Orthopedics

Orthopedic physicians in the highest income tax brackets may have been presented with an unpleasant surprise in recent years when they learned of their investment tax liability. A prolonged period of strong domestic stock performance from 2009 to 2016, combined with the implementation of The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, may have resulted in significantly higher taxes for many of you.

The top ordinary income tax rates increased by 24% when including the Net Investment Income surtax, while the top capital gains rate was increased by more than 58%. Writing a large check to the Internal Revenue Service serves as a harsh reminder that tax planning requires attention throughout the year, and is not a technique you can properly manage a few weeks before an April 15 deadline.

Proper tax planning became more critical as we moved into an era of higher taxes. A multi-year bull market for domestic stocks has caused many traditional investment vehicles to hold large amounts of unrealized gains, which can become realized gains if you are not careful. Most major equity indices took a breath in 2015 and finished the year in the red, which created a planning opportunity for astute investors and their advisors. Stocks in the US and emerging market countries quickly bounced back in 2016; however, European stocks struggled and continue to trade well below peak levels reached nearly a decade ago. Investors who missed the opportunity to offset gains of the prior 2 years may have an opportunity to reduce their tax bill in 2017.

In this article, we will provide you with 6 suggestions that could save you thousands of dollars in investment taxes over the next several years.

1. Account Registration Matters: A common mistake investors make is the failure to implement a tax diversification strategy. Brokerage accounts, Roth IRAs, and qualified plans are subject to various forms of taxation. It is important to utilize the tax advantages of these tools to ensure they work for you in the most productive manner possible. A properly integrated approach is critical during your accumulation phase. Further, it is just as important when you enter the distribution period of your investment life cycle (ie, retirement).

Master Limited Partnerships offer a potentially advantageous income stream for a brokerage account, while it is generally preferable for qualified accounts to own high yield bonds and corporate debt, as they are taxed at ordinary income rates. There are countless additional examples we could discuss, but the lesson is simple: it is important to review the pieces of your plan with an advisor who will consider both tax diversification and security diversification as they relate to your specific circumstances.

2. Consider Owning Municipal Bonds in Taxable Accounts: Most municipal bonds are exempt from federal taxation. Certain issues may also be exempt from state and local taxes. If you are in the highest federal tax bracket, you may be paying tax on investment income at a rate of 43.4%. Under these circumstances, a municipal bond yielding 3% will provide a superior after tax return in comparison to a corporate bond yielding 5% in an individual or joint registration, a pass-through LLC, or in many trust accounts. Therefore, it is important in many circumstances to make certain your long-term plan utilizes the advantages of owning certain municipal bonds in taxable accounts.

3. Be Cognizant of Holding Periods: Long-term capital gains rates are much more favorable than short-term rates. Holding a security for a period of 12 months presents an opportunity to save nearly 20% on the taxation of your appreciated position. For example, an initial investment of $50,000 which grows to $100,000 represents a $50,000 unrealized gain. If an investor in the highest tax bracket simply delays liquidation of the position (assuming the security price does not change) the tax savings in this scenario would be $9,800. Although an awareness of the holding period of a security would appear to be a basic principal of investing, many mutual funds and managed accounts are not designed for tax sensitivity. High income investors should be aware that the average client of most advisors is not in the highest federal tax bracket. Therefore, it is generally advantageous to seek the advice of a financial professional with experience executing an appropriate exit strategy that is aware of holding periods.

4. Proactively Realize Losses to Offset Gains: As mentioned in the opening paragraphs of the article, 2015 presented investors with an opportunity to realize losses in domestic stocks for the first time in 4 years. Clients with a diversified portfolio may still have an opportunity to offset gains in domestic stocks by selling foreign equities. One benefit of diversifying across asset classes is that if the portfolio is structured properly, the securities typically will not move in tandem. This divergence of returns among asset classes not only reduces portfolio volatility, but it creates a tax planning opportunity. Domestic equities experienced tremendous appreciation over a 5-year period through 2014; however, international stocks, commodities, and multiple fixed income investments experienced down years. Astute advisors were presented with the opportunity to save clients thousands of dollars in taxes by performing strategic tax swaps prior to year-end. It is important to understand the rules relating to wash sales when executing such tactics. The laws are confusing, and if a mistake is made your loss could be disallowed. Make certain your advisor is well-versed in utilizing tax offsets.

5. Think Twice About Gifting Cash: This is not to discourage your charitable intentions. Quite the opposite is true. However, a successful investor can occasionally find themselves in a precarious position. You may have allocated 5% of your portfolio to a growth stock with significant upside. Several years have passed, the security has experienced explosive growth, and it now represents 15% of your investable assets. Suddenly your portfolio has a concentrated position with significant gains, and the level of risk is no longer consistent with your long-term objectives. The sound practice of rebalancing your portfolio then becomes very costly, because liquidation of the stock could create a taxable event that may negatively impact your net return.

By planning ahead of time, you may be able to gift a portion of the appreciated security to a charitable organization able to accept this type of donation. The value of your gift can be replaced with the cash you originally intended to donate to the charitable organization and, in this scenario, your cash will create a new cost basis. The charity can liquidate the stock without paying tax, and you have removed a future tax liability from your portfolio. Implementing the aforementioned gifting strategy offers the potential to save thousands of dollars in taxes over the life of your portfolio.

6. Understand your Mutual Fund’s Tax Cost Ratio: The technical detail behind a mutual fund’s tax cost ratio is beyond the scope of this article. Our intent is to simply bring this topic to your attention. Tax cost ratio represents the percentage of an investor’s assets that are lost to taxes. Mutual funds avoid double taxation, provided they pay at least 90% of net investment income and realized capital gains to shareholders at the end of the calendar year. But all mutual funds are not created equally, and proper research will allow you to identify funds that are tax efficient.

A well-managed mutual fund will add diversification to a portfolio while creating the opportunity to outperform asset classes with inefficient markets. You do need to be aware of funds with excessive turnover. An understanding of when a fund pays its capital gains distributions is a critical component of successful investing. A poorly timed fund purchase can result in acquiring another investor’s tax liability. It is not unusual for an investor to experience a negative return in a calendar year, yet find himself on the receiving end of a capital gains distribution. Understanding the tax cost ratios of the funds that make up portions of your investment plan will enable you to take advantage of the many benefits of owning mutual funds.

The above steps are by no means the only tax strategies experienced advisors can execute on behalf of their clients. This article highlights several strategies you should discuss with your advisor to determine if implementation is appropriate for your unique portfolio and overall financial situation. Successful investing requires discipline that extends beyond proper security selection. While gross returns are important and should not be ignored, the percentage return you see on your statements does not tell the full story.

In today’s tax environment, successful investors must choose an advisor who will help them look beyond portfolio earnings and focus on strategic after-tax asset growth.

To receive a free hardcopy of Wealth Protection Planning for Orthopaedic Surgeons, please call 877-656-4362. Visit www.ojmbookstore.com and enter promotional code AJO30 for a free ebook download of Wealth Protection Planning or one of our other ebooks for your Kindle or iPad.

Orthopedic physicians in the highest income tax brackets may have been presented with an unpleasant surprise in recent years when they learned of their investment tax liability. A prolonged period of strong domestic stock performance from 2009 to 2016, combined with the implementation of The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, may have resulted in significantly higher taxes for many of you.

The top ordinary income tax rates increased by 24% when including the Net Investment Income surtax, while the top capital gains rate was increased by more than 58%. Writing a large check to the Internal Revenue Service serves as a harsh reminder that tax planning requires attention throughout the year, and is not a technique you can properly manage a few weeks before an April 15 deadline.

Proper tax planning became more critical as we moved into an era of higher taxes. A multi-year bull market for domestic stocks has caused many traditional investment vehicles to hold large amounts of unrealized gains, which can become realized gains if you are not careful. Most major equity indices took a breath in 2015 and finished the year in the red, which created a planning opportunity for astute investors and their advisors. Stocks in the US and emerging market countries quickly bounced back in 2016; however, European stocks struggled and continue to trade well below peak levels reached nearly a decade ago. Investors who missed the opportunity to offset gains of the prior 2 years may have an opportunity to reduce their tax bill in 2017.

In this article, we will provide you with 6 suggestions that could save you thousands of dollars in investment taxes over the next several years.

1. Account Registration Matters: A common mistake investors make is the failure to implement a tax diversification strategy. Brokerage accounts, Roth IRAs, and qualified plans are subject to various forms of taxation. It is important to utilize the tax advantages of these tools to ensure they work for you in the most productive manner possible. A properly integrated approach is critical during your accumulation phase. Further, it is just as important when you enter the distribution period of your investment life cycle (ie, retirement).

Master Limited Partnerships offer a potentially advantageous income stream for a brokerage account, while it is generally preferable for qualified accounts to own high yield bonds and corporate debt, as they are taxed at ordinary income rates. There are countless additional examples we could discuss, but the lesson is simple: it is important to review the pieces of your plan with an advisor who will consider both tax diversification and security diversification as they relate to your specific circumstances.

2. Consider Owning Municipal Bonds in Taxable Accounts: Most municipal bonds are exempt from federal taxation. Certain issues may also be exempt from state and local taxes. If you are in the highest federal tax bracket, you may be paying tax on investment income at a rate of 43.4%. Under these circumstances, a municipal bond yielding 3% will provide a superior after tax return in comparison to a corporate bond yielding 5% in an individual or joint registration, a pass-through LLC, or in many trust accounts. Therefore, it is important in many circumstances to make certain your long-term plan utilizes the advantages of owning certain municipal bonds in taxable accounts.

3. Be Cognizant of Holding Periods: Long-term capital gains rates are much more favorable than short-term rates. Holding a security for a period of 12 months presents an opportunity to save nearly 20% on the taxation of your appreciated position. For example, an initial investment of $50,000 which grows to $100,000 represents a $50,000 unrealized gain. If an investor in the highest tax bracket simply delays liquidation of the position (assuming the security price does not change) the tax savings in this scenario would be $9,800. Although an awareness of the holding period of a security would appear to be a basic principal of investing, many mutual funds and managed accounts are not designed for tax sensitivity. High income investors should be aware that the average client of most advisors is not in the highest federal tax bracket. Therefore, it is generally advantageous to seek the advice of a financial professional with experience executing an appropriate exit strategy that is aware of holding periods.

4. Proactively Realize Losses to Offset Gains: As mentioned in the opening paragraphs of the article, 2015 presented investors with an opportunity to realize losses in domestic stocks for the first time in 4 years. Clients with a diversified portfolio may still have an opportunity to offset gains in domestic stocks by selling foreign equities. One benefit of diversifying across asset classes is that if the portfolio is structured properly, the securities typically will not move in tandem. This divergence of returns among asset classes not only reduces portfolio volatility, but it creates a tax planning opportunity. Domestic equities experienced tremendous appreciation over a 5-year period through 2014; however, international stocks, commodities, and multiple fixed income investments experienced down years. Astute advisors were presented with the opportunity to save clients thousands of dollars in taxes by performing strategic tax swaps prior to year-end. It is important to understand the rules relating to wash sales when executing such tactics. The laws are confusing, and if a mistake is made your loss could be disallowed. Make certain your advisor is well-versed in utilizing tax offsets.

5. Think Twice About Gifting Cash: This is not to discourage your charitable intentions. Quite the opposite is true. However, a successful investor can occasionally find themselves in a precarious position. You may have allocated 5% of your portfolio to a growth stock with significant upside. Several years have passed, the security has experienced explosive growth, and it now represents 15% of your investable assets. Suddenly your portfolio has a concentrated position with significant gains, and the level of risk is no longer consistent with your long-term objectives. The sound practice of rebalancing your portfolio then becomes very costly, because liquidation of the stock could create a taxable event that may negatively impact your net return.

By planning ahead of time, you may be able to gift a portion of the appreciated security to a charitable organization able to accept this type of donation. The value of your gift can be replaced with the cash you originally intended to donate to the charitable organization and, in this scenario, your cash will create a new cost basis. The charity can liquidate the stock without paying tax, and you have removed a future tax liability from your portfolio. Implementing the aforementioned gifting strategy offers the potential to save thousands of dollars in taxes over the life of your portfolio.

6. Understand your Mutual Fund’s Tax Cost Ratio: The technical detail behind a mutual fund’s tax cost ratio is beyond the scope of this article. Our intent is to simply bring this topic to your attention. Tax cost ratio represents the percentage of an investor’s assets that are lost to taxes. Mutual funds avoid double taxation, provided they pay at least 90% of net investment income and realized capital gains to shareholders at the end of the calendar year. But all mutual funds are not created equally, and proper research will allow you to identify funds that are tax efficient.

A well-managed mutual fund will add diversification to a portfolio while creating the opportunity to outperform asset classes with inefficient markets. You do need to be aware of funds with excessive turnover. An understanding of when a fund pays its capital gains distributions is a critical component of successful investing. A poorly timed fund purchase can result in acquiring another investor’s tax liability. It is not unusual for an investor to experience a negative return in a calendar year, yet find himself on the receiving end of a capital gains distribution. Understanding the tax cost ratios of the funds that make up portions of your investment plan will enable you to take advantage of the many benefits of owning mutual funds.

The above steps are by no means the only tax strategies experienced advisors can execute on behalf of their clients. This article highlights several strategies you should discuss with your advisor to determine if implementation is appropriate for your unique portfolio and overall financial situation. Successful investing requires discipline that extends beyond proper security selection. While gross returns are important and should not be ignored, the percentage return you see on your statements does not tell the full story.

In today’s tax environment, successful investors must choose an advisor who will help them look beyond portfolio earnings and focus on strategic after-tax asset growth.

To receive a free hardcopy of Wealth Protection Planning for Orthopaedic Surgeons, please call 877-656-4362. Visit www.ojmbookstore.com and enter promotional code AJO30 for a free ebook download of Wealth Protection Planning or one of our other ebooks for your Kindle or iPad.

Orthopedic physicians in the highest income tax brackets may have been presented with an unpleasant surprise in recent years when they learned of their investment tax liability. A prolonged period of strong domestic stock performance from 2009 to 2016, combined with the implementation of The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, may have resulted in significantly higher taxes for many of you.

The top ordinary income tax rates increased by 24% when including the Net Investment Income surtax, while the top capital gains rate was increased by more than 58%. Writing a large check to the Internal Revenue Service serves as a harsh reminder that tax planning requires attention throughout the year, and is not a technique you can properly manage a few weeks before an April 15 deadline.

Proper tax planning became more critical as we moved into an era of higher taxes. A multi-year bull market for domestic stocks has caused many traditional investment vehicles to hold large amounts of unrealized gains, which can become realized gains if you are not careful. Most major equity indices took a breath in 2015 and finished the year in the red, which created a planning opportunity for astute investors and their advisors. Stocks in the US and emerging market countries quickly bounced back in 2016; however, European stocks struggled and continue to trade well below peak levels reached nearly a decade ago. Investors who missed the opportunity to offset gains of the prior 2 years may have an opportunity to reduce their tax bill in 2017.

In this article, we will provide you with 6 suggestions that could save you thousands of dollars in investment taxes over the next several years.

1. Account Registration Matters: A common mistake investors make is the failure to implement a tax diversification strategy. Brokerage accounts, Roth IRAs, and qualified plans are subject to various forms of taxation. It is important to utilize the tax advantages of these tools to ensure they work for you in the most productive manner possible. A properly integrated approach is critical during your accumulation phase. Further, it is just as important when you enter the distribution period of your investment life cycle (ie, retirement).

Master Limited Partnerships offer a potentially advantageous income stream for a brokerage account, while it is generally preferable for qualified accounts to own high yield bonds and corporate debt, as they are taxed at ordinary income rates. There are countless additional examples we could discuss, but the lesson is simple: it is important to review the pieces of your plan with an advisor who will consider both tax diversification and security diversification as they relate to your specific circumstances.

2. Consider Owning Municipal Bonds in Taxable Accounts: Most municipal bonds are exempt from federal taxation. Certain issues may also be exempt from state and local taxes. If you are in the highest federal tax bracket, you may be paying tax on investment income at a rate of 43.4%. Under these circumstances, a municipal bond yielding 3% will provide a superior after tax return in comparison to a corporate bond yielding 5% in an individual or joint registration, a pass-through LLC, or in many trust accounts. Therefore, it is important in many circumstances to make certain your long-term plan utilizes the advantages of owning certain municipal bonds in taxable accounts.

3. Be Cognizant of Holding Periods: Long-term capital gains rates are much more favorable than short-term rates. Holding a security for a period of 12 months presents an opportunity to save nearly 20% on the taxation of your appreciated position. For example, an initial investment of $50,000 which grows to $100,000 represents a $50,000 unrealized gain. If an investor in the highest tax bracket simply delays liquidation of the position (assuming the security price does not change) the tax savings in this scenario would be $9,800. Although an awareness of the holding period of a security would appear to be a basic principal of investing, many mutual funds and managed accounts are not designed for tax sensitivity. High income investors should be aware that the average client of most advisors is not in the highest federal tax bracket. Therefore, it is generally advantageous to seek the advice of a financial professional with experience executing an appropriate exit strategy that is aware of holding periods.

4. Proactively Realize Losses to Offset Gains: As mentioned in the opening paragraphs of the article, 2015 presented investors with an opportunity to realize losses in domestic stocks for the first time in 4 years. Clients with a diversified portfolio may still have an opportunity to offset gains in domestic stocks by selling foreign equities. One benefit of diversifying across asset classes is that if the portfolio is structured properly, the securities typically will not move in tandem. This divergence of returns among asset classes not only reduces portfolio volatility, but it creates a tax planning opportunity. Domestic equities experienced tremendous appreciation over a 5-year period through 2014; however, international stocks, commodities, and multiple fixed income investments experienced down years. Astute advisors were presented with the opportunity to save clients thousands of dollars in taxes by performing strategic tax swaps prior to year-end. It is important to understand the rules relating to wash sales when executing such tactics. The laws are confusing, and if a mistake is made your loss could be disallowed. Make certain your advisor is well-versed in utilizing tax offsets.

5. Think Twice About Gifting Cash: This is not to discourage your charitable intentions. Quite the opposite is true. However, a successful investor can occasionally find themselves in a precarious position. You may have allocated 5% of your portfolio to a growth stock with significant upside. Several years have passed, the security has experienced explosive growth, and it now represents 15% of your investable assets. Suddenly your portfolio has a concentrated position with significant gains, and the level of risk is no longer consistent with your long-term objectives. The sound practice of rebalancing your portfolio then becomes very costly, because liquidation of the stock could create a taxable event that may negatively impact your net return.

By planning ahead of time, you may be able to gift a portion of the appreciated security to a charitable organization able to accept this type of donation. The value of your gift can be replaced with the cash you originally intended to donate to the charitable organization and, in this scenario, your cash will create a new cost basis. The charity can liquidate the stock without paying tax, and you have removed a future tax liability from your portfolio. Implementing the aforementioned gifting strategy offers the potential to save thousands of dollars in taxes over the life of your portfolio.

6. Understand your Mutual Fund’s Tax Cost Ratio: The technical detail behind a mutual fund’s tax cost ratio is beyond the scope of this article. Our intent is to simply bring this topic to your attention. Tax cost ratio represents the percentage of an investor’s assets that are lost to taxes. Mutual funds avoid double taxation, provided they pay at least 90% of net investment income and realized capital gains to shareholders at the end of the calendar year. But all mutual funds are not created equally, and proper research will allow you to identify funds that are tax efficient.

A well-managed mutual fund will add diversification to a portfolio while creating the opportunity to outperform asset classes with inefficient markets. You do need to be aware of funds with excessive turnover. An understanding of when a fund pays its capital gains distributions is a critical component of successful investing. A poorly timed fund purchase can result in acquiring another investor’s tax liability. It is not unusual for an investor to experience a negative return in a calendar year, yet find himself on the receiving end of a capital gains distribution. Understanding the tax cost ratios of the funds that make up portions of your investment plan will enable you to take advantage of the many benefits of owning mutual funds.

The above steps are by no means the only tax strategies experienced advisors can execute on behalf of their clients. This article highlights several strategies you should discuss with your advisor to determine if implementation is appropriate for your unique portfolio and overall financial situation. Successful investing requires discipline that extends beyond proper security selection. While gross returns are important and should not be ignored, the percentage return you see on your statements does not tell the full story.

In today’s tax environment, successful investors must choose an advisor who will help them look beyond portfolio earnings and focus on strategic after-tax asset growth.

To receive a free hardcopy of Wealth Protection Planning for Orthopaedic Surgeons, please call 877-656-4362. Visit www.ojmbookstore.com and enter promotional code AJO30 for a free ebook download of Wealth Protection Planning or one of our other ebooks for your Kindle or iPad.

Take-Home Points

• Complication rates did not statistically significantly differ between simultaneous and staged TKA.
• Length of stay of 2 TKA admissions was greater than 1 BTKA admission.
• Transfusion requirements were greater in BTKA.
• Avoid bilateral procedures in ASA 3 patients.
• Develop institutional protocols for BTKA with multidisciplinary input.

In the United States, osteoarthritis is the most common cause of knee pain and one of the leading causes of disability.¹ Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an effective treatment for end-stage osteoarthritis of the knee.² Whether patients with severe, debilitating bilateral disease should undergo simultaneous bilateral TKA (BTKA) or staged BTKA (2 separate procedures during separate hospital admissions) continues to be debated. The relative risks and benefits of simultaneous BTKA relative to staged BTKA or unilateral TKA are controversial.^3-6 Proponents of simultaneous BTKA have argued that this surgery results in shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) and higher patient satisfaction without increased risk of perioperative complications,^7-9 and opponents have argued that it leads to increased perioperative mortality and complications and should not be performed routinely.^10,11

The safety of simultaneous BTKA cannot necessarily be extrapolated from data on unilateral TKA. Authors have argued that the complication rate for simultaneous BTKA is not comparable to the rate for unilateral TKA but instead is double the rate.¹² Although a doubled rate may more closely approximate the true risk of simultaneous BTKA, it still does not account for the increased surgical impact of 2 procedures (vs 1 procedure) on a patient. In this regard, comparing simultaneous and staged BTKA provides a more accurate assessment of risk, as long as the interval between surgeries is not excessive. The major stress experienced during TKA affects the cardiovascular, pulmonary, and musculoskeletal systems, and full recovery may take up to 6 months.^13-15 Outcome studies have found significant improvement in validated measures of function and pain up to but not past 6 months.^13,15 Furthermore, a large study comparing American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores with morbidity and mortality rates recorded in the New Zealand Total Joint Database established 6 months as a best approximation of postoperative mortality and morbidity risk.¹⁴ Given these data, we propose that the most accurate analysis of postoperative morbidity and mortality would be a comparison of simultaneous BTKA with BTKA staged <6 months apart. The staged procedures fall within the crucial postoperative period when increased morbidity and mortality would more likely be present. A between-surgeries interval >6 months would effectively separate the 2 procedures, rendering their risks not truly representative.

We retrospectively analyzed all simultaneous BTKA and staged BTKA (<6 months apart) surgeries performed at our orthopedic specialty hospital between 2005 and 2009. We hypothesized there would be no significant difference in perioperative morbidity or mortality between the groups.

Methods and Materials

Our institution’s Institutional Review Board approved this study. All patients who underwent either simultaneous BTKA or staged BTKA (<6 months apart) at a single orthopedic specialty hospital between 2005 and 2009 were retrospectively identified. Twenty-five surgeons performed the procedures. Which procedure to perform (simultaneous or staged) was decided by the attending surgeon in consultation with an anesthesiologist. Preoperative medical diagnostic testing was determined by the internist, who provided medical clearance, and was subject to review by the anesthesiologist. A patient was excluded from simultaneous BTKA only if the medical or anesthesiology consultant deemed the patient too high risk for bilateral procedures. Revision TKAs were excluded from the study.

Implant, approach, tourniquet use, and TKA technique were selected by the individual surgeons. Strategies for the simultaneous procedures were (1) single surgeon, single team, sequential, start second knee after closure of first, and (2) single surgeon, single team, sequential, start second knee after implantation of first but before closure. The decision to proceed with the second knee was confirmed in consultation with the anesthesiologist after implantation and deflation of the tourniquet on the first knee.

Individual electronic patient charts were reviewed for information on demographics, comorbidities, anesthesia type, antibiotics, and postoperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Demographic variables included age, sex, height, weight, and body mass index (BMI). Comorbidities recorded were diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, prior myocardial infarction, stroke, and endocrinopathies. In addition, available ASA scores were recorded. The primary outcome was perioperative complications, defined as any complications that occurred within 6 months after surgery. These included death, pulmonary embolism (PE), and deep surgical-site infections (SSIs). Secondary outcome measures were LOS, discharge location (rehabilitation or home), and blood transfusion requirements.

