Orthopedics

ABSTRACT

The avulsion of the flexor digitorum profundus from its insertion, or “jersey finger,” is a relatively common injury. Numerous modifications have been made to the classification and treatment of this injury since its initial description. We describe a novel variation of the surgical management of jersey finger.

The avulsion-type injury of the flexor digitorum profundus (FDP) from its insertion on the distal phalanx is relatively common. FDP avulsions are seen in athletes and nonathletes, and are the result of the sudden hyperextension of the distal interphalangeal joint during active flexion. These injuries usually occur while grasping the jersey of an opposing player and are thus commonly referred to as “jersey finger.” Initially described in 1977 by Leddy and Packer¹, FDP avulsions are classified on the basis of the proximal extent of the retraction of the FDP and the presence or absence of a bony avulsion fracture fragment. Type I injuries are defined by tendon retraction to the level of the palm, where it is tethered by the lumbricals. At this level, the vinculum longus profundus (VLP) and vinculum brevis profundus (VBP) are ruptured, resulting in the substantial loss of intrinsic and extrinsic vascular supply to the tendon. In type II injuries, which are the most common type of FDP avulsions, the FDP tendon retracts to the level of the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint. Although the VBP is disrupted in this scenario, the VLP remains preserved because it arises at the level of the volar plate of the PIP joint.  Type III lesions involve tendon avulsions with an associated bony fragment that is typically sufficiently large to not pass through the flexor sheath, thus limiting retraction to the level of the A4 pulley. Both vincula remain intact, given that the VBP originates at the distal portion of the middle phalanx. The Leddy and Packer classification was later expanded to include type IV and V injury patterns, which are less common than other injury patterns. Similar to type III injuries, type IV injuries involve a bony avulsion; however, the FDP subsequently ruptures from this fragment and the tendon subsequently retracts into the finger or palm.^2,3 Type V injuries are more complex than other injury types because they involve a concomitant distal phalanx fracture with the FDP avulsion.⁴ Al-Qattan⁵ subclassified type V injuries into extra-articular (type Va) and intra-articular (type Vb) distal phalanx fractures on the basis of the distinct management of these 2 entities.

Numerous techniques have been proposed and described for the repair of FDP avulsion injuries. The pullout suture-dorsal button combination is the most widely described technique and was initially described by Bunnell.⁶ Unfortunately, this technique is accompanied by numerous potential postoperative complications.⁶ Nail plate deformity is the most commonly described complication. Other complications include local wound irritation, pain, button snagging, and repair failure. Additionally, the presence of external sutures creates a potential route of ingress for bacterial infection.

Continue to: Bone suture anchor techniques...

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

TYPES I, II, AND III

A Bruner incision is performed on the volar aspect of the affected finger, and full thickness flaps are elevated off the flexor sheath (Figures 1A-1C). 

TYPES IV AND V

In cases of type IV or V injury (Figure 4A), a screw or plate construct is first used to allow for the successful reduction and fixation of the fracture (Figure 4B). 

DISCUSSION

The avulsion of the FDP tendon from its insertion (zone I) on the distal phalanx is commonly called “jersey finger” and is a well-described injury that occurs most commonly in the ring finger.¹⁰ These injuries can be difficult to treat and are associated with a complication rate of as high as 60%.^11,12 Bunnell’s initial description of a suture passed through the fingernail and then tied over a polypropylene button has been associated with multiple complications. Kang and colleagues¹³ reported abnormal nail growth, nail fold necrosis, fingertip deformity, stiffness, infection, and amputation, 43% of all complications were directly related to the button. As an alternative to the button, sutures may be tied directly over the nail plate itself via 2 separate holes.¹⁴ While this technique eliminates the complications directly associated with the button, the potential for infection remains. Additionally, increased direct pressure is placed on the nail plate and nail bed, thus potentially increasing the risk of nail deformity.

In 1994, Hallock⁷ initially described the use of bone anchors as an “internal fixation” alternative and cited the “expense of the apparatus” as the major drawback of this technique. McCallister and colleagues¹⁵ compared the clinical outcome of suture anchor fixation with that of the button-over-nail technique. Although they ultimately demonstrated that the clinical outcomes of the 2 techniques are not significantly different, they noted that suture anchor fixation is associated with decreased infection rate (7% vs 0%) and time to return to work. Poor bone mineral density and low cortical thickness are correlated with anchor pull-out, thus limiting its universal use.¹⁶ Furthermore, the universal use of many commonly available anchors is limited given that they are too large to be accommodated within many phalanges, particularly in women and in the small and ring fingers.¹⁷  The use of microanchors rather than mini anchors not only decreases this risk but also decreases construct strength, thus necessitating the use of 2 anchors to restore adequate fixation strength. Anchor use is associated with specific risks, including the dorsal migration of the anchor, the osteolysis of the surrounding bone, as well as the perforation of the dorsal cortex and the possible extrusion of the anchor through the phalanx and into the nail bed.^18,19 Additionally, in the wake of a changing healthcare system, the cost of suture anchors, as initially noted by Hallock,⁷ must be considered. This consideration is particularly relevant to the use of a 2 microanchor construct, which has been advocated given its biomechanical advantage.^20,21

Continue to: Transosseous tendon repair...

All internal fixation techniques have been described previously by Sood and Elliot⁸ and, later, by Schultz and colleagues.⁹ In contrast to Sood and Elliott’s⁸ technique, which requires the creation of transverse tunnels, a volar-to-dorsal tunnel is technically easy to create and creates a direct repair to tendon insertion. Our technique is similar to that of Schultz and colleagues'⁹ but has the following differences and potential improvements:

1. Keith needles are passed in a volar-to-dorsal fashion, thus allowing for the direct visualization of the transosseous tunnel origin, minimizing the size of the transosseous tunnels, and allowing for the anatomic reduction of the tendon.
2. Fluoroscopy is used to confirm wire placement prior to skin incision, thus enabling precise placement and potentially allowing the needles to be placed so as to avoid physeal injury in pediatric jersey fingers.
3. By using Keith needles, sutures can be passed with the same instrument that created the tunnel, thus simplifying surgical technique.
4. A Krakow suture technique is used. This technique results in less gapping and higher load-to-failure than other suturing techniques.²²
5. A 2-0 braided suture is used, therefore strengthening repair.

This paper will be judged for the Resident Writer’s Award.

ABSTRACT

The avulsion of the flexor digitorum profundus from its insertion, or “jersey finger,” is a relatively common injury. Numerous modifications have been made to the classification and treatment of this injury since its initial description. We describe a novel variation of the surgical management of jersey finger.

The avulsion-type injury of the flexor digitorum profundus (FDP) from its insertion on the distal phalanx is relatively common. FDP avulsions are seen in athletes and nonathletes, and are the result of the sudden hyperextension of the distal interphalangeal joint during active flexion. These injuries usually occur while grasping the jersey of an opposing player and are thus commonly referred to as “jersey finger.” Initially described in 1977 by Leddy and Packer¹, FDP avulsions are classified on the basis of the proximal extent of the retraction of the FDP and the presence or absence of a bony avulsion fracture fragment. Type I injuries are defined by tendon retraction to the level of the palm, where it is tethered by the lumbricals. At this level, the vinculum longus profundus (VLP) and vinculum brevis profundus (VBP) are ruptured, resulting in the substantial loss of intrinsic and extrinsic vascular supply to the tendon. In type II injuries, which are the most common type of FDP avulsions, the FDP tendon retracts to the level of the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint. Although the VBP is disrupted in this scenario, the VLP remains preserved because it arises at the level of the volar plate of the PIP joint.  Type III lesions involve tendon avulsions with an associated bony fragment that is typically sufficiently large to not pass through the flexor sheath, thus limiting retraction to the level of the A4 pulley. Both vincula remain intact, given that the VBP originates at the distal portion of the middle phalanx. The Leddy and Packer classification was later expanded to include type IV and V injury patterns, which are less common than other injury patterns. Similar to type III injuries, type IV injuries involve a bony avulsion; however, the FDP subsequently ruptures from this fragment and the tendon subsequently retracts into the finger or palm.^2,3 Type V injuries are more complex than other injury types because they involve a concomitant distal phalanx fracture with the FDP avulsion.⁴ Al-Qattan⁵ subclassified type V injuries into extra-articular (type Va) and intra-articular (type Vb) distal phalanx fractures on the basis of the distinct management of these 2 entities.

Numerous techniques have been proposed and described for the repair of FDP avulsion injuries. The pullout suture-dorsal button combination is the most widely described technique and was initially described by Bunnell.⁶ Unfortunately, this technique is accompanied by numerous potential postoperative complications.⁶ Nail plate deformity is the most commonly described complication. Other complications include local wound irritation, pain, button snagging, and repair failure. Additionally, the presence of external sutures creates a potential route of ingress for bacterial infection.

Continue to: Bone suture anchor techniques...

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

TYPES I, II, AND III

A Bruner incision is performed on the volar aspect of the affected finger, and full thickness flaps are elevated off the flexor sheath (Figures 1A-1C). 

TYPES IV AND V

In cases of type IV or V injury (Figure 4A), a screw or plate construct is first used to allow for the successful reduction and fixation of the fracture (Figure 4B). 

DISCUSSION

The avulsion of the FDP tendon from its insertion (zone I) on the distal phalanx is commonly called “jersey finger” and is a well-described injury that occurs most commonly in the ring finger.¹⁰ These injuries can be difficult to treat and are associated with a complication rate of as high as 60%.^11,12 Bunnell’s initial description of a suture passed through the fingernail and then tied over a polypropylene button has been associated with multiple complications. Kang and colleagues¹³ reported abnormal nail growth, nail fold necrosis, fingertip deformity, stiffness, infection, and amputation, 43% of all complications were directly related to the button. As an alternative to the button, sutures may be tied directly over the nail plate itself via 2 separate holes.¹⁴ While this technique eliminates the complications directly associated with the button, the potential for infection remains. Additionally, increased direct pressure is placed on the nail plate and nail bed, thus potentially increasing the risk of nail deformity.

In 1994, Hallock⁷ initially described the use of bone anchors as an “internal fixation” alternative and cited the “expense of the apparatus” as the major drawback of this technique. McCallister and colleagues¹⁵ compared the clinical outcome of suture anchor fixation with that of the button-over-nail technique. Although they ultimately demonstrated that the clinical outcomes of the 2 techniques are not significantly different, they noted that suture anchor fixation is associated with decreased infection rate (7% vs 0%) and time to return to work. Poor bone mineral density and low cortical thickness are correlated with anchor pull-out, thus limiting its universal use.¹⁶ Furthermore, the universal use of many commonly available anchors is limited given that they are too large to be accommodated within many phalanges, particularly in women and in the small and ring fingers.¹⁷  The use of microanchors rather than mini anchors not only decreases this risk but also decreases construct strength, thus necessitating the use of 2 anchors to restore adequate fixation strength. Anchor use is associated with specific risks, including the dorsal migration of the anchor, the osteolysis of the surrounding bone, as well as the perforation of the dorsal cortex and the possible extrusion of the anchor through the phalanx and into the nail bed.^18,19 Additionally, in the wake of a changing healthcare system, the cost of suture anchors, as initially noted by Hallock,⁷ must be considered. This consideration is particularly relevant to the use of a 2 microanchor construct, which has been advocated given its biomechanical advantage.^20,21

Continue to: Transosseous tendon repair...

All internal fixation techniques have been described previously by Sood and Elliot⁸ and, later, by Schultz and colleagues.⁹ In contrast to Sood and Elliott’s⁸ technique, which requires the creation of transverse tunnels, a volar-to-dorsal tunnel is technically easy to create and creates a direct repair to tendon insertion. Our technique is similar to that of Schultz and colleagues'⁹ but has the following differences and potential improvements:

1. Keith needles are passed in a volar-to-dorsal fashion, thus allowing for the direct visualization of the transosseous tunnel origin, minimizing the size of the transosseous tunnels, and allowing for the anatomic reduction of the tendon.
2. Fluoroscopy is used to confirm wire placement prior to skin incision, thus enabling precise placement and potentially allowing the needles to be placed so as to avoid physeal injury in pediatric jersey fingers.
3. By using Keith needles, sutures can be passed with the same instrument that created the tunnel, thus simplifying surgical technique.
4. A Krakow suture technique is used. This technique results in less gapping and higher load-to-failure than other suturing techniques.²²
5. A 2-0 braided suture is used, therefore strengthening repair.

This paper will be judged for the Resident Writer’s Award.

ABSTRACT

The avulsion of the flexor digitorum profundus from its insertion, or “jersey finger,” is a relatively common injury. Numerous modifications have been made to the classification and treatment of this injury since its initial description. We describe a novel variation of the surgical management of jersey finger.

The avulsion-type injury of the flexor digitorum profundus (FDP) from its insertion on the distal phalanx is relatively common. FDP avulsions are seen in athletes and nonathletes, and are the result of the sudden hyperextension of the distal interphalangeal joint during active flexion. These injuries usually occur while grasping the jersey of an opposing player and are thus commonly referred to as “jersey finger.” Initially described in 1977 by Leddy and Packer¹, FDP avulsions are classified on the basis of the proximal extent of the retraction of the FDP and the presence or absence of a bony avulsion fracture fragment. Type I injuries are defined by tendon retraction to the level of the palm, where it is tethered by the lumbricals. At this level, the vinculum longus profundus (VLP) and vinculum brevis profundus (VBP) are ruptured, resulting in the substantial loss of intrinsic and extrinsic vascular supply to the tendon. In type II injuries, which are the most common type of FDP avulsions, the FDP tendon retracts to the level of the proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint. Although the VBP is disrupted in this scenario, the VLP remains preserved because it arises at the level of the volar plate of the PIP joint.  Type III lesions involve tendon avulsions with an associated bony fragment that is typically sufficiently large to not pass through the flexor sheath, thus limiting retraction to the level of the A4 pulley. Both vincula remain intact, given that the VBP originates at the distal portion of the middle phalanx. The Leddy and Packer classification was later expanded to include type IV and V injury patterns, which are less common than other injury patterns. Similar to type III injuries, type IV injuries involve a bony avulsion; however, the FDP subsequently ruptures from this fragment and the tendon subsequently retracts into the finger or palm.^2,3 Type V injuries are more complex than other injury types because they involve a concomitant distal phalanx fracture with the FDP avulsion.⁴ Al-Qattan⁵ subclassified type V injuries into extra-articular (type Va) and intra-articular (type Vb) distal phalanx fractures on the basis of the distinct management of these 2 entities.

Numerous techniques have been proposed and described for the repair of FDP avulsion injuries. The pullout suture-dorsal button combination is the most widely described technique and was initially described by Bunnell.⁶ Unfortunately, this technique is accompanied by numerous potential postoperative complications.⁶ Nail plate deformity is the most commonly described complication. Other complications include local wound irritation, pain, button snagging, and repair failure. Additionally, the presence of external sutures creates a potential route of ingress for bacterial infection.

Continue to: Bone suture anchor techniques...

SURGICAL TECHNIQUE

TYPES I, II, AND III

A Bruner incision is performed on the volar aspect of the affected finger, and full thickness flaps are elevated off the flexor sheath (Figures 1A-1C). 

TYPES IV AND V

In cases of type IV or V injury (Figure 4A), a screw or plate construct is first used to allow for the successful reduction and fixation of the fracture (Figure 4B). 

DISCUSSION

The avulsion of the FDP tendon from its insertion (zone I) on the distal phalanx is commonly called “jersey finger” and is a well-described injury that occurs most commonly in the ring finger.¹⁰ These injuries can be difficult to treat and are associated with a complication rate of as high as 60%.^11,12 Bunnell’s initial description of a suture passed through the fingernail and then tied over a polypropylene button has been associated with multiple complications. Kang and colleagues¹³ reported abnormal nail growth, nail fold necrosis, fingertip deformity, stiffness, infection, and amputation, 43% of all complications were directly related to the button. As an alternative to the button, sutures may be tied directly over the nail plate itself via 2 separate holes.¹⁴ While this technique eliminates the complications directly associated with the button, the potential for infection remains. Additionally, increased direct pressure is placed on the nail plate and nail bed, thus potentially increasing the risk of nail deformity.

