,21 New methods, including a dual-incision approach and expedited transfer to foot and ankle surgeons or orthopedic traumatologists, have improved reduction quality21-24 but not patient outcomes.3,5,8,9,12,14
Recently, time from injury to surgical intervention has been a topic of much discussion, and there have been studies on the specific effects of timing with respect to outcome.1,15,16 Vallier and colleagues,1 who wanted to identify injury characteristics predictive of osteonecrosis, found that delaying reduction and surgical fixation did not increase the risk of AVN. Another study found that urgent reduction of fracture-dislocation with delayed open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) using a dual approach may improve clinical outcomes.21
In this vein, we conducted a study to evaluate the effect of time to surgical reduction of talus fractures and talus fracture-dislocations on the development of AVN and PTOA. We hypothesized that time to surgical reduction of talus fracture-dislocation as classified with the AO/OTA system would have no effect of the development of AVN/PTOA.
Methods
After this study received Institutional Review Board approval, we retrospectively reviewed the records on talus fractures surgically managed at a level I trauma center during the 10-year period 2003 to 2013. Of the 119 potential cases identified using Current Procedural Terminology code 28445 (ORIF of talus), 13 were excluded (12 for inaccurate coding or missing documentation, 1 for being a pediatric case), leaving 106 for analysis. Using the Hawkins and AO/OTA systems, 3 independent reviewers classified the injuries on plain radiographs.
Injury dates and times were obtained from the medical records. Operating room start times were also obtained. Surgical timing was defined as time from injury to operating room start. For cases without an injury time, time of presentation to emergency department was used.
Open fracture-dislocations were managed with intravenous antibiotics, urgent surgical irrigation, débridement, and immediate fixation or temporizing external fixation after reduction. All fractures were definitively managed with standard ORIF with an anteromedial, anterolateral, or dual approach and mini-fragment implants. After fixation, weight-bearing typically was restricted for 6 to 12 weeks.
Follow-up radiographs were evaluated. Presence or absence of Hawkins sign7 was noted on radiographs at 6 or 8 weeks, and all follow-up radiographs were evaluated for AVN as defined by increased radiographic density within the talar dome or collapse of the articular surface. All radiographs were evaluated for PTOA as defined by loss of joint space within the tibiotalar, subtalar, or talonavicular joint on follow-up radiographs.
Clinical outcomes were analyzed for development of AVN, PTOA, or secondary corrective surgery or arthrodesis. Continuous variables were evaluated with the t test, and the χ2 test was used to compare distributions of categorical variables. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare non-normally distributed variables. Significance was set at P < .05.
Results
Classification Analysis (Table 1)
Subject Analysis (Table 2)
The mechanisms of injury were motor vehicle accident (70/106; 66%), fall from height (25; 24%), misstep (4), sports related (2), object falling on ankle (2), and not reported (3).
Of the 106 patients, 45 (42%) had isolated talus injuries, 35 had concomitant ipsilateral lower extremity injuries, 25 had concomitant contralateral lower extremity injuries, and 1 had a concomitant upper extremity injury.
Smoking status was everyday (14 patients), past (10), never (34), and unreported (48). Five patients reported a history of alcohol abuse, and 4 patients reported illicit drug use. Two had a history of atrial fibrillation, 9 had hypertension, 3 had hyperlipidemia, 3 had renal disease, 3 had heart disease, 4 had diabetes, 3 had lung disease, and 1 had a history of lung cancer.
Overall Analysis of AVN/PTOA (Table 3)
Analysis of AVN/PTOA in 81-B3 Fracture-Dislocations (Table 4)
Analysis of AVN/PTOA in All Other Talus Fractures (Table 5)
Discussion
Our results showed that time from talus fracture-dislocation to surgical reduction had no effect on development of AVN/PTOA. The findings in this largest series to date agree with earlier findings1,8,15,16,24 and add to the volume of literature suggesting that time to surgical reduction of talus fractures and talus fracture-dislocations does not markedly affect outcome.
Talus fractures continue to present a significant treatment dilemma. Despite recent improvements in surgical techniques and overall management of these injuries, rates of AVN and PTOA have not significantly decreased.1,16,23 At most treating facilities, talus fracture-dislocations are considered surgical emergencies/urgencies, and every effort is made to reduce and surgically address these injuries as soon as possible.1,13
In this study, rates of AVN/PTOA were 41% (all talus fractures) and 50% (displaced talar neck fractures), and the difference was not significant (Table 3). These rates are higher but consistent with previously reported rates (range, 14%-49%).1,2,7-9,12,14,24 There was no difference in surgical timing for development of AVN/PTOA. We analyzed the cases of all patients who had talus fractures and developed AVN/PTOA (43/106). Within this group, there were no significant differences in surgical timing, age, sex, polytrauma, or BMI between patients who developed AVN/PTOA and those who did not. Compared with patients who did not develop AVN/PTOA, those who developed AVN/PTOA were significantly more likely to have open injuries. This finding, consistent with those in other reports9,12,13 (Table 3), indicates outcome is more likely related to injury severity and not necessarily injury class.
We retrospectively analyzed talus fractures and talus fracture-dislocations to determine if urgent surgical management affects outcomes. Current practice at our institution is to routinely reduce and surgically address these fractures urgently, often during the middle of the night, when orthopedic resources are reduced. Our study found a significant difference in surgical timing for patients with talus fracture-dislocations and patients with talus fractures without dislocations (Table 2). Given our findings, urgent surgical reduction and fixation are not indicated to preserve the talus blood supply and prevent AVN/PTOA, though we still recommend urgent surgical management in the setting of an open wound, skin necrosis, or soft-tissue/neurovascular compromise.
This study had several limitations, primarily related to its retrospective nature. Surgical timing was defined as time from injury, as noted in the medical record, to operating room start. In some instances, time of injury was not noted in the medical record, and time of presentation to emergency room was used instead. Thus, surgical timing for these patients may have been longer than identified. In addition, given the rare injury pattern and the retrospective design, this study was susceptible to type II error and may have been underpowered to detect whether time to surgical reduction predicted complications. Also, the study did not address functional outcome as measured by validated outcome scores. Outcome measures were obtained in many but not all cases, making functional outcome measurement difficult. Similarly, the quality of the anatomical reductions was not assessed, potentially affecting complication rates. Postoperative reduction assessment, possibly performed with computed tomography, is an avenue of further study.
Strengths of this study include its large sample size (this was one of the largest studies of talus fractures), long follow-up (mean, 150 weeks), and novel use of AO/OTA classification.
We postulate that development of AVN/PTOA is not necessarily related to the urgency or timing of surgical reduction and fixation and is more likely related to injury severity. This idea is supported by the finding that development of AVN/PTOA was significantly correlated to open injuries in all talus fractures, including talus fracture-dislocations and isolated talus fractures.
Conclusion
Talus fracture-dislocations are devastating injuries with high rates of complications. In this study, open talus fractures, and fractures with associated tibiotalar or subtalar dislocations, had higher complication rates. Given the evidence presented, we recommend basing surgical timing on injury severity, not necessarily for AVN/PTOA prevention. Specifically, in the absence of an open wound, skin necrosis, or soft-tissue/neurovascular compromise, talus fracture-dislocations can be surgically reduced and stabilized when optimal resources are available.
Take-Home Points
- There is a 41% rate of AVN or PTOA after operatively managed talus fracture.
- Surgical timing does not affect development of AVN or PTOA.
- Open fractures are associated with development of AVN and PTOA.
- Quality of reduction is likely more important than timing of reduction.
- Urgent surgical treatment is necessary for threatened soft tissue or neurovascular compromise.
Talus fractures are rare injuries that present a significant treatment dilemma.1-12 These fractures represent <1% of all fractures4 and are second only to calcaneus fractures in fractures of the hindfoot. Talus fractures with associated dislocations are even rarer and may provide treating surgeons with a significant surgical quandary.6,13-16
Talus fractures historically have been characterized by their anatomical location: head, neck, or body. Two systems are commonly used to classify talus fractures: Hawkins and AO/OTA (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopaedic Trauma Association). The first, developed by Hawkins7 and modified by Canale and Kelly2 and Vallier and colleagues,1 identifies 4 basic fracture types with associated dislocations. The other system, published in 199617 and republished in 2007,18 uses the combined methods of AO and OTA to systematically describe talus fractures. Although these classification systems accurately describe talus fractures with associated dislocation, both have difficulty predicting clinical outcomes.1,19,20
Talus fractures commonly result in avascular necrosis (AVN) of the talus and posttraumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) of the tibiotalar and subtalar joints.3,8,9,12,14-16 Hawkins7 initially described subchondral lucency as indicating revascularization of the talus after injury. AVN and PTOA rates traditionally have been thought to be related to a blood supply disruption, given the prognostic value of the Hawkins sign.1,7,12,21 New methods, including a dual-incision approach and expedited transfer to foot and ankle surgeons or orthopedic traumatologists, have improved reduction quality21-24 but not patient outcomes.3,5,8,9,12,14
Recently, time from injury to surgical intervention has been a topic of much discussion, and there have been studies on the specific effects of timing with respect to outcome.1,15,16 Vallier and colleagues,1 who wanted to identify injury characteristics predictive of osteonecrosis, found that delaying reduction and surgical fixation did not increase the risk of AVN. Another study found that urgent reduction of fracture-dislocation with delayed open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) using a dual approach may improve clinical outcomes.21
In this vein, we conducted a study to evaluate the effect of time to surgical reduction of talus fractures and talus fracture-dislocations on the development of AVN and PTOA. We hypothesized that time to surgical reduction of talus fracture-dislocation as classified with the AO/OTA system would have no effect of the development of AVN/PTOA.
Methods
After this study received Institutional Review Board approval, we retrospectively reviewed the records on talus fractures surgically managed at a level I trauma center during the 10-year period 2003 to 2013. Of the 119 potential cases identified using Current Procedural Terminology code 28445 (ORIF of talus), 13 were excluded (12 for inaccurate coding or missing documentation, 1 for being a pediatric case), leaving 106 for analysis. Using the Hawkins and AO/OTA systems, 3 independent reviewers classified the injuries on plain radiographs.
Injury dates and times were obtained from the medical records. Operating room start times were also obtained. Surgical timing was defined as time from injury to operating room start. For cases without an injury time, time of presentation to emergency department was used.
Open fracture-dislocations were managed with intravenous antibiotics, urgent surgical irrigation, débridement, and immediate fixation or temporizing external fixation after reduction. All fractures were definitively managed with standard ORIF with an anteromedial, anterolateral, or dual approach and mini-fragment implants. After fixation, weight-bearing typically was restricted for 6 to 12 weeks.
Follow-up radiographs were evaluated. Presence or absence of Hawkins sign7 was noted on radiographs at 6 or 8 weeks, and all follow-up radiographs were evaluated for AVN as defined by increased radiographic density within the talar dome or collapse of the articular surface. All radiographs were evaluated for PTOA as defined by loss of joint space within the tibiotalar, subtalar, or talonavicular joint on follow-up radiographs.
Clinical outcomes were analyzed for development of AVN, PTOA, or secondary corrective surgery or arthrodesis. Continuous variables were evaluated with the t test, and the χ2 test was used to compare distributions of categorical variables. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare non-normally distributed variables. Significance was set at P < .05.
Results
Classification Analysis (Table 1)
Subject Analysis (Table 2)
The mechanisms of injury were motor vehicle accident (70/106; 66%), fall from height (25; 24%), misstep (4), sports related (2), object falling on ankle (2), and not reported (3).
Of the 106 patients, 45 (42%) had isolated talus injuries, 35 had concomitant ipsilateral lower extremity injuries, 25 had concomitant contralateral lower extremity injuries, and 1 had a concomitant upper extremity injury.