The 2 groups (simultaneous BTKA, staged BTKA) were compared using Student t test for continuous variables and χ² test for categorical variables. Subgroup analysis was performed to compare healthier patients (ASA score 1 or 2) with patients who had more severe comorbidities (ASA score 3). Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

Results

Between 2005 and 2009, 371 patients had simultaneous BTKA, and 67 had staged BTKA (134 procedures) <6 months apart (Table 1).

Most surgeries (84.4% simultaneous, 90.3% staged) were performed with the patient under spinal anesthesia, and there was a trend (P = .167) toward more frequent use of general anesthesia in the simultaneous group relative to the staged group (Table 2).

Discussion

Although there was no significant difference in postoperative complication rates within 6 months after surgery between the simultaneous and staged BTKA groups, the incidence of complications in the simultaneous group was notable. The disproportionate size of the 2 comparison groups limited the power of our study to analyze individual perioperative complications. This study may be underpowered to detect differences in complications occurring relatively infrequently, which may explain why the difference in number of complications (13 in simultaneous group, 1 in staged group) did not achieve statistical significance (β = 0.89). Post hoc power analysis showed 956 patients would be needed in each group to adequately power for such small complication rates. However, our results are consistent with those of other studies.^13-15 The 1.9% PE rate in our simultaneous BTKA group does not vary from the average PE rate for TKA in the literature and is actually lower than the PE rate in a previous study at our institution.¹⁶ Fat embolism traditionally is considered more of a concern in bilateral cases than in unilateral cases. Although fat embolism surely is inherent to the physiologic alterations caused by TKA, we did not find clinically significant fat embolism in either cohort.

Similarly, the 1.08% rate of deep SSIs is within the range for postoperative TKA infections at our institution and others.¹⁷ Our staged BTKA group’s complication rate, 0.75% (1 SSI), was slightly lower than expected. However, 0.75% is in keeping with institutional norms (typical rate, ~1%). We would have expected a nonzero rate for venous thromboembolism, and perhaps such a rate would have come with an inclusion period longer than 6 months. Last, the death in the simultaneous BTKA group was not an outlier, given the published rate of mortality after elective total joint surgery.¹⁸The characteristics of our simultaneous and staged BTKA groups were very similar (Table 1), though the larger number of staged-group patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease may represent selection bias. Nevertheless, the proportions of patients with each of 3 ASA scores were similar. It is also important to note that, in this context, a high percentage of patients in each group (33.6% simultaneous, 37.5% staged) received ASA score 3 from the anesthesiologist (P > .05). This may be an important factor in explaining the larger though not statistically significant number of complications in the simultaneous group (13) relative to the staged group (1).

Conclusion

In this study, the incidence of postoperative complications was higher for simultaneous BTKA than for staged BTKA performed <6 months apart, but the difference was not significantly different. There were significant differences in LOS and blood transfusion rates between the groups, as expected. At present, only patients with ASA score 1 or 2 are considered for simultaneous BTKA at our institution. Patients with ASA score 3 or higher are not eligible.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(4):E224-E229. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Complication rates did not statistically significantly differ between simultaneous and staged TKA.
• Length of stay of 2 TKA admissions was greater than 1 BTKA admission.
• Transfusion requirements were greater in BTKA.
• Avoid bilateral procedures in ASA 3 patients.
• Develop institutional protocols for BTKA with multidisciplinary input.

In the United States, osteoarthritis is the most common cause of knee pain and one of the leading causes of disability.¹ Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an effective treatment for end-stage osteoarthritis of the knee.² Whether patients with severe, debilitating bilateral disease should undergo simultaneous bilateral TKA (BTKA) or staged BTKA (2 separate procedures during separate hospital admissions) continues to be debated. The relative risks and benefits of simultaneous BTKA relative to staged BTKA or unilateral TKA are controversial.^3-6 Proponents of simultaneous BTKA have argued that this surgery results in shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) and higher patient satisfaction without increased risk of perioperative complications,^7-9 and opponents have argued that it leads to increased perioperative mortality and complications and should not be performed routinely.^10,11

The safety of simultaneous BTKA cannot necessarily be extrapolated from data on unilateral TKA. Authors have argued that the complication rate for simultaneous BTKA is not comparable to the rate for unilateral TKA but instead is double the rate.¹² Although a doubled rate may more closely approximate the true risk of simultaneous BTKA, it still does not account for the increased surgical impact of 2 procedures (vs 1 procedure) on a patient. In this regard, comparing simultaneous and staged BTKA provides a more accurate assessment of risk, as long as the interval between surgeries is not excessive. The major stress experienced during TKA affects the cardiovascular, pulmonary, and musculoskeletal systems, and full recovery may take up to 6 months.^13-15 Outcome studies have found significant improvement in validated measures of function and pain up to but not past 6 months.^13,15 Furthermore, a large study comparing American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores with morbidity and mortality rates recorded in the New Zealand Total Joint Database established 6 months as a best approximation of postoperative mortality and morbidity risk.¹⁴ Given these data, we propose that the most accurate analysis of postoperative morbidity and mortality would be a comparison of simultaneous BTKA with BTKA staged <6 months apart. The staged procedures fall within the crucial postoperative period when increased morbidity and mortality would more likely be present. A between-surgeries interval >6 months would effectively separate the 2 procedures, rendering their risks not truly representative.

We retrospectively analyzed all simultaneous BTKA and staged BTKA (<6 months apart) surgeries performed at our orthopedic specialty hospital between 2005 and 2009. We hypothesized there would be no significant difference in perioperative morbidity or mortality between the groups.

Methods and Materials

Our institution’s Institutional Review Board approved this study. All patients who underwent either simultaneous BTKA or staged BTKA (<6 months apart) at a single orthopedic specialty hospital between 2005 and 2009 were retrospectively identified. Twenty-five surgeons performed the procedures. Which procedure to perform (simultaneous or staged) was decided by the attending surgeon in consultation with an anesthesiologist. Preoperative medical diagnostic testing was determined by the internist, who provided medical clearance, and was subject to review by the anesthesiologist. A patient was excluded from simultaneous BTKA only if the medical or anesthesiology consultant deemed the patient too high risk for bilateral procedures. Revision TKAs were excluded from the study.

Implant, approach, tourniquet use, and TKA technique were selected by the individual surgeons. Strategies for the simultaneous procedures were (1) single surgeon, single team, sequential, start second knee after closure of first, and (2) single surgeon, single team, sequential, start second knee after implantation of first but before closure. The decision to proceed with the second knee was confirmed in consultation with the anesthesiologist after implantation and deflation of the tourniquet on the first knee.

Individual electronic patient charts were reviewed for information on demographics, comorbidities, anesthesia type, antibiotics, and postoperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Demographic variables included age, sex, height, weight, and body mass index (BMI). Comorbidities recorded were diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, prior myocardial infarction, stroke, and endocrinopathies. In addition, available ASA scores were recorded. The primary outcome was perioperative complications, defined as any complications that occurred within 6 months after surgery. These included death, pulmonary embolism (PE), and deep surgical-site infections (SSIs). Secondary outcome measures were LOS, discharge location (rehabilitation or home), and blood transfusion requirements.

The 2 groups (simultaneous BTKA, staged BTKA) were compared using Student t test for continuous variables and χ² test for categorical variables. Subgroup analysis was performed to compare healthier patients (ASA score 1 or 2) with patients who had more severe comorbidities (ASA score 3). Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

Results

Between 2005 and 2009, 371 patients had simultaneous BTKA, and 67 had staged BTKA (134 procedures) <6 months apart (Table 1).

Most surgeries (84.4% simultaneous, 90.3% staged) were performed with the patient under spinal anesthesia, and there was a trend (P = .167) toward more frequent use of general anesthesia in the simultaneous group relative to the staged group (Table 2).

Discussion

Although there was no significant difference in postoperative complication rates within 6 months after surgery between the simultaneous and staged BTKA groups, the incidence of complications in the simultaneous group was notable. The disproportionate size of the 2 comparison groups limited the power of our study to analyze individual perioperative complications. This study may be underpowered to detect differences in complications occurring relatively infrequently, which may explain why the difference in number of complications (13 in simultaneous group, 1 in staged group) did not achieve statistical significance (β = 0.89). Post hoc power analysis showed 956 patients would be needed in each group to adequately power for such small complication rates. However, our results are consistent with those of other studies.^13-15 The 1.9% PE rate in our simultaneous BTKA group does not vary from the average PE rate for TKA in the literature and is actually lower than the PE rate in a previous study at our institution.¹⁶ Fat embolism traditionally is considered more of a concern in bilateral cases than in unilateral cases. Although fat embolism surely is inherent to the physiologic alterations caused by TKA, we did not find clinically significant fat embolism in either cohort.

Similarly, the 1.08% rate of deep SSIs is within the range for postoperative TKA infections at our institution and others.¹⁷ Our staged BTKA group’s complication rate, 0.75% (1 SSI), was slightly lower than expected. However, 0.75% is in keeping with institutional norms (typical rate, ~1%). We would have expected a nonzero rate for venous thromboembolism, and perhaps such a rate would have come with an inclusion period longer than 6 months. Last, the death in the simultaneous BTKA group was not an outlier, given the published rate of mortality after elective total joint surgery.¹⁸The characteristics of our simultaneous and staged BTKA groups were very similar (Table 1), though the larger number of staged-group patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease may represent selection bias. Nevertheless, the proportions of patients with each of 3 ASA scores were similar. It is also important to note that, in this context, a high percentage of patients in each group (33.6% simultaneous, 37.5% staged) received ASA score 3 from the anesthesiologist (P > .05). This may be an important factor in explaining the larger though not statistically significant number of complications in the simultaneous group (13) relative to the staged group (1).

Conclusion

In this study, the incidence of postoperative complications was higher for simultaneous BTKA than for staged BTKA performed <6 months apart, but the difference was not significantly different. There were significant differences in LOS and blood transfusion rates between the groups, as expected. At present, only patients with ASA score 1 or 2 are considered for simultaneous BTKA at our institution. Patients with ASA score 3 or higher are not eligible.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(4):E224-E229. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Complication rates did not statistically significantly differ between simultaneous and staged TKA.
• Length of stay of 2 TKA admissions was greater than 1 BTKA admission.
• Transfusion requirements were greater in BTKA.
• Avoid bilateral procedures in ASA 3 patients.
• Develop institutional protocols for BTKA with multidisciplinary input.

In the United States, osteoarthritis is the most common cause of knee pain and one of the leading causes of disability.¹ Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an effective treatment for end-stage osteoarthritis of the knee.² Whether patients with severe, debilitating bilateral disease should undergo simultaneous bilateral TKA (BTKA) or staged BTKA (2 separate procedures during separate hospital admissions) continues to be debated. The relative risks and benefits of simultaneous BTKA relative to staged BTKA or unilateral TKA are controversial.^3-6 Proponents of simultaneous BTKA have argued that this surgery results in shorter hospital length of stay (LOS) and higher patient satisfaction without increased risk of perioperative complications,^7-9 and opponents have argued that it leads to increased perioperative mortality and complications and should not be performed routinely.^10,11

The safety of simultaneous BTKA cannot necessarily be extrapolated from data on unilateral TKA. Authors have argued that the complication rate for simultaneous BTKA is not comparable to the rate for unilateral TKA but instead is double the rate.¹² Although a doubled rate may more closely approximate the true risk of simultaneous BTKA, it still does not account for the increased surgical impact of 2 procedures (vs 1 procedure) on a patient. In this regard, comparing simultaneous and staged BTKA provides a more accurate assessment of risk, as long as the interval between surgeries is not excessive. The major stress experienced during TKA affects the cardiovascular, pulmonary, and musculoskeletal systems, and full recovery may take up to 6 months.^13-15 Outcome studies have found significant improvement in validated measures of function and pain up to but not past 6 months.^13,15 Furthermore, a large study comparing American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores with morbidity and mortality rates recorded in the New Zealand Total Joint Database established 6 months as a best approximation of postoperative mortality and morbidity risk.¹⁴ Given these data, we propose that the most accurate analysis of postoperative morbidity and mortality would be a comparison of simultaneous BTKA with BTKA staged <6 months apart. The staged procedures fall within the crucial postoperative period when increased morbidity and mortality would more likely be present. A between-surgeries interval >6 months would effectively separate the 2 procedures, rendering their risks not truly representative.

We retrospectively analyzed all simultaneous BTKA and staged BTKA (<6 months apart) surgeries performed at our orthopedic specialty hospital between 2005 and 2009. We hypothesized there would be no significant difference in perioperative morbidity or mortality between the groups.

Methods and Materials

Our institution’s Institutional Review Board approved this study. All patients who underwent either simultaneous BTKA or staged BTKA (<6 months apart) at a single orthopedic specialty hospital between 2005 and 2009 were retrospectively identified. Twenty-five surgeons performed the procedures. Which procedure to perform (simultaneous or staged) was decided by the attending surgeon in consultation with an anesthesiologist. Preoperative medical diagnostic testing was determined by the internist, who provided medical clearance, and was subject to review by the anesthesiologist. A patient was excluded from simultaneous BTKA only if the medical or anesthesiology consultant deemed the patient too high risk for bilateral procedures. Revision TKAs were excluded from the study.

Implant, approach, tourniquet use, and TKA technique were selected by the individual surgeons. Strategies for the simultaneous procedures were (1) single surgeon, single team, sequential, start second knee after closure of first, and (2) single surgeon, single team, sequential, start second knee after implantation of first but before closure. The decision to proceed with the second knee was confirmed in consultation with the anesthesiologist after implantation and deflation of the tourniquet on the first knee.

Individual electronic patient charts were reviewed for information on demographics, comorbidities, anesthesia type, antibiotics, and postoperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Demographic variables included age, sex, height, weight, and body mass index (BMI). Comorbidities recorded were diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, prior myocardial infarction, stroke, and endocrinopathies. In addition, available ASA scores were recorded. The primary outcome was perioperative complications, defined as any complications that occurred within 6 months after surgery. These included death, pulmonary embolism (PE), and deep surgical-site infections (SSIs). Secondary outcome measures were LOS, discharge location (rehabilitation or home), and blood transfusion requirements.

The 2 groups (simultaneous BTKA, staged BTKA) were compared using Student t test for continuous variables and χ² test for categorical variables. Subgroup analysis was performed to compare healthier patients (ASA score 1 or 2) with patients who had more severe comorbidities (ASA score 3). Statistical significance was set at P < .05.

Results

Between 2005 and 2009, 371 patients had simultaneous BTKA, and 67 had staged BTKA (134 procedures) <6 months apart (Table 1).

Most surgeries (84.4% simultaneous, 90.3% staged) were performed with the patient under spinal anesthesia, and there was a trend (P = .167) toward more frequent use of general anesthesia in the simultaneous group relative to the staged group (Table 2).

Discussion

Although there was no significant difference in postoperative complication rates within 6 months after surgery between the simultaneous and staged BTKA groups, the incidence of complications in the simultaneous group was notable. The disproportionate size of the 2 comparison groups limited the power of our study to analyze individual perioperative complications. This study may be underpowered to detect differences in complications occurring relatively infrequently, which may explain why the difference in number of complications (13 in simultaneous group, 1 in staged group) did not achieve statistical significance (β = 0.89). Post hoc power analysis showed 956 patients would be needed in each group to adequately power for such small complication rates. However, our results are consistent with those of other studies.^13-15 The 1.9% PE rate in our simultaneous BTKA group does not vary from the average PE rate for TKA in the literature and is actually lower than the PE rate in a previous study at our institution.¹⁶ Fat embolism traditionally is considered more of a concern in bilateral cases than in unilateral cases. Although fat embolism surely is inherent to the physiologic alterations caused by TKA, we did not find clinically significant fat embolism in either cohort.

Similarly, the 1.08% rate of deep SSIs is within the range for postoperative TKA infections at our institution and others.¹⁷ Our staged BTKA group’s complication rate, 0.75% (1 SSI), was slightly lower than expected. However, 0.75% is in keeping with institutional norms (typical rate, ~1%). We would have expected a nonzero rate for venous thromboembolism, and perhaps such a rate would have come with an inclusion period longer than 6 months. Last, the death in the simultaneous BTKA group was not an outlier, given the published rate of mortality after elective total joint surgery.¹⁸The characteristics of our simultaneous and staged BTKA groups were very similar (Table 1), though the larger number of staged-group patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease may represent selection bias. Nevertheless, the proportions of patients with each of 3 ASA scores were similar. It is also important to note that, in this context, a high percentage of patients in each group (33.6% simultaneous, 37.5% staged) received ASA score 3 from the anesthesiologist (P > .05). This may be an important factor in explaining the larger though not statistically significant number of complications in the simultaneous group (13) relative to the staged group (1).

Conclusion

In this study, the incidence of postoperative complications was higher for simultaneous BTKA than for staged BTKA performed <6 months apart, but the difference was not significantly different. There were significant differences in LOS and blood transfusion rates between the groups, as expected. At present, only patients with ASA score 1 or 2 are considered for simultaneous BTKA at our institution. Patients with ASA score 3 or higher are not eligible.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(4):E224-E229. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

The combined use of vancomycin and a beta-lactam antibiotic for prophylaxis against surgical site infections is associated with both benefits and harms, according to findings from a national propensity-score–adjusted retrospective cohort study.

For example, the combination treatment reduced surgical site infections (SSIs) 30 days after cardiac surgical procedures but increased the risk of postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) in some patients, Westyn Branch-Elliman, MD, of the VA Boston Healthcare System and her colleagues reported online July 10 in PLOS Medicine.

Janice Haney Carr/CDC

SSI benefit with combination therapy

“After controlling for age, diabetes, ASA [American Society of Anesthesiologists] score, mupirocin administration, current smoking status, and preoperative MRSA [methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus] colonization status, receipt of combination antimicrobial prophylaxis was associated with reduced SSI risk following cardiac surgical procedures (adjusted risk ratio, 0.61),” they wrote, noting that, when combination therapy was compared with either of the agents alone, the associations were similar and that no association between SSI reduction and the combination regimen was seen for the other types of surgical procedures assessed.

Secondary analyses showed that, among the cardiac patients, differences in the rates of SSIs were seen based on MRSA status in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Among MRSA-colonized patients, SSIs occurred in 8 of 346 patients (2.3%) who received combination prophylaxis vs. 4 of 100 patients (4%) who received vancomycin alone (aRR, 0.53), and, among MRSA-negative and MRSA-unknown cardiac surgery patients, SSIs occurred in 58 of 6,607 patients (0.88%) receiving combination prophylaxis and 146 of 10,215 patients (1.4%) receiving a beta-lactam alone (aRR, 0.60).

“Among MRSA-colonized patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the associated absolute risk reduction for SSI was approximately triple that of the absolute risk reduction in MRSA-negative or -unknown patients, with a [number needed to treat] to prevent 1 SSI of 53 for the MRSA-colonized group, compared with 176 for the MRSA-negative or -unknown groups,” they wrote.

The incidence of Clostridium difficile infection was similar in both exposure groups (0.72% and 0.81% with combination and single agent prophylaxis, respectively).

Higher AKI risk with combination therapy

“In contrast, combination versus single prophylaxis was associated with higher relative risk of AKI in the 7-day postoperative period after adjusting for prophylaxis regimen duration, age, diabetes, ASA score, and smoking,” they said.

The rate of AKI was 23.75% among patients receiving combination prophylaxis, compared with 20.79% and 13.93% among those receiving vancomycin alone and a beta-lactam alone, respectively.

Significant associations between absolute risk of AKI and receipt of combination regimens were seen across all types of procedures, the investigators said.

“Overall, the NNH [number needed to harm] to cause one episode of AKI in cardiac surgery patients receiving combination therapy was 22, and, for stage 3 AKI, 167. The NNH associated with one additional episode of any postoperative AKI after receipt of combination therapy was 76 following orthopedic procedures and 25 following vascular surgical procedures,” they said.

The optimal approach for preventing SSIs is unclear. Although the multidisciplinary Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Surgery recommend single agent prophylaxis most often, with a beta-lactam antibiotic, for most surgical procedures, the use of vancomycin alone is a consideration in MRSA-colonized patients and in centers with a high MRSA incidence, and combination prophylaxis with a beta-lactam plus vancomycin is increasing. However, the relative risks and benefit of this strategy have not been carefully studied, the investigators said.

Thus, the investigators used a propensity-adjusted, log-binomial regression model stratified by type of surgical procedure among the cases identified in the Veterans Affairs cohort to assess the association between SSIs and receipt of combination prophylaxis versus single agent prophylaxis.

Though limited by the observational study design and by factors such as a predominantly male and slightly older and more rural population, the findings suggest that “clinicians may need to individualize prophylaxis strategy based on patient-specific factors that influence the risk-versus-benefit equation,” they said, concluding that “future studies are needed to evaluate the utility of MRSA screening protocols for optimizing and individualizing surgical prophylaxis regimen.”

This study was funded by Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development. Dr. Branch-Elliman reported having no disclosures. One other author, Eli Perencevich, MD, received an investigator initiated Grant from Merck Pharmaceuticals in 2013.

[email protected]

The combined use of vancomycin and a beta-lactam antibiotic for prophylaxis against surgical site infections is associated with both benefits and harms, according to findings from a national propensity-score–adjusted retrospective cohort study.

For example, the combination treatment reduced surgical site infections (SSIs) 30 days after cardiac surgical procedures but increased the risk of postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) in some patients, Westyn Branch-Elliman, MD, of the VA Boston Healthcare System and her colleagues reported online July 10 in PLOS Medicine.

Janice Haney Carr/CDC

SSI benefit with combination therapy

“After controlling for age, diabetes, ASA [American Society of Anesthesiologists] score, mupirocin administration, current smoking status, and preoperative MRSA [methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus] colonization status, receipt of combination antimicrobial prophylaxis was associated with reduced SSI risk following cardiac surgical procedures (adjusted risk ratio, 0.61),” they wrote, noting that, when combination therapy was compared with either of the agents alone, the associations were similar and that no association between SSI reduction and the combination regimen was seen for the other types of surgical procedures assessed.

Secondary analyses showed that, among the cardiac patients, differences in the rates of SSIs were seen based on MRSA status in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Among MRSA-colonized patients, SSIs occurred in 8 of 346 patients (2.3%) who received combination prophylaxis vs. 4 of 100 patients (4%) who received vancomycin alone (aRR, 0.53), and, among MRSA-negative and MRSA-unknown cardiac surgery patients, SSIs occurred in 58 of 6,607 patients (0.88%) receiving combination prophylaxis and 146 of 10,215 patients (1.4%) receiving a beta-lactam alone (aRR, 0.60).

“Among MRSA-colonized patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the associated absolute risk reduction for SSI was approximately triple that of the absolute risk reduction in MRSA-negative or -unknown patients, with a [number needed to treat] to prevent 1 SSI of 53 for the MRSA-colonized group, compared with 176 for the MRSA-negative or -unknown groups,” they wrote.

The incidence of Clostridium difficile infection was similar in both exposure groups (0.72% and 0.81% with combination and single agent prophylaxis, respectively).

Higher AKI risk with combination therapy

“In contrast, combination versus single prophylaxis was associated with higher relative risk of AKI in the 7-day postoperative period after adjusting for prophylaxis regimen duration, age, diabetes, ASA score, and smoking,” they said.

The rate of AKI was 23.75% among patients receiving combination prophylaxis, compared with 20.79% and 13.93% among those receiving vancomycin alone and a beta-lactam alone, respectively.

Significant associations between absolute risk of AKI and receipt of combination regimens were seen across all types of procedures, the investigators said.

“Overall, the NNH [number needed to harm] to cause one episode of AKI in cardiac surgery patients receiving combination therapy was 22, and, for stage 3 AKI, 167. The NNH associated with one additional episode of any postoperative AKI after receipt of combination therapy was 76 following orthopedic procedures and 25 following vascular surgical procedures,” they said.

The optimal approach for preventing SSIs is unclear. Although the multidisciplinary Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Surgery recommend single agent prophylaxis most often, with a beta-lactam antibiotic, for most surgical procedures, the use of vancomycin alone is a consideration in MRSA-colonized patients and in centers with a high MRSA incidence, and combination prophylaxis with a beta-lactam plus vancomycin is increasing. However, the relative risks and benefit of this strategy have not been carefully studied, the investigators said.