In 1994, Hallock⁷ initially described the use of bone anchors as an “internal fixation” alternative and cited the “expense of the apparatus” as the major drawback of this technique. McCallister and colleagues¹⁵ compared the clinical outcome of suture anchor fixation with that of the button-over-nail technique. Although they ultimately demonstrated that the clinical outcomes of the 2 techniques are not significantly different, they noted that suture anchor fixation is associated with decreased infection rate (7% vs 0%) and time to return to work. Poor bone mineral density and low cortical thickness are correlated with anchor pull-out, thus limiting its universal use.¹⁶ Furthermore, the universal use of many commonly available anchors is limited given that they are too large to be accommodated within many phalanges, particularly in women and in the small and ring fingers.¹⁷  The use of microanchors rather than mini anchors not only decreases this risk but also decreases construct strength, thus necessitating the use of 2 anchors to restore adequate fixation strength. Anchor use is associated with specific risks, including the dorsal migration of the anchor, the osteolysis of the surrounding bone, as well as the perforation of the dorsal cortex and the possible extrusion of the anchor through the phalanx and into the nail bed.^18,19 Additionally, in the wake of a changing healthcare system, the cost of suture anchors, as initially noted by Hallock,⁷ must be considered. This consideration is particularly relevant to the use of a 2 microanchor construct, which has been advocated given its biomechanical advantage.^20,21

Continue to: Transosseous tendon repair...

All internal fixation techniques have been described previously by Sood and Elliot⁸ and, later, by Schultz and colleagues.⁹ In contrast to Sood and Elliott’s⁸ technique, which requires the creation of transverse tunnels, a volar-to-dorsal tunnel is technically easy to create and creates a direct repair to tendon insertion. Our technique is similar to that of Schultz and colleagues'⁹ but has the following differences and potential improvements:

1. Keith needles are passed in a volar-to-dorsal fashion, thus allowing for the direct visualization of the transosseous tunnel origin, minimizing the size of the transosseous tunnels, and allowing for the anatomic reduction of the tendon.
2. Fluoroscopy is used to confirm wire placement prior to skin incision, thus enabling precise placement and potentially allowing the needles to be placed so as to avoid physeal injury in pediatric jersey fingers.
3. By using Keith needles, sutures can be passed with the same instrument that created the tunnel, thus simplifying surgical technique.
4. A Krakow suture technique is used. This technique results in less gapping and higher load-to-failure than other suturing techniques.²²
5. A 2-0 braided suture is used, therefore strengthening repair.

This paper will be judged for the Resident Writer’s Award.

ABSTRACT

This case report is a rare form of lymphoma recurrence which presented as tarsal tunnel syndrome. The patient had been previously treated for the malignancy and was presumed to be in remission; however, standard radiology imaging protocols failed to include the distal extremities on these scans. The patient presented to the orthopedic clinic with tarsal tunnel symptoms and a mass in the tarsal tunnel. A complete evaluation resulted in a diagnosis of recurrence of the malignancy. This case illustrates the importance of a thorough medical history and personal review of imaging studies, and how a systematic approach can produce the correct diagnosis for any unknown lesion. Furthermore, this case may prompt oncologists to consider obtaining whole-body fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography computed tomography when evaluating for recurrence in patients.

Nasal-type, extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma (ENKTL) is a rare form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Malignancies account for only 10% of NHL in Asian and South American populations. However, in Caucasians, it represents <1% of all cases. In addition, at 3:1 male to female ratio, the disease most commonly affects male patients who are 50 to 59 years old.^1-3 The etiology of this malignancy is strongly related to prior infection with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) as EBV-encoded early small ribonucleic acid on in situ hybridization of lymphoma cells is positive in 95% of cases.^4-6

Typical sites of involvement include the nasal cavity, nasopharynx, and sinuses, causing patients to present with nasal obstruction, chronic sinusitis, or epistaxis. Additionally, ENKTL can occur primarily in the skin, gastrointestinal tract, spleen, and testis, whereas the bone marrow may be involved in 10% of cases. Although rare, unusual sites, including muscle, adrenals, and ovaries, have been published.^7,8

Staging is best performed using the T-staging system, which accounts for the extent of local tumor involvement. Higher stages, such as T3 /T4, equate to locally advanced disease and imply a worse prognosis.^9,10 Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) help define local soft tissues and bony involvement. Furthermore, CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis as well as bone marrow biopsy are performed as part of the staging process. Lastly, fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography CT (18-FDG PET-CT) is often used to detect extranodal spread, define the extent of involvement, differentiate between lymphoma and inflammatory masses, and monitor for recurrence.¹¹

Treatment for local ENKTL involves concurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by 3 cycles of etoposide, ifosfamide, cisplatin, and dexamethasone, which results in a complete response rate of 80%, and is the most favorable when comparing treatment modalities.¹² Unfortunately, recurrence rates reach as high as 50%, whereas the 5-year survival rate is 59%.^13,14 For recurrent or disseminated disease, high-dose chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation remain as alternative treatments for patients who have undergone 2 complete remissions and can be curative in some instances.^13,15

Continue to: In summary, ENKTL is a rare form...

CASE

A 59-year-old Caucasian woman was referred to the orthopedic foot and ankle clinic by her primary care physician for right medial ankle pain, skin ulceration, and numbness over the plantar aspect of her right foot. Upon questioning, the patient noted that the pain and numbness were present for almost 6 months. She denied trauma to the concerned area. Previously, the patient was observed and treated elsewhere for plantar fasciitis and was prescribed a brace before being immobilized in a controlled ankle motion (CAM) boot for 6 weeks. At follow-up with her outside provider, the patient had developed skin breakdown over the medial aspect of the right ankle, and this condition was presumed to be caused by the boot. After local wound care failed to improve her skin ulceration, she returned to her primary care physician, who ordered an MRI of the area and referred her to our specialty clinic.

Upon review, the patient’s past medical history included a diagnosis of nasal-type ENKTL. Her malignancy was treated with chemoradiotherapy 2 years prior to her consultation with the foot and ankle clinic.

The patient was noted by her medical oncologist and interventional radiologist to be in complete stage 4 remission since being treated. She underwent routine MRI and CT scans of the head and neck at 6-month intervals and FDG PET-CT scans at 3-month intervals, as per institutional protocol. The examinations showed no evidence of malignancy or metabolically active disease. The last imaging study occurred 2 months prior to admission to the foot and ankle clinic.

The patient consulted her medical oncologist 1 month prior to presenting to our clinic and was noted to exhibit an “excellent response to chemoradiotherapy” and “continues to remain disease free at 2 years.” She was instructed to continue routine follow-up. However, the office notes mentioned no ankle pain and non-healing wounds.

During physical examination, the patient presented an antalgic gait on the right side. Inspection demonstrated an increased circumference of the right ankle compared with the left, with a soft, palpable mass over the medial aspect of her right ankle. A 3 cm × 2 cm, grade 2 abrasion of the skin was observed over the medial mass just posterior to her medial malleolus. Range of motion was within normal limits. The patient exhibited a palpable posterior tibial artery pulse and full strength upon muscle testing of the lower extremities. She featured a positive Tinel’s sign and discomfort over the mass itself, with the pain radiating down to the plantar aspect of her foot and diffuse numbness over the plantar aspect of the foot.

Continue to: Review of her plain radiographs...

At presentation, our differential diagnosis included recurrence of the malignancy, secondary malignancy, infection, and inflammatory disease. After a lengthy discussion with the patient and consultation with our institution’s musculoskeletal oncologist, the decision was made to perform a right-ankle mass biopsy and marginal excision with wound irrigation and débridement and tarsal tunnel release.

The patient was placed in the supine position with standard prepping and draping. The medial eschar was excised in an elliptical fashion, and a curvilinear, longitudinal approach was performed within the compartment to access the mass along the posteromedial aspect of the ankle. Although no evidence of infection was observed, the tissue was thickened with areas of necrosis down to the flexor retinaculum. Once the flexor retinaculum was opened, a fibrous, plaque-like mass was observed, and it was encased with flexor tendons and neurovascular structures of the tarsal tunnel. After mass excision, a complete tarsal tunnel release was performed until the neurovascular bundle was free. Irrigation and débridement of the ulcer were performed along with complicated wound closure, and the patient was placed in a well-padded postoperative splint.

Pathology was finalized as a recurrent, EBV-positive, and nasal-type ENKTL. The patient underwent bone marrow biopsy, which yielded negative results. CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis were negative for the disease. FDG PET-CT, which included the extremities, was performed and demonstrated increased uptake in the right ankle, consistent with the malignancy (Figure 4). 

DISCUSSION

ENKTL is an uncommon form of lymphoma and is exceedingly rare in Caucasian females.^1-3 Although the patient’s primary occurrence was in the nasal cavity, recurrence in the foot and ankle must still be described.^7,8 To our knowledge, this article is one of the first published cases of a patient who developed a rare-recurrence ENKTL about the foot and ankle. Occurrence in extremities is extremely rare that the staging protocol does not include FDG PET-CT of these areas. The patient’s “negative” scans led many providers to neglect the symptoms in her right ankle until the lesion had ulcerated through the skin. If one would have relied on imaging reports and outside records alone, the diagnosis would have been delayed longer or missed all together. This case illustrates the importance of a thorough medical history and personal review of imaging studies, and how a systematic approach can produce the correct diagnosis for any unknown lesion. Furthermore, this case may prompt oncologists to consider obtaining whole-body FDG PET-CT when evaluating for recurrence in patients.

ABSTRACT

This case report is a rare form of lymphoma recurrence which presented as tarsal tunnel syndrome. The patient had been previously treated for the malignancy and was presumed to be in remission; however, standard radiology imaging protocols failed to include the distal extremities on these scans. The patient presented to the orthopedic clinic with tarsal tunnel symptoms and a mass in the tarsal tunnel. A complete evaluation resulted in a diagnosis of recurrence of the malignancy. This case illustrates the importance of a thorough medical history and personal review of imaging studies, and how a systematic approach can produce the correct diagnosis for any unknown lesion. Furthermore, this case may prompt oncologists to consider obtaining whole-body fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography computed tomography when evaluating for recurrence in patients.

Nasal-type, extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma (ENKTL) is a rare form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Malignancies account for only 10% of NHL in Asian and South American populations. However, in Caucasians, it represents <1% of all cases. In addition, at 3:1 male to female ratio, the disease most commonly affects male patients who are 50 to 59 years old.^1-3 The etiology of this malignancy is strongly related to prior infection with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) as EBV-encoded early small ribonucleic acid on in situ hybridization of lymphoma cells is positive in 95% of cases.^4-6

Typical sites of involvement include the nasal cavity, nasopharynx, and sinuses, causing patients to present with nasal obstruction, chronic sinusitis, or epistaxis. Additionally, ENKTL can occur primarily in the skin, gastrointestinal tract, spleen, and testis, whereas the bone marrow may be involved in 10% of cases. Although rare, unusual sites, including muscle, adrenals, and ovaries, have been published.^7,8

Staging is best performed using the T-staging system, which accounts for the extent of local tumor involvement. Higher stages, such as T3 /T4, equate to locally advanced disease and imply a worse prognosis.^9,10 Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) help define local soft tissues and bony involvement. Furthermore, CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis as well as bone marrow biopsy are performed as part of the staging process. Lastly, fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography CT (18-FDG PET-CT) is often used to detect extranodal spread, define the extent of involvement, differentiate between lymphoma and inflammatory masses, and monitor for recurrence.¹¹

Treatment for local ENKTL involves concurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by 3 cycles of etoposide, ifosfamide, cisplatin, and dexamethasone, which results in a complete response rate of 80%, and is the most favorable when comparing treatment modalities.¹² Unfortunately, recurrence rates reach as high as 50%, whereas the 5-year survival rate is 59%.^13,14 For recurrent or disseminated disease, high-dose chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation remain as alternative treatments for patients who have undergone 2 complete remissions and can be curative in some instances.^13,15

Continue to: In summary, ENKTL is a rare form...

CASE

A 59-year-old Caucasian woman was referred to the orthopedic foot and ankle clinic by her primary care physician for right medial ankle pain, skin ulceration, and numbness over the plantar aspect of her right foot. Upon questioning, the patient noted that the pain and numbness were present for almost 6 months. She denied trauma to the concerned area. Previously, the patient was observed and treated elsewhere for plantar fasciitis and was prescribed a brace before being immobilized in a controlled ankle motion (CAM) boot for 6 weeks. At follow-up with her outside provider, the patient had developed skin breakdown over the medial aspect of the right ankle, and this condition was presumed to be caused by the boot. After local wound care failed to improve her skin ulceration, she returned to her primary care physician, who ordered an MRI of the area and referred her to our specialty clinic.

Upon review, the patient’s past medical history included a diagnosis of nasal-type ENKTL. Her malignancy was treated with chemoradiotherapy 2 years prior to her consultation with the foot and ankle clinic.

The patient was noted by her medical oncologist and interventional radiologist to be in complete stage 4 remission since being treated. She underwent routine MRI and CT scans of the head and neck at 6-month intervals and FDG PET-CT scans at 3-month intervals, as per institutional protocol. The examinations showed no evidence of malignancy or metabolically active disease. The last imaging study occurred 2 months prior to admission to the foot and ankle clinic.

The patient consulted her medical oncologist 1 month prior to presenting to our clinic and was noted to exhibit an “excellent response to chemoradiotherapy” and “continues to remain disease free at 2 years.” She was instructed to continue routine follow-up. However, the office notes mentioned no ankle pain and non-healing wounds.

During physical examination, the patient presented an antalgic gait on the right side. Inspection demonstrated an increased circumference of the right ankle compared with the left, with a soft, palpable mass over the medial aspect of her right ankle. A 3 cm × 2 cm, grade 2 abrasion of the skin was observed over the medial mass just posterior to her medial malleolus. Range of motion was within normal limits. The patient exhibited a palpable posterior tibial artery pulse and full strength upon muscle testing of the lower extremities. She featured a positive Tinel’s sign and discomfort over the mass itself, with the pain radiating down to the plantar aspect of her foot and diffuse numbness over the plantar aspect of the foot.

Continue to: Review of her plain radiographs...

At presentation, our differential diagnosis included recurrence of the malignancy, secondary malignancy, infection, and inflammatory disease. After a lengthy discussion with the patient and consultation with our institution’s musculoskeletal oncologist, the decision was made to perform a right-ankle mass biopsy and marginal excision with wound irrigation and débridement and tarsal tunnel release.

The patient was placed in the supine position with standard prepping and draping. The medial eschar was excised in an elliptical fashion, and a curvilinear, longitudinal approach was performed within the compartment to access the mass along the posteromedial aspect of the ankle. Although no evidence of infection was observed, the tissue was thickened with areas of necrosis down to the flexor retinaculum. Once the flexor retinaculum was opened, a fibrous, plaque-like mass was observed, and it was encased with flexor tendons and neurovascular structures of the tarsal tunnel. After mass excision, a complete tarsal tunnel release was performed until the neurovascular bundle was free. Irrigation and débridement of the ulcer were performed along with complicated wound closure, and the patient was placed in a well-padded postoperative splint.

Pathology was finalized as a recurrent, EBV-positive, and nasal-type ENKTL. The patient underwent bone marrow biopsy, which yielded negative results. CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis were negative for the disease. FDG PET-CT, which included the extremities, was performed and demonstrated increased uptake in the right ankle, consistent with the malignancy (Figure 4). 