Smoking status was everyday (14 patients), past (10), never (34), and unreported (48). Five patients reported a history of alcohol abuse, and 4 patients reported illicit drug use. Two had a history of atrial fibrillation, 9 had hypertension, 3 had hyperlipidemia, 3 had renal disease, 3 had heart disease, 4 had diabetes, 3 had lung disease, and 1 had a history of lung cancer.
Overall Analysis of AVN/PTOA (Table 3)
Analysis of AVN/PTOA in 81-B3 Fracture-Dislocations (Table 4)
Analysis of AVN/PTOA in All Other Talus Fractures (Table 5)
Discussion
Our results showed that time from talus fracture-dislocation to surgical reduction had no effect on development of AVN/PTOA. The findings in this largest series to date agree with earlier findings1,8,15,16,24 and add to the volume of literature suggesting that time to surgical reduction of talus fractures and talus fracture-dislocations does not markedly affect outcome.
Talus fractures continue to present a significant treatment dilemma. Despite recent improvements in surgical techniques and overall management of these injuries, rates of AVN and PTOA have not significantly decreased.1,16,23 At most treating facilities, talus fracture-dislocations are considered surgical emergencies/urgencies, and every effort is made to reduce and surgically address these injuries as soon as possible.1,13
In this study, rates of AVN/PTOA were 41% (all talus fractures) and 50% (displaced talar neck fractures), and the difference was not significant (Table 3). These rates are higher but consistent with previously reported rates (range, 14%-49%).1,2,7-9,12,14,24 There was no difference in surgical timing for development of AVN/PTOA. We analyzed the cases of all patients who had talus fractures and developed AVN/PTOA (43/106). Within this group, there were no significant differences in surgical timing, age, sex, polytrauma, or BMI between patients who developed AVN/PTOA and those who did not. Compared with patients who did not develop AVN/PTOA, those who developed AVN/PTOA were significantly more likely to have open injuries. This finding, consistent with those in other reports9,12,13 (Table 3), indicates outcome is more likely related to injury severity and not necessarily injury class.
We retrospectively analyzed talus fractures and talus fracture-dislocations to determine if urgent surgical management affects outcomes. Current practice at our institution is to routinely reduce and surgically address these fractures urgently, often during the middle of the night, when orthopedic resources are reduced. Our study found a significant difference in surgical timing for patients with talus fracture-dislocations and patients with talus fractures without dislocations (Table 2). Given our findings, urgent surgical reduction and fixation are not indicated to preserve the talus blood supply and prevent AVN/PTOA, though we still recommend urgent surgical management in the setting of an open wound, skin necrosis, or soft-tissue/neurovascular compromise.
This study had several limitations, primarily related to its retrospective nature. Surgical timing was defined as time from injury, as noted in the medical record, to operating room start. In some instances, time of injury was not noted in the medical record, and time of presentation to emergency room was used instead. Thus, surgical timing for these patients may have been longer than identified. In addition, given the rare injury pattern and the retrospective design, this study was susceptible to type II error and may have been underpowered to detect whether time to surgical reduction predicted complications. Also, the study did not address functional outcome as measured by validated outcome scores. Outcome measures were obtained in many but not all cases, making functional outcome measurement difficult. Similarly, the quality of the anatomical reductions was not assessed, potentially affecting complication rates. Postoperative reduction assessment, possibly performed with computed tomography, is an avenue of further study.
Strengths of this study include its large sample size (this was one of the largest studies of talus fractures), long follow-up (mean, 150 weeks), and novel use of AO/OTA classification.
We postulate that development of AVN/PTOA is not necessarily related to the urgency or timing of surgical reduction and fixation and is more likely related to injury severity. This idea is supported by the finding that development of AVN/PTOA was significantly correlated to open injuries in all talus fractures, including talus fracture-dislocations and isolated talus fractures.
Conclusion
Talus fracture-dislocations are devastating injuries with high rates of complications. In this study, open talus fractures, and fractures with associated tibiotalar or subtalar dislocations, had higher complication rates. Given the evidence presented, we recommend basing surgical timing on injury severity, not necessarily for AVN/PTOA prevention. Specifically, in the absence of an open wound, skin necrosis, or soft-tissue/neurovascular compromise, talus fracture-dislocations can be surgically reduced and stabilized when optimal resources are available.
1. Vallier HA, Reichard SG, Boyd AJ, Moore TA. A new look at the Hawkins classification for talar neck fractures: which features of injury and treatment are predictive of osteonecrosis? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(3):192-197.
2. Canale ST, Kelly FB Jr. Fractures of the neck of the talus. Long-term evaluation of seventy-one cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60(2):143-156.
3. Ebraheim NA, Patil V, Owens C, Kandimalla Y. Clinical outcome of fractures of the talar body. Int Orthop. 2008;32(6):773-777.
4. Fortin PT, Balazsy JE. Talus fractures: evaluation and treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2001;9(2):114-127.
5. Fournier A, Barba N, Steiger V, et al. Total talar fracture—long-term results of internal fixation of talar fractures. A multicentric study of 114 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98(4 suppl):S48-S55.
6. Grob D, Simpson LA, Weber BG, Bray T. Operative treatment of displaced talus fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;(199):88-96.
7. Hawkins LG. Fractures of the neck of the talus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970;52(5):991-1002.
8. Lindvall E, Haidukewych G, DiPasquale T, Herscovici D Jr, Sanders R. Open reduction and stable fixation of isolated, displaced talar neck and body fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(10):2229-2234.
9. Ohl X, Harisboure A, Hemery X, Dehoux E. Long-term follow-up after surgical treatment of talar fractures: twenty cases with an average follow-up of 7.5 years. Int Orthop. 2011;35(1):93-99.
10. Rammelt S, Zwipp H. Talar neck and body fractures. Injury. 2009;40(2):120-135.
11. Schulze W, Richter J, Russe O, Ingelfinger P, Muhr G. Surgical treatment of talus fractures: a retrospective study of 80 cases followed for 1-15 years. Acta Orthop Scand. 2002;73(3):344-351.
12. Vallier HA, Nork SE, Barei DP, Benirschke SK, Sangeorzan BJ. Talar neck fractures: results and outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(8):1616-1624.
13. Patel R, Van Bergeyk A, Pinney S. Are displaced talar neck fractures surgical emergencies? A survey of orthopaedic trauma experts. Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26(5):378-381.
14. Sanders DW, Busam M, Hattwick E, Edwards JR, McAndrew MP, Johnson KD. Functional outcomes following displaced talar neck fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18(5):265-270.
15. Elgafy H, Ebraheim NA, Tile M, Stephen D, Kase J. Fractures of the talus: experience of two level 1 trauma centers. Foot Ankle Int. 2000;21(12):1023-1029.
16 Frawley PA, Hart JA, Young DA. Treatment outcome of major fractures of the talus. Foot Ankle Int. 1995;16(6):339-345.
17. Fracture and dislocation compendium. Orthopaedic Trauma Association committee for coding and classification. J Orthop Trauma. 1996;10(suppl 1):v-ix, 1-154.
18. Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J, et al. Fracture and dislocation classification compendium—2007: Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification, database and outcomes committee. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21(10 suppl):S1-S133.
19. Williams T, Barba N, Noailles T, et al. Total talar fracture—inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of two classification systems (Hawkins and AO) for central talar fractures. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98(4 suppl):S56-S65.
20. Zwipp H, Baumgart F, Cronier P, et al. Integral classification of injuries (ICI) to the bones, joints, and ligaments—application to injuries of the foot. Injury. 2004;35(suppl 2):SB3-SB9.
21. Xue Y, Zhang H, Pei F, et al. Treatment of displaced talar neck fractures using delayed procedures of plate fixation through dual approaches. Int Orthop. 2014;38(1):149-154.
22. Vallier HA, Nork SE, Benirschke SK, Sangeorzan BJ. Surgical treatment of talar body fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(9):1716-1724.
23. Fleuriau Chateau PB, Brokaw DS, Jelen BA, Scheid DK, Weber TG. Plate fixation of talar neck fractures: preliminary review of a new technique in twenty-three patients. J Orthop Trauma. 2002;16(4):213-219.
24. Vallier HA, Nork SE, Benirschke SK, Sangeorzan BJ. Surgical treatment of talar body fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(suppl 1, pt 2):180-192.
1. Vallier HA, Reichard SG, Boyd AJ, Moore TA. A new look at the Hawkins classification for talar neck fractures: which features of injury and treatment are predictive of osteonecrosis? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96(3):192-197.
2. Canale ST, Kelly FB Jr. Fractures of the neck of the talus. Long-term evaluation of seventy-one cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1978;60(2):143-156.
3. Ebraheim NA, Patil V, Owens C, Kandimalla Y. Clinical outcome of fractures of the talar body. Int Orthop. 2008;32(6):773-777.
4. Fortin PT, Balazsy JE. Talus fractures: evaluation and treatment. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2001;9(2):114-127.
5. Fournier A, Barba N, Steiger V, et al. Total talar fracture—long-term results of internal fixation of talar fractures. A multicentric study of 114 cases. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98(4 suppl):S48-S55.
6. Grob D, Simpson LA, Weber BG, Bray T. Operative treatment of displaced talus fractures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;(199):88-96.
7. Hawkins LG. Fractures of the neck of the talus. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1970;52(5):991-1002.
8. Lindvall E, Haidukewych G, DiPasquale T, Herscovici D Jr, Sanders R. Open reduction and stable fixation of isolated, displaced talar neck and body fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(10):2229-2234.
9. Ohl X, Harisboure A, Hemery X, Dehoux E. Long-term follow-up after surgical treatment of talar fractures: twenty cases with an average follow-up of 7.5 years. Int Orthop. 2011;35(1):93-99.
10. Rammelt S, Zwipp H. Talar neck and body fractures. Injury. 2009;40(2):120-135.
11. Schulze W, Richter J, Russe O, Ingelfinger P, Muhr G. Surgical treatment of talus fractures: a retrospective study of 80 cases followed for 1-15 years. Acta Orthop Scand. 2002;73(3):344-351.
12. Vallier HA, Nork SE, Barei DP, Benirschke SK, Sangeorzan BJ. Talar neck fractures: results and outcomes. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(8):1616-1624.
13. Patel R, Van Bergeyk A, Pinney S. Are displaced talar neck fractures surgical emergencies? A survey of orthopaedic trauma experts. Foot Ankle Int. 2005;26(5):378-381.
14. Sanders DW, Busam M, Hattwick E, Edwards JR, McAndrew MP, Johnson KD. Functional outcomes following displaced talar neck fractures. J Orthop Trauma. 2004;18(5):265-270.
15. Elgafy H, Ebraheim NA, Tile M, Stephen D, Kase J. Fractures of the talus: experience of two level 1 trauma centers. Foot Ankle Int. 2000;21(12):1023-1029.
16 Frawley PA, Hart JA, Young DA. Treatment outcome of major fractures of the talus. Foot Ankle Int. 1995;16(6):339-345.
17. Fracture and dislocation compendium. Orthopaedic Trauma Association committee for coding and classification. J Orthop Trauma. 1996;10(suppl 1):v-ix, 1-154.
18. Marsh JL, Slongo TF, Agel J, et al. Fracture and dislocation classification compendium—2007: Orthopaedic Trauma Association classification, database and outcomes committee. J Orthop Trauma. 2007;21(10 suppl):S1-S133.
19. Williams T, Barba N, Noailles T, et al. Total talar fracture—inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of two classification systems (Hawkins and AO) for central talar fractures. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98(4 suppl):S56-S65.
20. Zwipp H, Baumgart F, Cronier P, et al. Integral classification of injuries (ICI) to the bones, joints, and ligaments—application to injuries of the foot. Injury. 2004;35(suppl 2):SB3-SB9.
21. Xue Y, Zhang H, Pei F, et al. Treatment of displaced talar neck fractures using delayed procedures of plate fixation through dual approaches. Int Orthop. 2014;38(1):149-154.
22. Vallier HA, Nork SE, Benirschke SK, Sangeorzan BJ. Surgical treatment of talar body fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(9):1716-1724.