Thus, the investigators used a propensity-adjusted, log-binomial regression model stratified by type of surgical procedure among the cases identified in the Veterans Affairs cohort to assess the association between SSIs and receipt of combination prophylaxis versus single agent prophylaxis.

Though limited by the observational study design and by factors such as a predominantly male and slightly older and more rural population, the findings suggest that “clinicians may need to individualize prophylaxis strategy based on patient-specific factors that influence the risk-versus-benefit equation,” they said, concluding that “future studies are needed to evaluate the utility of MRSA screening protocols for optimizing and individualizing surgical prophylaxis regimen.”

This study was funded by Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development. Dr. Branch-Elliman reported having no disclosures. One other author, Eli Perencevich, MD, received an investigator initiated Grant from Merck Pharmaceuticals in 2013.

[email protected]

The combined use of vancomycin and a beta-lactam antibiotic for prophylaxis against surgical site infections is associated with both benefits and harms, according to findings from a national propensity-score–adjusted retrospective cohort study.

For example, the combination treatment reduced surgical site infections (SSIs) 30 days after cardiac surgical procedures but increased the risk of postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) in some patients, Westyn Branch-Elliman, MD, of the VA Boston Healthcare System and her colleagues reported online July 10 in PLOS Medicine.

Janice Haney Carr/CDC

SSI benefit with combination therapy

“After controlling for age, diabetes, ASA [American Society of Anesthesiologists] score, mupirocin administration, current smoking status, and preoperative MRSA [methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus] colonization status, receipt of combination antimicrobial prophylaxis was associated with reduced SSI risk following cardiac surgical procedures (adjusted risk ratio, 0.61),” they wrote, noting that, when combination therapy was compared with either of the agents alone, the associations were similar and that no association between SSI reduction and the combination regimen was seen for the other types of surgical procedures assessed.

Secondary analyses showed that, among the cardiac patients, differences in the rates of SSIs were seen based on MRSA status in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Among MRSA-colonized patients, SSIs occurred in 8 of 346 patients (2.3%) who received combination prophylaxis vs. 4 of 100 patients (4%) who received vancomycin alone (aRR, 0.53), and, among MRSA-negative and MRSA-unknown cardiac surgery patients, SSIs occurred in 58 of 6,607 patients (0.88%) receiving combination prophylaxis and 146 of 10,215 patients (1.4%) receiving a beta-lactam alone (aRR, 0.60).

“Among MRSA-colonized patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the associated absolute risk reduction for SSI was approximately triple that of the absolute risk reduction in MRSA-negative or -unknown patients, with a [number needed to treat] to prevent 1 SSI of 53 for the MRSA-colonized group, compared with 176 for the MRSA-negative or -unknown groups,” they wrote.

The incidence of Clostridium difficile infection was similar in both exposure groups (0.72% and 0.81% with combination and single agent prophylaxis, respectively).

Higher AKI risk with combination therapy

“In contrast, combination versus single prophylaxis was associated with higher relative risk of AKI in the 7-day postoperative period after adjusting for prophylaxis regimen duration, age, diabetes, ASA score, and smoking,” they said.

The rate of AKI was 23.75% among patients receiving combination prophylaxis, compared with 20.79% and 13.93% among those receiving vancomycin alone and a beta-lactam alone, respectively.

Significant associations between absolute risk of AKI and receipt of combination regimens were seen across all types of procedures, the investigators said.

“Overall, the NNH [number needed to harm] to cause one episode of AKI in cardiac surgery patients receiving combination therapy was 22, and, for stage 3 AKI, 167. The NNH associated with one additional episode of any postoperative AKI after receipt of combination therapy was 76 following orthopedic procedures and 25 following vascular surgical procedures,” they said.

The optimal approach for preventing SSIs is unclear. Although the multidisciplinary Clinical Practice Guidelines for Antimicrobial Prophylaxis in Surgery recommend single agent prophylaxis most often, with a beta-lactam antibiotic, for most surgical procedures, the use of vancomycin alone is a consideration in MRSA-colonized patients and in centers with a high MRSA incidence, and combination prophylaxis with a beta-lactam plus vancomycin is increasing. However, the relative risks and benefit of this strategy have not been carefully studied, the investigators said.

Thus, the investigators used a propensity-adjusted, log-binomial regression model stratified by type of surgical procedure among the cases identified in the Veterans Affairs cohort to assess the association between SSIs and receipt of combination prophylaxis versus single agent prophylaxis.

Though limited by the observational study design and by factors such as a predominantly male and slightly older and more rural population, the findings suggest that “clinicians may need to individualize prophylaxis strategy based on patient-specific factors that influence the risk-versus-benefit equation,” they said, concluding that “future studies are needed to evaluate the utility of MRSA screening protocols for optimizing and individualizing surgical prophylaxis regimen.”

This study was funded by Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development. Dr. Branch-Elliman reported having no disclosures. One other author, Eli Perencevich, MD, received an investigator initiated Grant from Merck Pharmaceuticals in 2013.

[email protected]

Take-Home Points

• Have a high-index of suspicion for MLLs and initiate treatment early.
• Compression needs to occur through short-stretch bandaging over a conventional Ace wrap in order to be successful.
• Apply the short-stretch compression with care to avoid shearing underlying tissue.
• Nonoperative treatment modalities require high patient compliance.
• MLLs need close monitoring until final healing occurs.

Morel-Lavallée lesions (MLLs) are traumatic degloving injuries resulting from separation of subcutaneous fat from underlying fascia. MLLs occur in association with acetabular fractures and are also associated with low-velocity crush injuries.^1,2 Shearing creates a “false” space that is filled with hemorrhaged blood, fat, and lymphatic tissue.³ Disruption of the lymphatics leads to cavity formation and, eventually, a fibrotic pseudocapsule.⁴The pseudocapsule prevents resorption, leading to a chronic fluid collection, which potentiates the risk of infection or tissue necrosis.^3,5,6 Skin necrosis may occur through direct-pressure compromise of the dermal vascular plexus.⁴ Necrotic skin may require multiple débridements, negative-pressure wound therapy or soft-tissue coverage, and may ultimately result in infection. MLLs classically occur in the greater trochanteric region, lateral thigh, buttocks, and back but also appear in the prepatellar region.^1,3 Patients present with soft-tissue swelling, bruising, bulging, decreased cutaneous sensation over the region, and a palpable, fluctuant subcutaneous fluid collection with mobile skin.^2,4,7 The mechanism of injury may cause a concomitant fracture. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the preferred imaging modality, shows a discrete fluid collection between subcutaneous fat and underlying fascia. Ultrasonography may reveal a thickened capsule surrounding either a hypoechoic area or an anechoic area but its accuracy is user-dependent.⁷

Large MLLs may be treated with open serial débridement and healing by secondary intention; infection rates, however, are high. Authors have described several other treatment modalities, including percutaneous débridement with a brush followed by use of a large-bore drain and antibiotics; open débridement with meticulous dead-space closure; elastic compression bandaging; aspiration; and doxycycline sclerodesis.^1,5,6,8,9 Modifications of short-stretch compression bandaging were recently described in edema control for hindfoot trauma, ankle trauma, and total ankle arthroplasty, but not for MLLs.^10,11 Nickerson and colleagues⁴ retrospectively reviewed 87 MLLs, found that fluid aspirate of >50 mL predicted recurrence and failure with conservative measures, and recommended operative intervention for any MLL with >50 mL of fluid aspirated.

We report the case of an MLL that occurred in an unusual anatomical region, and we describe a novel application of a conservative treatment, which was selected on the basis of its success in lymphedema management. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A 66-year-old man was injured when a parked vehicle began moving, pulled him under, and ran over his lower right leg. In the emergency department, no fractures or major injuries were noted (Figures 1A, 1B), and the patient was discharged.

About 10 days after injury, profuse ecchymosis and swelling were noted running from the distal medial thigh to the proximal medial calf (Figures 2A-2C).

Discussion

Short-stretch bandaging has been performed mainly in lymphedema and ulcer management.

Compression bandaging reduces volume in lymphedematous limbs by reducing capillary filtration, shifting fluid into noncompressed parts of the body, increasing lymphatic reabsorption and lymphatic transport stimulation, improving venous pumping, and breaking down fibrosclerotic tissue.¹⁵ We think containment, improved venous flow, and enhanced muscle contraction contributed to the effectiveness of short-stretch bandaging as treatment for our patient’s MLL. Because MLLs also contain disrupted lymphatics, lymphedema management strategies (eg, short-stretch bandages) can be used. Our patient rapidly improved after conversion to short-stretch bandages.

These bandages are applied with 50% overlap to ensure even pressures throughout.¹⁶ Multiple layers are applied using a combination of spiral and figure-of-8 techniques, first clockwise and then counterclockwise, to avoid shearing underlying tissue.¹⁷ This method is very important in MLL treatment, given the degloving involved and the highly mobile skin and subcutaneous fat.

In standard lymphedema management, a foam padding layer is applied before the short-stretch bandage in order to reshape the limb and avoid proximal constrictions.¹³ In our patient’s case, the short-stretch wrap was applied without padding. Because his condition was acute, and the limb contour was preserved, limb reshaping and thus padding were not necessary.

Given the rapid, high-volume reduction that occurs within the first 1 to 2 weeks, bandages are reapplied daily to effectively adjust for the decreased swelling and altered limb shape.¹⁷ Most improvement is expected within the first few weeks—consistent with our patient’s case. Bandages usually are applied to the entire limb. For partial cases, the bandaging must extend past the area of swelling and incorporate the knee to prevent displacement of fluid into the joint.¹⁷ Feet and ankles are bandaged in dorsiflexion.¹⁷Several factors must be considered with short-stretch wraps. For example, pressure may need to be adjusted in patients with peripheral vascular disease. In patients with ankle-brachial indexes >0.5, it is safe to apply pressure up to 40 mm Hg.¹² Reduced pressure is recommended for patients with arterial disease, sensory disturbance, lipoedema, poor mobility, frailty, or palliative needs.¹³The unusual location of our patient’s MLL accounts for the delay in diagnosis. To our knowledge, no other authors have reported such a large MLL in this location. A few series and case reports have listed MLLs in the calf near the gastrocnemius muscle, in the ankle, in the prepatellar area, and in the suprapatellar region, including the thigh,^1,3,18-20 but there are no reports of MLLs running from medial thigh to proximal calf. MLLs of this size classically are treated surgically, but our patient selected nonoperative management.

To our knowledge, there are no earlier reports of using this nonoperative technique to treat MLLs. Conservative treatment with compression has been discussed, but no case involved short-stretch bandages. Large MLLs are thought to require surgery plus some type of drainage. The success of using short-stretch bandages in our patient’s case should prompt further investigation of use in adherent patients—which could ultimately result in reduced surgical needs, improved wound care (surgery is avoided), and a maintained low risk of infection. Although more work is needed to come to a more definitive verdict on this treatment method, it is a promising option that warrants consideration.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(4):E213-E218. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Have a high-index of suspicion for MLLs and initiate treatment early.
• Compression needs to occur through short-stretch bandaging over a conventional Ace wrap in order to be successful.
• Apply the short-stretch compression with care to avoid shearing underlying tissue.
• Nonoperative treatment modalities require high patient compliance.
• MLLs need close monitoring until final healing occurs.

Morel-Lavallée lesions (MLLs) are traumatic degloving injuries resulting from separation of subcutaneous fat from underlying fascia. MLLs occur in association with acetabular fractures and are also associated with low-velocity crush injuries.^1,2 Shearing creates a “false” space that is filled with hemorrhaged blood, fat, and lymphatic tissue.³ Disruption of the lymphatics leads to cavity formation and, eventually, a fibrotic pseudocapsule.⁴The pseudocapsule prevents resorption, leading to a chronic fluid collection, which potentiates the risk of infection or tissue necrosis.^3,5,6 Skin necrosis may occur through direct-pressure compromise of the dermal vascular plexus.⁴ Necrotic skin may require multiple débridements, negative-pressure wound therapy or soft-tissue coverage, and may ultimately result in infection. MLLs classically occur in the greater trochanteric region, lateral thigh, buttocks, and back but also appear in the prepatellar region.^1,3 Patients present with soft-tissue swelling, bruising, bulging, decreased cutaneous sensation over the region, and a palpable, fluctuant subcutaneous fluid collection with mobile skin.^2,4,7 The mechanism of injury may cause a concomitant fracture. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the preferred imaging modality, shows a discrete fluid collection between subcutaneous fat and underlying fascia. Ultrasonography may reveal a thickened capsule surrounding either a hypoechoic area or an anechoic area but its accuracy is user-dependent.⁷

Large MLLs may be treated with open serial débridement and healing by secondary intention; infection rates, however, are high. Authors have described several other treatment modalities, including percutaneous débridement with a brush followed by use of a large-bore drain and antibiotics; open débridement with meticulous dead-space closure; elastic compression bandaging; aspiration; and doxycycline sclerodesis.^1,5,6,8,9 Modifications of short-stretch compression bandaging were recently described in edema control for hindfoot trauma, ankle trauma, and total ankle arthroplasty, but not for MLLs.^10,11 Nickerson and colleagues⁴ retrospectively reviewed 87 MLLs, found that fluid aspirate of >50 mL predicted recurrence and failure with conservative measures, and recommended operative intervention for any MLL with >50 mL of fluid aspirated.

We report the case of an MLL that occurred in an unusual anatomical region, and we describe a novel application of a conservative treatment, which was selected on the basis of its success in lymphedema management. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A 66-year-old man was injured when a parked vehicle began moving, pulled him under, and ran over his lower right leg. In the emergency department, no fractures or major injuries were noted (Figures 1A, 1B), and the patient was discharged.

About 10 days after injury, profuse ecchymosis and swelling were noted running from the distal medial thigh to the proximal medial calf (Figures 2A-2C).

Discussion

Short-stretch bandaging has been performed mainly in lymphedema and ulcer management.

Compression bandaging reduces volume in lymphedematous limbs by reducing capillary filtration, shifting fluid into noncompressed parts of the body, increasing lymphatic reabsorption and lymphatic transport stimulation, improving venous pumping, and breaking down fibrosclerotic tissue.¹⁵ We think containment, improved venous flow, and enhanced muscle contraction contributed to the effectiveness of short-stretch bandaging as treatment for our patient’s MLL. Because MLLs also contain disrupted lymphatics, lymphedema management strategies (eg, short-stretch bandages) can be used. Our patient rapidly improved after conversion to short-stretch bandages.

These bandages are applied with 50% overlap to ensure even pressures throughout.¹⁶ Multiple layers are applied using a combination of spiral and figure-of-8 techniques, first clockwise and then counterclockwise, to avoid shearing underlying tissue.¹⁷ This method is very important in MLL treatment, given the degloving involved and the highly mobile skin and subcutaneous fat.

In standard lymphedema management, a foam padding layer is applied before the short-stretch bandage in order to reshape the limb and avoid proximal constrictions.¹³ In our patient’s case, the short-stretch wrap was applied without padding. Because his condition was acute, and the limb contour was preserved, limb reshaping and thus padding were not necessary.

Given the rapid, high-volume reduction that occurs within the first 1 to 2 weeks, bandages are reapplied daily to effectively adjust for the decreased swelling and altered limb shape.¹⁷ Most improvement is expected within the first few weeks—consistent with our patient’s case. Bandages usually are applied to the entire limb. For partial cases, the bandaging must extend past the area of swelling and incorporate the knee to prevent displacement of fluid into the joint.¹⁷ Feet and ankles are bandaged in dorsiflexion.¹⁷Several factors must be considered with short-stretch wraps. For example, pressure may need to be adjusted in patients with peripheral vascular disease. In patients with ankle-brachial indexes >0.5, it is safe to apply pressure up to 40 mm Hg.¹² Reduced pressure is recommended for patients with arterial disease, sensory disturbance, lipoedema, poor mobility, frailty, or palliative needs.¹³The unusual location of our patient’s MLL accounts for the delay in diagnosis. To our knowledge, no other authors have reported such a large MLL in this location. A few series and case reports have listed MLLs in the calf near the gastrocnemius muscle, in the ankle, in the prepatellar area, and in the suprapatellar region, including the thigh,^1,3,18-20 but there are no reports of MLLs running from medial thigh to proximal calf. MLLs of this size classically are treated surgically, but our patient selected nonoperative management.

To our knowledge, there are no earlier reports of using this nonoperative technique to treat MLLs. Conservative treatment with compression has been discussed, but no case involved short-stretch bandages. Large MLLs are thought to require surgery plus some type of drainage. The success of using short-stretch bandages in our patient’s case should prompt further investigation of use in adherent patients—which could ultimately result in reduced surgical needs, improved wound care (surgery is avoided), and a maintained low risk of infection. Although more work is needed to come to a more definitive verdict on this treatment method, it is a promising option that warrants consideration.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(4):E213-E218. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Have a high-index of suspicion for MLLs and initiate treatment early.
• Compression needs to occur through short-stretch bandaging over a conventional Ace wrap in order to be successful.
• Apply the short-stretch compression with care to avoid shearing underlying tissue.
• Nonoperative treatment modalities require high patient compliance.
• MLLs need close monitoring until final healing occurs.

Morel-Lavallée lesions (MLLs) are traumatic degloving injuries resulting from separation of subcutaneous fat from underlying fascia. MLLs occur in association with acetabular fractures and are also associated with low-velocity crush injuries.^1,2 Shearing creates a “false” space that is filled with hemorrhaged blood, fat, and lymphatic tissue.³ Disruption of the lymphatics leads to cavity formation and, eventually, a fibrotic pseudocapsule.⁴The pseudocapsule prevents resorption, leading to a chronic fluid collection, which potentiates the risk of infection or tissue necrosis.^3,5,6 Skin necrosis may occur through direct-pressure compromise of the dermal vascular plexus.⁴ Necrotic skin may require multiple débridements, negative-pressure wound therapy or soft-tissue coverage, and may ultimately result in infection. MLLs classically occur in the greater trochanteric region, lateral thigh, buttocks, and back but also appear in the prepatellar region.^1,3 Patients present with soft-tissue swelling, bruising, bulging, decreased cutaneous sensation over the region, and a palpable, fluctuant subcutaneous fluid collection with mobile skin.^2,4,7 The mechanism of injury may cause a concomitant fracture. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the preferred imaging modality, shows a discrete fluid collection between subcutaneous fat and underlying fascia. Ultrasonography may reveal a thickened capsule surrounding either a hypoechoic area or an anechoic area but its accuracy is user-dependent.⁷

Large MLLs may be treated with open serial débridement and healing by secondary intention; infection rates, however, are high. Authors have described several other treatment modalities, including percutaneous débridement with a brush followed by use of a large-bore drain and antibiotics; open débridement with meticulous dead-space closure; elastic compression bandaging; aspiration; and doxycycline sclerodesis.^1,5,6,8,9 Modifications of short-stretch compression bandaging were recently described in edema control for hindfoot trauma, ankle trauma, and total ankle arthroplasty, but not for MLLs.^10,11 Nickerson and colleagues⁴ retrospectively reviewed 87 MLLs, found that fluid aspirate of >50 mL predicted recurrence and failure with conservative measures, and recommended operative intervention for any MLL with >50 mL of fluid aspirated.

We report the case of an MLL that occurred in an unusual anatomical region, and we describe a novel application of a conservative treatment, which was selected on the basis of its success in lymphedema management. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

Case Report

A 66-year-old man was injured when a parked vehicle began moving, pulled him under, and ran over his lower right leg. In the emergency department, no fractures or major injuries were noted (Figures 1A, 1B), and the patient was discharged.

About 10 days after injury, profuse ecchymosis and swelling were noted running from the distal medial thigh to the proximal medial calf (Figures 2A-2C).

Discussion

Short-stretch bandaging has been performed mainly in lymphedema and ulcer management.

Compression bandaging reduces volume in lymphedematous limbs by reducing capillary filtration, shifting fluid into noncompressed parts of the body, increasing lymphatic reabsorption and lymphatic transport stimulation, improving venous pumping, and breaking down fibrosclerotic tissue.¹⁵ We think containment, improved venous flow, and enhanced muscle contraction contributed to the effectiveness of short-stretch bandaging as treatment for our patient’s MLL. Because MLLs also contain disrupted lymphatics, lymphedema management strategies (eg, short-stretch bandages) can be used. Our patient rapidly improved after conversion to short-stretch bandages.

These bandages are applied with 50% overlap to ensure even pressures throughout.¹⁶ Multiple layers are applied using a combination of spiral and figure-of-8 techniques, first clockwise and then counterclockwise, to avoid shearing underlying tissue.¹⁷ This method is very important in MLL treatment, given the degloving involved and the highly mobile skin and subcutaneous fat.

In standard lymphedema management, a foam padding layer is applied before the short-stretch bandage in order to reshape the limb and avoid proximal constrictions.¹³ In our patient’s case, the short-stretch wrap was applied without padding. Because his condition was acute, and the limb contour was preserved, limb reshaping and thus padding were not necessary.

Given the rapid, high-volume reduction that occurs within the first 1 to 2 weeks, bandages are reapplied daily to effectively adjust for the decreased swelling and altered limb shape.¹⁷ Most improvement is expected within the first few weeks—consistent with our patient’s case. Bandages usually are applied to the entire limb. For partial cases, the bandaging must extend past the area of swelling and incorporate the knee to prevent displacement of fluid into the joint.¹⁷ Feet and ankles are bandaged in dorsiflexion.¹⁷Several factors must be considered with short-stretch wraps. For example, pressure may need to be adjusted in patients with peripheral vascular disease. In patients with ankle-brachial indexes >0.5, it is safe to apply pressure up to 40 mm Hg.¹² Reduced pressure is recommended for patients with arterial disease, sensory disturbance, lipoedema, poor mobility, frailty, or palliative needs.¹³The unusual location of our patient’s MLL accounts for the delay in diagnosis. To our knowledge, no other authors have reported such a large MLL in this location. A few series and case reports have listed MLLs in the calf near the gastrocnemius muscle, in the ankle, in the prepatellar area, and in the suprapatellar region, including the thigh,^1,3,18-20 but there are no reports of MLLs running from medial thigh to proximal calf. MLLs of this size classically are treated surgically, but our patient selected nonoperative management.

To our knowledge, there are no earlier reports of using this nonoperative technique to treat MLLs. Conservative treatment with compression has been discussed, but no case involved short-stretch bandages. Large MLLs are thought to require surgery plus some type of drainage. The success of using short-stretch bandages in our patient’s case should prompt further investigation of use in adherent patients—which could ultimately result in reduced surgical needs, improved wound care (surgery is avoided), and a maintained low risk of infection. Although more work is needed to come to a more definitive verdict on this treatment method, it is a promising option that warrants consideration.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(4):E213-E218. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• The LHB tendon has been shown to be a significant pain generator in the shoulder.
• At our institution, the number of LHB tenodeses significantly increased from 2004 to 2014.
• The age of patients who underwent a LHB tenodesis did not change significantly over the study period.
• Furthermore, the percentage of shoulder procedures that involved a LHB tenodesis significantly increased over the study period.

• Biceps tenodesis has become a more common procedure to treat shoulder pathology.

Although the exact function of the long head of the biceps (LHB) tendon is not completely understood, it is accepted that the LHB tendon can be a significant source of pain within the shoulder.^1-4 Patients with symptoms related to biceps pathology often present with anterior shoulder pain that worsens with flexion and supination of the affected elbow and wrist.⁵ Although the sensitivity and specificity of physical examination maneuvers have been called into question, special tests have been developed to aid in the diagnosis of tendonitis of the LHB. These tests include the Speed, Yergason, bear hug, and uppercut tests as well as the O’Brien test (cross-body adduction).^6,7 Recent studies have found LHB pathology in 45% of patients who undergo rotator cuff repair and in 63% of patients with a subscapularis tear.^8,9

Pathology of the LHB tendon, including superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears, can be treated in many ways.^5,10,11 Options include SLAP repair, biceps tenodesis, débridement, and biceps tenotomy.^11,12 Results of SLAP repairs have been less than optimal, but biceps tenodesis has been effective, and avoids the issue of cramping as can be seen with biceps tenotomy and débridement.^10,12,13 Surgical methods for biceps tenodesis include open subpectoral and all-arthroscopic.^11,12 Both methods have had good, reliable outcomes, but the all-arthroscopic technique is relatively new.^11,12,14We conducted a study to determine LHB tenodesis trends, including patient age at time of surgery. We used surgical data from fellowship-trained sports or shoulder/elbow orthopedic surgeons at a busy subspecialty-based shoulder orthopedic practice. We hypothesized that the rate of LHB tenodesis would increase significantly over time and that there would be no significant change in the age of patients who underwent LHB tenodesis.