DISCUSSION

ENKTL is an uncommon form of lymphoma and is exceedingly rare in Caucasian females.^1-3 Although the patient’s primary occurrence was in the nasal cavity, recurrence in the foot and ankle must still be described.^7,8 To our knowledge, this article is one of the first published cases of a patient who developed a rare-recurrence ENKTL about the foot and ankle. Occurrence in extremities is extremely rare that the staging protocol does not include FDG PET-CT of these areas. The patient’s “negative” scans led many providers to neglect the symptoms in her right ankle until the lesion had ulcerated through the skin. If one would have relied on imaging reports and outside records alone, the diagnosis would have been delayed longer or missed all together. This case illustrates the importance of a thorough medical history and personal review of imaging studies, and how a systematic approach can produce the correct diagnosis for any unknown lesion. Furthermore, this case may prompt oncologists to consider obtaining whole-body FDG PET-CT when evaluating for recurrence in patients.

ABSTRACT

This case report is a rare form of lymphoma recurrence which presented as tarsal tunnel syndrome. The patient had been previously treated for the malignancy and was presumed to be in remission; however, standard radiology imaging protocols failed to include the distal extremities on these scans. The patient presented to the orthopedic clinic with tarsal tunnel symptoms and a mass in the tarsal tunnel. A complete evaluation resulted in a diagnosis of recurrence of the malignancy. This case illustrates the importance of a thorough medical history and personal review of imaging studies, and how a systematic approach can produce the correct diagnosis for any unknown lesion. Furthermore, this case may prompt oncologists to consider obtaining whole-body fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography computed tomography when evaluating for recurrence in patients.

Nasal-type, extranodal natural killer/T-cell lymphoma (ENKTL) is a rare form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). Malignancies account for only 10% of NHL in Asian and South American populations. However, in Caucasians, it represents <1% of all cases. In addition, at 3:1 male to female ratio, the disease most commonly affects male patients who are 50 to 59 years old.^1-3 The etiology of this malignancy is strongly related to prior infection with Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) as EBV-encoded early small ribonucleic acid on in situ hybridization of lymphoma cells is positive in 95% of cases.^4-6

Typical sites of involvement include the nasal cavity, nasopharynx, and sinuses, causing patients to present with nasal obstruction, chronic sinusitis, or epistaxis. Additionally, ENKTL can occur primarily in the skin, gastrointestinal tract, spleen, and testis, whereas the bone marrow may be involved in 10% of cases. Although rare, unusual sites, including muscle, adrenals, and ovaries, have been published.^7,8

Staging is best performed using the T-staging system, which accounts for the extent of local tumor involvement. Higher stages, such as T3 /T4, equate to locally advanced disease and imply a worse prognosis.^9,10 Computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) help define local soft tissues and bony involvement. Furthermore, CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis as well as bone marrow biopsy are performed as part of the staging process. Lastly, fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography CT (18-FDG PET-CT) is often used to detect extranodal spread, define the extent of involvement, differentiate between lymphoma and inflammatory masses, and monitor for recurrence.¹¹

Treatment for local ENKTL involves concurrent chemoradiotherapy followed by 3 cycles of etoposide, ifosfamide, cisplatin, and dexamethasone, which results in a complete response rate of 80%, and is the most favorable when comparing treatment modalities.¹² Unfortunately, recurrence rates reach as high as 50%, whereas the 5-year survival rate is 59%.^13,14 For recurrent or disseminated disease, high-dose chemotherapy and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation remain as alternative treatments for patients who have undergone 2 complete remissions and can be curative in some instances.^13,15

Continue to: In summary, ENKTL is a rare form...

CASE

A 59-year-old Caucasian woman was referred to the orthopedic foot and ankle clinic by her primary care physician for right medial ankle pain, skin ulceration, and numbness over the plantar aspect of her right foot. Upon questioning, the patient noted that the pain and numbness were present for almost 6 months. She denied trauma to the concerned area. Previously, the patient was observed and treated elsewhere for plantar fasciitis and was prescribed a brace before being immobilized in a controlled ankle motion (CAM) boot for 6 weeks. At follow-up with her outside provider, the patient had developed skin breakdown over the medial aspect of the right ankle, and this condition was presumed to be caused by the boot. After local wound care failed to improve her skin ulceration, she returned to her primary care physician, who ordered an MRI of the area and referred her to our specialty clinic.

Upon review, the patient’s past medical history included a diagnosis of nasal-type ENKTL. Her malignancy was treated with chemoradiotherapy 2 years prior to her consultation with the foot and ankle clinic.

The patient was noted by her medical oncologist and interventional radiologist to be in complete stage 4 remission since being treated. She underwent routine MRI and CT scans of the head and neck at 6-month intervals and FDG PET-CT scans at 3-month intervals, as per institutional protocol. The examinations showed no evidence of malignancy or metabolically active disease. The last imaging study occurred 2 months prior to admission to the foot and ankle clinic.

The patient consulted her medical oncologist 1 month prior to presenting to our clinic and was noted to exhibit an “excellent response to chemoradiotherapy” and “continues to remain disease free at 2 years.” She was instructed to continue routine follow-up. However, the office notes mentioned no ankle pain and non-healing wounds.

During physical examination, the patient presented an antalgic gait on the right side. Inspection demonstrated an increased circumference of the right ankle compared with the left, with a soft, palpable mass over the medial aspect of her right ankle. A 3 cm × 2 cm, grade 2 abrasion of the skin was observed over the medial mass just posterior to her medial malleolus. Range of motion was within normal limits. The patient exhibited a palpable posterior tibial artery pulse and full strength upon muscle testing of the lower extremities. She featured a positive Tinel’s sign and discomfort over the mass itself, with the pain radiating down to the plantar aspect of her foot and diffuse numbness over the plantar aspect of the foot.

Continue to: Review of her plain radiographs...

At presentation, our differential diagnosis included recurrence of the malignancy, secondary malignancy, infection, and inflammatory disease. After a lengthy discussion with the patient and consultation with our institution’s musculoskeletal oncologist, the decision was made to perform a right-ankle mass biopsy and marginal excision with wound irrigation and débridement and tarsal tunnel release.

The patient was placed in the supine position with standard prepping and draping. The medial eschar was excised in an elliptical fashion, and a curvilinear, longitudinal approach was performed within the compartment to access the mass along the posteromedial aspect of the ankle. Although no evidence of infection was observed, the tissue was thickened with areas of necrosis down to the flexor retinaculum. Once the flexor retinaculum was opened, a fibrous, plaque-like mass was observed, and it was encased with flexor tendons and neurovascular structures of the tarsal tunnel. After mass excision, a complete tarsal tunnel release was performed until the neurovascular bundle was free. Irrigation and débridement of the ulcer were performed along with complicated wound closure, and the patient was placed in a well-padded postoperative splint.

Pathology was finalized as a recurrent, EBV-positive, and nasal-type ENKTL. The patient underwent bone marrow biopsy, which yielded negative results. CT of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis were negative for the disease. FDG PET-CT, which included the extremities, was performed and demonstrated increased uptake in the right ankle, consistent with the malignancy (Figure 4). 

DISCUSSION

ENKTL is an uncommon form of lymphoma and is exceedingly rare in Caucasian females.^1-3 Although the patient’s primary occurrence was in the nasal cavity, recurrence in the foot and ankle must still be described.^7,8 To our knowledge, this article is one of the first published cases of a patient who developed a rare-recurrence ENKTL about the foot and ankle. Occurrence in extremities is extremely rare that the staging protocol does not include FDG PET-CT of these areas. The patient’s “negative” scans led many providers to neglect the symptoms in her right ankle until the lesion had ulcerated through the skin. If one would have relied on imaging reports and outside records alone, the diagnosis would have been delayed longer or missed all together. This case illustrates the importance of a thorough medical history and personal review of imaging studies, and how a systematic approach can produce the correct diagnosis for any unknown lesion. Furthermore, this case may prompt oncologists to consider obtaining whole-body FDG PET-CT when evaluating for recurrence in patients.

ABSTRACT

The lateral tibial eminence shares a close relationship with the anterior root of the lateral meniscus. Limited studies have reported traumatic injury to the anterior meniscal roots in the setting of tibial eminence fractures, and reported rates of occurrence of concomitant meniscal and chondral injuries vary widely. The purpose of this article is to describe the case of a 28-year-old woman who had a complete avulsion of the anterolateral meniscal root caused by a tibial eminence fracture with resultant malunion and root displacement. The anterolateral meniscal root was anatomically repaired following arthroscopic resection of the malunited fragment.

The lateral tibial eminence is intimately associated with the root attachment of the anterior horn of the lateral meniscus.^1-3 Previous studies have demonstrated both the close proximity of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) insertion to the meniscal roots and the potential for disruption in surgical interventions, such as tibial tunnel drilling in ACL reconstruction or placement of intramedullary tibial nails.^4-6 The meniscal roots play a crucial role in force distribution, and disruption of these structures has been shown to significantly increase joint contact forces. Despite the deleterious effects of this injury, limited studies have reported on traumatic injury to the meniscal roots in the setting of tibial eminence fractures.

Reported rates of occurrence of concomitant meniscal and chondral injuries occurring with tibial eminence fractures vary widely, ranging from <5% to 40%.^7,8 Although fractures to the tibial eminence are more common in children, an association between these injuries and concomitant soft tissue injuries, including meniscal, chondral, and collateral ligament injuries, in the adult population has been reported.⁷ Monto and Cameron-Donaldson⁸ used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to evaluate tibial eminence fractures in adults and found that 23% of study subjects had associated medial meniscus tears and 18% had lateral meniscus tears. In a similar study, Ishibashi and colleagues⁹ found that 25% of tibial eminence fractures were associated with lateral meniscus tears and 16% with medial meniscus tears.

These studies demonstrate the potential for meniscus injuries during tibial eminence fractures. However, the authors are unaware of any reports of complete tearing of the anterior horn of the lateral meniscus in association with this injury. This is an important injury to recognize and identify intraoperatively because an injury of this nature could potentially compromise the mechanical loading patterns and health of the articular cartilage of the lateral compartment of the knee. The purpose of this article is to describe a complete avulsion of the anterolateral meniscal root due to a tibial eminence fracture with resultant malunion and displacement of the root in a nonanatomical position. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Continue to: A 28-year-old active woman...

CASE

A 28-year-old active woman presented to our clinic 22 months after sustaining a right knee tibial eminence fracture that was initially treated with extension immobilization, which resulted in a fibrous malunion. She subsequently sustained a second injury resulting in displacement of the malunion fracture fragment, and was treated at another institution 10 months prior to presentation at our clinic with arthroscopic reduction and internal fixation with a cannulated screw and washer of the tibial eminence fracture. This was followed by hardware removal 6 months prior to her office visit at our clinic. At presentation, she reported worsening right knee pain, mechanical symptoms, and loss of both flexion and extension compared with her uninjured knee. Conservative management, including activity modification, extensive physical therapy, and anti-inflammatory medication following her most recent procedure, had not resulted in improvement of her symptoms.

Physical examination revealed significantly reduced knee flexion and extension (+15°-120° on the affected side compared with 5° of hyperextension to 130° flexion of the contralateral knee). Ligamentous examination demonstrated no laxity with varus or valgus stress at 0° to 30° of flexion, negative posterior drawer, and a Grade 2 Lachman and positive pivot shift. She also exhibited pain with attempted right knee terminal extension. Radiographs and computed tomography scans were obtained and reviewed. They revealed a malunited tibial eminence fracture (Figures 1A-1D).  

Arthroscopic assessment of the right knee demonstrated the large osseous fragment located in the anterolateral aspect of the joint with the displaced anterior horn of the lateral meniscus attached as well as significant anterior impingement limiting knee extension. Probing of the anterolateral meniscal root in the lateral compartment showed abundant surrounding scar tissue with an abnormal attachment, representing a chronic root avulsion. A mechanical shaver was used to débride the scar tissue and expose the malunited fragment, followed by complete osseous fragment excision with a high-speed burr (Figure 3). 

A soft tissue anterolateral meniscal root repair was performed by creating a 2-cm to 3-cm incision on the anterolateral tibia, just distal to the medial aspect of the Gerdy tubercle. To best restore the footprint of the repair and increase the potential for biologic healing, 2 transtibial tunnels were created at the location of the root attachment. An ACL aiming device with a cannulated sleeve was used to drill 2 bony tunnels approximately 5 mm apart, exiting at the anatomic root footprint. The drill pins were removed, leaving the 2 cannulas in place for later suture passage. A suture-passing device was used to pass 2 separate sutures through the detached meniscal root. 

Continue to: Postoperatively, the patient was placed...

Postoperatively, the patient was placed on a non-weight-bearing protocol for her operative lower extremity for 6 weeks. A brace locked in extension was used for the same period of time (being removed only for physical therapy exercises). Enoxaparin was used for the first 2 weeks for deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis, followed by aspirin for an additional 4 weeks. Physical therapy was started on postoperative day 1 to begin working on early passive ROM exercises. Knee flexion was limited to 0° to 90° of flexion for the first 2 weeks and then progressed as tolerated.

DISCUSSION

This article describes a rare case of a patient with lateral meniscal anterior root avulsion in the setting of a tibial eminence fracture with subsequent malunion and root displacement. In a case such as this, delineation of the true extent of the injury is difficult because the anterior meniscal root can be torn, displaced, and nonanatomically scarred to surrounding soft tissues, making MRI interpretation challenging. Clinically, patients can present with a wide range of symptoms, including pain, mechanical symptoms, instability, and loss of knee motion.¹⁰

The anterior root of the lateral meniscus has been reported to be attached anterior to the lateral tibial eminence and adjacent to the insertion of the ACL. Fibrous connections extending from the anterior horn of the lateral meniscus attachment to the lateral tibial eminence are constant.¹¹ Furumatsu and colleagues¹² demonstrated the existence of dense fibers linking the anterior root of the lateral meniscus with the lateral aspect of the ACL tibial insertion. Acknowledging the close relationship of these structures is key to comprehending the importance of evaluating the anterior horn of the lateral meniscus in cases of tibial eminence fractures at the initial time of injury. Failure to diagnose this pathology can lead to poor clinical outcomes and early degenerative changes of the knee.

Tibial intercondylar eminence avulsion fractures are most likely to occur in children and adolescents, and are equivalent to an ACL tear in adults.¹³ When tibial eminence fractures occur in an older cohort, they are often combined with lesions of the menisci, capsule, or collateral ligaments.¹⁴ The initial injury in our patient demonstrated concomitant anterior root injury that progressed with time to nonanatomical healing of the root, leading to altered biomechanics. Surgical techniques available for meniscal root repair are broadly divided into transosseous suture repairs and suture anchor repairs.¹⁰ The transtibial pullout technique using 2 transtibial bone tunnels as described in this report is the senior author’s (RFL) preference because it provides a strong construct with minimal displacement of the repaired meniscus.^15-17

This article describes a complete avulsion of the anterolateral meniscal root caused by a tibial eminence fracture with resultant malunion and displacement of the root in a nonanatomic position. Anterior meniscal root tears have been reported to result in altered biomechanics and force transmission across the knee, and therefore, anatomic repair of the anterior root is indicated.

ABSTRACT

The lateral tibial eminence shares a close relationship with the anterior root of the lateral meniscus. Limited studies have reported traumatic injury to the anterior meniscal roots in the setting of tibial eminence fractures, and reported rates of occurrence of concomitant meniscal and chondral injuries vary widely. The purpose of this article is to describe the case of a 28-year-old woman who had a complete avulsion of the anterolateral meniscal root caused by a tibial eminence fracture with resultant malunion and root displacement. The anterolateral meniscal root was anatomically repaired following arthroscopic resection of the malunited fragment.

The lateral tibial eminence is intimately associated with the root attachment of the anterior horn of the lateral meniscus.^1-3 Previous studies have demonstrated both the close proximity of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) insertion to the meniscal roots and the potential for disruption in surgical interventions, such as tibial tunnel drilling in ACL reconstruction or placement of intramedullary tibial nails.^4-6 The meniscal roots play a crucial role in force distribution, and disruption of these structures has been shown to significantly increase joint contact forces. Despite the deleterious effects of this injury, limited studies have reported on traumatic injury to the meniscal roots in the setting of tibial eminence fractures.