23. Fleuriau Chateau PB, Brokaw DS, Jelen BA, Scheid DK, Weber TG. Plate fixation of talar neck fractures: preliminary review of a new technique in twenty-three patients. J Orthop Trauma. 2002;16(4):213-219.
24. Vallier HA, Nork SE, Benirschke SK, Sangeorzan BJ. Surgical treatment of talar body fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86(suppl 1, pt 2):180-192.
Biceps Tenodesis: A Comparison of Tendon-to-Bone and Tendon-to-Tendon Healing in a Rat Model
Take-Home Points
- Cellular healing response differs between bony and soft tissue biceps tenodesis.
- Bony tenodesis incites an inflammatory healing response.
- Bony tenodesis healing occurs at the tendon-bone interface.
- Intrasseous bony fixation leads to tendon degeneration within the bone.
- Tendon-to-tendon tenodesis may result in regenerative tendon healing.
The long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) is a well-established pain generator of the anterior shoulder1,2 and may be surgically addressed in refractory cases.3 According to a recent study of 44,932 cases, biceps tenodesis rates increased 80% over just 3 years (2008-2011).4 Nevertheless, optimal tenodesis location and technique remain controversial. Proximal and distal tenodesis, including numerous soft-tissue and bony techniques, have been described.5-7 Several studies have focused on the biomechanical strength of various fixation modalities.8-14 These data highlight the ongoing evolution of our understanding of biceps-labrum complex (BLC) disease.
Over the years, tenodesis location has proved to be an important factor in outcomes.3,15-20 Several recent studies have elucidated the role of the extra-articular LHBT and the limited capabilities of diagnostic arthroscopy.15-17,20,21 Taylor and colleagues17 defined the bicipital tunnel as the extra-articular segment of LHBT and its fibro-osseous enclosure. The tunnel extends from the articular margin through the subpectoral region and can be divided into 3 zones: Zone 1 goes from the articular margin to the inferior margin of the subscapularis, zone 2 goes from the inferior margin of the subscapularis to the proximal margin of the pectoralis major tendon, and zone 3 is the subpectoral region. Zone 2 is often referred to as “no man’s land” for its relative invisibility from arthroscopy above and open exposure below.17,21 Notably, a recent study reported a 47% prevalence of hidden tunnel lesions in patients with chronic BLC disease symptoms.18 Other studies have shown that standard proximal tenodesis methods often fail to address LHBT pathology in this area, leading to residual symptoms.9,22 It is evident that tenodesis location and technique play important roles in patient outcomes. Sanders and colleagues16 found that the revision rate was significantly higher among patients who underwent biceps tenodesis without release of the bicipital tunnel sheath than among patients who underwent tenodesis with the release. Dr. O’Brien developed an alternative option: soft-tissue tenodesis with transfer of the LHBT to the conjoint tendon within the subdeltoid space.23,24 This technique addresses intra-articular and extra-articular tunnel disease while mitigating the complications associated with bony tenodesis. Early and midterm studies have shown this to be an effective intervention for chronically symptomatic BLC disease.25,26
Despite the abundance of literature on tenodesis techniques, no one has histologically evaluated the location-dependent healing and inflammatory responses. We conducted a study to determine the impact of tenodesis location on healing and inflammation in a rat model. We hypothesized that, compared with tendon-to-bone techniques, soft-tissue tenodesis would minimize inflammatory response and optimize healing.
Methods
The study was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at the Hospital for Special Surgery.
Animals
Biceps tenodesis was performed at 1 of 3 locations in 36 thirteen-week-old Sprague-Dawley rats (Charles River Laboratories). All rats were prepared for surgery by an experienced veterinary technician. Sedation was induced with isoflurane gas through a nose cone.
Surgical Procedure
Animals were randomly assigned to 3 different tenodesis groups: tendon-to-bone in the bicipital groove (metaphyseal, M); tendon-to-bone in the subpectoral region (diaphyseal, D); and soft tissue-to-soft tissue transfer to the conjoint tendon (T). A standard deltopectoral approach was used to expose the biceps tendon. The tendon was tagged with a 5-0 polypropylene suture and tenotomized at the level of the bicipital groove (zone 1). All wounds were irrigated and closed with 4-0 nylon suture.
For animals undergoing tendon-to-bone metaphyseal tenodesis, a 0.045-mm Kirschner wire was used to drill bicortically into the intertubercular sulcus. Wire positioning distal to the physeal plate was confirmed with fluoroscopy. A locking stitch of 5-0 polypropylene suture was run along the free edge of the tendon. The tendon was then passed through the bone tunnel in an anterior-to-posterior direction, and the limbs of the suture were tied around the lateral cortex.
The process was repeated for animals undergoing diaphyseal tenodesis; only the tenodesis location was different. The inferior border of the pectoralis major was identified, and a bicortical tunnel was made in the center of the diaphyseal bone. The tendon was then prepared and tenodesed to bone using the method already described.
In soft-tissue tenodesis, the conjoint tendon was identified and carefully dissected from surrounding tissues. The LHBT was then tenodesed to the attached conjoint tendon with interrupted simple stitches of 5-0 polypropylene suture.
The animals were allowed to bear weight on the operative limb immediately after surgery and without immobilization.
Specimen Harvest and Preparation
Four animals from each group were sacrificed at 6, 12, and 24 weeks. Harvested specimens were fixed in 10% neutral-buffered formalin solution. Bony specimens consisted of the upper half of the humerus and the tenodesed biceps tendon, and soft-tissue specimens consisted of the tenodesed LHBT-conjoint tendon complex. Bony specimens were decalcified in 10% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid. All specimens were paraffin-embedded and sectioned at 7 microns.
Analysis of Cellularity
Sections were stained with hematoxylin-eosin. Overall cellularity at the tenodesis interface was quantified by averaging the nuclei count within 3 separate standardized ×20 magnification high power fields. Only nucleated cells were included in the cell count. Immunohistochemical staining with tenomodulin (Santa Cruz Laboratories, sc-49324) was performed to characterize the cell population at the interface. Deparaffinized sections underwent antigen retrieval with pronase for 30 minutes at 37°C and were incubated overnight with the anti-tenomodulin goat monoclonal antibody diluted to 1:200 in 1% phosphate-buffered saline. The prepared slides were then counterstained with methyl green. Specimens treated with tenomodulin were evaluated for presence or absence of a positive reaction at the tenodesis interface.
Analysis of Inflammation
Inflammation at the interface was evaluated with the CD68 macrophage marker (ABcam, ab31630). Deparaffinized sections underwent antigen retrieval with pronase for 30 minutes at 37°C and were incubated overnight with anti-CD68 mouse monoclonal antibodies diluted to 1:200 in 1% phosphate-buffered saline. The prepared slides were then counterstained with neutral red. Inflammation was quantified by averaging the number of reactive cells within 3 separate standardized ×20 magnification high power fields.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated for cell and macrophage counts for each group at every time point. Two-way analysis of variance was used to compare the cell and macrophage counts between groups at each time point as well as the count differences within each group between time points. P values were Bonferroni-corrected to account for the multiple comparisons between groups. P < .05 was used to signify statistical significance.
Results
All 36 animals survived to their designated harvest time without complications. Twelve specimens were successfully harvested at 6 weeks and another 12 at 24 weeks. At 12 weeks, tenodesis failure occurred in 1 animal in group D, leaving 11 specimens for analysis.
Cellularity
Within-group analysis revealed a trend of increasing cellularity at 12 weeks followed by a decrease at 24 weeks in all 3 groups (Table 2).
Inflammatory Response
During specimen processing, 1 group D specimen was severely degraded after pronase treatment, leaving 3 specimens for evaluation. Descriptive statistics for each group are listed in Table 3A.
At 6 weeks, mean CD68 cell count was significantly higher in group M than in group D (P = .011) and group T (P < .001) (Table 3B). Likewise, CD68 count was significantly higher in group D than in group T (P < .001). There were no differences in CD68 counts between the 2 bony tenodesis groups at 12 weeks (P = .486) or 24 weeks (P = .315). Both bony tenodesis groups, however, had persistently higher CD68 counts at 12 weeks when compared with group T (group M, P = .002; group D, P < .001). In these specimens, an inflammatory milieu characterized by a large accumulation of lymphocytes and giant cells was noted at the bone-tendon interface.
Tissue-Specific Staining
At 6 weeks, antigen retrieval resulted in severe degradation of 2 group M specimens, 2 group D specimens, and 1 group T specimen. The most notable tenomodulin reaction occurred in group T at the 6- and 12-week harvests, with the 6-week group having the most robust reaction. There was scant reaction in this group at 24 weeks.
Discussion
In this study, the healing response differed between bony and soft-tissue tenodesis techniques in a rat model. Tendon-to-bone tenodesis, both diaphyseal and metaphyseal, appeared to incite an inflammatory degenerative response, whereas tendon-to-tendon healing occurred in a more quiescent and perhaps even regenerative manner.
The early inflammatory response that occurred in the bony tenodesis groups is not unlike what occurs in fracture healing.27 The reaction was even more robust at 12 weeks, signifying an ongoing inflammatory process. In this context, tendon degeneration may plausibly explain the consistent absence of mature tendon within the tunnels at all 3 time points. Some tendon degeneration may be explained by the vascular damage that occurred during surgery, but this damage was a constant factor in all 3 study groups. Interestingly, group M showed the highest early CD68 counts, consistent with this being the more biologically active region of bone.28
Group T had significantly lower cell and macrophage counts throughout the study period, possibly indicating improved healing—an observation supported by a study in which the impact of macrophage depletion on bone-tendon interface healing was evaluated.29 The authors found that, in suppressing macrophage activity, the morphologic and biomechanical properties at the healing interface were significantly improved.29 These findings are consistent with Dr. O’Brien’s anecdotal experience with patients who previously underwent the biceps transfer; on second-look arthroscopy, there was complete seamless integration of tendon and conjoint tendon (Figure 4).
Studies have found that the inflammatory process is closely associated with pain, and pain syndromes such as fibromyalgia.30,31 Persistent inflammation, as seen in our bony tenodesis group, could explain the recalcitrant anterior shoulder pain that often occurs in patients after bony tenodesis of the LHBT.2,6,19,32
Studies have also suggested that osteoclasts at the bone-tendon interface—osteoclasts share a cell lineage with macrophages—may contribute to bone loss and tunnel widening.33,34 Osteoclasts are expected at the bone tunnel, as fracture healing occurs at the bone-tendon interface. These osteoclasts could have contributed to the strong CD68 reaction in our bony tenodesis groups. However, CD68 historically has been described as the classic macrophage marker.35 We specifically selected CD68 for this reason: Macrophages are the primary inflammatory cells involved in early healing and are key to the inflammatory process.36
Results of the tenomodulin analysis suggested 2 different healing processes are occurring in the bony and tendon groups. Tenomodulin is a known tenocyte marker for developing and mature tendon in both rats and humans.37,38 In our study, only group T had a positive tenomodulin reaction. Notably, the reaction occurred only at 6 and 12 weeks. This finding may indicate that a regenerative healing pattern becomes quiescent by 24 weeks. Indeed, it has been suggested that tenomodulin is a key regulator of tenocyte proliferation and tendon maturation.39
The complete absence of tenomodulin reaction in our bony tenodesis groups in the setting of significant inflammation further supports our theory of tendon degeneration within the tunnel. One potential explanation for this finding may be that as the tendon heals to the surface of the bone, the intra-osseous tendon is no longer load-bearing and is resorbed by the body through an inflammatory response. This finding differs from those in previous studies, which have described viable tendon within the bone tunnel at all time points up to 26 weeks.40 More recently, it has been suggested that callus formation at the external cortical tendon-bone interface is critical for healing and mechanical strength.41,42 In addition, recent studies have found a predominantly fibroblastic healing process at the midtunnel, potentially leading to the formation of loose fibrovascular tissue at the tendon-bone interface.43 These data, in concert with ours, call into question the rationale for performing intra-osseous tenodesis through bone tunnels.