Methods

Our Institutional Review Board exempted this study. To determine the number of LHB tenodesis procedures performed at our institution, overall and in comparison with other common arthroscopic shoulder procedures, we queried the surgical database of 4 fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeons (shoulder/elbow, Drs. Nicholson and Cole; sports, Drs. Romeo and Verma) for the period January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2014. We used Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 23430 to determine the number of LHB tenodesis cases, as the surgeons primarily perform an open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Patient age at time of surgery and the date of surgery were recorded. All patients who underwent LHB tenodesis between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2014 were included. Number of procedures performed each year by each surgeon was recorded, as were concomitant procedures performed at the same time as the LHB tenodesis. To get the denominator (and reference point) for the number of arthroscopic shoulder surgeries performed by these 4 surgeons during the study period, and thereby determine the rate of LHB tenodesis, we selected the most common shoulder arthroscopy CPT codes used in our practice: 23430, 29806, 29807, 29822, 29823, 29825, 29826, and 29827. For a patient who underwent multiple procedures on the same day (multiple CPT codes entered on the same day), only one code was counted for that day. If 23430 was among the codes, it was included, and the case was placed in the numerator; if 23430 was not among the codes, the case was placed in the denominator.

The Arthroscopy Association of North America provides descriptions for the CPT codes: 23430 (tenodesis of long tendon of biceps), 29806 (arthroscopy, shoulder, surgical; capsulorrhaphy), 29807 (arthroscopy, shoulder, surgical; repair of SLAP lesion), 29822 (arthroscopy, shoulder, surgical; débridement, limited), 29823 (arthroscopy, shoulder, surgical; débridement, extensive), 29825 (arthroscopy, shoulder, surgical; with lysis and resection of adhesions, with or without manipulation), 29826 (arthroscopy, shoulder, surgical; decompression of subacromial space with partial acromioplasty, with or without coracoacromial release), and 29827 (arthroscopy, shoulder, surgical; with rotator cuff repair).

For analysis, we divided the data into total number of arthroscopic shoulder procedures performed by each surgeon each year and number of LHB tenodesis procedures performed by each surgeon each year. Total number of patients who had an arthroscopic procedure was used to create a denominator, and number of LHB tenodesis procedures showed the percentage of arthroscopic shoulder surgery patients who underwent LHB tenodesis. (All patients who undergo biceps tenodesis also have, at the least, diagnostic shoulder arthroscopy with or without tenotomy; if the tendon is ruptured, tenotomy is unnecessary.)

Descriptive statistics were calculated as means (SDs) for continuous variables and as frequencies with percentages for categorical variables. Linear regression analysis was used to determine whether the number of LHB tenodesis procedures changed during the study period and whether patient age changed over time. Significance was set at P < .05.

Results

Of the 7640 patients who underwent arthroscopic shoulder procedures between 2004 and 2014, 2125 had LHB tenodesis (CPT code 23430).

Discussion

Tenodesis has become a common treatment option for several pathologic shoulder conditions involving the LHB tendon.⁵ We set out to determine trends in LHB tenodesis at a subspecialty-focused shoulder orthopedic practice and hypothesized that the rate of LHB tenodesis would increase significantly over time and that there would be no significant change in the age of patients who underwent LHB tenodesis. Our hypotheses were confirmed: The number of LHB tenodesis cases increased significantly without a significant change in patient age.

Treatment options for LHB pathology and SLAP tears include simple tenotomy, débridement, open biceps tenodesis, and arthroscopic tenodesis.^11,12,15

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(4):E219-E223. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• The LHB tendon has been shown to be a significant pain generator in the shoulder.
• At our institution, the number of LHB tenodeses significantly increased from 2004 to 2014.
• The age of patients who underwent a LHB tenodesis did not change significantly over the study period.
• Furthermore, the percentage of shoulder procedures that involved a LHB tenodesis significantly increased over the study period.

• Biceps tenodesis has become a more common procedure to treat shoulder pathology.

Although the exact function of the long head of the biceps (LHB) tendon is not completely understood, it is accepted that the LHB tendon can be a significant source of pain within the shoulder.^1-4 Patients with symptoms related to biceps pathology often present with anterior shoulder pain that worsens with flexion and supination of the affected elbow and wrist.⁵ Although the sensitivity and specificity of physical examination maneuvers have been called into question, special tests have been developed to aid in the diagnosis of tendonitis of the LHB. These tests include the Speed, Yergason, bear hug, and uppercut tests as well as the O’Brien test (cross-body adduction).^6,7 Recent studies have found LHB pathology in 45% of patients who undergo rotator cuff repair and in 63% of patients with a subscapularis tear.^8,9

Pathology of the LHB tendon, including superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears, can be treated in many ways.^5,10,11 Options include SLAP repair, biceps tenodesis, débridement, and biceps tenotomy.^11,12 Results of SLAP repairs have been less than optimal, but biceps tenodesis has been effective, and avoids the issue of cramping as can be seen with biceps tenotomy and débridement.^10,12,13 Surgical methods for biceps tenodesis include open subpectoral and all-arthroscopic.^11,12 Both methods have had good, reliable outcomes, but the all-arthroscopic technique is relatively new.^11,12,14We conducted a study to determine LHB tenodesis trends, including patient age at time of surgery. We used surgical data from fellowship-trained sports or shoulder/elbow orthopedic surgeons at a busy subspecialty-based shoulder orthopedic practice. We hypothesized that the rate of LHB tenodesis would increase significantly over time and that there would be no significant change in the age of patients who underwent LHB tenodesis.

Methods

Our Institutional Review Board exempted this study. To determine the number of LHB tenodesis procedures performed at our institution, overall and in comparison with other common arthroscopic shoulder procedures, we queried the surgical database of 4 fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeons (shoulder/elbow, Drs. Nicholson and Cole; sports, Drs. Romeo and Verma) for the period January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2014. We used Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 23430 to determine the number of LHB tenodesis cases, as the surgeons primarily perform an open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Patient age at time of surgery and the date of surgery were recorded. All patients who underwent LHB tenodesis between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2014 were included. Number of procedures performed each year by each surgeon was recorded, as were concomitant procedures performed at the same time as the LHB tenodesis. To get the denominator (and reference point) for the number of arthroscopic shoulder surgeries performed by these 4 surgeons during the study period, and thereby determine the rate of LHB tenodesis, we selected the most common shoulder arthroscopy CPT codes used in our practice: 23430, 29806, 29807, 29822, 29823, 29825, 29826, and 29827. For a patient who underwent multiple procedures on the same day (multiple CPT codes entered on the same day), only one code was counted for that day. If 23430 was among the codes, it was included, and the case was placed in the numerator; if 23430 was not among the codes, the case was placed in the denominator.

The Arthroscopy Association of North America provides descriptions for the CPT codes: 23430 (tenodesis of long tendon of biceps), 29806 (arthroscopy, shoulder, surgical; capsulorrhaphy), 29807 (arthroscopy, shoulder, surgical; repair of SLAP lesion), 29822 (arthroscopy, shoulder, surgical; débridement, limited), 29823 (arthroscopy, shoulder, surgical; débridement, extensive), 29825 (arthroscopy, shoulder, surgical; with lysis and resection of adhesions, with or without manipulation), 29826 (arthroscopy, shoulder, surgical; decompression of subacromial space with partial acromioplasty, with or without coracoacromial release), and 29827 (arthroscopy, shoulder, surgical; with rotator cuff repair).

For analysis, we divided the data into total number of arthroscopic shoulder procedures performed by each surgeon each year and number of LHB tenodesis procedures performed by each surgeon each year. Total number of patients who had an arthroscopic procedure was used to create a denominator, and number of LHB tenodesis procedures showed the percentage of arthroscopic shoulder surgery patients who underwent LHB tenodesis. (All patients who undergo biceps tenodesis also have, at the least, diagnostic shoulder arthroscopy with or without tenotomy; if the tendon is ruptured, tenotomy is unnecessary.)

Descriptive statistics were calculated as means (SDs) for continuous variables and as frequencies with percentages for categorical variables. Linear regression analysis was used to determine whether the number of LHB tenodesis procedures changed during the study period and whether patient age changed over time. Significance was set at P < .05.

Results

Of the 7640 patients who underwent arthroscopic shoulder procedures between 2004 and 2014, 2125 had LHB tenodesis (CPT code 23430).

Discussion

Tenodesis has become a common treatment option for several pathologic shoulder conditions involving the LHB tendon.⁵ We set out to determine trends in LHB tenodesis at a subspecialty-focused shoulder orthopedic practice and hypothesized that the rate of LHB tenodesis would increase significantly over time and that there would be no significant change in the age of patients who underwent LHB tenodesis. Our hypotheses were confirmed: The number of LHB tenodesis cases increased significantly without a significant change in patient age.

Treatment options for LHB pathology and SLAP tears include simple tenotomy, débridement, open biceps tenodesis, and arthroscopic tenodesis.^11,12,15

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(4):E219-E223. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• The LHB tendon has been shown to be a significant pain generator in the shoulder.
• At our institution, the number of LHB tenodeses significantly increased from 2004 to 2014.
• The age of patients who underwent a LHB tenodesis did not change significantly over the study period.
• Furthermore, the percentage of shoulder procedures that involved a LHB tenodesis significantly increased over the study period.

• Biceps tenodesis has become a more common procedure to treat shoulder pathology.

Although the exact function of the long head of the biceps (LHB) tendon is not completely understood, it is accepted that the LHB tendon can be a significant source of pain within the shoulder.^1-4 Patients with symptoms related to biceps pathology often present with anterior shoulder pain that worsens with flexion and supination of the affected elbow and wrist.⁵ Although the sensitivity and specificity of physical examination maneuvers have been called into question, special tests have been developed to aid in the diagnosis of tendonitis of the LHB. These tests include the Speed, Yergason, bear hug, and uppercut tests as well as the O’Brien test (cross-body adduction).^6,7 Recent studies have found LHB pathology in 45% of patients who undergo rotator cuff repair and in 63% of patients with a subscapularis tear.^8,9

Pathology of the LHB tendon, including superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears, can be treated in many ways.^5,10,11 Options include SLAP repair, biceps tenodesis, débridement, and biceps tenotomy.^11,12 Results of SLAP repairs have been less than optimal, but biceps tenodesis has been effective, and avoids the issue of cramping as can be seen with biceps tenotomy and débridement.^10,12,13 Surgical methods for biceps tenodesis include open subpectoral and all-arthroscopic.^11,12 Both methods have had good, reliable outcomes, but the all-arthroscopic technique is relatively new.^11,12,14We conducted a study to determine LHB tenodesis trends, including patient age at time of surgery. We used surgical data from fellowship-trained sports or shoulder/elbow orthopedic surgeons at a busy subspecialty-based shoulder orthopedic practice. We hypothesized that the rate of LHB tenodesis would increase significantly over time and that there would be no significant change in the age of patients who underwent LHB tenodesis.

Methods

Our Institutional Review Board exempted this study. To determine the number of LHB tenodesis procedures performed at our institution, overall and in comparison with other common arthroscopic shoulder procedures, we queried the surgical database of 4 fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeons (shoulder/elbow, Drs. Nicholson and Cole; sports, Drs. Romeo and Verma) for the period January 1, 2004 to December 31, 2014. We used Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 23430 to determine the number of LHB tenodesis cases, as the surgeons primarily perform an open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Patient age at time of surgery and the date of surgery were recorded. All patients who underwent LHB tenodesis between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2014 were included. Number of procedures performed each year by each surgeon was recorded, as were concomitant procedures performed at the same time as the LHB tenodesis. To get the denominator (and reference point) for the number of arthroscopic shoulder surgeries performed by these 4 surgeons during the study period, and thereby determine the rate of LHB tenodesis, we selected the most common shoulder arthroscopy CPT codes used in our practice: 23430, 29806, 29807, 29822, 29823, 29825, 29826, and 29827. For a patient who underwent multiple procedures on the same day (multiple CPT codes entered on the same day), only one code was counted for that day. If 23430 was among the codes, it was included, and the case was placed in the numerator; if 23430 was not among the codes, the case was placed in the denominator.

The Arthroscopy Association of North America provides descriptions for the CPT codes: 23430 (tenodesis of long tendon of biceps), 29806 (arthroscopy, shoulder, surgical; capsulorrhaphy), 29807 (arthroscopy, shoulder, surgical; repair of SLAP lesion), 29822 (arthroscopy, shoulder, surgical; débridement, limited), 29823 (arthroscopy, shoulder, surgical; débridement, extensive), 29825 (arthroscopy, shoulder, surgical; with lysis and resection of adhesions, with or without manipulation), 29826 (arthroscopy, shoulder, surgical; decompression of subacromial space with partial acromioplasty, with or without coracoacromial release), and 29827 (arthroscopy, shoulder, surgical; with rotator cuff repair).

For analysis, we divided the data into total number of arthroscopic shoulder procedures performed by each surgeon each year and number of LHB tenodesis procedures performed by each surgeon each year. Total number of patients who had an arthroscopic procedure was used to create a denominator, and number of LHB tenodesis procedures showed the percentage of arthroscopic shoulder surgery patients who underwent LHB tenodesis. (All patients who undergo biceps tenodesis also have, at the least, diagnostic shoulder arthroscopy with or without tenotomy; if the tendon is ruptured, tenotomy is unnecessary.)

Descriptive statistics were calculated as means (SDs) for continuous variables and as frequencies with percentages for categorical variables. Linear regression analysis was used to determine whether the number of LHB tenodesis procedures changed during the study period and whether patient age changed over time. Significance was set at P < .05.

Results

Of the 7640 patients who underwent arthroscopic shoulder procedures between 2004 and 2014, 2125 had LHB tenodesis (CPT code 23430).

Discussion

Tenodesis has become a common treatment option for several pathologic shoulder conditions involving the LHB tendon.⁵ We set out to determine trends in LHB tenodesis at a subspecialty-focused shoulder orthopedic practice and hypothesized that the rate of LHB tenodesis would increase significantly over time and that there would be no significant change in the age of patients who underwent LHB tenodesis. Our hypotheses were confirmed: The number of LHB tenodesis cases increased significantly without a significant change in patient age.

Treatment options for LHB pathology and SLAP tears include simple tenotomy, débridement, open biceps tenodesis, and arthroscopic tenodesis.^11,12,15

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(4):E219-E223. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

1. A 43-year-old woman presents with progressively worsening bilateral great toe pain that began during pregnancy and increased following the birth of her daughter three years ago. Both of her feet have developed a crescent moon shape, making it painful and difficult to wear normal shoes. This patient has

a) Degenerative arthritis

b) Hallux varus

c) Gout

d) Traumatic sesamoiditis

Diagnosis: Physical exam revealed bilateral hallux varus deformity of the great toe, which was greater on the left foot than on the right (23° and 16°, respectively). The deformities were easily, passively, correctable. Standing radiographs showed evidence of previous proximal osteotomies and well-healed distal first metatarsal osteotomies. Due to unsuccessful nonoperative management, surgical reconstruction was offered.

For further information, see “Bilateral Hallux Varus Deformity Correction With a Suture Button Construct.” Am J Orthop. 2013;42(3):121-124.

2. Following treatment for onychomycosis, this 49-year-old man’s toenails demonstrate inflammation of the medial and lateral nail borders of the hallux and second toes of the left foot. This patient’s diagnosis is

a) Subungual exostosis

b) Primary osteomyelitis of the phalanx

c) Tumors of the nail bed

d) Onychocryptosis

Diagnosis: Onychocryptosis, also known as ingrown toenail, is a rare complication of oral antifungal therapy. As the healthy nail plate advances, it may adhere to the nail bed and cut into the lateral nail folds. In this case, the site of the onychocryptosis corresponded to the proximal clearing of the nail plate. The patient required excision of the nail borders, after which the secondary inflammation resolved. The condition was treated with chemical matrixectomy.

For more information, see “Multiple Onychocryptosis Following Treatment of Onychomycosis With Oral Terbinafine.” Cutis. 2000;66(3):211-212.

3. A 39-year-old man was playing a game of pick-up basketball when he felt a pop, immediately followed by a sharp pain in the back of his ankle and lower leg. He now walks with a limp. The cause is

a) Achilles tendon rupture

b) Medial gastrocnemius tear

c) Calf muscle strain

d) Posterior tibial stress syndrome

Diagnosis: Often diagnosed as an ankle sprain, an Achilles tendon rupture most commonly occurs in middle-aged men from overexertion in sports—usually tennis, racquetball, basketball, or badminton, which involve bursts of jumping, pivoting, and running. Rupture may also occur from a sudden stumble, fall from a significant height, or abrupt step into a hole or off a curb, which causes the tendon to overstretch forcefully.

4. A 60-year-old woman seeks relief for a foot wound of several months’ duration that persists despite use of antibiotics and proper care. The skin over the plantar surface has a full-thickness ulcer, with partial necrosis of the subcutaneous tissue. Her history is significant for diabetes with neuropathy, nephropathy, and retinopathy. The diagnosis is

a) Osteomyelitis

b) Deep venous thrombosis

c) Charcot joint

d) Septic joint

Diagnosis: Charcot joint changes, and an associated stage III pressure ulcer, account for the extensive collapse of the inner arch and “rocker bottom foot” seen on the radiograph. Also known as neurogenic arthropathy, Charcot joint is commonly seen with diabetic neuropathy. In affected patients, secondary degenerative changes to the joints occur with loss of normal muscle tone, proprioception, temperature perception, and pain perception. The joints become loose, enlarged, and boggy. There can be extensive cartilage erosion or osteophyte formation. The normal plantar and heel forces are increased, producing eccentric loading of the foot and leading to microfractures, ligament laxity, and bone destruction.

For more information, see “A disfigured foot with ulcer.” J Fam Pract. 2008;57(5):321-323.

1. A 43-year-old woman presents with progressively worsening bilateral great toe pain that began during pregnancy and increased following the birth of her daughter three years ago. Both of her feet have developed a crescent moon shape, making it painful and difficult to wear normal shoes. This patient has

a) Degenerative arthritis

b) Hallux varus

c) Gout

d) Traumatic sesamoiditis

Diagnosis: Physical exam revealed bilateral hallux varus deformity of the great toe, which was greater on the left foot than on the right (23° and 16°, respectively). The deformities were easily, passively, correctable. Standing radiographs showed evidence of previous proximal osteotomies and well-healed distal first metatarsal osteotomies. Due to unsuccessful nonoperative management, surgical reconstruction was offered.

For further information, see “Bilateral Hallux Varus Deformity Correction With a Suture Button Construct.” Am J Orthop. 2013;42(3):121-124.

2. Following treatment for onychomycosis, this 49-year-old man’s toenails demonstrate inflammation of the medial and lateral nail borders of the hallux and second toes of the left foot. This patient’s diagnosis is

a) Subungual exostosis

b) Primary osteomyelitis of the phalanx

c) Tumors of the nail bed

d) Onychocryptosis

Diagnosis: Onychocryptosis, also known as ingrown toenail, is a rare complication of oral antifungal therapy. As the healthy nail plate advances, it may adhere to the nail bed and cut into the lateral nail folds. In this case, the site of the onychocryptosis corresponded to the proximal clearing of the nail plate. The patient required excision of the nail borders, after which the secondary inflammation resolved. The condition was treated with chemical matrixectomy.

For more information, see “Multiple Onychocryptosis Following Treatment of Onychomycosis With Oral Terbinafine.” Cutis. 2000;66(3):211-212.

3. A 39-year-old man was playing a game of pick-up basketball when he felt a pop, immediately followed by a sharp pain in the back of his ankle and lower leg. He now walks with a limp. The cause is

a) Achilles tendon rupture

b) Medial gastrocnemius tear

c) Calf muscle strain

d) Posterior tibial stress syndrome

Diagnosis: Often diagnosed as an ankle sprain, an Achilles tendon rupture most commonly occurs in middle-aged men from overexertion in sports—usually tennis, racquetball, basketball, or badminton, which involve bursts of jumping, pivoting, and running. Rupture may also occur from a sudden stumble, fall from a significant height, or abrupt step into a hole or off a curb, which causes the tendon to overstretch forcefully.

4. A 60-year-old woman seeks relief for a foot wound of several months’ duration that persists despite use of antibiotics and proper care. The skin over the plantar surface has a full-thickness ulcer, with partial necrosis of the subcutaneous tissue. Her history is significant for diabetes with neuropathy, nephropathy, and retinopathy. The diagnosis is

a) Osteomyelitis

b) Deep venous thrombosis

c) Charcot joint

d) Septic joint

Diagnosis: Charcot joint changes, and an associated stage III pressure ulcer, account for the extensive collapse of the inner arch and “rocker bottom foot” seen on the radiograph. Also known as neurogenic arthropathy, Charcot joint is commonly seen with diabetic neuropathy. In affected patients, secondary degenerative changes to the joints occur with loss of normal muscle tone, proprioception, temperature perception, and pain perception. The joints become loose, enlarged, and boggy. There can be extensive cartilage erosion or osteophyte formation. The normal plantar and heel forces are increased, producing eccentric loading of the foot and leading to microfractures, ligament laxity, and bone destruction.

For more information, see “A disfigured foot with ulcer.” J Fam Pract. 2008;57(5):321-323.

1. A 43-year-old woman presents with progressively worsening bilateral great toe pain that began during pregnancy and increased following the birth of her daughter three years ago. Both of her feet have developed a crescent moon shape, making it painful and difficult to wear normal shoes. This patient has

a) Degenerative arthritis

b) Hallux varus

c) Gout

d) Traumatic sesamoiditis

Diagnosis: Physical exam revealed bilateral hallux varus deformity of the great toe, which was greater on the left foot than on the right (23° and 16°, respectively). The deformities were easily, passively, correctable. Standing radiographs showed evidence of previous proximal osteotomies and well-healed distal first metatarsal osteotomies. Due to unsuccessful nonoperative management, surgical reconstruction was offered.

For further information, see “Bilateral Hallux Varus Deformity Correction With a Suture Button Construct.” Am J Orthop. 2013;42(3):121-124.

2. Following treatment for onychomycosis, this 49-year-old man’s toenails demonstrate inflammation of the medial and lateral nail borders of the hallux and second toes of the left foot. This patient’s diagnosis is

a) Subungual exostosis

b) Primary osteomyelitis of the phalanx

c) Tumors of the nail bed

d) Onychocryptosis

Diagnosis: Onychocryptosis, also known as ingrown toenail, is a rare complication of oral antifungal therapy. As the healthy nail plate advances, it may adhere to the nail bed and cut into the lateral nail folds. In this case, the site of the onychocryptosis corresponded to the proximal clearing of the nail plate. The patient required excision of the nail borders, after which the secondary inflammation resolved. The condition was treated with chemical matrixectomy.

For more information, see “Multiple Onychocryptosis Following Treatment of Onychomycosis With Oral Terbinafine.” Cutis. 2000;66(3):211-212.

3. A 39-year-old man was playing a game of pick-up basketball when he felt a pop, immediately followed by a sharp pain in the back of his ankle and lower leg. He now walks with a limp. The cause is

a) Achilles tendon rupture

b) Medial gastrocnemius tear

c) Calf muscle strain

d) Posterior tibial stress syndrome

Diagnosis: Often diagnosed as an ankle sprain, an Achilles tendon rupture most commonly occurs in middle-aged men from overexertion in sports—usually tennis, racquetball, basketball, or badminton, which involve bursts of jumping, pivoting, and running. Rupture may also occur from a sudden stumble, fall from a significant height, or abrupt step into a hole or off a curb, which causes the tendon to overstretch forcefully.

4. A 60-year-old woman seeks relief for a foot wound of several months’ duration that persists despite use of antibiotics and proper care. The skin over the plantar surface has a full-thickness ulcer, with partial necrosis of the subcutaneous tissue. Her history is significant for diabetes with neuropathy, nephropathy, and retinopathy. The diagnosis is

a) Osteomyelitis

b) Deep venous thrombosis

c) Charcot joint

d) Septic joint

Diagnosis: Charcot joint changes, and an associated stage III pressure ulcer, account for the extensive collapse of the inner arch and “rocker bottom foot” seen on the radiograph. Also known as neurogenic arthropathy, Charcot joint is commonly seen with diabetic neuropathy. In affected patients, secondary degenerative changes to the joints occur with loss of normal muscle tone, proprioception, temperature perception, and pain perception. The joints become loose, enlarged, and boggy. There can be extensive cartilage erosion or osteophyte formation. The normal plantar and heel forces are increased, producing eccentric loading of the foot and leading to microfractures, ligament laxity, and bone destruction.