Reported rates of occurrence of concomitant meniscal and chondral injuries occurring with tibial eminence fractures vary widely, ranging from <5% to 40%.^7,8 Although fractures to the tibial eminence are more common in children, an association between these injuries and concomitant soft tissue injuries, including meniscal, chondral, and collateral ligament injuries, in the adult population has been reported.⁷ Monto and Cameron-Donaldson⁸ used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to evaluate tibial eminence fractures in adults and found that 23% of study subjects had associated medial meniscus tears and 18% had lateral meniscus tears. In a similar study, Ishibashi and colleagues⁹ found that 25% of tibial eminence fractures were associated with lateral meniscus tears and 16% with medial meniscus tears.

These studies demonstrate the potential for meniscus injuries during tibial eminence fractures. However, the authors are unaware of any reports of complete tearing of the anterior horn of the lateral meniscus in association with this injury. This is an important injury to recognize and identify intraoperatively because an injury of this nature could potentially compromise the mechanical loading patterns and health of the articular cartilage of the lateral compartment of the knee. The purpose of this article is to describe a complete avulsion of the anterolateral meniscal root due to a tibial eminence fracture with resultant malunion and displacement of the root in a nonanatomical position. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Continue to: A 28-year-old active woman...

CASE

A 28-year-old active woman presented to our clinic 22 months after sustaining a right knee tibial eminence fracture that was initially treated with extension immobilization, which resulted in a fibrous malunion. She subsequently sustained a second injury resulting in displacement of the malunion fracture fragment, and was treated at another institution 10 months prior to presentation at our clinic with arthroscopic reduction and internal fixation with a cannulated screw and washer of the tibial eminence fracture. This was followed by hardware removal 6 months prior to her office visit at our clinic. At presentation, she reported worsening right knee pain, mechanical symptoms, and loss of both flexion and extension compared with her uninjured knee. Conservative management, including activity modification, extensive physical therapy, and anti-inflammatory medication following her most recent procedure, had not resulted in improvement of her symptoms.

Physical examination revealed significantly reduced knee flexion and extension (+15°-120° on the affected side compared with 5° of hyperextension to 130° flexion of the contralateral knee). Ligamentous examination demonstrated no laxity with varus or valgus stress at 0° to 30° of flexion, negative posterior drawer, and a Grade 2 Lachman and positive pivot shift. She also exhibited pain with attempted right knee terminal extension. Radiographs and computed tomography scans were obtained and reviewed. They revealed a malunited tibial eminence fracture (Figures 1A-1D).  

Arthroscopic assessment of the right knee demonstrated the large osseous fragment located in the anterolateral aspect of the joint with the displaced anterior horn of the lateral meniscus attached as well as significant anterior impingement limiting knee extension. Probing of the anterolateral meniscal root in the lateral compartment showed abundant surrounding scar tissue with an abnormal attachment, representing a chronic root avulsion. A mechanical shaver was used to débride the scar tissue and expose the malunited fragment, followed by complete osseous fragment excision with a high-speed burr (Figure 3). 

A soft tissue anterolateral meniscal root repair was performed by creating a 2-cm to 3-cm incision on the anterolateral tibia, just distal to the medial aspect of the Gerdy tubercle. To best restore the footprint of the repair and increase the potential for biologic healing, 2 transtibial tunnels were created at the location of the root attachment. An ACL aiming device with a cannulated sleeve was used to drill 2 bony tunnels approximately 5 mm apart, exiting at the anatomic root footprint. The drill pins were removed, leaving the 2 cannulas in place for later suture passage. A suture-passing device was used to pass 2 separate sutures through the detached meniscal root. 

Continue to: Postoperatively, the patient was placed...

Postoperatively, the patient was placed on a non-weight-bearing protocol for her operative lower extremity for 6 weeks. A brace locked in extension was used for the same period of time (being removed only for physical therapy exercises). Enoxaparin was used for the first 2 weeks for deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis, followed by aspirin for an additional 4 weeks. Physical therapy was started on postoperative day 1 to begin working on early passive ROM exercises. Knee flexion was limited to 0° to 90° of flexion for the first 2 weeks and then progressed as tolerated.

DISCUSSION

This article describes a rare case of a patient with lateral meniscal anterior root avulsion in the setting of a tibial eminence fracture with subsequent malunion and root displacement. In a case such as this, delineation of the true extent of the injury is difficult because the anterior meniscal root can be torn, displaced, and nonanatomically scarred to surrounding soft tissues, making MRI interpretation challenging. Clinically, patients can present with a wide range of symptoms, including pain, mechanical symptoms, instability, and loss of knee motion.¹⁰

The anterior root of the lateral meniscus has been reported to be attached anterior to the lateral tibial eminence and adjacent to the insertion of the ACL. Fibrous connections extending from the anterior horn of the lateral meniscus attachment to the lateral tibial eminence are constant.¹¹ Furumatsu and colleagues¹² demonstrated the existence of dense fibers linking the anterior root of the lateral meniscus with the lateral aspect of the ACL tibial insertion. Acknowledging the close relationship of these structures is key to comprehending the importance of evaluating the anterior horn of the lateral meniscus in cases of tibial eminence fractures at the initial time of injury. Failure to diagnose this pathology can lead to poor clinical outcomes and early degenerative changes of the knee.

Tibial intercondylar eminence avulsion fractures are most likely to occur in children and adolescents, and are equivalent to an ACL tear in adults.¹³ When tibial eminence fractures occur in an older cohort, they are often combined with lesions of the menisci, capsule, or collateral ligaments.¹⁴ The initial injury in our patient demonstrated concomitant anterior root injury that progressed with time to nonanatomical healing of the root, leading to altered biomechanics. Surgical techniques available for meniscal root repair are broadly divided into transosseous suture repairs and suture anchor repairs.¹⁰ The transtibial pullout technique using 2 transtibial bone tunnels as described in this report is the senior author’s (RFL) preference because it provides a strong construct with minimal displacement of the repaired meniscus.^15-17

This article describes a complete avulsion of the anterolateral meniscal root caused by a tibial eminence fracture with resultant malunion and displacement of the root in a nonanatomic position. Anterior meniscal root tears have been reported to result in altered biomechanics and force transmission across the knee, and therefore, anatomic repair of the anterior root is indicated.

ABSTRACT

The lateral tibial eminence shares a close relationship with the anterior root of the lateral meniscus. Limited studies have reported traumatic injury to the anterior meniscal roots in the setting of tibial eminence fractures, and reported rates of occurrence of concomitant meniscal and chondral injuries vary widely. The purpose of this article is to describe the case of a 28-year-old woman who had a complete avulsion of the anterolateral meniscal root caused by a tibial eminence fracture with resultant malunion and root displacement. The anterolateral meniscal root was anatomically repaired following arthroscopic resection of the malunited fragment.

The lateral tibial eminence is intimately associated with the root attachment of the anterior horn of the lateral meniscus.^1-3 Previous studies have demonstrated both the close proximity of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) insertion to the meniscal roots and the potential for disruption in surgical interventions, such as tibial tunnel drilling in ACL reconstruction or placement of intramedullary tibial nails.^4-6 The meniscal roots play a crucial role in force distribution, and disruption of these structures has been shown to significantly increase joint contact forces. Despite the deleterious effects of this injury, limited studies have reported on traumatic injury to the meniscal roots in the setting of tibial eminence fractures.

Reported rates of occurrence of concomitant meniscal and chondral injuries occurring with tibial eminence fractures vary widely, ranging from <5% to 40%.^7,8 Although fractures to the tibial eminence are more common in children, an association between these injuries and concomitant soft tissue injuries, including meniscal, chondral, and collateral ligament injuries, in the adult population has been reported.⁷ Monto and Cameron-Donaldson⁸ used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to evaluate tibial eminence fractures in adults and found that 23% of study subjects had associated medial meniscus tears and 18% had lateral meniscus tears. In a similar study, Ishibashi and colleagues⁹ found that 25% of tibial eminence fractures were associated with lateral meniscus tears and 16% with medial meniscus tears.

These studies demonstrate the potential for meniscus injuries during tibial eminence fractures. However, the authors are unaware of any reports of complete tearing of the anterior horn of the lateral meniscus in association with this injury. This is an important injury to recognize and identify intraoperatively because an injury of this nature could potentially compromise the mechanical loading patterns and health of the articular cartilage of the lateral compartment of the knee. The purpose of this article is to describe a complete avulsion of the anterolateral meniscal root due to a tibial eminence fracture with resultant malunion and displacement of the root in a nonanatomical position. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Continue to: A 28-year-old active woman...

CASE

A 28-year-old active woman presented to our clinic 22 months after sustaining a right knee tibial eminence fracture that was initially treated with extension immobilization, which resulted in a fibrous malunion. She subsequently sustained a second injury resulting in displacement of the malunion fracture fragment, and was treated at another institution 10 months prior to presentation at our clinic with arthroscopic reduction and internal fixation with a cannulated screw and washer of the tibial eminence fracture. This was followed by hardware removal 6 months prior to her office visit at our clinic. At presentation, she reported worsening right knee pain, mechanical symptoms, and loss of both flexion and extension compared with her uninjured knee. Conservative management, including activity modification, extensive physical therapy, and anti-inflammatory medication following her most recent procedure, had not resulted in improvement of her symptoms.

Physical examination revealed significantly reduced knee flexion and extension (+15°-120° on the affected side compared with 5° of hyperextension to 130° flexion of the contralateral knee). Ligamentous examination demonstrated no laxity with varus or valgus stress at 0° to 30° of flexion, negative posterior drawer, and a Grade 2 Lachman and positive pivot shift. She also exhibited pain with attempted right knee terminal extension. Radiographs and computed tomography scans were obtained and reviewed. They revealed a malunited tibial eminence fracture (Figures 1A-1D).  

Arthroscopic assessment of the right knee demonstrated the large osseous fragment located in the anterolateral aspect of the joint with the displaced anterior horn of the lateral meniscus attached as well as significant anterior impingement limiting knee extension. Probing of the anterolateral meniscal root in the lateral compartment showed abundant surrounding scar tissue with an abnormal attachment, representing a chronic root avulsion. A mechanical shaver was used to débride the scar tissue and expose the malunited fragment, followed by complete osseous fragment excision with a high-speed burr (Figure 3). 

A soft tissue anterolateral meniscal root repair was performed by creating a 2-cm to 3-cm incision on the anterolateral tibia, just distal to the medial aspect of the Gerdy tubercle. To best restore the footprint of the repair and increase the potential for biologic healing, 2 transtibial tunnels were created at the location of the root attachment. An ACL aiming device with a cannulated sleeve was used to drill 2 bony tunnels approximately 5 mm apart, exiting at the anatomic root footprint. The drill pins were removed, leaving the 2 cannulas in place for later suture passage. A suture-passing device was used to pass 2 separate sutures through the detached meniscal root. 

Continue to: Postoperatively, the patient was placed...

Postoperatively, the patient was placed on a non-weight-bearing protocol for her operative lower extremity for 6 weeks. A brace locked in extension was used for the same period of time (being removed only for physical therapy exercises). Enoxaparin was used for the first 2 weeks for deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis, followed by aspirin for an additional 4 weeks. Physical therapy was started on postoperative day 1 to begin working on early passive ROM exercises. Knee flexion was limited to 0° to 90° of flexion for the first 2 weeks and then progressed as tolerated.

DISCUSSION

This article describes a rare case of a patient with lateral meniscal anterior root avulsion in the setting of a tibial eminence fracture with subsequent malunion and root displacement. In a case such as this, delineation of the true extent of the injury is difficult because the anterior meniscal root can be torn, displaced, and nonanatomically scarred to surrounding soft tissues, making MRI interpretation challenging. Clinically, patients can present with a wide range of symptoms, including pain, mechanical symptoms, instability, and loss of knee motion.¹⁰

The anterior root of the lateral meniscus has been reported to be attached anterior to the lateral tibial eminence and adjacent to the insertion of the ACL. Fibrous connections extending from the anterior horn of the lateral meniscus attachment to the lateral tibial eminence are constant.¹¹ Furumatsu and colleagues¹² demonstrated the existence of dense fibers linking the anterior root of the lateral meniscus with the lateral aspect of the ACL tibial insertion. Acknowledging the close relationship of these structures is key to comprehending the importance of evaluating the anterior horn of the lateral meniscus in cases of tibial eminence fractures at the initial time of injury. Failure to diagnose this pathology can lead to poor clinical outcomes and early degenerative changes of the knee.

Tibial intercondylar eminence avulsion fractures are most likely to occur in children and adolescents, and are equivalent to an ACL tear in adults.¹³ When tibial eminence fractures occur in an older cohort, they are often combined with lesions of the menisci, capsule, or collateral ligaments.¹⁴ The initial injury in our patient demonstrated concomitant anterior root injury that progressed with time to nonanatomical healing of the root, leading to altered biomechanics. Surgical techniques available for meniscal root repair are broadly divided into transosseous suture repairs and suture anchor repairs.¹⁰ The transtibial pullout technique using 2 transtibial bone tunnels as described in this report is the senior author’s (RFL) preference because it provides a strong construct with minimal displacement of the repaired meniscus.^15-17

This article describes a complete avulsion of the anterolateral meniscal root caused by a tibial eminence fracture with resultant malunion and displacement of the root in a nonanatomic position. Anterior meniscal root tears have been reported to result in altered biomechanics and force transmission across the knee, and therefore, anatomic repair of the anterior root is indicated.

ABSTRACT

Outcome instruments have become an essential part of the evaluation of functional recovery after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Although the clinical examination provides important objective information to assess graft integrity, stability, range of motion, and strength, these measurements do not take the patient’s perception into account. There are many knee outcome instruments, and it is challenging for surgeons to understand how to interpret clinical research and utilize these measures in a practical way. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the most commonly used outcome measures in patients undergoing ACL reconstruction and to examine and compare the psychometric performance (validity, reliability, responsiveness) of these measurement tools.

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is one of the most common elective orthopedic procedures.¹ Despite advances in surgical techniques, ACL reconstruction is associated with a lengthy recovery time, decreased performance, and increased rate of reinjury.² Patients undergoing ACL reconstruction are often active individuals who participate in demanding activities, and accurate assessment of their recovery helps to guide recovery counseling. In addition to objective clinical outcomes measured through physical examination, patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments add the patient’s perspective, information critical in determining a successful outcome. A variety of outcome instruments have been used and validated for patients with ACL tears. It is important for orthopedic surgeons to know the advantages and disadvantages of each outcome tool in order to interpret clinical studies and assess postoperative patients.

Over the last 10 years, there has been an increase in the number of knee instruments and rating scales designed to measure PROs, with >54 scores designed for the ACL-deficient knee.³ No standardized instrument is currently universally accepted as superior following ACL reconstruction across the spectrum of patient populations. Clinicians and researchers must carefully consider an outcome instrument’s utility based on specific patient populations in which it has been evaluated. Appropriate selection of outcome measures is of fundamental importance for adequate demonstration of the efficacy and value of treatment interventions, especially in an era of healthcare reform with a focus on providing high-quality and cost-effective care.

The purpose of this review is to highlight current tools used to measure outcomes after ACL reconstruction. Current outcome measures vary widely in regards to their validity, reliability, minimal clinically important difference, and applicability to specific patient populations. We have thus identified the measures most commonly used today in studies and clinical follow-up after ACL reconstruction and their various advantages and limitations. This information may enhance the orthopedic surgeon’s understanding of what outcome measures may be utilized in clinical studies.

Continue to: Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments...

PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME INSTRUMENTS

Recently, there has been a transition to increased use of PRO instruments rather than clinician-based postoperative assessment, largely due to the increasing emphasis on patient satisfaction in determining the value of an orthopedic intervention.⁴ PRO instruments are widely used to capture the patient’s perception of general health, quality of life (QOL), daily function, and pain. PRO instruments offer the benefit of allowing patients to subjectively assess their knee function during daily living and sports activities, conveying to the provider the impact of ACL reconstruction on physical, psychological, and social aspects of everyday activities. Furthermore, patient satisfaction has been shown to closely follow outcome scores related to symptoms and function.⁵ A multitude of specific knee-related PRO instruments have been developed and validated to measure outcomes after ACL reconstruction for both research and clinical purposes (Table).