Our study results, if confirmed in humans, will have significant clinical implications. If a similar effect can be confirmed in the human shoulder, one could argue that soft-tissue tenodesis may result in decreased postoperative shoulder pain. In addition, if tendon degeneration does occur within the intramedullary tunnel, surface fixation may be the better, safer alternative. Although older studies reported suboptimal strength with this type of fixation,8,44 more recent studies have found surface fixation strength equivalent to screw fixation strength.45,46 Such a shift in the treatment paradigm would obviate the need for violation of the humeral cortex, eliminating potential stress risers associated with screw fixation,47 and effectively eliminating the risk of iatrogenic fracture.48,49 It would be interesting to investigate what occurs histologically at the bone-tendon interface in surface fixation (ie, suture anchors). Would the inflammatory response at the surface be similar to the inflammatory intramedullary healing, or would it be similar to the quieter tendon-tendon healing? Answers to such questions have the potential to streamline the treatment algorithm for patients who require tenodesis.
Study Limitations
Our study had several limitations. First, as this was a basic science study using a rat model, its conclusions can only be extrapolated to humans. Second, given the nonspecific nature of the cellular analysis, we cannot draw any definitive conclusions about the cell population at the bone-tendon interface. For example, although tenomodulin is expressed by tenocytes, it is not an established specific marker for tenocytes and may be expressed by other fibroblastic cells. Still, our results provide insight into the local microenvironment and identify important differences between the tenodesis methods. Similarly, the complete absence of tendon within the bone tunnels suggests that an analysis of osteoclastic activity at the tenodesis interface may have been a valuable addition to the study. This finding, however, was unexpected, and we did not have the foresight to include it in our methods. A third limitation is that our fixation method essentially uses the suspension tenodesis method. This fixation method differs from the common fixation techniques used in the clinical setting. Testing of other fixation constructs would require a larger animal model. Furthermore, in suspension- type constructs, micromotion within the bone tunnel may independently elicit an inflammatory response. Inert suture was used in our fixation in order to reduce the risk of an iatrogenic inflammatory response. Last, it would have been valuable to perform a biomechanical analysis of the strength of each tenodesis construct. This was explored with our institution’s biomechanics team, but specimen size precluded successful analysis.
Conclusion
Our results indicated that, compared with tendon-to-tendon fixation, tendon-to-bone tenodesis produces a significantly greater inflammatory response at the tenodesis interface. An inflammatory milieu in the absence of tendon within the bony tunnel suggests intraosseous tendon degeneration. Tendon-to-tendon tenodesis, on the other hand, seems to limit the inflammatory response. In addition, a robust tenomodulin reaction in the early phases of tendon-to-tendon healing suggests regenerative healing. Our results showed a fundamental difference in the healing response between the 2 tenodesis methods. Further study is needed to evaluate the validity and applicability of our findings to the human patient population. Most important, our results underscore the need for more study to elucidate optimal tenodesis location and encourage orthopedic surgeons to reexamine current clinical practice patterns.
1. Alpantaki K, McLaughlin D, Karagogeos D, Hadjipavlou A, Kontakis G. Sympathetic and sensory neural elements in the tendon of the long head of the biceps. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(7):1580-1583.
2. Nho SJ, Strauss EJ, Lenart BA, et al. Long head of the biceps tendinopathy: diagnosis and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010;18(11):645-656.
3. Provencher MT, LeClere LE, Romeo AA. Subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Sports Med Arthrosc. 2008;16(3):170-176.
4. Werner BC, Brockmeier SF, Gwathmey FW. Trends in long head biceps tenodesis. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(3):570-578.
5. Boileau P, Baque F, Valerio L, Ahrens P, Chuinard C, Trojani C. Isolated arthroscopic biceps tenotomy or tenodesis improves symptoms in patients with massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):747-757.
6. Becker DA, Cofield RH. Tenodesis of the long head of the biceps brachii for chronic bicipital tendinitis. Long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71(3):376-381.
7. Richards DP, Burkhart SS. Arthroscopic-assisted biceps tenodesis for ruptures of the long head of biceps brachii: the cobra procedure. Arthroscopy. 2004;20(suppl 2):201-207.
8. Ozalay M, Akpinar S, Karaeminogullari O, et al. Mechanical strength of four different biceps tenodesis techniques. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(8):992-998.
9. Mazzocca AD, Bicos J, Santangelo S, Romeo AA, Arciero RA. The biomechanical evaluation of four fixation techniques for proximal biceps tenodesis. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(11):1296-1306.
10. Kilicoglu O, Koyuncu O, Demirhan M, et al. Time-dependent changes in failure loads of 3 biceps tenodesis techniques: in vivo study in a sheep model. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(10):1536-1544.
11. Golish SR, Caldwell PE 3rd, Miller MD, et al. Interference screw versus suture anchor fixation for subpectoral tenodesis of the proximal biceps tendon: a cadaveric study. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(10):1103-1108.
12. Kusma M, Dienst M, Eckert J, Steimer O, Kohn D. Tenodesis of the long head of biceps brachii: cyclic testing of five methods of fixation in a porcine model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(6):967-973.
13. Buchholz A, Martetschlager F, Siebenlist S, et al. Biomechanical comparison of intramedullary cortical button fixation and interference screw technique for subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(5):845-853.
14. Werner BC, Lyons ML, Evans CL, et al. Arthroscopic suprapectoral and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis: a comparison of restoration of length-tension and mechanical strength between techniques. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(4):620-627.
15. Gilmer BB, DeMers AM, Guerrero D, Reid JB 3rd, Lubowitz JH, Guttmann D. Arthroscopic versus open comparison of long head of biceps tendon visualization and pathology in patients requiring tenodesis. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(1):29-34.
16. Sanders B, Lavery KP, Pennington S, Warner JJ. Clinical success of biceps tenodesis with and without release of the transverse humeral ligament. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(1):66-71.
17. Taylor SA, Fabricant PD, Bansal M, et al. The anatomy and histology of the bicipital tunnel of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(4):511-519.
18. Taylor SA, Khair MM, Gulotta LV, et al. Diagnostic glenohumeral arthroscopy fails to fully evaluate the biceps-labral complex. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(2):215-224.
19. Lutton DM, Gruson KI, Harrison AK, Gladstone JN, Flatow EL. Where to tenodese the biceps: proximal or distal? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(4):1050-1055.
20. Moon SC, Cho NS, Rhee YG. Analysis of “hidden lesions” of the extra-articular biceps after subpectoral biceps tenodesis: the subpectoral portion as the optimal tenodesis site. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(1):63-68.
21. Festa A, Allert J, Issa K, Tasto JP, Myer JJ. Visualization of the extra-articular portion of the long head of the biceps tendon during intra-articular shoulder arthroscopy. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(11):1413-1417.
22. Friedman DJ, Dunn JC, Higgins LD, Warner JJ. Proximal biceps tendon: injuries and management. Sports Med Arthrosc. 2008;16(3):162-169.
23. Verma NN, Drakos M, O’Brien SJ. Arthroscopic transfer of the long head biceps to the conjoint tendon. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(6):764.
24. O’Brien SJ, Taylor SA, DiPietro JR, Newman AM, Drakos MC, Voos JE. The arthroscopic “subdeltoid approach” to the anterior shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(4):e6-e10.
25. Drakos MC, Verma NN, Gulotta LV, et al. Arthroscopic transfer of the long head of the biceps tendon: functional outcome and clinical results. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(2):217-223.
26. Taylor SA, Fabricant PD, Baret NJ, et al. Midterm clinical outcomes for arthroscopic subdeltoid transfer of the long head of the biceps tendon to the conjoint tendon. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(12):1574-1581.
27. Marsell R, Einhorn TA. The biology of fracture healing. Injury. 2011;42(6):551-555.
28. Khan SN, Cammisa FP Jr, Sandhu HS, Diwan AD, Girardi FP, Lane JM. The biology of bone healing. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2005;13(1):77-86.
29. Hays PL, Kawamura S, Deng XH, et al. The role of macrophages in early healing of a tendon graft in a bone tunnel. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(3):565-579.
30. Uhl RL, Roberts TT, Papaliodis DN, Mulligan MT, Dubin AH. Management of chronic musculoskeletal pain. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2014;22(2):101-110.
31. Kosek E, Altawil R, Kadetoff D, et al. Evidence of different mediators of central inflammation in dysfunctional and inflammatory pain—interleukin-8 in fibromyalgia and interleukin-1 β in rheumatoid arthritis. J Neuroimmunol. 2015;280:49-55.
32. Slenker NR, Lawson K, Ciccotti MG, Dodson CC, Cohen SB. Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: clinical outcomes. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(4):576-582.
33. Rodeo SA, Kawamura S, Kim HJ, Dynybil C, Ying L. Tendon healing in a bone tunnel differs at the tunnel entrance versus the tunnel exit: an effect of graft-tunnel motion? Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(11):1790-1800.
34. Hjorthaug GA, Madsen JE, Nordsletten L, Reinholt FP, Steen H, Dimmen S. Tendon to bone tunnel healing—a study on the time-dependent changes in biomechanics, bone remodeling, and histology in a rat model. J Orthop Res. 2015;33(2):216-223.
35. Pulford KA, Sipos A, Cordell JL, Stross WP, Mason DY. Distribution of the CD68 macrophage/myeloid associated antigen. Int Immunol. 1990;2(10):973-980.
36. Fujiwara N, Kobayashi K. Macrophages in inflammation. Curr Drug Targets Inflamm Allergy. 2005;4(3):281-286.
37. Qi J, Dmochowski JM, Banes AN, et al. Differential expression and cellular localization of novel isoforms of the tendon biomarker tenomodulin. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2012;113(6):861-871.
38. Jelinsky SA, Archambault J, Li L, Seeherman H. Tendon-selective genes identified from rat and human musculoskeletal tissues. J Orthop Res. 2010;28(3):289-297.
39. Docheva D, Hunziker EB, Fassler R, Brandau O. Tenomodulin is necessary for tenocyte proliferation and tendon maturation. Mol Cell Biol. 2005;25(2):699-705.
40. Rodeo SA, Arnoczky SP, Torzilli PA, Hidaka C, Warren RF. Tendon-healing in a bone tunnel. A biomechanical and histological study in the dog. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75(12):1795-1803.
41. Silva MJ, Thomopoulos S, Kusano N, et al. Early healing of flexor tendon insertion site injuries: tunnel repair is mechanically and histologically inferior to surface repair in a canine model. J Orthop Res. 2006;24(5):990-1000.
42. Hibino N, Hamada Y, Sairyo K, Yukata K, Sano T, Yasui N. Callus formation during healing of the repaired tendon–bone junction. A rat experimental model. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(11):1539-1544.
43. Bedi A, Kawamura S, Ying L, Rodeo SA. Differences in tendon graft healing between the intra-articular and extra-articular ends of a bone tunnel. HSS J. 2009;5(1):51-57.
44. Richards DP, Burkhart SS. A biomechanical analysis of two biceps tenodesis fixation techniques. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(7):861-866.
45. Mazzocca AD, Cote MP, Arciero CL, Romeo AA, Arciero RA. Clinical outcomes after subpectoral biceps tenodesis with an interference screw. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(10):1922-1929.
46. Baleani M, Francesconi D, Zani L, Giannini S, Snyder SJ. Suprapectoral biceps tenodesis: a biomechanical comparison of a new “soft anchor” tenodesis technique versus interference screw biceps tendon fixation. Clin Biomech. 2015;30(2):188-194.
47. Euler SA, Smith SD, Williams BT, Dornan GJ, Millett PJ, Wijdicks CA. Biomechanical analysis of subpectoral biceps tenodesis: effect of screw malpositioning on proximal humeral strength. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(1):69-74.