For more information, see “A disfigured foot with ulcer.” J Fam Pract. 2008;57(5):321-323.

Take-Home Points

• Technique provides optimal fixation while simultaneously protecting open growth plates.
• Self tensioning feature insures both optimal ACL tension and fracture reduction.
• No need for future hardware removal.
• 10Cross suture configuration optimizes strength of fixation for highly consistent results.
• Use fluoroscopy to avoid violation of tibial physis.

Generally occurring in the 8- to 14-year-old population, tibial eminence avulsion (TEA) fractures are a common variant of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures and represent 2% to 5% of all knee injuries in skeletally immature individuals.^1,2 Compared with adults, children likely experience this anomaly more often because of the weakness of their incompletely ossified tibial plateau relative to the strength of their native ACL.³

The open repair techniques that have been described have multiple disadvantages, including open incisions, difficult visualization of the fracture owing to the location of the fat pad, and increased risk for arthrofibrosis. Arthroscopic fixation is considered the treatment of choice for TEA fractures because it allows for direct visualization of injury, accurate reduction of fracture fragments, removal of loose fragments, and easy treatment of associated soft-tissue injuries.^4-6Several fixation techniques for ACL-TEA fractures were recently described: arthroscopic reduction and internal fixation (ARIF) with Kirschner wires,⁷ cannulated screws,⁴ the Meniscus Arrow device (Bionx Implants),⁸ pull-out sutures,^9,10 bioabsorbable nails,¹¹ Herbert screws,¹² TightRope fixation (Arthrex),¹³ and various other rotator cuff and meniscal repair systems.^14,15 These approaches tend to have good outcomes for TEA fractures, but there are risks associated with ACL tensioning and potential tibial growth plate violation or hardware problems. Likewise, there are no studies with large numbers of patients treated with these new techniques, so the optimal method of reduction and fixation is still unknown.

In this article, we describe a new ARIF technique that involves 2 absorbable anchors with adjustable suture-tensioning technology. This technique optimizes reduction and helps surgeons avoid proximal tibial physeal damage, procedure-related morbidity, and additional surgery.

Case Report

History

The patient, an 8-year-old boy, sustained a noncontact twisting injury of the left knee during a cutting maneuver in a flag football game. He experienced immediate pain and subsequent swelling. Clinical examination revealed a moderate effusion with motion limitations secondary to swelling and irritability. The patient’s Lachman test result was 2+. Pivot shift testing was not possible because of guarding. The knee was stable to varus and valgus stress at 0° and 30° of flexion. Limited knee flexion prohibited placement of the patient in the position needed for anterior and posterior drawer testing. His patella was stable on lateral stress testing at 20° of flexion with no apprehension. Neurovascular status was intact throughout the lower extremity.

Anteroposterior and lateral radiographs showed a minimally displaced Meyers-McKeever type II TEA fracture (Figures 1A, 1B).

Examination Under Anesthesia

Examination with the patient under general anesthesia revealed 3+ Lachman, 2+ pivot shift with foot in internal and external rotation, and 1+ anterior drawer with foot in neutral and internal rotation. The knee was stable to varus and valgus stress testing.

Surgical Technique

Proper patient positioning and padding of bony prominences were ensured, and the limb was sterilely prepared and draped.

Given the young age of the patient, it was imperative to avoid the open proximal tibial growth plate. The surgical plan for stabilization involved use of two 3.0-mm BioComposite Knotless SutureTak anchors (Arthrex). This anchor configuration is based on a No. 2 FiberWire suture shuttled through itself to create a locking splice mechanism that allows for adjustable tensioning. The anchors were placed on each side of the tibial bony avulsion site with two No. 2 FiberWire sutures and were then crossed about the avulsion fracture fragment in an “x-type” configuration to secure the ACL back down to the bony bed.

First, a curette was used to débride fibrous tissue on the underside of the fracture fragment and on the fracture bed. Minimal amounts of cancellous bone were débrided from the tibial fracture bed to optimize fracture reduction by slightly recessing the fracture fragment to ensure optimal ACL tensioning (Figure 5).

Follow-Up

Two weeks after surgery, the patient returned to clinic for suture removal. Four weeks after surgery, radiographs confirmed anatomical reduction of the TEA fracture, and outpatient physical therapy (range-of-motion exercises as tolerated) and isometric quadriceps strengthening were instituted. Twelve weeks after surgery, examination revealed full knee motion, negative Lachman and pivot shift test results, and residual quadriceps muscle atrophy, and radiographs confirmed complete fracture healing with maintenance of a normal proximal tibial growth plate (Figures 10A, 10B).

Discussion

The highlight of this case is the simplicity of an excellent reduction of a displaced ACL-TEA fracture. Minimally invasive absorbable implants did not violate the proximal tibial physis, and the unique adjustable suture-tensioning technology allowed the degree of reduction and ACL tension to be “dialed in.” SutureTak implants have strong No. 2 FiberWire suture for excellent stability with an overall small suture load, and their small size avoids the risk of violating the proximal tibial physis and avoids potential growth disturbances.

Despite the obvious risks it poses to the open proximal tibial physis, surgical reduction of Meyers-McKeever type II and type III fractures is the norm for restoring ACL stability. Screws and suture fixation are the most common and reliable methods of TEA fracture reduction.^16,17 In recent systematic reviews, however, Osti and colleagues¹⁷ and Gans and colleagues¹⁸ noted there is not enough evidence to warrant a “gold standard” in pediatric tibial avulsion cases.

Other fixation methods for TEA fractures must be investigated. Anderson and colleagues¹⁹ described the biomechanics of 4 different physeal-sparing avulsion fracture reduction techniques: an ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) suture-suture button, a suture anchor, a polydioxanone suture-suture button, and screw fixation. Using techniques described by Kocher and colleagues,⁴ Berg,²⁰ Mah and colleagues,²¹ Vega and colleagues,²² and Lu and colleagues,²³ Anderson and colleagues¹⁹ reduced TEA fractures in skeletally immature porcine knees. Compared with suture anchors, UHMWPE suture-suture buttons provided biomechanically superior cyclic and load-to-failure results as well as more consistent fixation.

Screw fixation has shown good results but has disadvantages. Incorrect positioning of a screw can lead to impingement and articular cartilage damage, and screw removal may be needed if discomfort at the fixation site persists.^24,25 Likewise, screws generally are an option only for large fracture fragments, as there is an inherent risk of fracturing small TEA fractures, which can be common in skeletally immature patients.

Brunner and colleagues²⁶ recently found that TEA fracture repair with absorbable sutures and distal bone bridge fixation yielded 3-month radiographic and clinical healing rates similar to those obtained with nonabsorbable sutures tied around a screw. However, other authors have reported growth disturbances with use of a similar technique, owing to a disturbance of the open proximal tibial growth plate.⁹ In that regard, a major advantage of this new knotless suturing technique is that distal fixation is not necessary.

The minimally invasive TEA fraction reduction technique described in this article has 6 advantages: It provides excellent fixation while avoiding proximal tibial growth plate injury; the degree of tensioning is easily controlled during reduction; it uses strong suture instead of metal screws or pins; the reduction construct is low-profile; distal fixation is unnecessary; and implant removal is unnecessary, thus limiting subsequent surgical intervention. With respect to long-term outcomes, however, it is not known how this procedure will compare with other commonly used ARIF methods in physeal-sparing techniques for TEA fracture fixation.

This case report highlights a novel pediatric displaced ACL-TEA fracture reduction technique that allows for adjustable reduction and resultant ACL tensioning with excellent strong suture fixation without violating the proximal tibial physis, which could make it invaluable in the surgical treatment of this injury in skeletally immature patients.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(4):203-208. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Technique provides optimal fixation while simultaneously protecting open growth plates.
• Self tensioning feature insures both optimal ACL tension and fracture reduction.
• No need for future hardware removal.
• 10Cross suture configuration optimizes strength of fixation for highly consistent results.
• Use fluoroscopy to avoid violation of tibial physis.

Generally occurring in the 8- to 14-year-old population, tibial eminence avulsion (TEA) fractures are a common variant of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures and represent 2% to 5% of all knee injuries in skeletally immature individuals.^1,2 Compared with adults, children likely experience this anomaly more often because of the weakness of their incompletely ossified tibial plateau relative to the strength of their native ACL.³

The open repair techniques that have been described have multiple disadvantages, including open incisions, difficult visualization of the fracture owing to the location of the fat pad, and increased risk for arthrofibrosis. Arthroscopic fixation is considered the treatment of choice for TEA fractures because it allows for direct visualization of injury, accurate reduction of fracture fragments, removal of loose fragments, and easy treatment of associated soft-tissue injuries.^4-6Several fixation techniques for ACL-TEA fractures were recently described: arthroscopic reduction and internal fixation (ARIF) with Kirschner wires,⁷ cannulated screws,⁴ the Meniscus Arrow device (Bionx Implants),⁸ pull-out sutures,^9,10 bioabsorbable nails,¹¹ Herbert screws,¹² TightRope fixation (Arthrex),¹³ and various other rotator cuff and meniscal repair systems.^14,15 These approaches tend to have good outcomes for TEA fractures, but there are risks associated with ACL tensioning and potential tibial growth plate violation or hardware problems. Likewise, there are no studies with large numbers of patients treated with these new techniques, so the optimal method of reduction and fixation is still unknown.

In this article, we describe a new ARIF technique that involves 2 absorbable anchors with adjustable suture-tensioning technology. This technique optimizes reduction and helps surgeons avoid proximal tibial physeal damage, procedure-related morbidity, and additional surgery.

Case Report

History

The patient, an 8-year-old boy, sustained a noncontact twisting injury of the left knee during a cutting maneuver in a flag football game. He experienced immediate pain and subsequent swelling. Clinical examination revealed a moderate effusion with motion limitations secondary to swelling and irritability. The patient’s Lachman test result was 2+. Pivot shift testing was not possible because of guarding. The knee was stable to varus and valgus stress at 0° and 30° of flexion. Limited knee flexion prohibited placement of the patient in the position needed for anterior and posterior drawer testing. His patella was stable on lateral stress testing at 20° of flexion with no apprehension. Neurovascular status was intact throughout the lower extremity.

Anteroposterior and lateral radiographs showed a minimally displaced Meyers-McKeever type II TEA fracture (Figures 1A, 1B).

Examination Under Anesthesia

Examination with the patient under general anesthesia revealed 3+ Lachman, 2+ pivot shift with foot in internal and external rotation, and 1+ anterior drawer with foot in neutral and internal rotation. The knee was stable to varus and valgus stress testing.

Surgical Technique

Proper patient positioning and padding of bony prominences were ensured, and the limb was sterilely prepared and draped.

Given the young age of the patient, it was imperative to avoid the open proximal tibial growth plate. The surgical plan for stabilization involved use of two 3.0-mm BioComposite Knotless SutureTak anchors (Arthrex). This anchor configuration is based on a No. 2 FiberWire suture shuttled through itself to create a locking splice mechanism that allows for adjustable tensioning. The anchors were placed on each side of the tibial bony avulsion site with two No. 2 FiberWire sutures and were then crossed about the avulsion fracture fragment in an “x-type” configuration to secure the ACL back down to the bony bed.

First, a curette was used to débride fibrous tissue on the underside of the fracture fragment and on the fracture bed. Minimal amounts of cancellous bone were débrided from the tibial fracture bed to optimize fracture reduction by slightly recessing the fracture fragment to ensure optimal ACL tensioning (Figure 5).

Follow-Up

Two weeks after surgery, the patient returned to clinic for suture removal. Four weeks after surgery, radiographs confirmed anatomical reduction of the TEA fracture, and outpatient physical therapy (range-of-motion exercises as tolerated) and isometric quadriceps strengthening were instituted. Twelve weeks after surgery, examination revealed full knee motion, negative Lachman and pivot shift test results, and residual quadriceps muscle atrophy, and radiographs confirmed complete fracture healing with maintenance of a normal proximal tibial growth plate (Figures 10A, 10B).

Discussion

The highlight of this case is the simplicity of an excellent reduction of a displaced ACL-TEA fracture. Minimally invasive absorbable implants did not violate the proximal tibial physis, and the unique adjustable suture-tensioning technology allowed the degree of reduction and ACL tension to be “dialed in.” SutureTak implants have strong No. 2 FiberWire suture for excellent stability with an overall small suture load, and their small size avoids the risk of violating the proximal tibial physis and avoids potential growth disturbances.

Despite the obvious risks it poses to the open proximal tibial physis, surgical reduction of Meyers-McKeever type II and type III fractures is the norm for restoring ACL stability. Screws and suture fixation are the most common and reliable methods of TEA fracture reduction.^16,17 In recent systematic reviews, however, Osti and colleagues¹⁷ and Gans and colleagues¹⁸ noted there is not enough evidence to warrant a “gold standard” in pediatric tibial avulsion cases.

Other fixation methods for TEA fractures must be investigated. Anderson and colleagues¹⁹ described the biomechanics of 4 different physeal-sparing avulsion fracture reduction techniques: an ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) suture-suture button, a suture anchor, a polydioxanone suture-suture button, and screw fixation. Using techniques described by Kocher and colleagues,⁴ Berg,²⁰ Mah and colleagues,²¹ Vega and colleagues,²² and Lu and colleagues,²³ Anderson and colleagues¹⁹ reduced TEA fractures in skeletally immature porcine knees. Compared with suture anchors, UHMWPE suture-suture buttons provided biomechanically superior cyclic and load-to-failure results as well as more consistent fixation.

Screw fixation has shown good results but has disadvantages. Incorrect positioning of a screw can lead to impingement and articular cartilage damage, and screw removal may be needed if discomfort at the fixation site persists.^24,25 Likewise, screws generally are an option only for large fracture fragments, as there is an inherent risk of fracturing small TEA fractures, which can be common in skeletally immature patients.

Brunner and colleagues²⁶ recently found that TEA fracture repair with absorbable sutures and distal bone bridge fixation yielded 3-month radiographic and clinical healing rates similar to those obtained with nonabsorbable sutures tied around a screw. However, other authors have reported growth disturbances with use of a similar technique, owing to a disturbance of the open proximal tibial growth plate.⁹ In that regard, a major advantage of this new knotless suturing technique is that distal fixation is not necessary.

The minimally invasive TEA fraction reduction technique described in this article has 6 advantages: It provides excellent fixation while avoiding proximal tibial growth plate injury; the degree of tensioning is easily controlled during reduction; it uses strong suture instead of metal screws or pins; the reduction construct is low-profile; distal fixation is unnecessary; and implant removal is unnecessary, thus limiting subsequent surgical intervention. With respect to long-term outcomes, however, it is not known how this procedure will compare with other commonly used ARIF methods in physeal-sparing techniques for TEA fracture fixation.

This case report highlights a novel pediatric displaced ACL-TEA fracture reduction technique that allows for adjustable reduction and resultant ACL tensioning with excellent strong suture fixation without violating the proximal tibial physis, which could make it invaluable in the surgical treatment of this injury in skeletally immature patients.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(4):203-208. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Technique provides optimal fixation while simultaneously protecting open growth plates.
• Self tensioning feature insures both optimal ACL tension and fracture reduction.
• No need for future hardware removal.
• 10Cross suture configuration optimizes strength of fixation for highly consistent results.
• Use fluoroscopy to avoid violation of tibial physis.

Generally occurring in the 8- to 14-year-old population, tibial eminence avulsion (TEA) fractures are a common variant of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) ruptures and represent 2% to 5% of all knee injuries in skeletally immature individuals.^1,2 Compared with adults, children likely experience this anomaly more often because of the weakness of their incompletely ossified tibial plateau relative to the strength of their native ACL.³

The open repair techniques that have been described have multiple disadvantages, including open incisions, difficult visualization of the fracture owing to the location of the fat pad, and increased risk for arthrofibrosis. Arthroscopic fixation is considered the treatment of choice for TEA fractures because it allows for direct visualization of injury, accurate reduction of fracture fragments, removal of loose fragments, and easy treatment of associated soft-tissue injuries.^4-6Several fixation techniques for ACL-TEA fractures were recently described: arthroscopic reduction and internal fixation (ARIF) with Kirschner wires,⁷ cannulated screws,⁴ the Meniscus Arrow device (Bionx Implants),⁸ pull-out sutures,^9,10 bioabsorbable nails,¹¹ Herbert screws,¹² TightRope fixation (Arthrex),¹³ and various other rotator cuff and meniscal repair systems.^14,15 These approaches tend to have good outcomes for TEA fractures, but there are risks associated with ACL tensioning and potential tibial growth plate violation or hardware problems. Likewise, there are no studies with large numbers of patients treated with these new techniques, so the optimal method of reduction and fixation is still unknown.

In this article, we describe a new ARIF technique that involves 2 absorbable anchors with adjustable suture-tensioning technology. This technique optimizes reduction and helps surgeons avoid proximal tibial physeal damage, procedure-related morbidity, and additional surgery.

Case Report

History

The patient, an 8-year-old boy, sustained a noncontact twisting injury of the left knee during a cutting maneuver in a flag football game. He experienced immediate pain and subsequent swelling. Clinical examination revealed a moderate effusion with motion limitations secondary to swelling and irritability. The patient’s Lachman test result was 2+. Pivot shift testing was not possible because of guarding. The knee was stable to varus and valgus stress at 0° and 30° of flexion. Limited knee flexion prohibited placement of the patient in the position needed for anterior and posterior drawer testing. His patella was stable on lateral stress testing at 20° of flexion with no apprehension. Neurovascular status was intact throughout the lower extremity.

Anteroposterior and lateral radiographs showed a minimally displaced Meyers-McKeever type II TEA fracture (Figures 1A, 1B).

Examination Under Anesthesia

Examination with the patient under general anesthesia revealed 3+ Lachman, 2+ pivot shift with foot in internal and external rotation, and 1+ anterior drawer with foot in neutral and internal rotation. The knee was stable to varus and valgus stress testing.

Surgical Technique

Proper patient positioning and padding of bony prominences were ensured, and the limb was sterilely prepared and draped.

Given the young age of the patient, it was imperative to avoid the open proximal tibial growth plate. The surgical plan for stabilization involved use of two 3.0-mm BioComposite Knotless SutureTak anchors (Arthrex). This anchor configuration is based on a No. 2 FiberWire suture shuttled through itself to create a locking splice mechanism that allows for adjustable tensioning. The anchors were placed on each side of the tibial bony avulsion site with two No. 2 FiberWire sutures and were then crossed about the avulsion fracture fragment in an “x-type” configuration to secure the ACL back down to the bony bed.

First, a curette was used to débride fibrous tissue on the underside of the fracture fragment and on the fracture bed. Minimal amounts of cancellous bone were débrided from the tibial fracture bed to optimize fracture reduction by slightly recessing the fracture fragment to ensure optimal ACL tensioning (Figure 5).

Follow-Up

Two weeks after surgery, the patient returned to clinic for suture removal. Four weeks after surgery, radiographs confirmed anatomical reduction of the TEA fracture, and outpatient physical therapy (range-of-motion exercises as tolerated) and isometric quadriceps strengthening were instituted. Twelve weeks after surgery, examination revealed full knee motion, negative Lachman and pivot shift test results, and residual quadriceps muscle atrophy, and radiographs confirmed complete fracture healing with maintenance of a normal proximal tibial growth plate (Figures 10A, 10B).

Discussion

The highlight of this case is the simplicity of an excellent reduction of a displaced ACL-TEA fracture. Minimally invasive absorbable implants did not violate the proximal tibial physis, and the unique adjustable suture-tensioning technology allowed the degree of reduction and ACL tension to be “dialed in.” SutureTak implants have strong No. 2 FiberWire suture for excellent stability with an overall small suture load, and their small size avoids the risk of violating the proximal tibial physis and avoids potential growth disturbances.

Despite the obvious risks it poses to the open proximal tibial physis, surgical reduction of Meyers-McKeever type II and type III fractures is the norm for restoring ACL stability. Screws and suture fixation are the most common and reliable methods of TEA fracture reduction.^16,17 In recent systematic reviews, however, Osti and colleagues¹⁷ and Gans and colleagues¹⁸ noted there is not enough evidence to warrant a “gold standard” in pediatric tibial avulsion cases.

Other fixation methods for TEA fractures must be investigated. Anderson and colleagues¹⁹ described the biomechanics of 4 different physeal-sparing avulsion fracture reduction techniques: an ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) suture-suture button, a suture anchor, a polydioxanone suture-suture button, and screw fixation. Using techniques described by Kocher and colleagues,⁴ Berg,²⁰ Mah and colleagues,²¹ Vega and colleagues,²² and Lu and colleagues,²³ Anderson and colleagues¹⁹ reduced TEA fractures in skeletally immature porcine knees. Compared with suture anchors, UHMWPE suture-suture buttons provided biomechanically superior cyclic and load-to-failure results as well as more consistent fixation.

Screw fixation has shown good results but has disadvantages. Incorrect positioning of a screw can lead to impingement and articular cartilage damage, and screw removal may be needed if discomfort at the fixation site persists.^24,25 Likewise, screws generally are an option only for large fracture fragments, as there is an inherent risk of fracturing small TEA fractures, which can be common in skeletally immature patients.

Brunner and colleagues²⁶ recently found that TEA fracture repair with absorbable sutures and distal bone bridge fixation yielded 3-month radiographic and clinical healing rates similar to those obtained with nonabsorbable sutures tied around a screw. However, other authors have reported growth disturbances with use of a similar technique, owing to a disturbance of the open proximal tibial growth plate.⁹ In that regard, a major advantage of this new knotless suturing technique is that distal fixation is not necessary.

The minimally invasive TEA fraction reduction technique described in this article has 6 advantages: It provides excellent fixation while avoiding proximal tibial growth plate injury; the degree of tensioning is easily controlled during reduction; it uses strong suture instead of metal screws or pins; the reduction construct is low-profile; distal fixation is unnecessary; and implant removal is unnecessary, thus limiting subsequent surgical intervention. With respect to long-term outcomes, however, it is not known how this procedure will compare with other commonly used ARIF methods in physeal-sparing techniques for TEA fracture fixation.

This case report highlights a novel pediatric displaced ACL-TEA fracture reduction technique that allows for adjustable reduction and resultant ACL tensioning with excellent strong suture fixation without violating the proximal tibial physis, which could make it invaluable in the surgical treatment of this injury in skeletally immature patients.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(4):203-208. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Repair anterior bone defect on the glenoid related to recurrent anterior instability with preshaped, predrilled allograft.
• Avoid graft harvest complications related to coracoid (Latarjet) or iliac crest autograft.
• Simple guide system to allow for appropriate graft and screw placement.
• Soft tissues can be repaired to the allograft in predrilled suture holes either inside or outside of the graft
• Position the graft without step at the anterior glenoid.

Anteroinferior glenoid bone loss plays a significant role in recurrent glenohumeral instability. Arthroscopic capsulolabral reconstruction has been associated with a recurrence rate of 4% in the absence of significant glenoid bone loss but 67% in patients with either bone loss of more than 25% of the inferior glenoid diameter or an engaging Hill-Sachs lesion.^1,2 Anteroinferior glenoid rim deficiency has been reported in up to 90% of cases of recurrent instability.³ Glenoid reconstruction is therefore recommended in patients with bone loss of more than 25% and in certain revision cases.⁴ Surgical strategies in these cases include coracoid transfer, iliac crest autograft, and allograft (osteochondral and iliac crest). These procedures all successfully restore stability of the glenohumeral joint. However, they carry the drawbacks of technical complexity with increased operative time or risk of neurovascular damage, or they create a nonanatomical reconstruction, which may contribute to subsequent instability arthropathy. In this article, we introduce a technique in which a preshaped allograft (Glenojet; Arthrosurface, Inc.) is used to match the contour of the glenoid defect. The graft is simple to insert and can reduce operative time.

Graft Preparation

The shaped human tissue cortical bone allograft is usually prepared from proximal or distal tibia or femur. There is no cartilage on the graft. It can be ordered in 2 sizes, 10 mm × 29 mm and 13 mm × 34 mm, for different amounts of bone loss. The more commonly used smaller graft reconstructs defects of 20% to 30% of the glenoid.