Table. ACL Outcome Measures

Abbreviations: AAOS, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; ACL, anterior cruciate ligament; ACL-QOL, anterior cruciate ligament quality of life score; CAT, computer-adapting testing; IKDC, International Knee Documentation Committee; KOOS, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; OA, osteoarthritis; PF, physical function; PROMIS, Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System; Ref, references; WOMAC, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index.

MEASUREMENT PROPERTIES

In general, clinicians and investigators should use health-related outcome measures with established reliability, validity, patient relevance, and responsiveness for assessing the specific condition.⁶

Reliability refers to the degree to which a measurement score is free from random error, reflecting how consistent or reproducible the instrument is when administered under the same testing conditions. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and measurement error are measures of reliability. Internal consistency is tested after a single administration and assesses how well items within a scale measure a single underlying dimension, represented using item-total correlation coefficients and Cronbach’s alpha. A Cronbach’s alpha of 0.70 to 0.95 is generally defined as good.⁷ Test-retest reliability is designed to appraise variation over time in stable patients and is represented using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).⁸ An ICC >0.7 is considered acceptable; >0.8, good; and >0.9, excellent.⁹ An aspect of accuracy is whether the scoring system measures the full range of the disease or complaints. The incidence of minimum (floor) and maximum (ceiling) scores can be calculated for outcome scores. An instrument with low floor and ceiling effects, below 10% to 15%, is more inconclusive and can be more reliably used to measure patients at the high and low end of the scoring system.¹⁰

Validity is the ability of an outcome instrument to measure what it is intended to measure. Establishing validity is complex and requires evaluation of several facets, including content validity, construct validity, and criterion validity. Content validity is a relatively subjective judgment explaining the ability of an instrument to assess the critical features of the problem. Construct validity evaluates whether the questionnaire measures what it intends to measure, and is often assessed by correlating scores form one instrument to those from other proven instruments that are already accepted as valid. Finally, criterion validity assesses the correlation between the score and a previously established “gold standard” instrument.

Responsiveness is the ability of the instrument to detect a change or identify improvement or worsening of a clinical condition over time. Most frequently, the effect size (observed change/standard deviation of baseline scores) and standardized response mean (observed change/standard deviation of change) are used as measures of responsiveness. The minimal clinically important difference of an outcome measure is the smallest change in an outcome score that corresponds to a change in patient condition.

Continue to: ACL Outcome Instruments...

ACL OUTCOME INSTRUMENTS

WESTERN ONTARIO AND MCMASTER UNIVERSITIES OSTEOARTHRITIS INDEX (WOMAC LK 3.0)

The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC LK 3.0) was developed in 1982 and is a widely used, disease-specific instrument recommended for the evaluation of treatment effects in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis.¹¹ Available in more than 80 languages, it is a self-administered, generic health status questionnaire developed to assess pain, function, and stiffness in daily living, taking respondents between 3 to 7.5 minutes for completion.¹² Using visual analog scales, the 24 items probe the 3 subscales: pain (5 items), stiffness (2 items), and functional difficulty (17 items). Scores are calculated for each dimension, and the total score is normalized to a 100-point scale, with 0 indicating severe symptoms and 100 indicating no symptoms and higher function. The WOMAC score can also be calculated from the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). The WOMAC questionnaire is well recognized for its good validity, reliability, and responsiveness, and is the most commonly used outcome measure for osteoarthritis.^13-15 Considering its focus on older patients with osteoarthritis, it may not be appropriate for use in a young and active population.

KNEE INJURY AND OSTEOARTHRITIS OUTCOME SCORE (KOOS)

The KOOS is a knee-specific questionnaire developed as an extension of the WOMAC to evaluate the functional status and QOL of patients with any type of knee injury who are at an increased risk of developing osteoarthritis.¹⁶ The patient-based questionnaire is available in over 30 languages and covers both the short- and long-term consequences of an injury of the knee causing traumatic damage to cartilage, ligaments, and menisci. The KOOS is 42 items graded on a 5-point Likert scale, covering 5 subscales: pain (9 items), symptoms (7 items), function in activities of daily living (17 items), function in sports/recreation (5 items), and knee-related QOL (4 items). The questionnaire is self-administered and takes about 10 minutes to complete. Scores are calculated for each dimension, and the total score is transformed to a 0 to 100 scale, with 0 representing severe knee problems and 100 representing no knee problems and better outcome. An advantage of the KOOS is that it evaluates both knee injuries and osteoarthritis; therefore, it is arguably more suitable for evaluating patients over the long-term. The KOOS has been validated for several orthopedic interventions, including ACL reconstruction and rehabilitation^16,17 as well as meniscectomy¹⁸ and total knee replacement.¹⁹ Population-based reference data for the adult population according to age and gender have also been established.²⁰ The KOOS is increasingly utilized in clinical studies on ACL reconstruction.^21-25 The questions of the WOMAC were retained so that a WOMAC score might be calculated separately and compared with the KOOS score.²⁶

PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES INFORMATION SYSTEM (PROMIS)

Since 2004, The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has funded the development of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS), a set of flexible tools that reliably and validly measure PROs. The PROMIS consists of a library of question banks that has been developed and operated by a network of National Institutes of Health-funded research sites and coordinating centers and covers many different health domains including pain, fatigue, anxiety, depression, social functioning, physical functioning, and sleep. PROMIS items are developed using Item Response Theory (IRT), wherein the answer to any individual item has a known mathematical probability of predicting the test taker’s overall measurement of the specific trait being tested. This is commonly administered using computer-adaptive testing (CAT), which presents to the test taker an initial item, scores the response to that item, and from the response then presents the most informative second item, and so forth until a predefined level of precision is reached. Because the items are individually validated, they can be used alone or in any combination, a feature that distinguishes the PROMIS from traditional fixed-length PRO instruments that require the completion of an instrument in its entirety to be valid.²⁷ In recent years, orthopedic research has been published with PROMIS physical function (PF) scores as primary outcome measures.^28-30 The PF item bank includes 124 items measuring upper extremity, lower extremity, central and instrumental activities of daily living. PF can be completed as a short form (SF) with a set number of questions or utilizing CAT and evaluates self-reported function and physical activity. An advantage is its ease of use and potential to minimize test burden with very few questions, often as little as 4 items, as compared to other traditional PROMs.³¹

Previously published work has demonstrated that, in patients undergoing meniscal surgery, the PROMIS PF CAT maintains construct validity and correlates well with currently used knee outcome instruments, including KOOS.²⁸ Work by the same group looking at the performance of the PROMIS PF CAT in patients indicated for ACL reconstruction shows that the PROMIS PF CAT correlates well with other PRO instruments for patients with ACL injuries, (SF-36 PF [r = 0.82, P < 0.01], KOOS Sport [r = 0.70, P < 0.01], KOOS ADL [r = 0.74, P < 0.01]), does not have floor or ceiling effects in this relatively young and healthy population, and has a low test burden.^32,33 Papuga and colleagues³³ also compared the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and PROMIS PF CAT on 106 subjects after ACL reconstruction and found good correlation.

Continue to: Quality of Life Outcome Measure...

QUALITY OF LIFE OUTCOME MEASURE FOR ACL DEFICIENCY (ACL-QOL)

The ACL-QOL Score was developed in 1998 as a disease-specific measure for patients with chronic ACL deficiency.³⁴ This scale consists of 32 separate items in 31 visual analog questions regarding symptoms and physical complaints, work-related concerns, recreational activities and sport participation or competition, lifestyle, and social and emotional health status relating to the knee. The raw score is transformed into a 0- to 100-point scale, with higher scores indicating a better outcome. The scale is valid, reliable, and responsive for patients with ACL insufficiency,^35,36 and is not applicable to other disorders of the knee. We recommend the ACL-QOL questionnaire be used in conjunction with other currently available objective and functional outcome measures.

CINCINNATI KNEE RATING SYSTEM

The Cincinnati Knee Rating System (CKRS) was first described in 1983 and was modified to include occupational activities, athletic activities, symptoms, and functional limitations.^37,38 There are 11 components, measuring symptoms and disability in sports activity, activities of daily living function, occupational rating, as well as sections that measure physical examination, laxity of the knee, and radiographic evidence of degenerative joint disease.³⁹ The measure is scored on a 100-point scale, with higher scores indicating better outcomes. Scores have been shown to be lower as compared with other outcome measures assessing the same clinical condition.^40,41 Barber-Westin and colleagues³⁹ confirmed the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the CKRS by testing 350 subjects with and without knee ligament injuries. In 2001, Marx⁴² tested the CKRS subjective form for reliability, validity, and responsiveness and found it to be acceptable for clinical research.

LYSHOLM KNEE SCORE

The Lysholm Knee Score was published in 1982 and modified in 1985, consisting of an 8-question survey that evaluates outcomes after knee ligament surgery. Items include pain, instability, locking, squatting, limping, support usage, swelling, and stair-climbing ability, with pain and instability carrying the highest weight.⁴³ It is scored on a scale of 0 to 100, with high scores indicating higher functioning and fewer symptoms. It has been validated in patients with ACL injuries and meniscal injuries.⁴⁴ Although it is widely used to measure outcomes after ACL reconstruction,⁴⁵ it has received criticism in the evaluation of patients with other knee conditions.⁴⁶ The main advantage of the Lysholm Knee Score is its ability to note changes in activity in the same patient across different time periods (responsiveness). A limitation of the Lysholm Knee Score is that it does not measure the domains of functioning in daily activities, sports, and recreational activities. The Lysholm scoring system’s test-retest reliability and construct validity have been evaluated,^42,43,46 although there has been some concern regarding a ceiling effect and its validity, sensitivity, and reliability has been questioned.⁴⁷ Therefore, it is advised that this score be used in conjunction with other PRO scores.

INTERNATIONAL KNEE DOCUMENTATION COMMITTEE (IKDC) SUBJECTIVE KNEE FORM

In 1987, members of the European Society for Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy and the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine formed the IKDC to develop a standardized method for evaluating knee injuries and treatment. The IKDC Subjective Knee Evaluation Form was initially published in 1993, and in 2001 the form was revised by the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine to become a knee-specific assessment tool rather than a disease or condition-specific tool.⁴⁸ The IKDC subjective form is an 18-question, knee-specific survey designed to detect improvement or deterioration in symptoms, function, and ability to participate in sports activities experienced by patients following knee surgery or other interventions. The individual items are summed and transformed into a 0- to 100-point scale, with high scores representing higher levels of function and minimal symptoms. The IKDC is utilized to assess a variety of knee conditions including ligament, meniscus, articular cartilage, osteoarthritis, and patellofemoral pain.^48,49 Thus, this form can be used to assess any condition involving the knee and allow comparison between groups with different diagnoses. The IKDC has been validated for an ACL reconstruction population,⁴⁷ has been used to assess outcomes in recent clinical studies on ACL reconstruction,^50,51 and is one of the most frequently used measures for patients with ACL deficiency.³ The validity, responsiveness, and reliability of the IKDC subjective form has been confirmed for both adult and adolescent populations.^48,49,52-54

TEGNER ACTIVITY SCORES

The Tegner activity score was developed in 1985 and was designed to provide an objective value for a patient’s activity level.⁴⁴ This scale was developed to complement the Lysholm score. It consists of 1 sport-specific activity level question on a 0 to 10 scale that evaluates an individual’s ability to compete in a sporting activity. Scores between 1 and 5 represent work or recreational sports. Scores >5 represent higher-level recreational and competitive sports. The Tegner activity score is one of the most widely used activity scoring systems for patients with knee disorders,^55,56 commonly utilized with the Lysholm Knee Score.⁴⁴ One disadvantage of the Tegner activity score is that it relates to specific sports rather than functional activities, which limits its generalizability. We are not aware of any studies documenting the reliability or validity of this instrument.

Continue on: Marx Activity Rating Scale...

MARX ACTIVITY RATING SCALE

The Marx activity rating scale was developed to be utilized with other knee rating scales and outcome measures as an activity assessment.⁵⁷ In contrast to the Tegner activity score, the Marx activity rating scale measures function rather than sport-specific activity. The scale is a short, patient-based activity assessment that consists of a 4-question survey evaluating patients’ knee health by recording the frequency and intensity of participation in a sporting activity. Questions are scored from 0 to 4 on the basis of how often the activity is performed. The 4 sections of the Marx scale that are rated include running, cutting, decelerating, and pivoting. This scale has been validated in patients with ACL injuries, chondromalacia patellae, and meniscal lesions.^42,56-58 Acceptable ceiling effects of 3% and floor effects of 8% were noted in the study of ACL-injured patients.⁵⁷

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS (AAOS) SPORTS KNEE SCALE

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Sports Knee Rating Scale consists of 5 parts and 23 items, including a section addressing stiffness, swelling, pain and function (7 questions), locking/catching (4 questions), giving way (4 questions), limitations of activity (4 questions), and pain with activity (4 questions).^59,60 Items may be dropped if patients select particular responses, which can lead to difficulties when using the survey. This scoring system has been found to be satisfactory when all subscales were combined and the mean was calculated.⁴²

DISCUSSION

PRO measures play an increasingly important role in the measurement of success and impact of health care services. Specifically, for ACL reconstruction, patient satisfaction is key for demonstrating the value of operative or other interventions. Selecting a suitable outcome measurement tool can be daunting, as it can be difficult to ascertain which outcome measures are appropriate for the patient or disorder in question. As there is currently no instrument that is universally superior in the evaluation of ACL outcomes, clinicians must consider the specific patient population in which the outcome instrument has been evaluated. Investigators should also use instruments with reported minimal clinically important differences so that variation in scores can be interpreted as either clinically significant or not. When choosing which outcome instrument to use, there is rarely a single appropriate rating system that is entirely comprehensive. In most cases, a general health outcome measure should be used in combination with a condition-specific rating scale. Activity rating scales, such as Marx or Tegner, should be included, especially when evaluating patients with low-activity lifestyles.

CONCLUSION

There are a number of reliable, valid, and responsive outcome measures that can be utilized to evaluate outcomes following ACL reconstruction in an array of patient populations. Outcome measures should be relevant to patients, easy to use, reliable, valid, and responsive to change. By increasing familiarity with these outcome measures, orthopedic surgeons and investigators can develop better studies, interpret data, and implement findings in practice with sound and informed judgment. Future research should focus on identifying the most relevant outcome metrics for assessing function following ACL reconstruction.

This paper will be judged for the Resident Writer’s Award.

ABSTRACT

Outcome instruments have become an essential part of the evaluation of functional recovery after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Although the clinical examination provides important objective information to assess graft integrity, stability, range of motion, and strength, these measurements do not take the patient’s perception into account. There are many knee outcome instruments, and it is challenging for surgeons to understand how to interpret clinical research and utilize these measures in a practical way. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the most commonly used outcome measures in patients undergoing ACL reconstruction and to examine and compare the psychometric performance (validity, reliability, responsiveness) of these measurement tools.

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is one of the most common elective orthopedic procedures.¹ Despite advances in surgical techniques, ACL reconstruction is associated with a lengthy recovery time, decreased performance, and increased rate of reinjury.² Patients undergoing ACL reconstruction are often active individuals who participate in demanding activities, and accurate assessment of their recovery helps to guide recovery counseling. In addition to objective clinical outcomes measured through physical examination, patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments add the patient’s perspective, information critical in determining a successful outcome. A variety of outcome instruments have been used and validated for patients with ACL tears. It is important for orthopedic surgeons to know the advantages and disadvantages of each outcome tool in order to interpret clinical studies and assess postoperative patients.