48. Sears BW, Spencer EE, Getz CL. Humeral fracture following subpectoral biceps tenodesis in 2 active, healthy patients. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(6):e7-e11.
49. Dein EJ, Huri G, Gordon JC, McFarland EG. A humerus fracture in a baseball pitcher after biceps tenodesis. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(4):877-879.
Take-Home Points
- Cellular healing response differs between bony and soft tissue biceps tenodesis.
- Bony tenodesis incites an inflammatory healing response.
- Bony tenodesis healing occurs at the tendon-bone interface.
- Intrasseous bony fixation leads to tendon degeneration within the bone.
- Tendon-to-tendon tenodesis may result in regenerative tendon healing.
The long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) is a well-established pain generator of the anterior shoulder1,2 and may be surgically addressed in refractory cases.3 According to a recent study of 44,932 cases, biceps tenodesis rates increased 80% over just 3 years (2008-2011).4 Nevertheless, optimal tenodesis location and technique remain controversial. Proximal and distal tenodesis, including numerous soft-tissue and bony techniques, have been described.5-7 Several studies have focused on the biomechanical strength of various fixation modalities.8-14 These data highlight the ongoing evolution of our understanding of biceps-labrum complex (BLC) disease.
Over the years, tenodesis location has proved to be an important factor in outcomes.3,15-20 Several recent studies have elucidated the role of the extra-articular LHBT and the limited capabilities of diagnostic arthroscopy.15-17,20,21 Taylor and colleagues17 defined the bicipital tunnel as the extra-articular segment of LHBT and its fibro-osseous enclosure. The tunnel extends from the articular margin through the subpectoral region and can be divided into 3 zones: Zone 1 goes from the articular margin to the inferior margin of the subscapularis, zone 2 goes from the inferior margin of the subscapularis to the proximal margin of the pectoralis major tendon, and zone 3 is the subpectoral region. Zone 2 is often referred to as “no man’s land” for its relative invisibility from arthroscopy above and open exposure below.17,21 Notably, a recent study reported a 47% prevalence of hidden tunnel lesions in patients with chronic BLC disease symptoms.18 Other studies have shown that standard proximal tenodesis methods often fail to address LHBT pathology in this area, leading to residual symptoms.9,22 It is evident that tenodesis location and technique play important roles in patient outcomes. Sanders and colleagues16 found that the revision rate was significantly higher among patients who underwent biceps tenodesis without release of the bicipital tunnel sheath than among patients who underwent tenodesis with the release. Dr. O’Brien developed an alternative option: soft-tissue tenodesis with transfer of the LHBT to the conjoint tendon within the subdeltoid space.23,24 This technique addresses intra-articular and extra-articular tunnel disease while mitigating the complications associated with bony tenodesis. Early and midterm studies have shown this to be an effective intervention for chronically symptomatic BLC disease.25,26
Despite the abundance of literature on tenodesis techniques, no one has histologically evaluated the location-dependent healing and inflammatory responses. We conducted a study to determine the impact of tenodesis location on healing and inflammation in a rat model. We hypothesized that, compared with tendon-to-bone techniques, soft-tissue tenodesis would minimize inflammatory response and optimize healing.
Methods
The study was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at the Hospital for Special Surgery.
Animals
Biceps tenodesis was performed at 1 of 3 locations in 36 thirteen-week-old Sprague-Dawley rats (Charles River Laboratories). All rats were prepared for surgery by an experienced veterinary technician. Sedation was induced with isoflurane gas through a nose cone.
Surgical Procedure
Animals were randomly assigned to 3 different tenodesis groups: tendon-to-bone in the bicipital groove (metaphyseal, M); tendon-to-bone in the subpectoral region (diaphyseal, D); and soft tissue-to-soft tissue transfer to the conjoint tendon (T). A standard deltopectoral approach was used to expose the biceps tendon. The tendon was tagged with a 5-0 polypropylene suture and tenotomized at the level of the bicipital groove (zone 1). All wounds were irrigated and closed with 4-0 nylon suture.
For animals undergoing tendon-to-bone metaphyseal tenodesis, a 0.045-mm Kirschner wire was used to drill bicortically into the intertubercular sulcus. Wire positioning distal to the physeal plate was confirmed with fluoroscopy. A locking stitch of 5-0 polypropylene suture was run along the free edge of the tendon. The tendon was then passed through the bone tunnel in an anterior-to-posterior direction, and the limbs of the suture were tied around the lateral cortex.
The process was repeated for animals undergoing diaphyseal tenodesis; only the tenodesis location was different. The inferior border of the pectoralis major was identified, and a bicortical tunnel was made in the center of the diaphyseal bone. The tendon was then prepared and tenodesed to bone using the method already described.
In soft-tissue tenodesis, the conjoint tendon was identified and carefully dissected from surrounding tissues. The LHBT was then tenodesed to the attached conjoint tendon with interrupted simple stitches of 5-0 polypropylene suture.
The animals were allowed to bear weight on the operative limb immediately after surgery and without immobilization.
Specimen Harvest and Preparation
Four animals from each group were sacrificed at 6, 12, and 24 weeks. Harvested specimens were fixed in 10% neutral-buffered formalin solution. Bony specimens consisted of the upper half of the humerus and the tenodesed biceps tendon, and soft-tissue specimens consisted of the tenodesed LHBT-conjoint tendon complex. Bony specimens were decalcified in 10% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid. All specimens were paraffin-embedded and sectioned at 7 microns.
Analysis of Cellularity
Sections were stained with hematoxylin-eosin. Overall cellularity at the tenodesis interface was quantified by averaging the nuclei count within 3 separate standardized ×20 magnification high power fields. Only nucleated cells were included in the cell count. Immunohistochemical staining with tenomodulin (Santa Cruz Laboratories, sc-49324) was performed to characterize the cell population at the interface. Deparaffinized sections underwent antigen retrieval with pronase for 30 minutes at 37°C and were incubated overnight with the anti-tenomodulin goat monoclonal antibody diluted to 1:200 in 1% phosphate-buffered saline. The prepared slides were then counterstained with methyl green. Specimens treated with tenomodulin were evaluated for presence or absence of a positive reaction at the tenodesis interface.
Analysis of Inflammation
Inflammation at the interface was evaluated with the CD68 macrophage marker (ABcam, ab31630). Deparaffinized sections underwent antigen retrieval with pronase for 30 minutes at 37°C and were incubated overnight with anti-CD68 mouse monoclonal antibodies diluted to 1:200 in 1% phosphate-buffered saline. The prepared slides were then counterstained with neutral red. Inflammation was quantified by averaging the number of reactive cells within 3 separate standardized ×20 magnification high power fields.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated for cell and macrophage counts for each group at every time point. Two-way analysis of variance was used to compare the cell and macrophage counts between groups at each time point as well as the count differences within each group between time points. P values were Bonferroni-corrected to account for the multiple comparisons between groups. P < .05 was used to signify statistical significance.
Results
All 36 animals survived to their designated harvest time without complications. Twelve specimens were successfully harvested at 6 weeks and another 12 at 24 weeks. At 12 weeks, tenodesis failure occurred in 1 animal in group D, leaving 11 specimens for analysis.
Cellularity
Within-group analysis revealed a trend of increasing cellularity at 12 weeks followed by a decrease at 24 weeks in all 3 groups (Table 2).
Inflammatory Response
During specimen processing, 1 group D specimen was severely degraded after pronase treatment, leaving 3 specimens for evaluation. Descriptive statistics for each group are listed in Table 3A.
At 6 weeks, mean CD68 cell count was significantly higher in group M than in group D (P = .011) and group T (P < .001) (Table 3B). Likewise, CD68 count was significantly higher in group D than in group T (P < .001). There were no differences in CD68 counts between the 2 bony tenodesis groups at 12 weeks (P = .486) or 24 weeks (P = .315). Both bony tenodesis groups, however, had persistently higher CD68 counts at 12 weeks when compared with group T (group M, P = .002; group D, P < .001). In these specimens, an inflammatory milieu characterized by a large accumulation of lymphocytes and giant cells was noted at the bone-tendon interface.
Tissue-Specific Staining
At 6 weeks, antigen retrieval resulted in severe degradation of 2 group M specimens, 2 group D specimens, and 1 group T specimen. The most notable tenomodulin reaction occurred in group T at the 6- and 12-week harvests, with the 6-week group having the most robust reaction. There was scant reaction in this group at 24 weeks.
Discussion
In this study, the healing response differed between bony and soft-tissue tenodesis techniques in a rat model. Tendon-to-bone tenodesis, both diaphyseal and metaphyseal, appeared to incite an inflammatory degenerative response, whereas tendon-to-tendon healing occurred in a more quiescent and perhaps even regenerative manner.
The early inflammatory response that occurred in the bony tenodesis groups is not unlike what occurs in fracture healing.27 The reaction was even more robust at 12 weeks, signifying an ongoing inflammatory process. In this context, tendon degeneration may plausibly explain the consistent absence of mature tendon within the tunnels at all 3 time points. Some tendon degeneration may be explained by the vascular damage that occurred during surgery, but this damage was a constant factor in all 3 study groups. Interestingly, group M showed the highest early CD68 counts, consistent with this being the more biologically active region of bone.28
Group T had significantly lower cell and macrophage counts throughout the study period, possibly indicating improved healing—an observation supported by a study in which the impact of macrophage depletion on bone-tendon interface healing was evaluated.29 The authors found that, in suppressing macrophage activity, the morphologic and biomechanical properties at the healing interface were significantly improved.29 These findings are consistent with Dr. O’Brien’s anecdotal experience with patients who previously underwent the biceps transfer; on second-look arthroscopy, there was complete seamless integration of tendon and conjoint tendon (Figure 4).
Studies have found that the inflammatory process is closely associated with pain, and pain syndromes such as fibromyalgia.30,31 Persistent inflammation, as seen in our bony tenodesis group, could explain the recalcitrant anterior shoulder pain that often occurs in patients after bony tenodesis of the LHBT.2,6,19,32
Studies have also suggested that osteoclasts at the bone-tendon interface—osteoclasts share a cell lineage with macrophages—may contribute to bone loss and tunnel widening.33,34 Osteoclasts are expected at the bone tunnel, as fracture healing occurs at the bone-tendon interface. These osteoclasts could have contributed to the strong CD68 reaction in our bony tenodesis groups. However, CD68 historically has been described as the classic macrophage marker.35 We specifically selected CD68 for this reason: Macrophages are the primary inflammatory cells involved in early healing and are key to the inflammatory process.36
Results of the tenomodulin analysis suggested 2 different healing processes are occurring in the bony and tendon groups. Tenomodulin is a known tenocyte marker for developing and mature tendon in both rats and humans.37,38 In our study, only group T had a positive tenomodulin reaction. Notably, the reaction occurred only at 6 and 12 weeks. This finding may indicate that a regenerative healing pattern becomes quiescent by 24 weeks. Indeed, it has been suggested that tenomodulin is a key regulator of tenocyte proliferation and tendon maturation.39
The complete absence of tenomodulin reaction in our bony tenodesis groups in the setting of significant inflammation further supports our theory of tendon degeneration within the tunnel. One potential explanation for this finding may be that as the tendon heals to the surface of the bone, the intra-osseous tendon is no longer load-bearing and is resorbed by the body through an inflammatory response. This finding differs from those in previous studies, which have described viable tendon within the bone tunnel at all time points up to 26 weeks.40 More recently, it has been suggested that callus formation at the external cortical tendon-bone interface is critical for healing and mechanical strength.41,42 In addition, recent studies have found a predominantly fibroblastic healing process at the midtunnel, potentially leading to the formation of loose fibrovascular tissue at the tendon-bone interface.43 These data, in concert with ours, call into question the rationale for performing intra-osseous tenodesis through bone tunnels.