The sutures through this allograft can be prepared on the back table while the rest of the equipment is set up. Start by tying a No. 2 FiberWire (or equivalent) over a small thin object, such as a Freer elevator. Once the knot is secure, remove the Freer and trim the knot tails short. Thread another suture through the loop that has been created and pull to make the 2 tails even. Then thread these tails through one of the small holes of the graft, going from the flat side to the concave side. Pull the suture tails all the way through, including through the loop of the prior suture. The knot of the loop prevents the entire construct from pulling through. The suture tails are then able to slide as if attached to an anchor. Repeat these steps for the other 2 small holes to get a total of 3 sutures exiting the concave side of the graft (Figure 1). Alternatively, pass the suture the opposite way, if tying the capsule inside the graft is preferred.

Surgical Technique

A standard deltopectoral approach is used to expose the anterior glenoid. The subscapularis can either be split in line with its fibers or tenotomized with 1 cm to 2 cm attached to the tuberosity for later repair. In either instance, it is important to separate the muscle from the underlying capsule layer, as the capsule is what is directly repaired to the graft.

The capsule is carefully peeled off the anterior glenoid. A Fukuda or similar retractor may be used on the humerus, and a glenoid retractor is placed on the anterior glenoid, under the capsule and subscapularis, for optimal exposure. Once the anterior glenoid surface is exposed, the drill guide is placed flush against the surface of the glenoid.

Outcomes

Coracoid bone transfer or the Bristow-Latarjet technique has become more popular since bone loss was recognized as an important cause of failure of soft-tissue repair for anterior instability. This procedure, however, is not without complications. In a recent systematic review of 45 studies (1904 shoulders), Griesser and colleagues⁵ found an overall complication rate of 30% and a reoperation rate of 7%.

Given the potential complications of coracoid bone transfer, allograft reconstruction of the anteroinferior glenoid has become increasingly popular and proved successful at short- and medium-term follow-up. Allograft reconstruction avoids the drawbacks of traditional coracoid bone transfer—namely, high rates of neurovascular injury, and nonanatomical reconstruction with high rates of graft resorption and arthritis.^5,6 At average 45-month follow-up after fresh distal tibia allograft reconstruction, Provencher and colleagues⁷ found an 89% radiographic union rate (average lysis, 3%), significantly improved patient-reported outcomes, and no recurrent instability. Similarly, in a study of iliac crest allograft reconstruction in 10 patients with an average 4-year follow-up, Mascarenhas and colleagues⁸ found an 80% radiographic union rate at 6 months, significantly improved patient-reported outcomes, and no recurrent shoulder instability.

The advantage of Glenojet over other allografts is that it is preshaped and predrilled and saves the surgeon the time and effort of preparing graft in the operating room. The surgical technologist can place the sutures before the patient enters the room. The 2 allograft sizes (10 mm × 29 mm, 13 mm × 34 mm) accommodate the spectrum of bone loss in glenoid deficiency, and graft contour fits the native glenoid well. So far we have implanted this allograft in 15 patients, and at short-term follow-up there are no known cases of recurrent instability.

The potential disadvantages of Glenojet are similar to those of other allografts. Care must be taken with retractor placement to avoid damaging the axillary and musculocutaneous nerves. There are concerns about graft union and subsequent resorption, but this will require long-term follow-up to determine. At 9-month follow-up, we had 1 fracture at the superior corner of the graft, which may have resulted from overtightening the screws in the graft, creating a stress concentration. After removal of this fragment arthroscopically, the patient has done very well clinically with no pain, instability and has returned to all activities. Although the graft does not have an articular surface, the capsular repair covers much of the articular side of the graft, and therefore we do not anticipate that the absence of articular cartilage will contribute to glenohumeral arthritis, though long-term follow-up is lacking. The other question many have is related to the lack of the sling effect since there is no conjoined tendon on the graft. Yamamoto and colleagues⁹ have reported that the conjoined tendon is the major stabilizing force at time zero in a cadaver model. However, other authors^7,8 have successfully reconstructed glenoid defects in these difficult cases without the “sling effect” of the conjoined tendon with excellent clinical results. Our experience has been similar. It is likely that long-term studies will be necessary to answer this question. We have also done some cases with the tendon attached after releasing it from the coracoid, but the series is too small to make any comment about whether this is important or not.

The main limitation of this allograft technique is the lack of long-term outcome studies. However, short-term results are promising, and the ease of the procedure makes it an attractive option for either glenoid reconstruction of bony Bankart lesions or failed bone reconstruction, such as Bristow-Latarjet reconstruction.

Glenojetallograft is a new glenoid reconstruction option that is technically easy and simple to perform in cases of glenoid bone loss, while still creating an anatomical buttress with less surgical dissection than traditional coracoid bone transfer. Short-term outcomes are reassuring, though more research is needed for long-term graft follow-up and recurrent instability.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(4):199-202. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Repair anterior bone defect on the glenoid related to recurrent anterior instability with preshaped, predrilled allograft.
• Avoid graft harvest complications related to coracoid (Latarjet) or iliac crest autograft.
• Simple guide system to allow for appropriate graft and screw placement.
• Soft tissues can be repaired to the allograft in predrilled suture holes either inside or outside of the graft
• Position the graft without step at the anterior glenoid.

Anteroinferior glenoid bone loss plays a significant role in recurrent glenohumeral instability. Arthroscopic capsulolabral reconstruction has been associated with a recurrence rate of 4% in the absence of significant glenoid bone loss but 67% in patients with either bone loss of more than 25% of the inferior glenoid diameter or an engaging Hill-Sachs lesion.^1,2 Anteroinferior glenoid rim deficiency has been reported in up to 90% of cases of recurrent instability.³ Glenoid reconstruction is therefore recommended in patients with bone loss of more than 25% and in certain revision cases.⁴ Surgical strategies in these cases include coracoid transfer, iliac crest autograft, and allograft (osteochondral and iliac crest). These procedures all successfully restore stability of the glenohumeral joint. However, they carry the drawbacks of technical complexity with increased operative time or risk of neurovascular damage, or they create a nonanatomical reconstruction, which may contribute to subsequent instability arthropathy. In this article, we introduce a technique in which a preshaped allograft (Glenojet; Arthrosurface, Inc.) is used to match the contour of the glenoid defect. The graft is simple to insert and can reduce operative time.

Graft Preparation

The shaped human tissue cortical bone allograft is usually prepared from proximal or distal tibia or femur. There is no cartilage on the graft. It can be ordered in 2 sizes, 10 mm × 29 mm and 13 mm × 34 mm, for different amounts of bone loss. The more commonly used smaller graft reconstructs defects of 20% to 30% of the glenoid.

The sutures through this allograft can be prepared on the back table while the rest of the equipment is set up. Start by tying a No. 2 FiberWire (or equivalent) over a small thin object, such as a Freer elevator. Once the knot is secure, remove the Freer and trim the knot tails short. Thread another suture through the loop that has been created and pull to make the 2 tails even. Then thread these tails through one of the small holes of the graft, going from the flat side to the concave side. Pull the suture tails all the way through, including through the loop of the prior suture. The knot of the loop prevents the entire construct from pulling through. The suture tails are then able to slide as if attached to an anchor. Repeat these steps for the other 2 small holes to get a total of 3 sutures exiting the concave side of the graft (Figure 1). Alternatively, pass the suture the opposite way, if tying the capsule inside the graft is preferred.

Surgical Technique

A standard deltopectoral approach is used to expose the anterior glenoid. The subscapularis can either be split in line with its fibers or tenotomized with 1 cm to 2 cm attached to the tuberosity for later repair. In either instance, it is important to separate the muscle from the underlying capsule layer, as the capsule is what is directly repaired to the graft.

The capsule is carefully peeled off the anterior glenoid. A Fukuda or similar retractor may be used on the humerus, and a glenoid retractor is placed on the anterior glenoid, under the capsule and subscapularis, for optimal exposure. Once the anterior glenoid surface is exposed, the drill guide is placed flush against the surface of the glenoid.

Outcomes

Coracoid bone transfer or the Bristow-Latarjet technique has become more popular since bone loss was recognized as an important cause of failure of soft-tissue repair for anterior instability. This procedure, however, is not without complications. In a recent systematic review of 45 studies (1904 shoulders), Griesser and colleagues⁵ found an overall complication rate of 30% and a reoperation rate of 7%.

Given the potential complications of coracoid bone transfer, allograft reconstruction of the anteroinferior glenoid has become increasingly popular and proved successful at short- and medium-term follow-up. Allograft reconstruction avoids the drawbacks of traditional coracoid bone transfer—namely, high rates of neurovascular injury, and nonanatomical reconstruction with high rates of graft resorption and arthritis.^5,6 At average 45-month follow-up after fresh distal tibia allograft reconstruction, Provencher and colleagues⁷ found an 89% radiographic union rate (average lysis, 3%), significantly improved patient-reported outcomes, and no recurrent instability. Similarly, in a study of iliac crest allograft reconstruction in 10 patients with an average 4-year follow-up, Mascarenhas and colleagues⁸ found an 80% radiographic union rate at 6 months, significantly improved patient-reported outcomes, and no recurrent shoulder instability.

The advantage of Glenojet over other allografts is that it is preshaped and predrilled and saves the surgeon the time and effort of preparing graft in the operating room. The surgical technologist can place the sutures before the patient enters the room. The 2 allograft sizes (10 mm × 29 mm, 13 mm × 34 mm) accommodate the spectrum of bone loss in glenoid deficiency, and graft contour fits the native glenoid well. So far we have implanted this allograft in 15 patients, and at short-term follow-up there are no known cases of recurrent instability.

The potential disadvantages of Glenojet are similar to those of other allografts. Care must be taken with retractor placement to avoid damaging the axillary and musculocutaneous nerves. There are concerns about graft union and subsequent resorption, but this will require long-term follow-up to determine. At 9-month follow-up, we had 1 fracture at the superior corner of the graft, which may have resulted from overtightening the screws in the graft, creating a stress concentration. After removal of this fragment arthroscopically, the patient has done very well clinically with no pain, instability and has returned to all activities. Although the graft does not have an articular surface, the capsular repair covers much of the articular side of the graft, and therefore we do not anticipate that the absence of articular cartilage will contribute to glenohumeral arthritis, though long-term follow-up is lacking. The other question many have is related to the lack of the sling effect since there is no conjoined tendon on the graft. Yamamoto and colleagues⁹ have reported that the conjoined tendon is the major stabilizing force at time zero in a cadaver model. However, other authors^7,8 have successfully reconstructed glenoid defects in these difficult cases without the “sling effect” of the conjoined tendon with excellent clinical results. Our experience has been similar. It is likely that long-term studies will be necessary to answer this question. We have also done some cases with the tendon attached after releasing it from the coracoid, but the series is too small to make any comment about whether this is important or not.

The main limitation of this allograft technique is the lack of long-term outcome studies. However, short-term results are promising, and the ease of the procedure makes it an attractive option for either glenoid reconstruction of bony Bankart lesions or failed bone reconstruction, such as Bristow-Latarjet reconstruction.

Glenojetallograft is a new glenoid reconstruction option that is technically easy and simple to perform in cases of glenoid bone loss, while still creating an anatomical buttress with less surgical dissection than traditional coracoid bone transfer. Short-term outcomes are reassuring, though more research is needed for long-term graft follow-up and recurrent instability.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(4):199-202. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Repair anterior bone defect on the glenoid related to recurrent anterior instability with preshaped, predrilled allograft.
• Avoid graft harvest complications related to coracoid (Latarjet) or iliac crest autograft.
• Simple guide system to allow for appropriate graft and screw placement.
• Soft tissues can be repaired to the allograft in predrilled suture holes either inside or outside of the graft
• Position the graft without step at the anterior glenoid.

Anteroinferior glenoid bone loss plays a significant role in recurrent glenohumeral instability. Arthroscopic capsulolabral reconstruction has been associated with a recurrence rate of 4% in the absence of significant glenoid bone loss but 67% in patients with either bone loss of more than 25% of the inferior glenoid diameter or an engaging Hill-Sachs lesion.^1,2 Anteroinferior glenoid rim deficiency has been reported in up to 90% of cases of recurrent instability.³ Glenoid reconstruction is therefore recommended in patients with bone loss of more than 25% and in certain revision cases.⁴ Surgical strategies in these cases include coracoid transfer, iliac crest autograft, and allograft (osteochondral and iliac crest). These procedures all successfully restore stability of the glenohumeral joint. However, they carry the drawbacks of technical complexity with increased operative time or risk of neurovascular damage, or they create a nonanatomical reconstruction, which may contribute to subsequent instability arthropathy. In this article, we introduce a technique in which a preshaped allograft (Glenojet; Arthrosurface, Inc.) is used to match the contour of the glenoid defect. The graft is simple to insert and can reduce operative time.

Graft Preparation

The shaped human tissue cortical bone allograft is usually prepared from proximal or distal tibia or femur. There is no cartilage on the graft. It can be ordered in 2 sizes, 10 mm × 29 mm and 13 mm × 34 mm, for different amounts of bone loss. The more commonly used smaller graft reconstructs defects of 20% to 30% of the glenoid.

The sutures through this allograft can be prepared on the back table while the rest of the equipment is set up. Start by tying a No. 2 FiberWire (or equivalent) over a small thin object, such as a Freer elevator. Once the knot is secure, remove the Freer and trim the knot tails short. Thread another suture through the loop that has been created and pull to make the 2 tails even. Then thread these tails through one of the small holes of the graft, going from the flat side to the concave side. Pull the suture tails all the way through, including through the loop of the prior suture. The knot of the loop prevents the entire construct from pulling through. The suture tails are then able to slide as if attached to an anchor. Repeat these steps for the other 2 small holes to get a total of 3 sutures exiting the concave side of the graft (Figure 1). Alternatively, pass the suture the opposite way, if tying the capsule inside the graft is preferred.

Surgical Technique

A standard deltopectoral approach is used to expose the anterior glenoid. The subscapularis can either be split in line with its fibers or tenotomized with 1 cm to 2 cm attached to the tuberosity for later repair. In either instance, it is important to separate the muscle from the underlying capsule layer, as the capsule is what is directly repaired to the graft.

The capsule is carefully peeled off the anterior glenoid. A Fukuda or similar retractor may be used on the humerus, and a glenoid retractor is placed on the anterior glenoid, under the capsule and subscapularis, for optimal exposure. Once the anterior glenoid surface is exposed, the drill guide is placed flush against the surface of the glenoid.

Outcomes

Coracoid bone transfer or the Bristow-Latarjet technique has become more popular since bone loss was recognized as an important cause of failure of soft-tissue repair for anterior instability. This procedure, however, is not without complications. In a recent systematic review of 45 studies (1904 shoulders), Griesser and colleagues⁵ found an overall complication rate of 30% and a reoperation rate of 7%.

Given the potential complications of coracoid bone transfer, allograft reconstruction of the anteroinferior glenoid has become increasingly popular and proved successful at short- and medium-term follow-up. Allograft reconstruction avoids the drawbacks of traditional coracoid bone transfer—namely, high rates of neurovascular injury, and nonanatomical reconstruction with high rates of graft resorption and arthritis.^5,6 At average 45-month follow-up after fresh distal tibia allograft reconstruction, Provencher and colleagues⁷ found an 89% radiographic union rate (average lysis, 3%), significantly improved patient-reported outcomes, and no recurrent instability. Similarly, in a study of iliac crest allograft reconstruction in 10 patients with an average 4-year follow-up, Mascarenhas and colleagues⁸ found an 80% radiographic union rate at 6 months, significantly improved patient-reported outcomes, and no recurrent shoulder instability.

The advantage of Glenojet over other allografts is that it is preshaped and predrilled and saves the surgeon the time and effort of preparing graft in the operating room. The surgical technologist can place the sutures before the patient enters the room. The 2 allograft sizes (10 mm × 29 mm, 13 mm × 34 mm) accommodate the spectrum of bone loss in glenoid deficiency, and graft contour fits the native glenoid well. So far we have implanted this allograft in 15 patients, and at short-term follow-up there are no known cases of recurrent instability.

The potential disadvantages of Glenojet are similar to those of other allografts. Care must be taken with retractor placement to avoid damaging the axillary and musculocutaneous nerves. There are concerns about graft union and subsequent resorption, but this will require long-term follow-up to determine. At 9-month follow-up, we had 1 fracture at the superior corner of the graft, which may have resulted from overtightening the screws in the graft, creating a stress concentration. After removal of this fragment arthroscopically, the patient has done very well clinically with no pain, instability and has returned to all activities. Although the graft does not have an articular surface, the capsular repair covers much of the articular side of the graft, and therefore we do not anticipate that the absence of articular cartilage will contribute to glenohumeral arthritis, though long-term follow-up is lacking. The other question many have is related to the lack of the sling effect since there is no conjoined tendon on the graft. Yamamoto and colleagues⁹ have reported that the conjoined tendon is the major stabilizing force at time zero in a cadaver model. However, other authors^7,8 have successfully reconstructed glenoid defects in these difficult cases without the “sling effect” of the conjoined tendon with excellent clinical results. Our experience has been similar. It is likely that long-term studies will be necessary to answer this question. We have also done some cases with the tendon attached after releasing it from the coracoid, but the series is too small to make any comment about whether this is important or not.

The main limitation of this allograft technique is the lack of long-term outcome studies. However, short-term results are promising, and the ease of the procedure makes it an attractive option for either glenoid reconstruction of bony Bankart lesions or failed bone reconstruction, such as Bristow-Latarjet reconstruction.

Glenojetallograft is a new glenoid reconstruction option that is technically easy and simple to perform in cases of glenoid bone loss, while still creating an anatomical buttress with less surgical dissection than traditional coracoid bone transfer. Short-term outcomes are reassuring, though more research is needed for long-term graft follow-up and recurrent instability.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(4):199-202. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Novel synovial markers and PCR have the potential to improve the detection of PJIs.
• 10Difficult-to-detect infections of prosthetic joints pose a diagnostic problem to surgeons and can lead to suboptimal outcomes.
• AD is a highly sensitive and specific synovial fluid marker for detecting PJIs.
• AD has shown promising results in detecting low virulence organisms.
• Studies are needed to determine how to best incorporate novel synovial markers and PCR to current diagnostic criteria in order to improve diagnostic accuracy.

Approximately 7 million Americans are living with a hip or knee replacement.¹ According to projections, primary hip arthroplasties will increase by 174% and knee arthroplasties by 673% by 2030. Revision arthroplasties are projected to increase by 137% for hips and 601% for knees during the same time period.² Infection and aseptic loosening are the most common causes of implant failure.³ The literature shows that infection is the most common cause of failure within 2 years after surgery and that aseptic loosening is the most common cause for late revision.³

Recent studies suggest that prosthetic joint infection (PJI) may be underreported because of difficulty making a diagnosis and that cases of aseptic loosening may in fact be attributable to infections with low-virulence organisms.^2,3 These findings have led to new efforts to develop uniform criteria for diagnosing PJIs. In 2011, the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) offered a new definition for PJI diagnosis, based on clinical and laboratory criteria, to increase the accuracy of PJI diagnosis.⁴ The MSIS committee acknowledged that PJI may be present even if these criteria are not met, particularly in the case of low-virulence organisms, as patients may not present with clinical signs of infection and may have normal inflammatory markers and joint aspirates. Reports of PJI cases misdiagnosed as aseptic loosening suggest that current screening and diagnostic tools are not sensitive enough to detect all infections and that PJI is likely underdiagnosed.

According to MSIS criteria, the diagnosis of PJI can be made when there is a sinus tract communicating with the prosthesis, when a pathogen is isolated by culture from 2 or more separate tissue or fluid samples obtained from the affected prosthetic joint, or when 4 of 6 criteria are met. The 6 criteria are (1) elevated serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) (>30 mm/hour) and elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) level (>10 mg/L); (2) elevated synovial white blood cell (WBC) count (1100-4000 cells/μL); (3) elevated synovial polymorphonuclear leukocytes (>64%); (4) purulence in affected joint; (5) isolation of a microorganism in a culture of periprosthetic tissue or fluid; and (6) more than 5 neutrophils per high-power field in 5 high-power fields observed.

In this review article, we discuss recently developed novel synovial biomarkers and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technologies that may help increase the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic guidelines for PJI.

Methods

Using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), we performed a systematic review of specific synovial fluid markers and PCR used in PJI diagnosis. In May 2016, we searched the PubMed database for these criteria: ((((((PCR[Text Word]) OR IL-6[Text Word]) OR leukocyte esterase[Text Word]) OR alpha defensin[Text Word]) AND ((“infection/diagnosis”[MeSH Terms] OR “infection/surgery”[MeSH Terms])))) AND (prosthetic joint infection[MeSH Terms] OR periprosthetic joint infection[MeSH Terms]).

We included patients who had undergone total hip, knee, or shoulder arthroplasty (THA, TKA, TSA). Index tests were PCR and the synovial fluid markers α-defensin (AD), interleukin 6 (IL-6), and leukocyte esterase (LE). Reference tests included joint fluid/serum analysis or tissue analysis (ESR/CRP level, cell count, culture, frozen section), which defined the MSIS criteria for PJI. Primary outcomes of interest were sensitivity and specificity, and secondary outcomes of interest included positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (+LR), and negative likelihood ratio (–LR). Randomized controlled trials and controlled cohort studies in humans published within the past 10 years were included.

Results

Our full-text review yielded 15 papers that met our study inclusion criteria (Figure 1).

α-Defensin

One of the novel synovial biomarkers that has shown significant promise in diagnosing PJIs, even with difficult-to-detect organisms, is AD.

AD has shown even more impressive results as a biomarker for PJI in the hip and knee, where infection with low virulence organism is less common. In 2014, Deirmengian and colleagues⁶ conducted a prospective clinical study of 149 patients who underwent revision THA or TKA for aseptic loosening (n = 112) or PJI (n = 37) as defined by MSIS criteria. Aseptic loosening was diagnosed when there was no identifiable reason for pain, and MSIS criteria were not met. Synovial fluid aspirates were collected before or during surgery. AD correctly identified 143 of the 149 patients with confirmed infection with sensitivity of 97.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.8%-99.6%) and specificity of 95.5% (95% CI, 89.9%-98.5%). Similarly, Bingham and colleagues⁷ conducted a retrospective clinical study of 61 assays done on 57 patients who underwent revision arthroplasty for PJI as defined by MSIS criteria. Synovial fluid aspirates were collected before or during surgery. AD correctly identified all 19 PJIs with sensitivity of 100% (95% CI, 79%-100%) and specificity of 95% (95% CI, 83%-99%). Sensitivity and specificity of the AD assay more accurately predicted infection than synovial cell count or serum ESR/CRP level did.

These results are supported by another prospective study by Deirmengian and colleagues⁸ differentiating aseptic failures and PJIs in THA or TKA. The sensitivity and specificity of AD in diagnosing PJI were 100% (95% CI, 85.05%-100%).

Interleukin 6

Another synovial fluid biomarker that has shown promise in PJI diagnosis is IL-6. In 2015, Frangiamore and colleagues¹⁰ conducted a prospective clinical study of 32 patients who underwent revision TSA. Synovial fluid aspiration was obtained before or during surgery. MSIS criteria were used to establish the diagnosis of PJI. IL-6 had sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 90%, with +LR of 8.45 and –LR of 0.15 in predicting PJI. Synovial fluid IL-6 had strong associations with frozen section histology and growth of P acnes. Frangiamore and colleagues¹⁰ recommended an ideal IL-6 cutoff of 359.1 pg/mL and reported that, though not as accurate as AD, synovial fluid IL-6 levels can help predict positive cultures in patients who undergo revision TSA.

Lenski and Scherer¹¹ conducted another retrospective clinical study of the diagnostic value of IL-6 in PJI.

Leukocyte Esterase

LE strips are an inexpensive screening tool for PJI, according to some studies. In a prospective clinical study of 364 endoprosthetic joint (hip, knee, shoulder) interventions, Guenther and colleagues¹³ collected synovial fluid before surgery. Samples were tested with graded LE strips using PJI criteria set by the authors. Results were correlated with preoperative synovial fluid aspirations, serum CRP level, serum WBC count, and intraoperative histopathologic and microbiological findings. Whereas 293 (93.31%) of the 314 aseptic cases had negative test strip readings, 100% of the 50 infected cases were positive. LE had sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 96.5%, PPV of 82%, and NPV of 100%.

Wetters et al¹⁴ performed a prospective clinical study on 223 patients who underwent TKAs and THAs for suspected PJI based on having criteria defined by the authors of the study. Synovial fluid samples were collected either preoperatively or intraoperatively.

Polymerase Chain Reaction

Studies have found that PCR analysis of synovial fluid is effective in detecting bacteria on the surface of implants removed during revision arthroplasties. Comparison of the 16S rRNA gene sequences of bacterial genomes showed a diverse range of bacterial species within biofilms on the surface of clinical and subclinical infections.¹⁷ These findings, along with those of other studies, suggest that PCR analysis of synovial fluid is useful in diagnosing PJI and identifying organisms and their sensitivities to antibiotics.