Over the last 10 years, there has been an increase in the number of knee instruments and rating scales designed to measure PROs, with >54 scores designed for the ACL-deficient knee.³ No standardized instrument is currently universally accepted as superior following ACL reconstruction across the spectrum of patient populations. Clinicians and researchers must carefully consider an outcome instrument’s utility based on specific patient populations in which it has been evaluated. Appropriate selection of outcome measures is of fundamental importance for adequate demonstration of the efficacy and value of treatment interventions, especially in an era of healthcare reform with a focus on providing high-quality and cost-effective care.

The purpose of this review is to highlight current tools used to measure outcomes after ACL reconstruction. Current outcome measures vary widely in regards to their validity, reliability, minimal clinically important difference, and applicability to specific patient populations. We have thus identified the measures most commonly used today in studies and clinical follow-up after ACL reconstruction and their various advantages and limitations. This information may enhance the orthopedic surgeon’s understanding of what outcome measures may be utilized in clinical studies.

Continue to: Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments...

PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME INSTRUMENTS

Recently, there has been a transition to increased use of PRO instruments rather than clinician-based postoperative assessment, largely due to the increasing emphasis on patient satisfaction in determining the value of an orthopedic intervention.⁴ PRO instruments are widely used to capture the patient’s perception of general health, quality of life (QOL), daily function, and pain. PRO instruments offer the benefit of allowing patients to subjectively assess their knee function during daily living and sports activities, conveying to the provider the impact of ACL reconstruction on physical, psychological, and social aspects of everyday activities. Furthermore, patient satisfaction has been shown to closely follow outcome scores related to symptoms and function.⁵ A multitude of specific knee-related PRO instruments have been developed and validated to measure outcomes after ACL reconstruction for both research and clinical purposes (Table).

Table. ACL Outcome Measures

Abbreviations: AAOS, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; ACL, anterior cruciate ligament; ACL-QOL, anterior cruciate ligament quality of life score; CAT, computer-adapting testing; IKDC, International Knee Documentation Committee; KOOS, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; OA, osteoarthritis; PF, physical function; PROMIS, Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System; Ref, references; WOMAC, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index.

MEASUREMENT PROPERTIES

In general, clinicians and investigators should use health-related outcome measures with established reliability, validity, patient relevance, and responsiveness for assessing the specific condition.⁶

Reliability refers to the degree to which a measurement score is free from random error, reflecting how consistent or reproducible the instrument is when administered under the same testing conditions. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and measurement error are measures of reliability. Internal consistency is tested after a single administration and assesses how well items within a scale measure a single underlying dimension, represented using item-total correlation coefficients and Cronbach’s alpha. A Cronbach’s alpha of 0.70 to 0.95 is generally defined as good.⁷ Test-retest reliability is designed to appraise variation over time in stable patients and is represented using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).⁸ An ICC >0.7 is considered acceptable; >0.8, good; and >0.9, excellent.⁹ An aspect of accuracy is whether the scoring system measures the full range of the disease or complaints. The incidence of minimum (floor) and maximum (ceiling) scores can be calculated for outcome scores. An instrument with low floor and ceiling effects, below 10% to 15%, is more inconclusive and can be more reliably used to measure patients at the high and low end of the scoring system.¹⁰

Validity is the ability of an outcome instrument to measure what it is intended to measure. Establishing validity is complex and requires evaluation of several facets, including content validity, construct validity, and criterion validity. Content validity is a relatively subjective judgment explaining the ability of an instrument to assess the critical features of the problem. Construct validity evaluates whether the questionnaire measures what it intends to measure, and is often assessed by correlating scores form one instrument to those from other proven instruments that are already accepted as valid. Finally, criterion validity assesses the correlation between the score and a previously established “gold standard” instrument.

Responsiveness is the ability of the instrument to detect a change or identify improvement or worsening of a clinical condition over time. Most frequently, the effect size (observed change/standard deviation of baseline scores) and standardized response mean (observed change/standard deviation of change) are used as measures of responsiveness. The minimal clinically important difference of an outcome measure is the smallest change in an outcome score that corresponds to a change in patient condition.

Continue to: ACL Outcome Instruments...

ACL OUTCOME INSTRUMENTS

WESTERN ONTARIO AND MCMASTER UNIVERSITIES OSTEOARTHRITIS INDEX (WOMAC LK 3.0)

The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC LK 3.0) was developed in 1982 and is a widely used, disease-specific instrument recommended for the evaluation of treatment effects in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis.¹¹ Available in more than 80 languages, it is a self-administered, generic health status questionnaire developed to assess pain, function, and stiffness in daily living, taking respondents between 3 to 7.5 minutes for completion.¹² Using visual analog scales, the 24 items probe the 3 subscales: pain (5 items), stiffness (2 items), and functional difficulty (17 items). Scores are calculated for each dimension, and the total score is normalized to a 100-point scale, with 0 indicating severe symptoms and 100 indicating no symptoms and higher function. The WOMAC score can also be calculated from the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). The WOMAC questionnaire is well recognized for its good validity, reliability, and responsiveness, and is the most commonly used outcome measure for osteoarthritis.^13-15 Considering its focus on older patients with osteoarthritis, it may not be appropriate for use in a young and active population.

KNEE INJURY AND OSTEOARTHRITIS OUTCOME SCORE (KOOS)

The KOOS is a knee-specific questionnaire developed as an extension of the WOMAC to evaluate the functional status and QOL of patients with any type of knee injury who are at an increased risk of developing osteoarthritis.¹⁶ The patient-based questionnaire is available in over 30 languages and covers both the short- and long-term consequences of an injury of the knee causing traumatic damage to cartilage, ligaments, and menisci. The KOOS is 42 items graded on a 5-point Likert scale, covering 5 subscales: pain (9 items), symptoms (7 items), function in activities of daily living (17 items), function in sports/recreation (5 items), and knee-related QOL (4 items). The questionnaire is self-administered and takes about 10 minutes to complete. Scores are calculated for each dimension, and the total score is transformed to a 0 to 100 scale, with 0 representing severe knee problems and 100 representing no knee problems and better outcome. An advantage of the KOOS is that it evaluates both knee injuries and osteoarthritis; therefore, it is arguably more suitable for evaluating patients over the long-term. The KOOS has been validated for several orthopedic interventions, including ACL reconstruction and rehabilitation^16,17 as well as meniscectomy¹⁸ and total knee replacement.¹⁹ Population-based reference data for the adult population according to age and gender have also been established.²⁰ The KOOS is increasingly utilized in clinical studies on ACL reconstruction.^21-25 The questions of the WOMAC were retained so that a WOMAC score might be calculated separately and compared with the KOOS score.²⁶

PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES INFORMATION SYSTEM (PROMIS)

Since 2004, The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has funded the development of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS), a set of flexible tools that reliably and validly measure PROs. The PROMIS consists of a library of question banks that has been developed and operated by a network of National Institutes of Health-funded research sites and coordinating centers and covers many different health domains including pain, fatigue, anxiety, depression, social functioning, physical functioning, and sleep. PROMIS items are developed using Item Response Theory (IRT), wherein the answer to any individual item has a known mathematical probability of predicting the test taker’s overall measurement of the specific trait being tested. This is commonly administered using computer-adaptive testing (CAT), which presents to the test taker an initial item, scores the response to that item, and from the response then presents the most informative second item, and so forth until a predefined level of precision is reached. Because the items are individually validated, they can be used alone or in any combination, a feature that distinguishes the PROMIS from traditional fixed-length PRO instruments that require the completion of an instrument in its entirety to be valid.²⁷ In recent years, orthopedic research has been published with PROMIS physical function (PF) scores as primary outcome measures.^28-30 The PF item bank includes 124 items measuring upper extremity, lower extremity, central and instrumental activities of daily living. PF can be completed as a short form (SF) with a set number of questions or utilizing CAT and evaluates self-reported function and physical activity. An advantage is its ease of use and potential to minimize test burden with very few questions, often as little as 4 items, as compared to other traditional PROMs.³¹

Previously published work has demonstrated that, in patients undergoing meniscal surgery, the PROMIS PF CAT maintains construct validity and correlates well with currently used knee outcome instruments, including KOOS.²⁸ Work by the same group looking at the performance of the PROMIS PF CAT in patients indicated for ACL reconstruction shows that the PROMIS PF CAT correlates well with other PRO instruments for patients with ACL injuries, (SF-36 PF [r = 0.82, P < 0.01], KOOS Sport [r = 0.70, P < 0.01], KOOS ADL [r = 0.74, P < 0.01]), does not have floor or ceiling effects in this relatively young and healthy population, and has a low test burden.^32,33 Papuga and colleagues³³ also compared the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and PROMIS PF CAT on 106 subjects after ACL reconstruction and found good correlation.

Continue to: Quality of Life Outcome Measure...

QUALITY OF LIFE OUTCOME MEASURE FOR ACL DEFICIENCY (ACL-QOL)

The ACL-QOL Score was developed in 1998 as a disease-specific measure for patients with chronic ACL deficiency.³⁴ This scale consists of 32 separate items in 31 visual analog questions regarding symptoms and physical complaints, work-related concerns, recreational activities and sport participation or competition, lifestyle, and social and emotional health status relating to the knee. The raw score is transformed into a 0- to 100-point scale, with higher scores indicating a better outcome. The scale is valid, reliable, and responsive for patients with ACL insufficiency,^35,36 and is not applicable to other disorders of the knee. We recommend the ACL-QOL questionnaire be used in conjunction with other currently available objective and functional outcome measures.

CINCINNATI KNEE RATING SYSTEM

The Cincinnati Knee Rating System (CKRS) was first described in 1983 and was modified to include occupational activities, athletic activities, symptoms, and functional limitations.^37,38 There are 11 components, measuring symptoms and disability in sports activity, activities of daily living function, occupational rating, as well as sections that measure physical examination, laxity of the knee, and radiographic evidence of degenerative joint disease.³⁹ The measure is scored on a 100-point scale, with higher scores indicating better outcomes. Scores have been shown to be lower as compared with other outcome measures assessing the same clinical condition.^40,41 Barber-Westin and colleagues³⁹ confirmed the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the CKRS by testing 350 subjects with and without knee ligament injuries. In 2001, Marx⁴² tested the CKRS subjective form for reliability, validity, and responsiveness and found it to be acceptable for clinical research.

LYSHOLM KNEE SCORE

The Lysholm Knee Score was published in 1982 and modified in 1985, consisting of an 8-question survey that evaluates outcomes after knee ligament surgery. Items include pain, instability, locking, squatting, limping, support usage, swelling, and stair-climbing ability, with pain and instability carrying the highest weight.⁴³ It is scored on a scale of 0 to 100, with high scores indicating higher functioning and fewer symptoms. It has been validated in patients with ACL injuries and meniscal injuries.⁴⁴ Although it is widely used to measure outcomes after ACL reconstruction,⁴⁵ it has received criticism in the evaluation of patients with other knee conditions.⁴⁶ The main advantage of the Lysholm Knee Score is its ability to note changes in activity in the same patient across different time periods (responsiveness). A limitation of the Lysholm Knee Score is that it does not measure the domains of functioning in daily activities, sports, and recreational activities. The Lysholm scoring system’s test-retest reliability and construct validity have been evaluated,^42,43,46 although there has been some concern regarding a ceiling effect and its validity, sensitivity, and reliability has been questioned.⁴⁷ Therefore, it is advised that this score be used in conjunction with other PRO scores.

INTERNATIONAL KNEE DOCUMENTATION COMMITTEE (IKDC) SUBJECTIVE KNEE FORM

In 1987, members of the European Society for Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy and the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine formed the IKDC to develop a standardized method for evaluating knee injuries and treatment. The IKDC Subjective Knee Evaluation Form was initially published in 1993, and in 2001 the form was revised by the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine to become a knee-specific assessment tool rather than a disease or condition-specific tool.⁴⁸ The IKDC subjective form is an 18-question, knee-specific survey designed to detect improvement or deterioration in symptoms, function, and ability to participate in sports activities experienced by patients following knee surgery or other interventions. The individual items are summed and transformed into a 0- to 100-point scale, with high scores representing higher levels of function and minimal symptoms. The IKDC is utilized to assess a variety of knee conditions including ligament, meniscus, articular cartilage, osteoarthritis, and patellofemoral pain.^48,49 Thus, this form can be used to assess any condition involving the knee and allow comparison between groups with different diagnoses. The IKDC has been validated for an ACL reconstruction population,⁴⁷ has been used to assess outcomes in recent clinical studies on ACL reconstruction,^50,51 and is one of the most frequently used measures for patients with ACL deficiency.³ The validity, responsiveness, and reliability of the IKDC subjective form has been confirmed for both adult and adolescent populations.^48,49,52-54

TEGNER ACTIVITY SCORES

The Tegner activity score was developed in 1985 and was designed to provide an objective value for a patient’s activity level.⁴⁴ This scale was developed to complement the Lysholm score. It consists of 1 sport-specific activity level question on a 0 to 10 scale that evaluates an individual’s ability to compete in a sporting activity. Scores between 1 and 5 represent work or recreational sports. Scores >5 represent higher-level recreational and competitive sports. The Tegner activity score is one of the most widely used activity scoring systems for patients with knee disorders,^55,56 commonly utilized with the Lysholm Knee Score.⁴⁴ One disadvantage of the Tegner activity score is that it relates to specific sports rather than functional activities, which limits its generalizability. We are not aware of any studies documenting the reliability or validity of this instrument.

Continue on: Marx Activity Rating Scale...

MARX ACTIVITY RATING SCALE

The Marx activity rating scale was developed to be utilized with other knee rating scales and outcome measures as an activity assessment.⁵⁷ In contrast to the Tegner activity score, the Marx activity rating scale measures function rather than sport-specific activity. The scale is a short, patient-based activity assessment that consists of a 4-question survey evaluating patients’ knee health by recording the frequency and intensity of participation in a sporting activity. Questions are scored from 0 to 4 on the basis of how often the activity is performed. The 4 sections of the Marx scale that are rated include running, cutting, decelerating, and pivoting. This scale has been validated in patients with ACL injuries, chondromalacia patellae, and meniscal lesions.^42,56-58 Acceptable ceiling effects of 3% and floor effects of 8% were noted in the study of ACL-injured patients.⁵⁷

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS (AAOS) SPORTS KNEE SCALE

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Sports Knee Rating Scale consists of 5 parts and 23 items, including a section addressing stiffness, swelling, pain and function (7 questions), locking/catching (4 questions), giving way (4 questions), limitations of activity (4 questions), and pain with activity (4 questions).^59,60 Items may be dropped if patients select particular responses, which can lead to difficulties when using the survey. This scoring system has been found to be satisfactory when all subscales were combined and the mean was calculated.⁴²

DISCUSSION

PRO measures play an increasingly important role in the measurement of success and impact of health care services. Specifically, for ACL reconstruction, patient satisfaction is key for demonstrating the value of operative or other interventions. Selecting a suitable outcome measurement tool can be daunting, as it can be difficult to ascertain which outcome measures are appropriate for the patient or disorder in question. As there is currently no instrument that is universally superior in the evaluation of ACL outcomes, clinicians must consider the specific patient population in which the outcome instrument has been evaluated. Investigators should also use instruments with reported minimal clinically important differences so that variation in scores can be interpreted as either clinically significant or not. When choosing which outcome instrument to use, there is rarely a single appropriate rating system that is entirely comprehensive. In most cases, a general health outcome measure should be used in combination with a condition-specific rating scale. Activity rating scales, such as Marx or Tegner, should be included, especially when evaluating patients with low-activity lifestyles.

CONCLUSION

There are a number of reliable, valid, and responsive outcome measures that can be utilized to evaluate outcomes following ACL reconstruction in an array of patient populations. Outcome measures should be relevant to patients, easy to use, reliable, valid, and responsive to change. By increasing familiarity with these outcome measures, orthopedic surgeons and investigators can develop better studies, interpret data, and implement findings in practice with sound and informed judgment. Future research should focus on identifying the most relevant outcome metrics for assessing function following ACL reconstruction.