Our study results, if confirmed in humans, will have significant clinical implications. If a similar effect can be confirmed in the human shoulder, one could argue that soft-tissue tenodesis may result in decreased postoperative shoulder pain. In addition, if tendon degeneration does occur within the intramedullary tunnel, surface fixation may be the better, safer alternative. Although older studies reported suboptimal strength with this type of fixation,8,44 more recent studies have found surface fixation strength equivalent to screw fixation strength.45,46 Such a shift in the treatment paradigm would obviate the need for violation of the humeral cortex, eliminating potential stress risers associated with screw fixation,47 and effectively eliminating the risk of iatrogenic fracture.48,49 It would be interesting to investigate what occurs histologically at the bone-tendon interface in surface fixation (ie, suture anchors). Would the inflammatory response at the surface be similar to the inflammatory intramedullary healing, or would it be similar to the quieter tendon-tendon healing? Answers to such questions have the potential to streamline the treatment algorithm for patients who require tenodesis.
Study Limitations
Our study had several limitations. First, as this was a basic science study using a rat model, its conclusions can only be extrapolated to humans. Second, given the nonspecific nature of the cellular analysis, we cannot draw any definitive conclusions about the cell population at the bone-tendon interface. For example, although tenomodulin is expressed by tenocytes, it is not an established specific marker for tenocytes and may be expressed by other fibroblastic cells. Still, our results provide insight into the local microenvironment and identify important differences between the tenodesis methods. Similarly, the complete absence of tendon within the bone tunnels suggests that an analysis of osteoclastic activity at the tenodesis interface may have been a valuable addition to the study. This finding, however, was unexpected, and we did not have the foresight to include it in our methods. A third limitation is that our fixation method essentially uses the suspension tenodesis method. This fixation method differs from the common fixation techniques used in the clinical setting. Testing of other fixation constructs would require a larger animal model. Furthermore, in suspension- type constructs, micromotion within the bone tunnel may independently elicit an inflammatory response. Inert suture was used in our fixation in order to reduce the risk of an iatrogenic inflammatory response. Last, it would have been valuable to perform a biomechanical analysis of the strength of each tenodesis construct. This was explored with our institution’s biomechanics team, but specimen size precluded successful analysis.
Conclusion
Our results indicated that, compared with tendon-to-tendon fixation, tendon-to-bone tenodesis produces a significantly greater inflammatory response at the tenodesis interface. An inflammatory milieu in the absence of tendon within the bony tunnel suggests intraosseous tendon degeneration. Tendon-to-tendon tenodesis, on the other hand, seems to limit the inflammatory response. In addition, a robust tenomodulin reaction in the early phases of tendon-to-tendon healing suggests regenerative healing. Our results showed a fundamental difference in the healing response between the 2 tenodesis methods. Further study is needed to evaluate the validity and applicability of our findings to the human patient population. Most important, our results underscore the need for more study to elucidate optimal tenodesis location and encourage orthopedic surgeons to reexamine current clinical practice patterns.
Take-Home Points
- Cellular healing response differs between bony and soft tissue biceps tenodesis.
- Bony tenodesis incites an inflammatory healing response.
- Bony tenodesis healing occurs at the tendon-bone interface.
- Intrasseous bony fixation leads to tendon degeneration within the bone.
- Tendon-to-tendon tenodesis may result in regenerative tendon healing.
The long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) is a well-established pain generator of the anterior shoulder1,2 and may be surgically addressed in refractory cases.3 According to a recent study of 44,932 cases, biceps tenodesis rates increased 80% over just 3 years (2008-2011).4 Nevertheless, optimal tenodesis location and technique remain controversial. Proximal and distal tenodesis, including numerous soft-tissue and bony techniques, have been described.5-7 Several studies have focused on the biomechanical strength of various fixation modalities.8-14 These data highlight the ongoing evolution of our understanding of biceps-labrum complex (BLC) disease.
Over the years, tenodesis location has proved to be an important factor in outcomes.3,15-20 Several recent studies have elucidated the role of the extra-articular LHBT and the limited capabilities of diagnostic arthroscopy.15-17,20,21 Taylor and colleagues17 defined the bicipital tunnel as the extra-articular segment of LHBT and its fibro-osseous enclosure. The tunnel extends from the articular margin through the subpectoral region and can be divided into 3 zones: Zone 1 goes from the articular margin to the inferior margin of the subscapularis, zone 2 goes from the inferior margin of the subscapularis to the proximal margin of the pectoralis major tendon, and zone 3 is the subpectoral region. Zone 2 is often referred to as “no man’s land” for its relative invisibility from arthroscopy above and open exposure below.17,21 Notably, a recent study reported a 47% prevalence of hidden tunnel lesions in patients with chronic BLC disease symptoms.18 Other studies have shown that standard proximal tenodesis methods often fail to address LHBT pathology in this area, leading to residual symptoms.9,22 It is evident that tenodesis location and technique play important roles in patient outcomes. Sanders and colleagues16 found that the revision rate was significantly higher among patients who underwent biceps tenodesis without release of the bicipital tunnel sheath than among patients who underwent tenodesis with the release. Dr. O’Brien developed an alternative option: soft-tissue tenodesis with transfer of the LHBT to the conjoint tendon within the subdeltoid space.23,24 This technique addresses intra-articular and extra-articular tunnel disease while mitigating the complications associated with bony tenodesis. Early and midterm studies have shown this to be an effective intervention for chronically symptomatic BLC disease.25,26
Despite the abundance of literature on tenodesis techniques, no one has histologically evaluated the location-dependent healing and inflammatory responses. We conducted a study to determine the impact of tenodesis location on healing and inflammation in a rat model. We hypothesized that, compared with tendon-to-bone techniques, soft-tissue tenodesis would minimize inflammatory response and optimize healing.
Methods
The study was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee at the Hospital for Special Surgery.
Animals
Biceps tenodesis was performed at 1 of 3 locations in 36 thirteen-week-old Sprague-Dawley rats (Charles River Laboratories). All rats were prepared for surgery by an experienced veterinary technician. Sedation was induced with isoflurane gas through a nose cone.
Surgical Procedure
Animals were randomly assigned to 3 different tenodesis groups: tendon-to-bone in the bicipital groove (metaphyseal, M); tendon-to-bone in the subpectoral region (diaphyseal, D); and soft tissue-to-soft tissue transfer to the conjoint tendon (T). A standard deltopectoral approach was used to expose the biceps tendon. The tendon was tagged with a 5-0 polypropylene suture and tenotomized at the level of the bicipital groove (zone 1). All wounds were irrigated and closed with 4-0 nylon suture.
For animals undergoing tendon-to-bone metaphyseal tenodesis, a 0.045-mm Kirschner wire was used to drill bicortically into the intertubercular sulcus. Wire positioning distal to the physeal plate was confirmed with fluoroscopy. A locking stitch of 5-0 polypropylene suture was run along the free edge of the tendon. The tendon was then passed through the bone tunnel in an anterior-to-posterior direction, and the limbs of the suture were tied around the lateral cortex.
The process was repeated for animals undergoing diaphyseal tenodesis; only the tenodesis location was different. The inferior border of the pectoralis major was identified, and a bicortical tunnel was made in the center of the diaphyseal bone. The tendon was then prepared and tenodesed to bone using the method already described.
In soft-tissue tenodesis, the conjoint tendon was identified and carefully dissected from surrounding tissues. The LHBT was then tenodesed to the attached conjoint tendon with interrupted simple stitches of 5-0 polypropylene suture.
The animals were allowed to bear weight on the operative limb immediately after surgery and without immobilization.
Specimen Harvest and Preparation
Four animals from each group were sacrificed at 6, 12, and 24 weeks. Harvested specimens were fixed in 10% neutral-buffered formalin solution. Bony specimens consisted of the upper half of the humerus and the tenodesed biceps tendon, and soft-tissue specimens consisted of the tenodesed LHBT-conjoint tendon complex. Bony specimens were decalcified in 10% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid. All specimens were paraffin-embedded and sectioned at 7 microns.
Analysis of Cellularity
Sections were stained with hematoxylin-eosin. Overall cellularity at the tenodesis interface was quantified by averaging the nuclei count within 3 separate standardized ×20 magnification high power fields. Only nucleated cells were included in the cell count. Immunohistochemical staining with tenomodulin (Santa Cruz Laboratories, sc-49324) was performed to characterize the cell population at the interface. Deparaffinized sections underwent antigen retrieval with pronase for 30 minutes at 37°C and were incubated overnight with the anti-tenomodulin goat monoclonal antibody diluted to 1:200 in 1% phosphate-buffered saline. The prepared slides were then counterstained with methyl green. Specimens treated with tenomodulin were evaluated for presence or absence of a positive reaction at the tenodesis interface.
Analysis of Inflammation
Inflammation at the interface was evaluated with the CD68 macrophage marker (ABcam, ab31630). Deparaffinized sections underwent antigen retrieval with pronase for 30 minutes at 37°C and were incubated overnight with anti-CD68 mouse monoclonal antibodies diluted to 1:200 in 1% phosphate-buffered saline. The prepared slides were then counterstained with neutral red. Inflammation was quantified by averaging the number of reactive cells within 3 separate standardized ×20 magnification high power fields.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated for cell and macrophage counts for each group at every time point. Two-way analysis of variance was used to compare the cell and macrophage counts between groups at each time point as well as the count differences within each group between time points. P values were Bonferroni-corrected to account for the multiple comparisons between groups. P < .05 was used to signify statistical significance.
Results
All 36 animals survived to their designated harvest time without complications. Twelve specimens were successfully harvested at 6 weeks and another 12 at 24 weeks. At 12 weeks, tenodesis failure occurred in 1 animal in group D, leaving 11 specimens for analysis.
Cellularity
Within-group analysis revealed a trend of increasing cellularity at 12 weeks followed by a decrease at 24 weeks in all 3 groups (Table 2).
Inflammatory Response
During specimen processing, 1 group D specimen was severely degraded after pronase treatment, leaving 3 specimens for evaluation. Descriptive statistics for each group are listed in Table 3A.
At 6 weeks, mean CD68 cell count was significantly higher in group M than in group D (P = .011) and group T (P < .001) (Table 3B). Likewise, CD68 count was significantly higher in group D than in group T (P < .001). There were no differences in CD68 counts between the 2 bony tenodesis groups at 12 weeks (P = .486) or 24 weeks (P = .315). Both bony tenodesis groups, however, had persistently higher CD68 counts at 12 weeks when compared with group T (group M, P = .002; group D, P < .001). In these specimens, an inflammatory milieu characterized by a large accumulation of lymphocytes and giant cells was noted at the bone-tendon interface.
Tissue-Specific Staining
At 6 weeks, antigen retrieval resulted in severe degradation of 2 group M specimens, 2 group D specimens, and 1 group T specimen. The most notable tenomodulin reaction occurred in group T at the 6- and 12-week harvests, with the 6-week group having the most robust reaction. There was scant reaction in this group at 24 weeks.
Discussion
In this study, the healing response differed between bony and soft-tissue tenodesis techniques in a rat model. Tendon-to-bone tenodesis, both diaphyseal and metaphyseal, appeared to incite an inflammatory degenerative response, whereas tendon-to-tendon healing occurred in a more quiescent and perhaps even regenerative manner.
The early inflammatory response that occurred in the bony tenodesis groups is not unlike what occurs in fracture healing.27 The reaction was even more robust at 12 weeks, signifying an ongoing inflammatory process. In this context, tendon degeneration may plausibly explain the consistent absence of mature tendon within the tunnels at all 3 time points. Some tendon degeneration may be explained by the vascular damage that occurred during surgery, but this damage was a constant factor in all 3 study groups. Interestingly, group M showed the highest early CD68 counts, consistent with this being the more biologically active region of bone.28
Group T had significantly lower cell and macrophage counts throughout the study period, possibly indicating improved healing—an observation supported by a study in which the impact of macrophage depletion on bone-tendon interface healing was evaluated.29 The authors found that, in suppressing macrophage activity, the morphologic and biomechanical properties at the healing interface were significantly improved.29 These findings are consistent with Dr. O’Brien’s anecdotal experience with patients who previously underwent the biceps transfer; on second-look arthroscopy, there was complete seamless integration of tendon and conjoint tendon (Figure 4).