Gallo and colleagues¹⁸ performed a prospective clinical study on 115 patients who underwent revision TKAs or THAs. Synovial fluid was collected intraoperatively. PCR assays targeting the 16S rDNA were carried out on 101 patients. PJIs were classified based on criteria of the authors of this study, of which there were 42. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, +LR, and -LR for PCR were 71.4% (95% CI, 61.5%-75.5%), 97% (95% CI, 91.7%-99.1%), 92.6% (95% CI, 79.8%-97.9%), 86.5% (95% CI, 81.8%-88.4%), 23.6 (95% CI, 5.9%-93.8%), and 0.29 (95% CI, 0.17%-0.49%), respectively. Of note the most common organism detected in 42 PJIs was coagulase-negative Staphylococcus.

Marin and colleagues¹⁹ conducted a prospective study of 122 patients who underwent arthroplasty for suspected infection or aseptic loosening as defined by the authors’ clinicohistopathologic criteria. Synovial fluid and biopsy specimens were collected during surgery, and 40 patients met the infection criteria. The authors concluded that 16S PCR is more specific and has better PPV than culture does as one positive 16S PCR resulted in a specificity and PPV of PJI of 96.3% and 91.7%, respectively. However, they noted that culture was more sensitive in diagnosing PJI.

Jacovides and colleagues²⁰ conducted a prospective study on 82 patients undergoing primary TKA, revision TKA, and revision THA.

Discussion

Although there is no gold standard for the diagnosis of PJIs, several clinical and laboratory criteria guidelines are currently used to help clinicians diagnose infections of prosthetic joints. However, despite standardization of diagnostic criteria, PJI continue to be a diagnostic challenge.

AD is a highly sensitive and specific synovial fluid biomarker in detecting common PJIs.

Take-Home Points

• Novel synovial markers and PCR have the potential to improve the detection of PJIs.
• 10Difficult-to-detect infections of prosthetic joints pose a diagnostic problem to surgeons and can lead to suboptimal outcomes.
• AD is a highly sensitive and specific synovial fluid marker for detecting PJIs.
• AD has shown promising results in detecting low virulence organisms.
• Studies are needed to determine how to best incorporate novel synovial markers and PCR to current diagnostic criteria in order to improve diagnostic accuracy.

Approximately 7 million Americans are living with a hip or knee replacement.¹ According to projections, primary hip arthroplasties will increase by 174% and knee arthroplasties by 673% by 2030. Revision arthroplasties are projected to increase by 137% for hips and 601% for knees during the same time period.² Infection and aseptic loosening are the most common causes of implant failure.³ The literature shows that infection is the most common cause of failure within 2 years after surgery and that aseptic loosening is the most common cause for late revision.³

Recent studies suggest that prosthetic joint infection (PJI) may be underreported because of difficulty making a diagnosis and that cases of aseptic loosening may in fact be attributable to infections with low-virulence organisms.^2,3 These findings have led to new efforts to develop uniform criteria for diagnosing PJIs. In 2011, the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) offered a new definition for PJI diagnosis, based on clinical and laboratory criteria, to increase the accuracy of PJI diagnosis.⁴ The MSIS committee acknowledged that PJI may be present even if these criteria are not met, particularly in the case of low-virulence organisms, as patients may not present with clinical signs of infection and may have normal inflammatory markers and joint aspirates. Reports of PJI cases misdiagnosed as aseptic loosening suggest that current screening and diagnostic tools are not sensitive enough to detect all infections and that PJI is likely underdiagnosed.

According to MSIS criteria, the diagnosis of PJI can be made when there is a sinus tract communicating with the prosthesis, when a pathogen is isolated by culture from 2 or more separate tissue or fluid samples obtained from the affected prosthetic joint, or when 4 of 6 criteria are met. The 6 criteria are (1) elevated serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) (>30 mm/hour) and elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) level (>10 mg/L); (2) elevated synovial white blood cell (WBC) count (1100-4000 cells/μL); (3) elevated synovial polymorphonuclear leukocytes (>64%); (4) purulence in affected joint; (5) isolation of a microorganism in a culture of periprosthetic tissue or fluid; and (6) more than 5 neutrophils per high-power field in 5 high-power fields observed.

In this review article, we discuss recently developed novel synovial biomarkers and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technologies that may help increase the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic guidelines for PJI.

Methods

Using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), we performed a systematic review of specific synovial fluid markers and PCR used in PJI diagnosis. In May 2016, we searched the PubMed database for these criteria: ((((((PCR[Text Word]) OR IL-6[Text Word]) OR leukocyte esterase[Text Word]) OR alpha defensin[Text Word]) AND ((“infection/diagnosis”[MeSH Terms] OR “infection/surgery”[MeSH Terms])))) AND (prosthetic joint infection[MeSH Terms] OR periprosthetic joint infection[MeSH Terms]).

We included patients who had undergone total hip, knee, or shoulder arthroplasty (THA, TKA, TSA). Index tests were PCR and the synovial fluid markers α-defensin (AD), interleukin 6 (IL-6), and leukocyte esterase (LE). Reference tests included joint fluid/serum analysis or tissue analysis (ESR/CRP level, cell count, culture, frozen section), which defined the MSIS criteria for PJI. Primary outcomes of interest were sensitivity and specificity, and secondary outcomes of interest included positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (+LR), and negative likelihood ratio (–LR). Randomized controlled trials and controlled cohort studies in humans published within the past 10 years were included.

Results

Our full-text review yielded 15 papers that met our study inclusion criteria (Figure 1).

α-Defensin

One of the novel synovial biomarkers that has shown significant promise in diagnosing PJIs, even with difficult-to-detect organisms, is AD.

AD has shown even more impressive results as a biomarker for PJI in the hip and knee, where infection with low virulence organism is less common. In 2014, Deirmengian and colleagues⁶ conducted a prospective clinical study of 149 patients who underwent revision THA or TKA for aseptic loosening (n = 112) or PJI (n = 37) as defined by MSIS criteria. Aseptic loosening was diagnosed when there was no identifiable reason for pain, and MSIS criteria were not met. Synovial fluid aspirates were collected before or during surgery. AD correctly identified 143 of the 149 patients with confirmed infection with sensitivity of 97.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.8%-99.6%) and specificity of 95.5% (95% CI, 89.9%-98.5%). Similarly, Bingham and colleagues⁷ conducted a retrospective clinical study of 61 assays done on 57 patients who underwent revision arthroplasty for PJI as defined by MSIS criteria. Synovial fluid aspirates were collected before or during surgery. AD correctly identified all 19 PJIs with sensitivity of 100% (95% CI, 79%-100%) and specificity of 95% (95% CI, 83%-99%). Sensitivity and specificity of the AD assay more accurately predicted infection than synovial cell count or serum ESR/CRP level did.

These results are supported by another prospective study by Deirmengian and colleagues⁸ differentiating aseptic failures and PJIs in THA or TKA. The sensitivity and specificity of AD in diagnosing PJI were 100% (95% CI, 85.05%-100%).

Interleukin 6

Another synovial fluid biomarker that has shown promise in PJI diagnosis is IL-6. In 2015, Frangiamore and colleagues¹⁰ conducted a prospective clinical study of 32 patients who underwent revision TSA. Synovial fluid aspiration was obtained before or during surgery. MSIS criteria were used to establish the diagnosis of PJI. IL-6 had sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 90%, with +LR of 8.45 and –LR of 0.15 in predicting PJI. Synovial fluid IL-6 had strong associations with frozen section histology and growth of P acnes. Frangiamore and colleagues¹⁰ recommended an ideal IL-6 cutoff of 359.1 pg/mL and reported that, though not as accurate as AD, synovial fluid IL-6 levels can help predict positive cultures in patients who undergo revision TSA.

Lenski and Scherer¹¹ conducted another retrospective clinical study of the diagnostic value of IL-6 in PJI.

Leukocyte Esterase

LE strips are an inexpensive screening tool for PJI, according to some studies. In a prospective clinical study of 364 endoprosthetic joint (hip, knee, shoulder) interventions, Guenther and colleagues¹³ collected synovial fluid before surgery. Samples were tested with graded LE strips using PJI criteria set by the authors. Results were correlated with preoperative synovial fluid aspirations, serum CRP level, serum WBC count, and intraoperative histopathologic and microbiological findings. Whereas 293 (93.31%) of the 314 aseptic cases had negative test strip readings, 100% of the 50 infected cases were positive. LE had sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 96.5%, PPV of 82%, and NPV of 100%.

Wetters et al¹⁴ performed a prospective clinical study on 223 patients who underwent TKAs and THAs for suspected PJI based on having criteria defined by the authors of the study. Synovial fluid samples were collected either preoperatively or intraoperatively.

Polymerase Chain Reaction

Studies have found that PCR analysis of synovial fluid is effective in detecting bacteria on the surface of implants removed during revision arthroplasties. Comparison of the 16S rRNA gene sequences of bacterial genomes showed a diverse range of bacterial species within biofilms on the surface of clinical and subclinical infections.¹⁷ These findings, along with those of other studies, suggest that PCR analysis of synovial fluid is useful in diagnosing PJI and identifying organisms and their sensitivities to antibiotics.

Gallo and colleagues¹⁸ performed a prospective clinical study on 115 patients who underwent revision TKAs or THAs. Synovial fluid was collected intraoperatively. PCR assays targeting the 16S rDNA were carried out on 101 patients. PJIs were classified based on criteria of the authors of this study, of which there were 42. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, +LR, and -LR for PCR were 71.4% (95% CI, 61.5%-75.5%), 97% (95% CI, 91.7%-99.1%), 92.6% (95% CI, 79.8%-97.9%), 86.5% (95% CI, 81.8%-88.4%), 23.6 (95% CI, 5.9%-93.8%), and 0.29 (95% CI, 0.17%-0.49%), respectively. Of note the most common organism detected in 42 PJIs was coagulase-negative Staphylococcus.

Marin and colleagues¹⁹ conducted a prospective study of 122 patients who underwent arthroplasty for suspected infection or aseptic loosening as defined by the authors’ clinicohistopathologic criteria. Synovial fluid and biopsy specimens were collected during surgery, and 40 patients met the infection criteria. The authors concluded that 16S PCR is more specific and has better PPV than culture does as one positive 16S PCR resulted in a specificity and PPV of PJI of 96.3% and 91.7%, respectively. However, they noted that culture was more sensitive in diagnosing PJI.

Jacovides and colleagues²⁰ conducted a prospective study on 82 patients undergoing primary TKA, revision TKA, and revision THA.

Discussion

Although there is no gold standard for the diagnosis of PJIs, several clinical and laboratory criteria guidelines are currently used to help clinicians diagnose infections of prosthetic joints. However, despite standardization of diagnostic criteria, PJI continue to be a diagnostic challenge.

AD is a highly sensitive and specific synovial fluid biomarker in detecting common PJIs.

Take-Home Points

• Novel synovial markers and PCR have the potential to improve the detection of PJIs.
• 10Difficult-to-detect infections of prosthetic joints pose a diagnostic problem to surgeons and can lead to suboptimal outcomes.
• AD is a highly sensitive and specific synovial fluid marker for detecting PJIs.
• AD has shown promising results in detecting low virulence organisms.
• Studies are needed to determine how to best incorporate novel synovial markers and PCR to current diagnostic criteria in order to improve diagnostic accuracy.

Approximately 7 million Americans are living with a hip or knee replacement.¹ According to projections, primary hip arthroplasties will increase by 174% and knee arthroplasties by 673% by 2030. Revision arthroplasties are projected to increase by 137% for hips and 601% for knees during the same time period.² Infection and aseptic loosening are the most common causes of implant failure.³ The literature shows that infection is the most common cause of failure within 2 years after surgery and that aseptic loosening is the most common cause for late revision.³

Recent studies suggest that prosthetic joint infection (PJI) may be underreported because of difficulty making a diagnosis and that cases of aseptic loosening may in fact be attributable to infections with low-virulence organisms.^2,3 These findings have led to new efforts to develop uniform criteria for diagnosing PJIs. In 2011, the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) offered a new definition for PJI diagnosis, based on clinical and laboratory criteria, to increase the accuracy of PJI diagnosis.⁴ The MSIS committee acknowledged that PJI may be present even if these criteria are not met, particularly in the case of low-virulence organisms, as patients may not present with clinical signs of infection and may have normal inflammatory markers and joint aspirates. Reports of PJI cases misdiagnosed as aseptic loosening suggest that current screening and diagnostic tools are not sensitive enough to detect all infections and that PJI is likely underdiagnosed.

According to MSIS criteria, the diagnosis of PJI can be made when there is a sinus tract communicating with the prosthesis, when a pathogen is isolated by culture from 2 or more separate tissue or fluid samples obtained from the affected prosthetic joint, or when 4 of 6 criteria are met. The 6 criteria are (1) elevated serum erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) (>30 mm/hour) and elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) level (>10 mg/L); (2) elevated synovial white blood cell (WBC) count (1100-4000 cells/μL); (3) elevated synovial polymorphonuclear leukocytes (>64%); (4) purulence in affected joint; (5) isolation of a microorganism in a culture of periprosthetic tissue or fluid; and (6) more than 5 neutrophils per high-power field in 5 high-power fields observed.

In this review article, we discuss recently developed novel synovial biomarkers and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technologies that may help increase the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic guidelines for PJI.

Methods

Using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), we performed a systematic review of specific synovial fluid markers and PCR used in PJI diagnosis. In May 2016, we searched the PubMed database for these criteria: ((((((PCR[Text Word]) OR IL-6[Text Word]) OR leukocyte esterase[Text Word]) OR alpha defensin[Text Word]) AND ((“infection/diagnosis”[MeSH Terms] OR “infection/surgery”[MeSH Terms])))) AND (prosthetic joint infection[MeSH Terms] OR periprosthetic joint infection[MeSH Terms]).

We included patients who had undergone total hip, knee, or shoulder arthroplasty (THA, TKA, TSA). Index tests were PCR and the synovial fluid markers α-defensin (AD), interleukin 6 (IL-6), and leukocyte esterase (LE). Reference tests included joint fluid/serum analysis or tissue analysis (ESR/CRP level, cell count, culture, frozen section), which defined the MSIS criteria for PJI. Primary outcomes of interest were sensitivity and specificity, and secondary outcomes of interest included positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (+LR), and negative likelihood ratio (–LR). Randomized controlled trials and controlled cohort studies in humans published within the past 10 years were included.

Results

Our full-text review yielded 15 papers that met our study inclusion criteria (Figure 1).

α-Defensin

One of the novel synovial biomarkers that has shown significant promise in diagnosing PJIs, even with difficult-to-detect organisms, is AD.

AD has shown even more impressive results as a biomarker for PJI in the hip and knee, where infection with low virulence organism is less common. In 2014, Deirmengian and colleagues⁶ conducted a prospective clinical study of 149 patients who underwent revision THA or TKA for aseptic loosening (n = 112) or PJI (n = 37) as defined by MSIS criteria. Aseptic loosening was diagnosed when there was no identifiable reason for pain, and MSIS criteria were not met. Synovial fluid aspirates were collected before or during surgery. AD correctly identified 143 of the 149 patients with confirmed infection with sensitivity of 97.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.8%-99.6%) and specificity of 95.5% (95% CI, 89.9%-98.5%). Similarly, Bingham and colleagues⁷ conducted a retrospective clinical study of 61 assays done on 57 patients who underwent revision arthroplasty for PJI as defined by MSIS criteria. Synovial fluid aspirates were collected before or during surgery. AD correctly identified all 19 PJIs with sensitivity of 100% (95% CI, 79%-100%) and specificity of 95% (95% CI, 83%-99%). Sensitivity and specificity of the AD assay more accurately predicted infection than synovial cell count or serum ESR/CRP level did.

These results are supported by another prospective study by Deirmengian and colleagues⁸ differentiating aseptic failures and PJIs in THA or TKA. The sensitivity and specificity of AD in diagnosing PJI were 100% (95% CI, 85.05%-100%).

Interleukin 6

Another synovial fluid biomarker that has shown promise in PJI diagnosis is IL-6. In 2015, Frangiamore and colleagues¹⁰ conducted a prospective clinical study of 32 patients who underwent revision TSA. Synovial fluid aspiration was obtained before or during surgery. MSIS criteria were used to establish the diagnosis of PJI. IL-6 had sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 90%, with +LR of 8.45 and –LR of 0.15 in predicting PJI. Synovial fluid IL-6 had strong associations with frozen section histology and growth of P acnes. Frangiamore and colleagues¹⁰ recommended an ideal IL-6 cutoff of 359.1 pg/mL and reported that, though not as accurate as AD, synovial fluid IL-6 levels can help predict positive cultures in patients who undergo revision TSA.

Lenski and Scherer¹¹ conducted another retrospective clinical study of the diagnostic value of IL-6 in PJI.

Leukocyte Esterase

LE strips are an inexpensive screening tool for PJI, according to some studies. In a prospective clinical study of 364 endoprosthetic joint (hip, knee, shoulder) interventions, Guenther and colleagues¹³ collected synovial fluid before surgery. Samples were tested with graded LE strips using PJI criteria set by the authors. Results were correlated with preoperative synovial fluid aspirations, serum CRP level, serum WBC count, and intraoperative histopathologic and microbiological findings. Whereas 293 (93.31%) of the 314 aseptic cases had negative test strip readings, 100% of the 50 infected cases were positive. LE had sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 96.5%, PPV of 82%, and NPV of 100%.

Wetters et al¹⁴ performed a prospective clinical study on 223 patients who underwent TKAs and THAs for suspected PJI based on having criteria defined by the authors of the study. Synovial fluid samples were collected either preoperatively or intraoperatively.

Polymerase Chain Reaction

Studies have found that PCR analysis of synovial fluid is effective in detecting bacteria on the surface of implants removed during revision arthroplasties. Comparison of the 16S rRNA gene sequences of bacterial genomes showed a diverse range of bacterial species within biofilms on the surface of clinical and subclinical infections.¹⁷ These findings, along with those of other studies, suggest that PCR analysis of synovial fluid is useful in diagnosing PJI and identifying organisms and their sensitivities to antibiotics.

Gallo and colleagues¹⁸ performed a prospective clinical study on 115 patients who underwent revision TKAs or THAs. Synovial fluid was collected intraoperatively. PCR assays targeting the 16S rDNA were carried out on 101 patients. PJIs were classified based on criteria of the authors of this study, of which there were 42. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, +LR, and -LR for PCR were 71.4% (95% CI, 61.5%-75.5%), 97% (95% CI, 91.7%-99.1%), 92.6% (95% CI, 79.8%-97.9%), 86.5% (95% CI, 81.8%-88.4%), 23.6 (95% CI, 5.9%-93.8%), and 0.29 (95% CI, 0.17%-0.49%), respectively. Of note the most common organism detected in 42 PJIs was coagulase-negative Staphylococcus.

Marin and colleagues¹⁹ conducted a prospective study of 122 patients who underwent arthroplasty for suspected infection or aseptic loosening as defined by the authors’ clinicohistopathologic criteria. Synovial fluid and biopsy specimens were collected during surgery, and 40 patients met the infection criteria. The authors concluded that 16S PCR is more specific and has better PPV than culture does as one positive 16S PCR resulted in a specificity and PPV of PJI of 96.3% and 91.7%, respectively. However, they noted that culture was more sensitive in diagnosing PJI.

Jacovides and colleagues²⁰ conducted a prospective study on 82 patients undergoing primary TKA, revision TKA, and revision THA.

Discussion

Although there is no gold standard for the diagnosis of PJIs, several clinical and laboratory criteria guidelines are currently used to help clinicians diagnose infections of prosthetic joints. However, despite standardization of diagnostic criteria, PJI continue to be a diagnostic challenge.

AD is a highly sensitive and specific synovial fluid biomarker in detecting common PJIs.

Take-Home Points

• Arthroscopic stabilization performed early results in better outcomes in patients with Bankart lesions.
• A subcritical level of bone loss of 13.5% has been shown to have a significant effect on outcomes, in addition to the established “critical amount”.
• Bone loss is a bipolar issue. Both sides must be considered in order to properly address shoulder instability.
• Off-track measurement has been shown to be even more positively predictive of outcomes than glenoid bone loss assessment.

• There are several bone loss management options including, the most common coracoid transfer, as well as distal tibial allograft and distal clavicular autograft.

Given its relatively young age, high activity level, and centralized medical care system, the US military population is ideal for studying traumatic anterior shoulder instability. There is a long history of military surgeons who have made significant contributions that have advanced our understanding of this pathology and its treatment and results. In this article, we describe the scope, treatment, and results of this pathology in the US military population.

Incidence and Pathology

At the United States Military Academy (USMA), Owens and colleagues¹ studied the incidence of shoulder instability, including dislocation and subluxation, and found anterior instability events were far more common than in civilian populations. The incidence of shoulder instability was 0.08 per 1000 person-years in the general US population vs 1.69 per 1000 person-years in US military personnel. The factors associated with increased risk of shoulder instability injury in the military population were male sex, white race, junior enlisted rank, and age under 30 years. Owens and colleagues² noted that subluxation accounted for almost 85% of the total anterior instability events. Owens and colleagues³ found the pathology in subluxation events was similar to that in full dislocations, with a soft-tissue anterior Bankart lesion and a Hill-Sachs lesion detected on magnetic resonance imaging in more than 90% of patients. In another study at the USMA, DeBerardino and colleagues⁴ noted that 97% of arthroscopically assessed shoulders in first-time dislocators involved complete detachment of the capsuloligamentous complex from the anterior glenoid rim and neck—a so-called Bankart lesion. Thus, in a military population, anterior instability resulting from subluxation or dislocation is a common finding that is often represented by a soft-tissue Bankart lesion and a Hill-Sachs defect.

Natural History of Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Instability in the Military

Several studies have evaluated the outcomes of nonoperative and operative treatment of shoulder instability. Although most have found better outcomes with operative intervention, Aronen and Regan⁵ reported good results (25% recurrence at nearly 3-year follow-up) with nonoperative treatment and adherence to a strict rehabilitation program. Most other comparative studies in this population have published contrary results. Wheeler and colleagues⁶ studied the natural history of anterior shoulder dislocations in a USMA cadet cohort and found recurrent instability after shoulder dislocation in 92% of cadets who had nonoperative treatment. Similarly, DeBerardino and colleagues⁴ found that, in the USMA, 90% of first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations managed nonoperatively experienced recurrent instability. In a series of Army soldiers with shoulder instability, Bottoni and colleagues⁷ reported that 75% of nonoperatively managed patients had recurrent instability, and, of these, 67% progressed to surgical intervention. Nonoperative treatment for a first-time dislocation is still reasonable if a cadet or soldier needs to quickly return to functional duties. Athletes who develop shoulder instability during their playing season have been studied in a military population as well. In a multicenter study of service academy athletes with anterior instability, Dickens and colleagues⁸ found that, with conservative management and accelerated rehabilitation of in-season shoulder instability, 73% of athletes returned to sport by a mean of 5 days. However, the durability of this treatment should be questioned, as 64% later experienced recurrence.

Arthroscopic Stabilization of Acute Anterior Shoulder Dislocations

In an early series of cases of traumatic anterior shoulder instability in USMA cadets, Wheeler and colleagues⁶ found that, at 14 months, 78% of arthroscopically stabilized cases and 92% of nonoperatively treated cases were successful. Then, in the 1990s, DeBerardino and colleagues⁴ studied a series of young, active patients in the USMA and noted significantly better results with arthroscopic treatment, vs nonoperative treatment, at 2- to 5-year follow-up. Of the arthroscopically treated shoulders, 88% remained stable during the study and returned to preinjury activity levels, and 12% experienced recurrent instability (risk factors included 2+ sulcus sign, poor capsular labral tissue, and history of bilateral shoulder instability). In a long-term follow-up (mean, 11.7 years; range, 9.1-13.9 years) of the same cohort, Owens and colleagues⁹ found that 14% of patients available for follow-up had undergone revision stabilization surgery, and, of these, 21% reported experiencing subluxation events. The authors concluded that, in first-time dislocators in this active military population, acute arthroscopic Bankart repair resulted in excellent return to athletics and subjective function, and had acceptable recurrence and reoperation rates. Bottoni and colleagues,⁷ in a prospective, randomized evaluation of arthroscopic stabilization of acute, traumatic, first-time shoulder dislocations in the Army, noted an 89% success rate for arthroscopic treatment at an average follow-up of 36 months, with no recurrent instability. DeBerardino and colleagues¹⁰ compared West Point patients treated nonoperatively with those arthroscopically treated with staples, transglenoid sutures, or bioabsorbable anchors. Recurrence rates were 85% for nonoperative treatment, 22% for staples, 14% for transglenoid sutures, and 10% for bioabsorbable anchors.