This paper will be judged for the Resident Writer’s Award.

ABSTRACT

Outcome instruments have become an essential part of the evaluation of functional recovery after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction. Although the clinical examination provides important objective information to assess graft integrity, stability, range of motion, and strength, these measurements do not take the patient’s perception into account. There are many knee outcome instruments, and it is challenging for surgeons to understand how to interpret clinical research and utilize these measures in a practical way. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the most commonly used outcome measures in patients undergoing ACL reconstruction and to examine and compare the psychometric performance (validity, reliability, responsiveness) of these measurement tools.

Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is one of the most common elective orthopedic procedures.¹ Despite advances in surgical techniques, ACL reconstruction is associated with a lengthy recovery time, decreased performance, and increased rate of reinjury.² Patients undergoing ACL reconstruction are often active individuals who participate in demanding activities, and accurate assessment of their recovery helps to guide recovery counseling. In addition to objective clinical outcomes measured through physical examination, patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments add the patient’s perspective, information critical in determining a successful outcome. A variety of outcome instruments have been used and validated for patients with ACL tears. It is important for orthopedic surgeons to know the advantages and disadvantages of each outcome tool in order to interpret clinical studies and assess postoperative patients.

Over the last 10 years, there has been an increase in the number of knee instruments and rating scales designed to measure PROs, with >54 scores designed for the ACL-deficient knee.³ No standardized instrument is currently universally accepted as superior following ACL reconstruction across the spectrum of patient populations. Clinicians and researchers must carefully consider an outcome instrument’s utility based on specific patient populations in which it has been evaluated. Appropriate selection of outcome measures is of fundamental importance for adequate demonstration of the efficacy and value of treatment interventions, especially in an era of healthcare reform with a focus on providing high-quality and cost-effective care.

The purpose of this review is to highlight current tools used to measure outcomes after ACL reconstruction. Current outcome measures vary widely in regards to their validity, reliability, minimal clinically important difference, and applicability to specific patient populations. We have thus identified the measures most commonly used today in studies and clinical follow-up after ACL reconstruction and their various advantages and limitations. This information may enhance the orthopedic surgeon’s understanding of what outcome measures may be utilized in clinical studies.

Continue to: Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments...

PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME INSTRUMENTS

Recently, there has been a transition to increased use of PRO instruments rather than clinician-based postoperative assessment, largely due to the increasing emphasis on patient satisfaction in determining the value of an orthopedic intervention.⁴ PRO instruments are widely used to capture the patient’s perception of general health, quality of life (QOL), daily function, and pain. PRO instruments offer the benefit of allowing patients to subjectively assess their knee function during daily living and sports activities, conveying to the provider the impact of ACL reconstruction on physical, psychological, and social aspects of everyday activities. Furthermore, patient satisfaction has been shown to closely follow outcome scores related to symptoms and function.⁵ A multitude of specific knee-related PRO instruments have been developed and validated to measure outcomes after ACL reconstruction for both research and clinical purposes (Table).

Table. ACL Outcome Measures

Abbreviations: AAOS, American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons; ACL, anterior cruciate ligament; ACL-QOL, anterior cruciate ligament quality of life score; CAT, computer-adapting testing; IKDC, International Knee Documentation Committee; KOOS, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; OA, osteoarthritis; PF, physical function; PROMIS, Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System; Ref, references; WOMAC, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index.

MEASUREMENT PROPERTIES

In general, clinicians and investigators should use health-related outcome measures with established reliability, validity, patient relevance, and responsiveness for assessing the specific condition.⁶

Reliability refers to the degree to which a measurement score is free from random error, reflecting how consistent or reproducible the instrument is when administered under the same testing conditions. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and measurement error are measures of reliability. Internal consistency is tested after a single administration and assesses how well items within a scale measure a single underlying dimension, represented using item-total correlation coefficients and Cronbach’s alpha. A Cronbach’s alpha of 0.70 to 0.95 is generally defined as good.⁷ Test-retest reliability is designed to appraise variation over time in stable patients and is represented using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).⁸ An ICC >0.7 is considered acceptable; >0.8, good; and >0.9, excellent.⁹ An aspect of accuracy is whether the scoring system measures the full range of the disease or complaints. The incidence of minimum (floor) and maximum (ceiling) scores can be calculated for outcome scores. An instrument with low floor and ceiling effects, below 10% to 15%, is more inconclusive and can be more reliably used to measure patients at the high and low end of the scoring system.¹⁰

Validity is the ability of an outcome instrument to measure what it is intended to measure. Establishing validity is complex and requires evaluation of several facets, including content validity, construct validity, and criterion validity. Content validity is a relatively subjective judgment explaining the ability of an instrument to assess the critical features of the problem. Construct validity evaluates whether the questionnaire measures what it intends to measure, and is often assessed by correlating scores form one instrument to those from other proven instruments that are already accepted as valid. Finally, criterion validity assesses the correlation between the score and a previously established “gold standard” instrument.

Responsiveness is the ability of the instrument to detect a change or identify improvement or worsening of a clinical condition over time. Most frequently, the effect size (observed change/standard deviation of baseline scores) and standardized response mean (observed change/standard deviation of change) are used as measures of responsiveness. The minimal clinically important difference of an outcome measure is the smallest change in an outcome score that corresponds to a change in patient condition.

Continue to: ACL Outcome Instruments...

ACL OUTCOME INSTRUMENTS

WESTERN ONTARIO AND MCMASTER UNIVERSITIES OSTEOARTHRITIS INDEX (WOMAC LK 3.0)

The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC LK 3.0) was developed in 1982 and is a widely used, disease-specific instrument recommended for the evaluation of treatment effects in patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis.¹¹ Available in more than 80 languages, it is a self-administered, generic health status questionnaire developed to assess pain, function, and stiffness in daily living, taking respondents between 3 to 7.5 minutes for completion.¹² Using visual analog scales, the 24 items probe the 3 subscales: pain (5 items), stiffness (2 items), and functional difficulty (17 items). Scores are calculated for each dimension, and the total score is normalized to a 100-point scale, with 0 indicating severe symptoms and 100 indicating no symptoms and higher function. The WOMAC score can also be calculated from the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). The WOMAC questionnaire is well recognized for its good validity, reliability, and responsiveness, and is the most commonly used outcome measure for osteoarthritis.^13-15 Considering its focus on older patients with osteoarthritis, it may not be appropriate for use in a young and active population.

KNEE INJURY AND OSTEOARTHRITIS OUTCOME SCORE (KOOS)

The KOOS is a knee-specific questionnaire developed as an extension of the WOMAC to evaluate the functional status and QOL of patients with any type of knee injury who are at an increased risk of developing osteoarthritis.¹⁶ The patient-based questionnaire is available in over 30 languages and covers both the short- and long-term consequences of an injury of the knee causing traumatic damage to cartilage, ligaments, and menisci. The KOOS is 42 items graded on a 5-point Likert scale, covering 5 subscales: pain (9 items), symptoms (7 items), function in activities of daily living (17 items), function in sports/recreation (5 items), and knee-related QOL (4 items). The questionnaire is self-administered and takes about 10 minutes to complete. Scores are calculated for each dimension, and the total score is transformed to a 0 to 100 scale, with 0 representing severe knee problems and 100 representing no knee problems and better outcome. An advantage of the KOOS is that it evaluates both knee injuries and osteoarthritis; therefore, it is arguably more suitable for evaluating patients over the long-term. The KOOS has been validated for several orthopedic interventions, including ACL reconstruction and rehabilitation^16,17 as well as meniscectomy¹⁸ and total knee replacement.¹⁹ Population-based reference data for the adult population according to age and gender have also been established.²⁰ The KOOS is increasingly utilized in clinical studies on ACL reconstruction.^21-25 The questions of the WOMAC were retained so that a WOMAC score might be calculated separately and compared with the KOOS score.²⁶

PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES INFORMATION SYSTEM (PROMIS)

Since 2004, The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has funded the development of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS), a set of flexible tools that reliably and validly measure PROs. The PROMIS consists of a library of question banks that has been developed and operated by a network of National Institutes of Health-funded research sites and coordinating centers and covers many different health domains including pain, fatigue, anxiety, depression, social functioning, physical functioning, and sleep. PROMIS items are developed using Item Response Theory (IRT), wherein the answer to any individual item has a known mathematical probability of predicting the test taker’s overall measurement of the specific trait being tested. This is commonly administered using computer-adaptive testing (CAT), which presents to the test taker an initial item, scores the response to that item, and from the response then presents the most informative second item, and so forth until a predefined level of precision is reached. Because the items are individually validated, they can be used alone or in any combination, a feature that distinguishes the PROMIS from traditional fixed-length PRO instruments that require the completion of an instrument in its entirety to be valid.²⁷ In recent years, orthopedic research has been published with PROMIS physical function (PF) scores as primary outcome measures.^28-30 The PF item bank includes 124 items measuring upper extremity, lower extremity, central and instrumental activities of daily living. PF can be completed as a short form (SF) with a set number of questions or utilizing CAT and evaluates self-reported function and physical activity. An advantage is its ease of use and potential to minimize test burden with very few questions, often as little as 4 items, as compared to other traditional PROMs.³¹

Previously published work has demonstrated that, in patients undergoing meniscal surgery, the PROMIS PF CAT maintains construct validity and correlates well with currently used knee outcome instruments, including KOOS.²⁸ Work by the same group looking at the performance of the PROMIS PF CAT in patients indicated for ACL reconstruction shows that the PROMIS PF CAT correlates well with other PRO instruments for patients with ACL injuries, (SF-36 PF [r = 0.82, P < 0.01], KOOS Sport [r = 0.70, P < 0.01], KOOS ADL [r = 0.74, P < 0.01]), does not have floor or ceiling effects in this relatively young and healthy population, and has a low test burden.^32,33 Papuga and colleagues³³ also compared the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) and PROMIS PF CAT on 106 subjects after ACL reconstruction and found good correlation.

Continue to: Quality of Life Outcome Measure...

QUALITY OF LIFE OUTCOME MEASURE FOR ACL DEFICIENCY (ACL-QOL)

The ACL-QOL Score was developed in 1998 as a disease-specific measure for patients with chronic ACL deficiency.³⁴ This scale consists of 32 separate items in 31 visual analog questions regarding symptoms and physical complaints, work-related concerns, recreational activities and sport participation or competition, lifestyle, and social and emotional health status relating to the knee. The raw score is transformed into a 0- to 100-point scale, with higher scores indicating a better outcome. The scale is valid, reliable, and responsive for patients with ACL insufficiency,^35,36 and is not applicable to other disorders of the knee. We recommend the ACL-QOL questionnaire be used in conjunction with other currently available objective and functional outcome measures.

CINCINNATI KNEE RATING SYSTEM

The Cincinnati Knee Rating System (CKRS) was first described in 1983 and was modified to include occupational activities, athletic activities, symptoms, and functional limitations.^37,38 There are 11 components, measuring symptoms and disability in sports activity, activities of daily living function, occupational rating, as well as sections that measure physical examination, laxity of the knee, and radiographic evidence of degenerative joint disease.³⁹ The measure is scored on a 100-point scale, with higher scores indicating better outcomes. Scores have been shown to be lower as compared with other outcome measures assessing the same clinical condition.^40,41 Barber-Westin and colleagues³⁹ confirmed the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the CKRS by testing 350 subjects with and without knee ligament injuries. In 2001, Marx⁴² tested the CKRS subjective form for reliability, validity, and responsiveness and found it to be acceptable for clinical research.

LYSHOLM KNEE SCORE

The Lysholm Knee Score was published in 1982 and modified in 1985, consisting of an 8-question survey that evaluates outcomes after knee ligament surgery. Items include pain, instability, locking, squatting, limping, support usage, swelling, and stair-climbing ability, with pain and instability carrying the highest weight.⁴³ It is scored on a scale of 0 to 100, with high scores indicating higher functioning and fewer symptoms. It has been validated in patients with ACL injuries and meniscal injuries.⁴⁴ Although it is widely used to measure outcomes after ACL reconstruction,⁴⁵ it has received criticism in the evaluation of patients with other knee conditions.⁴⁶ The main advantage of the Lysholm Knee Score is its ability to note changes in activity in the same patient across different time periods (responsiveness). A limitation of the Lysholm Knee Score is that it does not measure the domains of functioning in daily activities, sports, and recreational activities. The Lysholm scoring system’s test-retest reliability and construct validity have been evaluated,^42,43,46 although there has been some concern regarding a ceiling effect and its validity, sensitivity, and reliability has been questioned.⁴⁷ Therefore, it is advised that this score be used in conjunction with other PRO scores.

INTERNATIONAL KNEE DOCUMENTATION COMMITTEE (IKDC) SUBJECTIVE KNEE FORM

In 1987, members of the European Society for Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy and the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine formed the IKDC to develop a standardized method for evaluating knee injuries and treatment. The IKDC Subjective Knee Evaluation Form was initially published in 1993, and in 2001 the form was revised by the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine to become a knee-specific assessment tool rather than a disease or condition-specific tool.⁴⁸ The IKDC subjective form is an 18-question, knee-specific survey designed to detect improvement or deterioration in symptoms, function, and ability to participate in sports activities experienced by patients following knee surgery or other interventions. The individual items are summed and transformed into a 0- to 100-point scale, with high scores representing higher levels of function and minimal symptoms. The IKDC is utilized to assess a variety of knee conditions including ligament, meniscus, articular cartilage, osteoarthritis, and patellofemoral pain.^48,49 Thus, this form can be used to assess any condition involving the knee and allow comparison between groups with different diagnoses. The IKDC has been validated for an ACL reconstruction population,⁴⁷ has been used to assess outcomes in recent clinical studies on ACL reconstruction,^50,51 and is one of the most frequently used measures for patients with ACL deficiency.³ The validity, responsiveness, and reliability of the IKDC subjective form has been confirmed for both adult and adolescent populations.^48,49,52-54

TEGNER ACTIVITY SCORES

The Tegner activity score was developed in 1985 and was designed to provide an objective value for a patient’s activity level.⁴⁴ This scale was developed to complement the Lysholm score. It consists of 1 sport-specific activity level question on a 0 to 10 scale that evaluates an individual’s ability to compete in a sporting activity. Scores between 1 and 5 represent work or recreational sports. Scores >5 represent higher-level recreational and competitive sports. The Tegner activity score is one of the most widely used activity scoring systems for patients with knee disorders,^55,56 commonly utilized with the Lysholm Knee Score.⁴⁴ One disadvantage of the Tegner activity score is that it relates to specific sports rather than functional activities, which limits its generalizability. We are not aware of any studies documenting the reliability or validity of this instrument.

Continue on: Marx Activity Rating Scale...

MARX ACTIVITY RATING SCALE

The Marx activity rating scale was developed to be utilized with other knee rating scales and outcome measures as an activity assessment.⁵⁷ In contrast to the Tegner activity score, the Marx activity rating scale measures function rather than sport-specific activity. The scale is a short, patient-based activity assessment that consists of a 4-question survey evaluating patients’ knee health by recording the frequency and intensity of participation in a sporting activity. Questions are scored from 0 to 4 on the basis of how often the activity is performed. The 4 sections of the Marx scale that are rated include running, cutting, decelerating, and pivoting. This scale has been validated in patients with ACL injuries, chondromalacia patellae, and meniscal lesions.^42,56-58 Acceptable ceiling effects of 3% and floor effects of 8% were noted in the study of ACL-injured patients.⁵⁷

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS (AAOS) SPORTS KNEE SCALE

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Sports Knee Rating Scale consists of 5 parts and 23 items, including a section addressing stiffness, swelling, pain and function (7 questions), locking/catching (4 questions), giving way (4 questions), limitations of activity (4 questions), and pain with activity (4 questions).^59,60 Items may be dropped if patients select particular responses, which can lead to difficulties when using the survey. This scoring system has been found to be satisfactory when all subscales were combined and the mean was calculated.⁴²

DISCUSSION

PRO measures play an increasingly important role in the measurement of success and impact of health care services. Specifically, for ACL reconstruction, patient satisfaction is key for demonstrating the value of operative or other interventions. Selecting a suitable outcome measurement tool can be daunting, as it can be difficult to ascertain which outcome measures are appropriate for the patient or disorder in question. As there is currently no instrument that is universally superior in the evaluation of ACL outcomes, clinicians must consider the specific patient population in which the outcome instrument has been evaluated. Investigators should also use instruments with reported minimal clinically important differences so that variation in scores can be interpreted as either clinically significant or not. When choosing which outcome instrument to use, there is rarely a single appropriate rating system that is entirely comprehensive. In most cases, a general health outcome measure should be used in combination with a condition-specific rating scale. Activity rating scales, such as Marx or Tegner, should be included, especially when evaluating patients with low-activity lifestyles.