Studies have found that the inflammatory process is closely associated with pain, and pain syndromes such as fibromyalgia.30,31 Persistent inflammation, as seen in our bony tenodesis group, could explain the recalcitrant anterior shoulder pain that often occurs in patients after bony tenodesis of the LHBT.2,6,19,32
Studies have also suggested that osteoclasts at the bone-tendon interface—osteoclasts share a cell lineage with macrophages—may contribute to bone loss and tunnel widening.33,34 Osteoclasts are expected at the bone tunnel, as fracture healing occurs at the bone-tendon interface. These osteoclasts could have contributed to the strong CD68 reaction in our bony tenodesis groups. However, CD68 historically has been described as the classic macrophage marker.35 We specifically selected CD68 for this reason: Macrophages are the primary inflammatory cells involved in early healing and are key to the inflammatory process.36
Results of the tenomodulin analysis suggested 2 different healing processes are occurring in the bony and tendon groups. Tenomodulin is a known tenocyte marker for developing and mature tendon in both rats and humans.37,38 In our study, only group T had a positive tenomodulin reaction. Notably, the reaction occurred only at 6 and 12 weeks. This finding may indicate that a regenerative healing pattern becomes quiescent by 24 weeks. Indeed, it has been suggested that tenomodulin is a key regulator of tenocyte proliferation and tendon maturation.39
The complete absence of tenomodulin reaction in our bony tenodesis groups in the setting of significant inflammation further supports our theory of tendon degeneration within the tunnel. One potential explanation for this finding may be that as the tendon heals to the surface of the bone, the intra-osseous tendon is no longer load-bearing and is resorbed by the body through an inflammatory response. This finding differs from those in previous studies, which have described viable tendon within the bone tunnel at all time points up to 26 weeks.40 More recently, it has been suggested that callus formation at the external cortical tendon-bone interface is critical for healing and mechanical strength.41,42 In addition, recent studies have found a predominantly fibroblastic healing process at the midtunnel, potentially leading to the formation of loose fibrovascular tissue at the tendon-bone interface.43 These data, in concert with ours, call into question the rationale for performing intra-osseous tenodesis through bone tunnels.
Our study results, if confirmed in humans, will have significant clinical implications. If a similar effect can be confirmed in the human shoulder, one could argue that soft-tissue tenodesis may result in decreased postoperative shoulder pain. In addition, if tendon degeneration does occur within the intramedullary tunnel, surface fixation may be the better, safer alternative. Although older studies reported suboptimal strength with this type of fixation,8,44 more recent studies have found surface fixation strength equivalent to screw fixation strength.45,46 Such a shift in the treatment paradigm would obviate the need for violation of the humeral cortex, eliminating potential stress risers associated with screw fixation,47 and effectively eliminating the risk of iatrogenic fracture.48,49 It would be interesting to investigate what occurs histologically at the bone-tendon interface in surface fixation (ie, suture anchors). Would the inflammatory response at the surface be similar to the inflammatory intramedullary healing, or would it be similar to the quieter tendon-tendon healing? Answers to such questions have the potential to streamline the treatment algorithm for patients who require tenodesis.
Study Limitations
Our study had several limitations. First, as this was a basic science study using a rat model, its conclusions can only be extrapolated to humans. Second, given the nonspecific nature of the cellular analysis, we cannot draw any definitive conclusions about the cell population at the bone-tendon interface. For example, although tenomodulin is expressed by tenocytes, it is not an established specific marker for tenocytes and may be expressed by other fibroblastic cells. Still, our results provide insight into the local microenvironment and identify important differences between the tenodesis methods. Similarly, the complete absence of tendon within the bone tunnels suggests that an analysis of osteoclastic activity at the tenodesis interface may have been a valuable addition to the study. This finding, however, was unexpected, and we did not have the foresight to include it in our methods. A third limitation is that our fixation method essentially uses the suspension tenodesis method. This fixation method differs from the common fixation techniques used in the clinical setting. Testing of other fixation constructs would require a larger animal model. Furthermore, in suspension- type constructs, micromotion within the bone tunnel may independently elicit an inflammatory response. Inert suture was used in our fixation in order to reduce the risk of an iatrogenic inflammatory response. Last, it would have been valuable to perform a biomechanical analysis of the strength of each tenodesis construct. This was explored with our institution’s biomechanics team, but specimen size precluded successful analysis.
Conclusion
Our results indicated that, compared with tendon-to-tendon fixation, tendon-to-bone tenodesis produces a significantly greater inflammatory response at the tenodesis interface. An inflammatory milieu in the absence of tendon within the bony tunnel suggests intraosseous tendon degeneration. Tendon-to-tendon tenodesis, on the other hand, seems to limit the inflammatory response. In addition, a robust tenomodulin reaction in the early phases of tendon-to-tendon healing suggests regenerative healing. Our results showed a fundamental difference in the healing response between the 2 tenodesis methods. Further study is needed to evaluate the validity and applicability of our findings to the human patient population. Most important, our results underscore the need for more study to elucidate optimal tenodesis location and encourage orthopedic surgeons to reexamine current clinical practice patterns.
1. Alpantaki K, McLaughlin D, Karagogeos D, Hadjipavlou A, Kontakis G. Sympathetic and sensory neural elements in the tendon of the long head of the biceps. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(7):1580-1583.
2. Nho SJ, Strauss EJ, Lenart BA, et al. Long head of the biceps tendinopathy: diagnosis and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010;18(11):645-656.
3. Provencher MT, LeClere LE, Romeo AA. Subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Sports Med Arthrosc. 2008;16(3):170-176.
4. Werner BC, Brockmeier SF, Gwathmey FW. Trends in long head biceps tenodesis. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(3):570-578.
5. Boileau P, Baque F, Valerio L, Ahrens P, Chuinard C, Trojani C. Isolated arthroscopic biceps tenotomy or tenodesis improves symptoms in patients with massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):747-757.
6. Becker DA, Cofield RH. Tenodesis of the long head of the biceps brachii for chronic bicipital tendinitis. Long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71(3):376-381.
7. Richards DP, Burkhart SS. Arthroscopic-assisted biceps tenodesis for ruptures of the long head of biceps brachii: the cobra procedure. Arthroscopy. 2004;20(suppl 2):201-207.
8. Ozalay M, Akpinar S, Karaeminogullari O, et al. Mechanical strength of four different biceps tenodesis techniques. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(8):992-998.
9. Mazzocca AD, Bicos J, Santangelo S, Romeo AA, Arciero RA. The biomechanical evaluation of four fixation techniques for proximal biceps tenodesis. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(11):1296-1306.
10. Kilicoglu O, Koyuncu O, Demirhan M, et al. Time-dependent changes in failure loads of 3 biceps tenodesis techniques: in vivo study in a sheep model. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(10):1536-1544.
11. Golish SR, Caldwell PE 3rd, Miller MD, et al. Interference screw versus suture anchor fixation for subpectoral tenodesis of the proximal biceps tendon: a cadaveric study. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(10):1103-1108.
12. Kusma M, Dienst M, Eckert J, Steimer O, Kohn D. Tenodesis of the long head of biceps brachii: cyclic testing of five methods of fixation in a porcine model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(6):967-973.
13. Buchholz A, Martetschlager F, Siebenlist S, et al. Biomechanical comparison of intramedullary cortical button fixation and interference screw technique for subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(5):845-853.
14. Werner BC, Lyons ML, Evans CL, et al. Arthroscopic suprapectoral and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis: a comparison of restoration of length-tension and mechanical strength between techniques. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(4):620-627.
15. Gilmer BB, DeMers AM, Guerrero D, Reid JB 3rd, Lubowitz JH, Guttmann D. Arthroscopic versus open comparison of long head of biceps tendon visualization and pathology in patients requiring tenodesis. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(1):29-34.
16. Sanders B, Lavery KP, Pennington S, Warner JJ. Clinical success of biceps tenodesis with and without release of the transverse humeral ligament. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(1):66-71.
17. Taylor SA, Fabricant PD, Bansal M, et al. The anatomy and histology of the bicipital tunnel of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(4):511-519.
18. Taylor SA, Khair MM, Gulotta LV, et al. Diagnostic glenohumeral arthroscopy fails to fully evaluate the biceps-labral complex. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(2):215-224.
19. Lutton DM, Gruson KI, Harrison AK, Gladstone JN, Flatow EL. Where to tenodese the biceps: proximal or distal? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(4):1050-1055.
20. Moon SC, Cho NS, Rhee YG. Analysis of “hidden lesions” of the extra-articular biceps after subpectoral biceps tenodesis: the subpectoral portion as the optimal tenodesis site. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(1):63-68.
21. Festa A, Allert J, Issa K, Tasto JP, Myer JJ. Visualization of the extra-articular portion of the long head of the biceps tendon during intra-articular shoulder arthroscopy. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(11):1413-1417.
22. Friedman DJ, Dunn JC, Higgins LD, Warner JJ. Proximal biceps tendon: injuries and management. Sports Med Arthrosc. 2008;16(3):162-169.
23. Verma NN, Drakos M, O’Brien SJ. Arthroscopic transfer of the long head biceps to the conjoint tendon. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(6):764.
24. O’Brien SJ, Taylor SA, DiPietro JR, Newman AM, Drakos MC, Voos JE. The arthroscopic “subdeltoid approach” to the anterior shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(4):e6-e10.
25. Drakos MC, Verma NN, Gulotta LV, et al. Arthroscopic transfer of the long head of the biceps tendon: functional outcome and clinical results. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(2):217-223.
26. Taylor SA, Fabricant PD, Baret NJ, et al. Midterm clinical outcomes for arthroscopic subdeltoid transfer of the long head of the biceps tendon to the conjoint tendon. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(12):1574-1581.
27. Marsell R, Einhorn TA. The biology of fracture healing. Injury. 2011;42(6):551-555.
28. Khan SN, Cammisa FP Jr, Sandhu HS, Diwan AD, Girardi FP, Lane JM. The biology of bone healing. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2005;13(1):77-86.
29. Hays PL, Kawamura S, Deng XH, et al. The role of macrophages in early healing of a tendon graft in a bone tunnel. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(3):565-579.
30. Uhl RL, Roberts TT, Papaliodis DN, Mulligan MT, Dubin AH. Management of chronic musculoskeletal pain. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2014;22(2):101-110.
31. Kosek E, Altawil R, Kadetoff D, et al. Evidence of different mediators of central inflammation in dysfunctional and inflammatory pain—interleukin-8 in fibromyalgia and interleukin-1 β in rheumatoid arthritis. J Neuroimmunol. 2015;280:49-55.
32. Slenker NR, Lawson K, Ciccotti MG, Dodson CC, Cohen SB. Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: clinical outcomes. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(4):576-582.
33. Rodeo SA, Kawamura S, Kim HJ, Dynybil C, Ying L. Tendon healing in a bone tunnel differs at the tunnel entrance versus the tunnel exit: an effect of graft-tunnel motion? Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(11):1790-1800.
34. Hjorthaug GA, Madsen JE, Nordsletten L, Reinholt FP, Steen H, Dimmen S. Tendon to bone tunnel healing—a study on the time-dependent changes in biomechanics, bone remodeling, and histology in a rat model. J Orthop Res. 2015;33(2):216-223.
35. Pulford KA, Sipos A, Cordell JL, Stross WP, Mason DY. Distribution of the CD68 macrophage/myeloid associated antigen. Int Immunol. 1990;2(10):973-980.
36. Fujiwara N, Kobayashi K. Macrophages in inflammation. Curr Drug Targets Inflamm Allergy. 2005;4(3):281-286.
37. Qi J, Dmochowski JM, Banes AN, et al. Differential expression and cellular localization of novel isoforms of the tendon biomarker tenomodulin. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2012;113(6):861-871.