Arthroscopic Versus Open Stabilization of Anterior Shoulder Instability

In a prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing open and arthroscopic shoulder stabilization for recurrent anterior instability in active-duty Army personnel, Bottoni and colleagues¹¹ found comparable clinical outcomes. Stabilization surgery failed clinically in only 3 cases, 2 open and 1 arthroscopic. The authors concluded that arthroscopic stabilization can be safely performed for recurrent shoulder instability and that arthroscopic outcomes are similar to open outcomes. In a series of anterior shoulder subluxations in young athletes with Bankart lesions, Owens and colleagues¹² found that open and arthroscopic stabilization performed early resulted in better outcomes, regardless of technique used. Recurrent subluxation occurred at a mean of 17 months in 3 of the 10 patients in the open group and 3 of the 9 patients in the arthroscopic group, for an overall recurrence rate of 31%. The authors concluded that, in this patient population with Bankart lesions caused by anterior subluxation events, surgery should be performed early.

Bone Lesions

Burkhart and De Beer¹³ first noted that bone loss has emerged as one of the most important considerations in the setting of shoulder instability in active patients. Other authors have found this to be true in military populations.^14,15

The diagnosis of bone loss may include historical findings, such as increased number and ease of dislocations, as well as dislocation in lower positions of abduction. Physical examination findings may include apprehension in the midrange of motion. Advanced imaging, such as magnetic resonance arthrography, has since been validated as equivalent to 3-dimensional computed tomography (3-D CT) in determining glenoid bone loss.¹⁶ In 2007, Mologne and colleagues¹⁵ studied the amount of glenoid bone loss and the presence of fragmented bone or attritional bone loss and its effect on outcomes. They evaluated 21 patients who had arthroscopic treatment for anterior instability with anteroinferior glenoid bone loss between 20% and 30%. Average follow-up was 34 months. All patients received 3 or 4 anterior anchors. No patient with a bone fragment incorporated into the repair experienced recurrence or subluxation, whereas 30% of patients with attritional bone loss had recurrent instability.¹⁵

Classifying Bone Loss and Recognizing Its Effects

Burkhart and De Beer¹³ helped define the role and significance of bone loss in the setting of shoulder instability. They defined significant bone loss as an engaging Hill-Sachs lesion of the humerus in an abducted and externally rotated position or an “inverted pear” lesion of the glenoid. Overall analysis revealed recurrence in 4% of cases without significant bone loss and 65% of cases with significant bone loss. In a subanalysis of contact-sport athletes in the setting of bone loss, the failure rate increased to 89%, from 6.5%. Aiding in the quantitative assessment of glenoid bone loss, Itoi and colleagues¹⁷ showed that 21% glenoid bone loss resulted in instability that would not be corrected by a soft-tissue procedure alone. Bone loss of 20% to 25% has since been considered a “critical amount,” above which an arthroscopic Bankart has been questioned. More recently, several authors have shown that even less bone loss can have a significant effect on outcomes. Shaha and colleagues¹⁸ established that a subcritical level of bone loss (13.5%) on the anteroinferior glenoid resulted in clinical failure (as determined with the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index) even in cases in which frank recurrence or subluxation was avoided. It is thought that, in recurrent instability, glenoid bone loss incident rate is as high as 90%, and the corresponding percentage of patients with Hill-Sachs lesions is almost 100%.^19,20 Thus, it is increasingly understood that bone loss is a bipolar issue and that both sides must be considered in order to properly address shoulder instability in this setting. In 2007, Yamamoto and colleagues²¹ introduced the glenoid track, a method for predicting whether a Hill-Sachs lesion will engage. Di Giacomo and colleagues²² refined the track concept to quantitatively determine which lesions will engage in the setting of both glenoid and humeral bone loss. Metzger and colleagues,²³ confirming the track concept arthroscopically, found that manipulation with anesthesia and arthroscopic visualization was well predicted by preoperative track measurements, and thus these measurements can be a good guide for surgical management (Figures 1A, 1B).

Strategies for Addressing Bone Loss in Anterior Shoulder Instability

Several approaches for managing bone loss in shoulder instability have been described—the most common being coracoid transfer (Latarjet procedure). Waterman and colleagues²⁵ recently studied the effects of coracoid transfer, distal tibial allograft, and iliac crest augmentation on anterior shoulder instability in US military patients treated between 2006 and 2012. Of 64 patients who underwent a bone block procedure, 16 (25%) had a complication during short-term follow-up. Complications included neurologic injury, pain, infection, hardware failure, and recurrent instability.

Conclusion

Traumatic anterior shoulder instability is a common pathology that continues to significantly challenge the readiness of the US military. Military surgeon-researchers have a long history of investigating approaches to the treatment of this pathology—applying good science to a large controlled population, using a single medical record, and demonstrating a commitment to return service members to the ready defense of the nation.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(4):184-189. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Arthroscopic stabilization performed early results in better outcomes in patients with Bankart lesions.
• A subcritical level of bone loss of 13.5% has been shown to have a significant effect on outcomes, in addition to the established “critical amount”.
• Bone loss is a bipolar issue. Both sides must be considered in order to properly address shoulder instability.
• Off-track measurement has been shown to be even more positively predictive of outcomes than glenoid bone loss assessment.

• There are several bone loss management options including, the most common coracoid transfer, as well as distal tibial allograft and distal clavicular autograft.

Given its relatively young age, high activity level, and centralized medical care system, the US military population is ideal for studying traumatic anterior shoulder instability. There is a long history of military surgeons who have made significant contributions that have advanced our understanding of this pathology and its treatment and results. In this article, we describe the scope, treatment, and results of this pathology in the US military population.

Incidence and Pathology

At the United States Military Academy (USMA), Owens and colleagues¹ studied the incidence of shoulder instability, including dislocation and subluxation, and found anterior instability events were far more common than in civilian populations. The incidence of shoulder instability was 0.08 per 1000 person-years in the general US population vs 1.69 per 1000 person-years in US military personnel. The factors associated with increased risk of shoulder instability injury in the military population were male sex, white race, junior enlisted rank, and age under 30 years. Owens and colleagues² noted that subluxation accounted for almost 85% of the total anterior instability events. Owens and colleagues³ found the pathology in subluxation events was similar to that in full dislocations, with a soft-tissue anterior Bankart lesion and a Hill-Sachs lesion detected on magnetic resonance imaging in more than 90% of patients. In another study at the USMA, DeBerardino and colleagues⁴ noted that 97% of arthroscopically assessed shoulders in first-time dislocators involved complete detachment of the capsuloligamentous complex from the anterior glenoid rim and neck—a so-called Bankart lesion. Thus, in a military population, anterior instability resulting from subluxation or dislocation is a common finding that is often represented by a soft-tissue Bankart lesion and a Hill-Sachs defect.

Natural History of Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Instability in the Military

Several studies have evaluated the outcomes of nonoperative and operative treatment of shoulder instability. Although most have found better outcomes with operative intervention, Aronen and Regan⁵ reported good results (25% recurrence at nearly 3-year follow-up) with nonoperative treatment and adherence to a strict rehabilitation program. Most other comparative studies in this population have published contrary results. Wheeler and colleagues⁶ studied the natural history of anterior shoulder dislocations in a USMA cadet cohort and found recurrent instability after shoulder dislocation in 92% of cadets who had nonoperative treatment. Similarly, DeBerardino and colleagues⁴ found that, in the USMA, 90% of first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations managed nonoperatively experienced recurrent instability. In a series of Army soldiers with shoulder instability, Bottoni and colleagues⁷ reported that 75% of nonoperatively managed patients had recurrent instability, and, of these, 67% progressed to surgical intervention. Nonoperative treatment for a first-time dislocation is still reasonable if a cadet or soldier needs to quickly return to functional duties. Athletes who develop shoulder instability during their playing season have been studied in a military population as well. In a multicenter study of service academy athletes with anterior instability, Dickens and colleagues⁸ found that, with conservative management and accelerated rehabilitation of in-season shoulder instability, 73% of athletes returned to sport by a mean of 5 days. However, the durability of this treatment should be questioned, as 64% later experienced recurrence.

Arthroscopic Stabilization of Acute Anterior Shoulder Dislocations

In an early series of cases of traumatic anterior shoulder instability in USMA cadets, Wheeler and colleagues⁶ found that, at 14 months, 78% of arthroscopically stabilized cases and 92% of nonoperatively treated cases were successful. Then, in the 1990s, DeBerardino and colleagues⁴ studied a series of young, active patients in the USMA and noted significantly better results with arthroscopic treatment, vs nonoperative treatment, at 2- to 5-year follow-up. Of the arthroscopically treated shoulders, 88% remained stable during the study and returned to preinjury activity levels, and 12% experienced recurrent instability (risk factors included 2+ sulcus sign, poor capsular labral tissue, and history of bilateral shoulder instability). In a long-term follow-up (mean, 11.7 years; range, 9.1-13.9 years) of the same cohort, Owens and colleagues⁹ found that 14% of patients available for follow-up had undergone revision stabilization surgery, and, of these, 21% reported experiencing subluxation events. The authors concluded that, in first-time dislocators in this active military population, acute arthroscopic Bankart repair resulted in excellent return to athletics and subjective function, and had acceptable recurrence and reoperation rates. Bottoni and colleagues,⁷ in a prospective, randomized evaluation of arthroscopic stabilization of acute, traumatic, first-time shoulder dislocations in the Army, noted an 89% success rate for arthroscopic treatment at an average follow-up of 36 months, with no recurrent instability. DeBerardino and colleagues¹⁰ compared West Point patients treated nonoperatively with those arthroscopically treated with staples, transglenoid sutures, or bioabsorbable anchors. Recurrence rates were 85% for nonoperative treatment, 22% for staples, 14% for transglenoid sutures, and 10% for bioabsorbable anchors.

Arthroscopic Versus Open Stabilization of Anterior Shoulder Instability

In a prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing open and arthroscopic shoulder stabilization for recurrent anterior instability in active-duty Army personnel, Bottoni and colleagues¹¹ found comparable clinical outcomes. Stabilization surgery failed clinically in only 3 cases, 2 open and 1 arthroscopic. The authors concluded that arthroscopic stabilization can be safely performed for recurrent shoulder instability and that arthroscopic outcomes are similar to open outcomes. In a series of anterior shoulder subluxations in young athletes with Bankart lesions, Owens and colleagues¹² found that open and arthroscopic stabilization performed early resulted in better outcomes, regardless of technique used. Recurrent subluxation occurred at a mean of 17 months in 3 of the 10 patients in the open group and 3 of the 9 patients in the arthroscopic group, for an overall recurrence rate of 31%. The authors concluded that, in this patient population with Bankart lesions caused by anterior subluxation events, surgery should be performed early.

Bone Lesions

Burkhart and De Beer¹³ first noted that bone loss has emerged as one of the most important considerations in the setting of shoulder instability in active patients. Other authors have found this to be true in military populations.^14,15

The diagnosis of bone loss may include historical findings, such as increased number and ease of dislocations, as well as dislocation in lower positions of abduction. Physical examination findings may include apprehension in the midrange of motion. Advanced imaging, such as magnetic resonance arthrography, has since been validated as equivalent to 3-dimensional computed tomography (3-D CT) in determining glenoid bone loss.¹⁶ In 2007, Mologne and colleagues¹⁵ studied the amount of glenoid bone loss and the presence of fragmented bone or attritional bone loss and its effect on outcomes. They evaluated 21 patients who had arthroscopic treatment for anterior instability with anteroinferior glenoid bone loss between 20% and 30%. Average follow-up was 34 months. All patients received 3 or 4 anterior anchors. No patient with a bone fragment incorporated into the repair experienced recurrence or subluxation, whereas 30% of patients with attritional bone loss had recurrent instability.¹⁵

Classifying Bone Loss and Recognizing Its Effects

Burkhart and De Beer¹³ helped define the role and significance of bone loss in the setting of shoulder instability. They defined significant bone loss as an engaging Hill-Sachs lesion of the humerus in an abducted and externally rotated position or an “inverted pear” lesion of the glenoid. Overall analysis revealed recurrence in 4% of cases without significant bone loss and 65% of cases with significant bone loss. In a subanalysis of contact-sport athletes in the setting of bone loss, the failure rate increased to 89%, from 6.5%. Aiding in the quantitative assessment of glenoid bone loss, Itoi and colleagues¹⁷ showed that 21% glenoid bone loss resulted in instability that would not be corrected by a soft-tissue procedure alone. Bone loss of 20% to 25% has since been considered a “critical amount,” above which an arthroscopic Bankart has been questioned. More recently, several authors have shown that even less bone loss can have a significant effect on outcomes. Shaha and colleagues¹⁸ established that a subcritical level of bone loss (13.5%) on the anteroinferior glenoid resulted in clinical failure (as determined with the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index) even in cases in which frank recurrence or subluxation was avoided. It is thought that, in recurrent instability, glenoid bone loss incident rate is as high as 90%, and the corresponding percentage of patients with Hill-Sachs lesions is almost 100%.^19,20 Thus, it is increasingly understood that bone loss is a bipolar issue and that both sides must be considered in order to properly address shoulder instability in this setting. In 2007, Yamamoto and colleagues²¹ introduced the glenoid track, a method for predicting whether a Hill-Sachs lesion will engage. Di Giacomo and colleagues²² refined the track concept to quantitatively determine which lesions will engage in the setting of both glenoid and humeral bone loss. Metzger and colleagues,²³ confirming the track concept arthroscopically, found that manipulation with anesthesia and arthroscopic visualization was well predicted by preoperative track measurements, and thus these measurements can be a good guide for surgical management (Figures 1A, 1B).

Strategies for Addressing Bone Loss in Anterior Shoulder Instability

Several approaches for managing bone loss in shoulder instability have been described—the most common being coracoid transfer (Latarjet procedure). Waterman and colleagues²⁵ recently studied the effects of coracoid transfer, distal tibial allograft, and iliac crest augmentation on anterior shoulder instability in US military patients treated between 2006 and 2012. Of 64 patients who underwent a bone block procedure, 16 (25%) had a complication during short-term follow-up. Complications included neurologic injury, pain, infection, hardware failure, and recurrent instability.

Conclusion

Traumatic anterior shoulder instability is a common pathology that continues to significantly challenge the readiness of the US military. Military surgeon-researchers have a long history of investigating approaches to the treatment of this pathology—applying good science to a large controlled population, using a single medical record, and demonstrating a commitment to return service members to the ready defense of the nation.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(4):184-189. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.

Take-Home Points

• Arthroscopic stabilization performed early results in better outcomes in patients with Bankart lesions.
• A subcritical level of bone loss of 13.5% has been shown to have a significant effect on outcomes, in addition to the established “critical amount”.
• Bone loss is a bipolar issue. Both sides must be considered in order to properly address shoulder instability.
• Off-track measurement has been shown to be even more positively predictive of outcomes than glenoid bone loss assessment.

• There are several bone loss management options including, the most common coracoid transfer, as well as distal tibial allograft and distal clavicular autograft.

Given its relatively young age, high activity level, and centralized medical care system, the US military population is ideal for studying traumatic anterior shoulder instability. There is a long history of military surgeons who have made significant contributions that have advanced our understanding of this pathology and its treatment and results. In this article, we describe the scope, treatment, and results of this pathology in the US military population.

Incidence and Pathology

At the United States Military Academy (USMA), Owens and colleagues¹ studied the incidence of shoulder instability, including dislocation and subluxation, and found anterior instability events were far more common than in civilian populations. The incidence of shoulder instability was 0.08 per 1000 person-years in the general US population vs 1.69 per 1000 person-years in US military personnel. The factors associated with increased risk of shoulder instability injury in the military population were male sex, white race, junior enlisted rank, and age under 30 years. Owens and colleagues² noted that subluxation accounted for almost 85% of the total anterior instability events. Owens and colleagues³ found the pathology in subluxation events was similar to that in full dislocations, with a soft-tissue anterior Bankart lesion and a Hill-Sachs lesion detected on magnetic resonance imaging in more than 90% of patients. In another study at the USMA, DeBerardino and colleagues⁴ noted that 97% of arthroscopically assessed shoulders in first-time dislocators involved complete detachment of the capsuloligamentous complex from the anterior glenoid rim and neck—a so-called Bankart lesion. Thus, in a military population, anterior instability resulting from subluxation or dislocation is a common finding that is often represented by a soft-tissue Bankart lesion and a Hill-Sachs defect.

Natural History of Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Instability in the Military

Several studies have evaluated the outcomes of nonoperative and operative treatment of shoulder instability. Although most have found better outcomes with operative intervention, Aronen and Regan⁵ reported good results (25% recurrence at nearly 3-year follow-up) with nonoperative treatment and adherence to a strict rehabilitation program. Most other comparative studies in this population have published contrary results. Wheeler and colleagues⁶ studied the natural history of anterior shoulder dislocations in a USMA cadet cohort and found recurrent instability after shoulder dislocation in 92% of cadets who had nonoperative treatment. Similarly, DeBerardino and colleagues⁴ found that, in the USMA, 90% of first-time traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations managed nonoperatively experienced recurrent instability. In a series of Army soldiers with shoulder instability, Bottoni and colleagues⁷ reported that 75% of nonoperatively managed patients had recurrent instability, and, of these, 67% progressed to surgical intervention. Nonoperative treatment for a first-time dislocation is still reasonable if a cadet or soldier needs to quickly return to functional duties. Athletes who develop shoulder instability during their playing season have been studied in a military population as well. In a multicenter study of service academy athletes with anterior instability, Dickens and colleagues⁸ found that, with conservative management and accelerated rehabilitation of in-season shoulder instability, 73% of athletes returned to sport by a mean of 5 days. However, the durability of this treatment should be questioned, as 64% later experienced recurrence.

Arthroscopic Stabilization of Acute Anterior Shoulder Dislocations

In an early series of cases of traumatic anterior shoulder instability in USMA cadets, Wheeler and colleagues⁶ found that, at 14 months, 78% of arthroscopically stabilized cases and 92% of nonoperatively treated cases were successful. Then, in the 1990s, DeBerardino and colleagues⁴ studied a series of young, active patients in the USMA and noted significantly better results with arthroscopic treatment, vs nonoperative treatment, at 2- to 5-year follow-up. Of the arthroscopically treated shoulders, 88% remained stable during the study and returned to preinjury activity levels, and 12% experienced recurrent instability (risk factors included 2+ sulcus sign, poor capsular labral tissue, and history of bilateral shoulder instability). In a long-term follow-up (mean, 11.7 years; range, 9.1-13.9 years) of the same cohort, Owens and colleagues⁹ found that 14% of patients available for follow-up had undergone revision stabilization surgery, and, of these, 21% reported experiencing subluxation events. The authors concluded that, in first-time dislocators in this active military population, acute arthroscopic Bankart repair resulted in excellent return to athletics and subjective function, and had acceptable recurrence and reoperation rates. Bottoni and colleagues,⁷ in a prospective, randomized evaluation of arthroscopic stabilization of acute, traumatic, first-time shoulder dislocations in the Army, noted an 89% success rate for arthroscopic treatment at an average follow-up of 36 months, with no recurrent instability. DeBerardino and colleagues¹⁰ compared West Point patients treated nonoperatively with those arthroscopically treated with staples, transglenoid sutures, or bioabsorbable anchors. Recurrence rates were 85% for nonoperative treatment, 22% for staples, 14% for transglenoid sutures, and 10% for bioabsorbable anchors.

Arthroscopic Versus Open Stabilization of Anterior Shoulder Instability

In a prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing open and arthroscopic shoulder stabilization for recurrent anterior instability in active-duty Army personnel, Bottoni and colleagues¹¹ found comparable clinical outcomes. Stabilization surgery failed clinically in only 3 cases, 2 open and 1 arthroscopic. The authors concluded that arthroscopic stabilization can be safely performed for recurrent shoulder instability and that arthroscopic outcomes are similar to open outcomes. In a series of anterior shoulder subluxations in young athletes with Bankart lesions, Owens and colleagues¹² found that open and arthroscopic stabilization performed early resulted in better outcomes, regardless of technique used. Recurrent subluxation occurred at a mean of 17 months in 3 of the 10 patients in the open group and 3 of the 9 patients in the arthroscopic group, for an overall recurrence rate of 31%. The authors concluded that, in this patient population with Bankart lesions caused by anterior subluxation events, surgery should be performed early.

Bone Lesions

Burkhart and De Beer¹³ first noted that bone loss has emerged as one of the most important considerations in the setting of shoulder instability in active patients. Other authors have found this to be true in military populations.^14,15

The diagnosis of bone loss may include historical findings, such as increased number and ease of dislocations, as well as dislocation in lower positions of abduction. Physical examination findings may include apprehension in the midrange of motion. Advanced imaging, such as magnetic resonance arthrography, has since been validated as equivalent to 3-dimensional computed tomography (3-D CT) in determining glenoid bone loss.¹⁶ In 2007, Mologne and colleagues¹⁵ studied the amount of glenoid bone loss and the presence of fragmented bone or attritional bone loss and its effect on outcomes. They evaluated 21 patients who had arthroscopic treatment for anterior instability with anteroinferior glenoid bone loss between 20% and 30%. Average follow-up was 34 months. All patients received 3 or 4 anterior anchors. No patient with a bone fragment incorporated into the repair experienced recurrence or subluxation, whereas 30% of patients with attritional bone loss had recurrent instability.¹⁵

Classifying Bone Loss and Recognizing Its Effects

Burkhart and De Beer¹³ helped define the role and significance of bone loss in the setting of shoulder instability. They defined significant bone loss as an engaging Hill-Sachs lesion of the humerus in an abducted and externally rotated position or an “inverted pear” lesion of the glenoid. Overall analysis revealed recurrence in 4% of cases without significant bone loss and 65% of cases with significant bone loss. In a subanalysis of contact-sport athletes in the setting of bone loss, the failure rate increased to 89%, from 6.5%. Aiding in the quantitative assessment of glenoid bone loss, Itoi and colleagues¹⁷ showed that 21% glenoid bone loss resulted in instability that would not be corrected by a soft-tissue procedure alone. Bone loss of 20% to 25% has since been considered a “critical amount,” above which an arthroscopic Bankart has been questioned. More recently, several authors have shown that even less bone loss can have a significant effect on outcomes. Shaha and colleagues¹⁸ established that a subcritical level of bone loss (13.5%) on the anteroinferior glenoid resulted in clinical failure (as determined with the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index) even in cases in which frank recurrence or subluxation was avoided. It is thought that, in recurrent instability, glenoid bone loss incident rate is as high as 90%, and the corresponding percentage of patients with Hill-Sachs lesions is almost 100%.^19,20 Thus, it is increasingly understood that bone loss is a bipolar issue and that both sides must be considered in order to properly address shoulder instability in this setting. In 2007, Yamamoto and colleagues²¹ introduced the glenoid track, a method for predicting whether a Hill-Sachs lesion will engage. Di Giacomo and colleagues²² refined the track concept to quantitatively determine which lesions will engage in the setting of both glenoid and humeral bone loss. Metzger and colleagues,²³ confirming the track concept arthroscopically, found that manipulation with anesthesia and arthroscopic visualization was well predicted by preoperative track measurements, and thus these measurements can be a good guide for surgical management (Figures 1A, 1B).

Strategies for Addressing Bone Loss in Anterior Shoulder Instability

Several approaches for managing bone loss in shoulder instability have been described—the most common being coracoid transfer (Latarjet procedure). Waterman and colleagues²⁵ recently studied the effects of coracoid transfer, distal tibial allograft, and iliac crest augmentation on anterior shoulder instability in US military patients treated between 2006 and 2012. Of 64 patients who underwent a bone block procedure, 16 (25%) had a complication during short-term follow-up. Complications included neurologic injury, pain, infection, hardware failure, and recurrent instability.

Conclusion

Traumatic anterior shoulder instability is a common pathology that continues to significantly challenge the readiness of the US military. Military surgeon-researchers have a long history of investigating approaches to the treatment of this pathology—applying good science to a large controlled population, using a single medical record, and demonstrating a commitment to return service members to the ready defense of the nation.

Am J Orthop. 2017;46(4):184-189. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2017. All rights reserved.