CONCLUSION

There are a number of reliable, valid, and responsive outcome measures that can be utilized to evaluate outcomes following ACL reconstruction in an array of patient populations. Outcome measures should be relevant to patients, easy to use, reliable, valid, and responsive to change. By increasing familiarity with these outcome measures, orthopedic surgeons and investigators can develop better studies, interpret data, and implement findings in practice with sound and informed judgment. Future research should focus on identifying the most relevant outcome metrics for assessing function following ACL reconstruction.

This paper will be judged for the Resident Writer’s Award.

Although patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) aren’t at greater risk for fractures overall, they may be at greater risk of fractures in the spine, results of a recent meta-analysis suggest.

Moreover, fracture risk appears to be higher among IBD patients using steroids, according to a report published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology by Yuga Komaki, MD, of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Chicago, and coauthors.

“Further studies addressing the differential risk among Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis are needed, but strict surveillance and prevention of spine fractures are indicated in IBD,” wrote Dr. Komaki and associates.

PALMIHELP/Getty Images

SOURCE: Komaki Y et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018 Apr 18. 2018 Apr 18. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001031.

Although patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) aren’t at greater risk for fractures overall, they may be at greater risk of fractures in the spine, results of a recent meta-analysis suggest.

Moreover, fracture risk appears to be higher among IBD patients using steroids, according to a report published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology by Yuga Komaki, MD, of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Chicago, and coauthors.

“Further studies addressing the differential risk among Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis are needed, but strict surveillance and prevention of spine fractures are indicated in IBD,” wrote Dr. Komaki and associates.

PALMIHELP/Getty Images

SOURCE: Komaki Y et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018 Apr 18. 2018 Apr 18. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001031.

Although patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) aren’t at greater risk for fractures overall, they may be at greater risk of fractures in the spine, results of a recent meta-analysis suggest.

Moreover, fracture risk appears to be higher among IBD patients using steroids, according to a report published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology by Yuga Komaki, MD, of the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, University of Chicago, and coauthors.

“Further studies addressing the differential risk among Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis are needed, but strict surveillance and prevention of spine fractures are indicated in IBD,” wrote Dr. Komaki and associates.

PALMIHELP/Getty Images

SOURCE: Komaki Y et al. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018 Apr 18. 2018 Apr 18. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001031.

Bryan Hanypsiak, MD, Editor-in-Chief of The American Journal of Orthopedics, along with Darla Conrad, Senior Director, North America, and Mindy Edgar, Manager, Academic Alliances from the Johnson & Johnson Institute presented the 2017 Resident Writer’s Award to the three winners at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) annual meeting in New Orleans. All articles published in 2017 with a resident as the first-listed author and accepted through the journal’s standard blinded-review process were eligible for this award. The annual Resident Writer's Award is sponsored by Johnson & Johnson. Papers published in 2018 will be judged by The American Journal of Orthopedics Editorial Board, and honoraria will be presented to the winners at the 2019 AAOS annual meeting.

First-Place Award

Joseph T. O’Neil, MD

Second-Place Award

Molly C. Meadows, MD

Third-Place Award

Joseph T. Patterson, MD

See more information about the 2018 Resident Writer's Award.

Supported by Johnson & Johnson

Bryan Hanypsiak, MD, Editor-in-Chief of The American Journal of Orthopedics, along with Darla Conrad, Senior Director, North America, and Mindy Edgar, Manager, Academic Alliances from the Johnson & Johnson Institute presented the 2017 Resident Writer’s Award to the three winners at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) annual meeting in New Orleans. All articles published in 2017 with a resident as the first-listed author and accepted through the journal’s standard blinded-review process were eligible for this award. The annual Resident Writer's Award is sponsored by Johnson & Johnson. Papers published in 2018 will be judged by The American Journal of Orthopedics Editorial Board, and honoraria will be presented to the winners at the 2019 AAOS annual meeting.

First-Place Award

Joseph T. O’Neil, MD

Second-Place Award

Molly C. Meadows, MD

Third-Place Award

Joseph T. Patterson, MD

See more information about the 2018 Resident Writer's Award.

Supported by Johnson & Johnson

Bryan Hanypsiak, MD, Editor-in-Chief of The American Journal of Orthopedics, along with Darla Conrad, Senior Director, North America, and Mindy Edgar, Manager, Academic Alliances from the Johnson & Johnson Institute presented the 2017 Resident Writer’s Award to the three winners at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) annual meeting in New Orleans. All articles published in 2017 with a resident as the first-listed author and accepted through the journal’s standard blinded-review process were eligible for this award. The annual Resident Writer's Award is sponsored by Johnson & Johnson. Papers published in 2018 will be judged by The American Journal of Orthopedics Editorial Board, and honoraria will be presented to the winners at the 2019 AAOS annual meeting.

First-Place Award

Joseph T. O’Neil, MD

Second-Place Award

Molly C. Meadows, MD

Third-Place Award

Joseph T. Patterson, MD

See more information about the 2018 Resident Writer's Award.

Supported by Johnson & Johnson

2017 AJO Resident Writer's Awards

Second-Place Award

An Original Study

Effects of Platelet-Rich Plasma and Indomethacin on Biomechanics of Rotator Cuff Repair

Molly C. Meadows, MD, David M. Levy, MD, Christopher M. Ferry, MS, Thomas R. Gardner, MCE, Takeshi Teratani, MD, and Christopher S. Ahmad, MD

Dr. Meadows is currently in her chief year of orthopedic surgery residency training at Rush University Medical Center. Prior to residency, she completed undergraduate education at Brown University and medical school at Columbia University. Dr. Meadows is beginning a sports medicine fellowship at Stanford University in August 2018, and she plans to pursue a pediatric orthopedic fellowship thereafter.

Her research interests include osteochondritis dissecans lesions, patellofemoral disorders, and other sports injuries in the skeletally immature population.

Read the full version of Dr. Meadows' original study.

2017 AJO Resident Writer's Awards

Second-Place Award

An Original Study

Effects of Platelet-Rich Plasma and Indomethacin on Biomechanics of Rotator Cuff Repair

Molly C. Meadows, MD, David M. Levy, MD, Christopher M. Ferry, MS, Thomas R. Gardner, MCE, Takeshi Teratani, MD, and Christopher S. Ahmad, MD

Dr. Meadows is currently in her chief year of orthopedic surgery residency training at Rush University Medical Center. Prior to residency, she completed undergraduate education at Brown University and medical school at Columbia University. Dr. Meadows is beginning a sports medicine fellowship at Stanford University in August 2018, and she plans to pursue a pediatric orthopedic fellowship thereafter.

Her research interests include osteochondritis dissecans lesions, patellofemoral disorders, and other sports injuries in the skeletally immature population.

Read the full version of Dr. Meadows' original study.

2017 AJO Resident Writer's Awards

Second-Place Award

An Original Study

Effects of Platelet-Rich Plasma and Indomethacin on Biomechanics of Rotator Cuff Repair

Molly C. Meadows, MD, David M. Levy, MD, Christopher M. Ferry, MS, Thomas R. Gardner, MCE, Takeshi Teratani, MD, and Christopher S. Ahmad, MD

Dr. Meadows is currently in her chief year of orthopedic surgery residency training at Rush University Medical Center. Prior to residency, she completed undergraduate education at Brown University and medical school at Columbia University. Dr. Meadows is beginning a sports medicine fellowship at Stanford University in August 2018, and she plans to pursue a pediatric orthopedic fellowship thereafter.

Her research interests include osteochondritis dissecans lesions, patellofemoral disorders, and other sports injuries in the skeletally immature population.

Read the full version of Dr. Meadows' original study.

2017 AJO Resident Writer's Awards

Third-Place Award

An Original Study

Does Preoperative Pneumonia Affect Complications of Geriatric Hip Fracture Surgery?

Joseph T. Patterson, MD, Daniel D. Bohl, MD, MPH, Bryce A. Basques, MD, Alexander H. Arzeno, MD, and Jonathan Grauer, MD

Dr. Patterson is completing his orthopedic surgery residency at the University of California San Francisco, and will continue training with a fellowship in orthopedic trauma at Harborview Medical Center. Prior to residency, he completed undergraduate education at the University of California Los Angeles and medical school at Yale University.

His research interests include geriatric hip fracture care, interdisciplinary trauma care performance improvement, and outcome assessment in orthopedic trauma.

Read the full version of Dr. Patterson's original study.

2017 AJO Resident Writer's Awards

Third-Place Award

An Original Study

Does Preoperative Pneumonia Affect Complications of Geriatric Hip Fracture Surgery?

Joseph T. Patterson, MD, Daniel D. Bohl, MD, MPH, Bryce A. Basques, MD, Alexander H. Arzeno, MD, and Jonathan Grauer, MD

Dr. Patterson is completing his orthopedic surgery residency at the University of California San Francisco, and will continue training with a fellowship in orthopedic trauma at Harborview Medical Center. Prior to residency, he completed undergraduate education at the University of California Los Angeles and medical school at Yale University.

His research interests include geriatric hip fracture care, interdisciplinary trauma care performance improvement, and outcome assessment in orthopedic trauma.

Read the full version of Dr. Patterson's original study.

2017 AJO Resident Writer's Awards

Third-Place Award

An Original Study

Does Preoperative Pneumonia Affect Complications of Geriatric Hip Fracture Surgery?

Joseph T. Patterson, MD, Daniel D. Bohl, MD, MPH, Bryce A. Basques, MD, Alexander H. Arzeno, MD, and Jonathan Grauer, MD

Dr. Patterson is completing his orthopedic surgery residency at the University of California San Francisco, and will continue training with a fellowship in orthopedic trauma at Harborview Medical Center. Prior to residency, he completed undergraduate education at the University of California Los Angeles and medical school at Yale University.

His research interests include geriatric hip fracture care, interdisciplinary trauma care performance improvement, and outcome assessment in orthopedic trauma.

Read the full version of Dr. Patterson's original study.

2017 AJO Resident Writer's Awards

First-Place Award

An Original Study

Prospective Evaluation of Opioid Consumption After Distal Radius Fracture Repair Surgery

Joseph T. O’Neil, MD, Mark L. Wang, MD, PhD, Nayoung Kim, BS, Mitchell Maltenfort, PhD, and Asif M. Ilyas, MD

Dr. O'Neil completed his orthopedic surgery residency training at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Prior to residency, he completed undergraduate education at the University of Notre Dame and medical school at Thomas Jefferson University. He was born and raised in the Philadelphia area.

Dr. O'Neil is currently an orthopedic foot and ankle surgery fellow at Union Memorial Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland.

His research interests include total ankle arthroplasty; the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of periprosthetic joint infection in the ankle; as well as helping to combat the opioid epidemic in the United States by better understanding patterns of prescribing and use following common orthopedic surgical procedures.

Read the full version of Dr. O'Neil's original study.

2017 AJO Resident Writer's Awards

First-Place Award

An Original Study

Prospective Evaluation of Opioid Consumption After Distal Radius Fracture Repair Surgery

Joseph T. O’Neil, MD, Mark L. Wang, MD, PhD, Nayoung Kim, BS, Mitchell Maltenfort, PhD, and Asif M. Ilyas, MD

Dr. O'Neil completed his orthopedic surgery residency training at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Prior to residency, he completed undergraduate education at the University of Notre Dame and medical school at Thomas Jefferson University. He was born and raised in the Philadelphia area.

Dr. O'Neil is currently an orthopedic foot and ankle surgery fellow at Union Memorial Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland.

His research interests include total ankle arthroplasty; the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of periprosthetic joint infection in the ankle; as well as helping to combat the opioid epidemic in the United States by better understanding patterns of prescribing and use following common orthopedic surgical procedures.

Read the full version of Dr. O'Neil's original study.

2017 AJO Resident Writer's Awards

First-Place Award

An Original Study

Prospective Evaluation of Opioid Consumption After Distal Radius Fracture Repair Surgery

Joseph T. O’Neil, MD, Mark L. Wang, MD, PhD, Nayoung Kim, BS, Mitchell Maltenfort, PhD, and Asif M. Ilyas, MD

Dr. O'Neil completed his orthopedic surgery residency training at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Prior to residency, he completed undergraduate education at the University of Notre Dame and medical school at Thomas Jefferson University. He was born and raised in the Philadelphia area.

Dr. O'Neil is currently an orthopedic foot and ankle surgery fellow at Union Memorial Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland.

His research interests include total ankle arthroplasty; the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of periprosthetic joint infection in the ankle; as well as helping to combat the opioid epidemic in the United States by better understanding patterns of prescribing and use following common orthopedic surgical procedures.

Read the full version of Dr. O'Neil's original study.

The 2018 Resident Writer’s Award competition is sponsored by Johnson & Johnson. Orthopedic residents are invited to submit original studies, review papers, or case reports for publication. Papers published in 2018 will be judged by The American Journal of Orthopedics Editorial Board. Honoraria will be presented to the winners at the 2019 AAOS annual meeting.

• $1,500 for the First-Place Award
• $1,000 for the Second-Place Award
• $500 for the Third-Place Award

To quality for consideration, papers must have the resident as the first-listed author and must be accepted through the journal’s standard blinded-review process. Papers submitted in 2018 but not published until 2019 will automatically qualify for the 2019 competition. Manuscripts should be prepared according to our Information for the Authors and submitted via our online submission system, Editorial Manager®, at www.editorialmanager.com/AmJOrthop.

Read more about this year's RWA winners.

Supported by Johnson & Johnson

The 2018 Resident Writer’s Award competition is sponsored by Johnson & Johnson. Orthopedic residents are invited to submit original studies, review papers, or case reports for publication. Papers published in 2018 will be judged by The American Journal of Orthopedics Editorial Board. Honoraria will be presented to the winners at the 2019 AAOS annual meeting.

• $1,500 for the First-Place Award
• $1,000 for the Second-Place Award
• $500 for the Third-Place Award

To quality for consideration, papers must have the resident as the first-listed author and must be accepted through the journal’s standard blinded-review process. Papers submitted in 2018 but not published until 2019 will automatically qualify for the 2019 competition. Manuscripts should be prepared according to our Information for the Authors and submitted via our online submission system, Editorial Manager®, at www.editorialmanager.com/AmJOrthop.

Read more about this year's RWA winners.

Supported by Johnson & Johnson

The 2018 Resident Writer’s Award competition is sponsored by Johnson & Johnson. Orthopedic residents are invited to submit original studies, review papers, or case reports for publication. Papers published in 2018 will be judged by The American Journal of Orthopedics Editorial Board. Honoraria will be presented to the winners at the 2019 AAOS annual meeting.

• $1,500 for the First-Place Award
• $1,000 for the Second-Place Award
• $500 for the Third-Place Award

To quality for consideration, papers must have the resident as the first-listed author and must be accepted through the journal’s standard blinded-review process. Papers submitted in 2018 but not published until 2019 will automatically qualify for the 2019 competition. Manuscripts should be prepared according to our Information for the Authors and submitted via our online submission system, Editorial Manager®, at www.editorialmanager.com/AmJOrthop.

Read more about this year's RWA winners.

Supported by Johnson & Johnson