38. Jelinsky SA, Archambault J, Li L, Seeherman H. Tendon-selective genes identified from rat and human musculoskeletal tissues. J Orthop Res. 2010;28(3):289-297.
39. Docheva D, Hunziker EB, Fassler R, Brandau O. Tenomodulin is necessary for tenocyte proliferation and tendon maturation. Mol Cell Biol. 2005;25(2):699-705.
40. Rodeo SA, Arnoczky SP, Torzilli PA, Hidaka C, Warren RF. Tendon-healing in a bone tunnel. A biomechanical and histological study in the dog. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75(12):1795-1803.
41. Silva MJ, Thomopoulos S, Kusano N, et al. Early healing of flexor tendon insertion site injuries: tunnel repair is mechanically and histologically inferior to surface repair in a canine model. J Orthop Res. 2006;24(5):990-1000.
42. Hibino N, Hamada Y, Sairyo K, Yukata K, Sano T, Yasui N. Callus formation during healing of the repaired tendon–bone junction. A rat experimental model. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(11):1539-1544.
43. Bedi A, Kawamura S, Ying L, Rodeo SA. Differences in tendon graft healing between the intra-articular and extra-articular ends of a bone tunnel. HSS J. 2009;5(1):51-57.
44. Richards DP, Burkhart SS. A biomechanical analysis of two biceps tenodesis fixation techniques. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(7):861-866.
45. Mazzocca AD, Cote MP, Arciero CL, Romeo AA, Arciero RA. Clinical outcomes after subpectoral biceps tenodesis with an interference screw. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(10):1922-1929.
46. Baleani M, Francesconi D, Zani L, Giannini S, Snyder SJ. Suprapectoral biceps tenodesis: a biomechanical comparison of a new “soft anchor” tenodesis technique versus interference screw biceps tendon fixation. Clin Biomech. 2015;30(2):188-194.
47. Euler SA, Smith SD, Williams BT, Dornan GJ, Millett PJ, Wijdicks CA. Biomechanical analysis of subpectoral biceps tenodesis: effect of screw malpositioning on proximal humeral strength. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(1):69-74.
48. Sears BW, Spencer EE, Getz CL. Humeral fracture following subpectoral biceps tenodesis in 2 active, healthy patients. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(6):e7-e11.
49. Dein EJ, Huri G, Gordon JC, McFarland EG. A humerus fracture in a baseball pitcher after biceps tenodesis. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(4):877-879.
1. Alpantaki K, McLaughlin D, Karagogeos D, Hadjipavlou A, Kontakis G. Sympathetic and sensory neural elements in the tendon of the long head of the biceps. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(7):1580-1583.
2. Nho SJ, Strauss EJ, Lenart BA, et al. Long head of the biceps tendinopathy: diagnosis and management. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2010;18(11):645-656.
3. Provencher MT, LeClere LE, Romeo AA. Subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Sports Med Arthrosc. 2008;16(3):170-176.
4. Werner BC, Brockmeier SF, Gwathmey FW. Trends in long head biceps tenodesis. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(3):570-578.
5. Boileau P, Baque F, Valerio L, Ahrens P, Chuinard C, Trojani C. Isolated arthroscopic biceps tenotomy or tenodesis improves symptoms in patients with massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):747-757.
6. Becker DA, Cofield RH. Tenodesis of the long head of the biceps brachii for chronic bicipital tendinitis. Long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71(3):376-381.
7. Richards DP, Burkhart SS. Arthroscopic-assisted biceps tenodesis for ruptures of the long head of biceps brachii: the cobra procedure. Arthroscopy. 2004;20(suppl 2):201-207.
8. Ozalay M, Akpinar S, Karaeminogullari O, et al. Mechanical strength of four different biceps tenodesis techniques. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(8):992-998.
9. Mazzocca AD, Bicos J, Santangelo S, Romeo AA, Arciero RA. The biomechanical evaluation of four fixation techniques for proximal biceps tenodesis. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(11):1296-1306.
10. Kilicoglu O, Koyuncu O, Demirhan M, et al. Time-dependent changes in failure loads of 3 biceps tenodesis techniques: in vivo study in a sheep model. Am J Sports Med. 2005;33(10):1536-1544.
11. Golish SR, Caldwell PE 3rd, Miller MD, et al. Interference screw versus suture anchor fixation for subpectoral tenodesis of the proximal biceps tendon: a cadaveric study. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(10):1103-1108.
12. Kusma M, Dienst M, Eckert J, Steimer O, Kohn D. Tenodesis of the long head of biceps brachii: cyclic testing of five methods of fixation in a porcine model. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2008;17(6):967-973.
13. Buchholz A, Martetschlager F, Siebenlist S, et al. Biomechanical comparison of intramedullary cortical button fixation and interference screw technique for subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(5):845-853.
14. Werner BC, Lyons ML, Evans CL, et al. Arthroscopic suprapectoral and open subpectoral biceps tenodesis: a comparison of restoration of length-tension and mechanical strength between techniques. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(4):620-627.
15. Gilmer BB, DeMers AM, Guerrero D, Reid JB 3rd, Lubowitz JH, Guttmann D. Arthroscopic versus open comparison of long head of biceps tendon visualization and pathology in patients requiring tenodesis. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(1):29-34.
16. Sanders B, Lavery KP, Pennington S, Warner JJ. Clinical success of biceps tenodesis with and without release of the transverse humeral ligament. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21(1):66-71.
17. Taylor SA, Fabricant PD, Bansal M, et al. The anatomy and histology of the bicipital tunnel of the shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24(4):511-519.
18. Taylor SA, Khair MM, Gulotta LV, et al. Diagnostic glenohumeral arthroscopy fails to fully evaluate the biceps-labral complex. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(2):215-224.
19. Lutton DM, Gruson KI, Harrison AK, Gladstone JN, Flatow EL. Where to tenodese the biceps: proximal or distal? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(4):1050-1055.
20. Moon SC, Cho NS, Rhee YG. Analysis of “hidden lesions” of the extra-articular biceps after subpectoral biceps tenodesis: the subpectoral portion as the optimal tenodesis site. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(1):63-68.
21. Festa A, Allert J, Issa K, Tasto JP, Myer JJ. Visualization of the extra-articular portion of the long head of the biceps tendon during intra-articular shoulder arthroscopy. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(11):1413-1417.
22. Friedman DJ, Dunn JC, Higgins LD, Warner JJ. Proximal biceps tendon: injuries and management. Sports Med Arthrosc. 2008;16(3):162-169.
23. Verma NN, Drakos M, O’Brien SJ. Arthroscopic transfer of the long head biceps to the conjoint tendon. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(6):764.
24. O’Brien SJ, Taylor SA, DiPietro JR, Newman AM, Drakos MC, Voos JE. The arthroscopic “subdeltoid approach” to the anterior shoulder. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(4):e6-e10.
25. Drakos MC, Verma NN, Gulotta LV, et al. Arthroscopic transfer of the long head of the biceps tendon: functional outcome and clinical results. Arthroscopy. 2008;24(2):217-223.
26. Taylor SA, Fabricant PD, Baret NJ, et al. Midterm clinical outcomes for arthroscopic subdeltoid transfer of the long head of the biceps tendon to the conjoint tendon. Arthroscopy. 2014;30(12):1574-1581.
27. Marsell R, Einhorn TA. The biology of fracture healing. Injury. 2011;42(6):551-555.
28. Khan SN, Cammisa FP Jr, Sandhu HS, Diwan AD, Girardi FP, Lane JM. The biology of bone healing. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2005;13(1):77-86.
29. Hays PL, Kawamura S, Deng XH, et al. The role of macrophages in early healing of a tendon graft in a bone tunnel. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90(3):565-579.
30. Uhl RL, Roberts TT, Papaliodis DN, Mulligan MT, Dubin AH. Management of chronic musculoskeletal pain. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2014;22(2):101-110.
31. Kosek E, Altawil R, Kadetoff D, et al. Evidence of different mediators of central inflammation in dysfunctional and inflammatory pain—interleukin-8 in fibromyalgia and interleukin-1 β in rheumatoid arthritis. J Neuroimmunol. 2015;280:49-55.
32. Slenker NR, Lawson K, Ciccotti MG, Dodson CC, Cohen SB. Biceps tenotomy versus tenodesis: clinical outcomes. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(4):576-582.
33. Rodeo SA, Kawamura S, Kim HJ, Dynybil C, Ying L. Tendon healing in a bone tunnel differs at the tunnel entrance versus the tunnel exit: an effect of graft-tunnel motion? Am J Sports Med. 2006;34(11):1790-1800.
34. Hjorthaug GA, Madsen JE, Nordsletten L, Reinholt FP, Steen H, Dimmen S. Tendon to bone tunnel healing—a study on the time-dependent changes in biomechanics, bone remodeling, and histology in a rat model. J Orthop Res. 2015;33(2):216-223.
35. Pulford KA, Sipos A, Cordell JL, Stross WP, Mason DY. Distribution of the CD68 macrophage/myeloid associated antigen. Int Immunol. 1990;2(10):973-980.
36. Fujiwara N, Kobayashi K. Macrophages in inflammation. Curr Drug Targets Inflamm Allergy. 2005;4(3):281-286.
37. Qi J, Dmochowski JM, Banes AN, et al. Differential expression and cellular localization of novel isoforms of the tendon biomarker tenomodulin. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2012;113(6):861-871.
38. Jelinsky SA, Archambault J, Li L, Seeherman H. Tendon-selective genes identified from rat and human musculoskeletal tissues. J Orthop Res. 2010;28(3):289-297.
39. Docheva D, Hunziker EB, Fassler R, Brandau O. Tenomodulin is necessary for tenocyte proliferation and tendon maturation. Mol Cell Biol. 2005;25(2):699-705.
40. Rodeo SA, Arnoczky SP, Torzilli PA, Hidaka C, Warren RF. Tendon-healing in a bone tunnel. A biomechanical and histological study in the dog. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75(12):1795-1803.
41. Silva MJ, Thomopoulos S, Kusano N, et al. Early healing of flexor tendon insertion site injuries: tunnel repair is mechanically and histologically inferior to surface repair in a canine model. J Orthop Res. 2006;24(5):990-1000.
42. Hibino N, Hamada Y, Sairyo K, Yukata K, Sano T, Yasui N. Callus formation during healing of the repaired tendon–bone junction. A rat experimental model. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89(11):1539-1544.
43. Bedi A, Kawamura S, Ying L, Rodeo SA. Differences in tendon graft healing between the intra-articular and extra-articular ends of a bone tunnel. HSS J. 2009;5(1):51-57.
44. Richards DP, Burkhart SS. A biomechanical analysis of two biceps tenodesis fixation techniques. Arthroscopy. 2005;21(7):861-866.
45. Mazzocca AD, Cote MP, Arciero CL, Romeo AA, Arciero RA. Clinical outcomes after subpectoral biceps tenodesis with an interference screw. Am J Sports Med. 2008;36(10):1922-1929.
46. Baleani M, Francesconi D, Zani L, Giannini S, Snyder SJ. Suprapectoral biceps tenodesis: a biomechanical comparison of a new “soft anchor” tenodesis technique versus interference screw biceps tendon fixation. Clin Biomech. 2015;30(2):188-194.
47. Euler SA, Smith SD, Williams BT, Dornan GJ, Millett PJ, Wijdicks CA. Biomechanical analysis of subpectoral biceps tenodesis: effect of screw malpositioning on proximal humeral strength. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(1):69-74.
48. Sears BW, Spencer EE, Getz CL. Humeral fracture following subpectoral biceps tenodesis in 2 active, healthy patients. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2011;20(6):e7-e11.
49. Dein EJ, Huri G, Gordon JC, McFarland EG. A humerus fracture in a baseball pitcher after biceps tenodesis. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(4):877-879.