Predictors of paralysis in the rheumatoid cervical spine in patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis is sometimes associated with radiographic evidence of instability of the cervical spine, most commonly an abnormal subluxation between vertebrae. When this instability compromises the space that is available for the spinal cord, it may be predictive of paralysis. However, the prevalence of radiographic signs of instability that are predictive of paralysis among patients with nonspinal orthopaedic manifestations of rheumatoid arthritis is unknown. METHODS: Radiographs of the cervical spine of patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had undergone total joint arthroplasty over a five-year period were retrospectively reviewed. The radiographs were evaluated for predictors of paralysis (a posterior atlantodental interval of\u3c14 \u3emm) and were compared with traditional parameters of instability (an anterior atlantodental interval of \u3e3 mm or subaxial subluxation of \u3e3 mm). RESULTS: Forty-nine of the sixty-five patients who were identified had flexion and extension lateral radiographs available for review. Only one of these patients had a posterior atlantodental interval of \u3c14 \u3emm, and only three had a space available for the cord that measuredcomparison, twenty patients had radiographic evidence of instability on the basis of traditional parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Although nearly one-half of the patients in the present study had radiographic evidence of cervical instability on the basis of traditional measurements, only four patients (8%) had a radiographic finding that was predictive of paralysis. Thus, while radiographic evidence of cervical instability was not infrequent in this population of patients who underwent total joint arthroplasty for rheumatoid arthritis, radiographic predictors of paralysis were much less common

Subsequent Surgery After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Rates and Risk Factors From a Multicenter Cohort

BACKGROUND: While revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) can be performed to restore knee stability and improve patient activity levels, outcomes after this surgery are reported to be inferior to those after primary ACLR. Further reoperations after revision ACLR can have an even more profound effect on patient satisfaction and outcomes. However, there is a current lack of information regarding the rate and risk factors for subsequent surgery after revision ACLR. PURPOSE: To report the rate of reoperations, procedures performed, and risk factors for a reoperation 2 years after revision ACLR. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A total of 1205 patients who underwent revision ACLR were enrolled in the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) between 2006 and 2011, composing the prospective cohort. Two-year questionnaire follow-up was obtained for 989 patients (82%), while telephone follow-up was obtained for 1112 patients (92%). If a patient reported having undergone subsequent surgery, operative reports detailing the subsequent procedure(s) were obtained and categorized. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to determine independent risk factors for a reoperation. RESULTS: Of the 1112 patients included in the analysis, 122 patients (11%) underwent a total of 172 subsequent procedures on the ipsilateral knee at 2-year follow-up. Of the reoperations, 27% were meniscal procedures (69% meniscectomy, 26% repair), 19% were subsequent revision ACLR, 17% were cartilage procedures (61% chondroplasty, 17% microfracture, 13% mosaicplasty), 11% were hardware removal, and 9% were procedures for arthrofibrosis. Multivariate analysis revealed that patients aged <20 years had twice the odds of patients aged 20 to 29 years to undergo a reoperation. The use of an allograft at the time of revision ACLR (odds ratio [OR], 1.79; P = .007) was a significant predictor for reoperations at 2 years, while staged revision (bone grafting of tunnels before revision ACLR) (OR, 1.93; P = .052) did not reach significance. Patients with grade 4 cartilage damage seen during revision ACLR were 78% less likely to undergo subsequent operations within 2 years. Sex, body mass index, smoking history, Marx activity score, technique for femoral tunnel placement, and meniscal tearing or meniscal treatment at the time of revision ACLR showed no significant effect on the reoperation rate. CONCLUSION: There was a significant reoperation rate after revision ACLR at 2 years (11%), with meniscal procedures most commonly involved. Independent risk factors for subsequent surgery on the ipsilateral knee included age <20 years and the use of allograft tissue at the time of revision ACLR

Multirater Agreement of the Causes of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Failure

BackgroundAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction failure occurs in up to 10% of cases. Technical errors are considered the most common cause of graft failure despite the absence of validated studies. Limited data are available regarding the agreement among orthopaedic surgeons regarding the causes of primary ACL reconstruction failure and accuracy of graft tunnel placement.HypothesisExperienced knee surgeons have a high level of interobserver reliability in the agreement about the causes of primary ACL reconstruction failure, anatomic graft characteristics, and tunnel placement.Study designCohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.MethodsTwenty cases of revision ACL reconstruction were randomly selected from the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) database. Each case included the patient's history, standardized radiographs, and a concise 30-second arthroscopic video taken at the time of revision demonstrating the graft remnant and location of the tunnel apertures. All 20 cases were reviewed by 10 MARS surgeons not involved with the primary surgery. Each surgeon completed a 2-part questionnaire dealing with each surgeon's training and practice, as well as the placement of the femoral and tibial tunnels, condition of the primary graft, and the surgeon's opinion as to the causes of graft failure. Interrater agreement was determined for each question with the kappa coefficient and the prevalence-adjusted, bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK).ResultsThe 10 reviewers have been in practice an average of 14 years and have performed at least 25 ACL reconstructions per year, and 9 were fellowship trained in sports medicine. There was wide variability in agreement among knee experts as to the specific causes of ACL graft failure. When participants were specifically asked about technical error as the cause for failure, interobserver agreement was only slight (PABAK = 0.26). There was fair overall agreement on ideal femoral tunnel placement (PABAK = 0.55) but only slight agreement on whether a femoral tunnel was too anterior (PABAK = 0.24) and fair agreement on whether it was too vertical (PABAK = 0.46). There was poor overall agreement for ideal tibial tunnel placement (PABAK = 0.17).ConclusionThis study suggests that more objective criteria are needed to accurately determine the causes of primary ACL graft failure as well as the ideal femoral and tibial tunnel placement in patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction

Multirater Agreement of the Causes of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Failure

BackgroundAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction failure occurs in up to 10% of cases. Technical errors are considered the most common cause of graft failure despite the absence of validated studies. Limited data are available regarding the agreement among orthopaedic surgeons regarding the causes of primary ACL reconstruction failure and accuracy of graft tunnel placement.HypothesisExperienced knee surgeons have a high level of interobserver reliability in the agreement about the causes of primary ACL reconstruction failure, anatomic graft characteristics, and tunnel placement.Study designCohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.MethodsTwenty cases of revision ACL reconstruction were randomly selected from the Multicenter ACL Revision Study (MARS) database. Each case included the patient's history, standardized radiographs, and a concise 30-second arthroscopic video taken at the time of revision demonstrating the graft remnant and location of the tunnel apertures. All 20 cases were reviewed by 10 MARS surgeons not involved with the primary surgery. Each surgeon completed a 2-part questionnaire dealing with each surgeon's training and practice, as well as the placement of the femoral and tibial tunnels, condition of the primary graft, and the surgeon's opinion as to the causes of graft failure. Interrater agreement was determined for each question with the kappa coefficient and the prevalence-adjusted, bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK).ResultsThe 10 reviewers have been in practice an average of 14 years and have performed at least 25 ACL reconstructions per year, and 9 were fellowship trained in sports medicine. There was wide variability in agreement among knee experts as to the specific causes of ACL graft failure. When participants were specifically asked about technical error as the cause for failure, interobserver agreement was only slight (PABAK = 0.26). There was fair overall agreement on ideal femoral tunnel placement (PABAK = 0.55) but only slight agreement on whether a femoral tunnel was too anterior (PABAK = 0.24) and fair agreement on whether it was too vertical (PABAK = 0.46). There was poor overall agreement for ideal tibial tunnel placement (PABAK = 0.17).ConclusionThis study suggests that more objective criteria are needed to accurately determine the causes of primary ACL graft failure as well as the ideal femoral and tibial tunnel placement in patients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction

Descriptive Characteristics and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With and Without Tunnel Bone Grafting

BackgroundLytic or malpositioned tunnels may require bone grafting during revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (rACLR) surgery. Patient characteristics and effects of grafting on outcomes after rACLR are not well described.PurposeTo describe preoperative characteristics, intraoperative findings, and 2-year outcomes for patients with rACLR undergoing bone grafting procedures compared with patients with rACLR without grafting.Study designCohort study; Level of evidence, 3.MethodsA total of 1234 patients who underwent rACLR were prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Baseline revision and 2-year characteristics, surgical technique, pathology, treatment, and patient-reported outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and Marx Activity Rating Scale [Marx]) were collected, as well as subsequent surgery information, if applicable. The chi-square and analysis of variance tests were used to compare group characteristics.ResultsA total of 159 patients (13%) underwent tunnel grafting-64 (5%) patients underwent 1-stage and 95 (8%) underwent 2-stage grafting. Grafting was isolated to the femur in 31 (2.5%) patients, the tibia in 40 (3%) patients, and combined in 88 patients (7%). Baseline KOOS Quality of Life (QoL) and Marx activity scores were significantly lower in the 2-stage group compared with the no bone grafting group (P≤ .001). Patients who required 2-stage grafting had more previous ACLRs (P &lt; .001) and were less likely to have received a bone-patellar tendon-bone or a soft tissue autograft at primary ACLR procedure (P≤ .021) compared with the no bone grafting group. For current rACLR, patients undergoing either 1-stage or 2-stage bone grafting were more likely to receive a bone-patellar tendon-bone allograft (P≤ .008) and less likely to receive a soft tissue autograft (P≤ .003) compared with the no bone grafting group. At 2-year follow-up of 1052 (85%) patients, we found inferior outcomes in the 2-stage bone grafting group (IKDC score = 68; KOOS QoL score = 44; KOOS Sport/Recreation score = 65; and Marx activity score = 3) compared with the no bone grafting group (IKDC score = 77; KOOS QoL score = 63; KOOS Sport/Recreation score = 75; and Marx activity score = 7) (P≤ .01). The 1-stage bone graft group did not significantly differ compared with the no bone grafting group.ConclusionTunnel bone grafting was performed in 13% of our rACLR cohort, with 8% undergoing 2-stage surgery. Patients treated with 2-stage grafting had inferior baseline and 2-year patient-reported outcomes and activity levels compared with patients not undergoing bone grafting. Patients treated with 1-stage grafting had similar baseline and 2-year patient-reported outcomes and activity levels compared with patients not undergoing bone grafting

Physiologic Preoperative Knee Hyperextension Is a Predictor of Failure in an Anterior Cruciate Ligament Revision Cohort: A Report From the MARS Group

BackgroundThe occurrence of physiologic knee hyperextension (HE) in the revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) population and its effect on outcomes have yet to be reported. Hypothesis/Purpose: The prevalence of knee HE in revision ACLR and its effect on 2-year outcome were studied with the hypothesis that preoperative physiologic knee HE ≥5° is a risk factor for anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) graft rupture.Study designCohort study; Level of evidence, 2.MethodsPatients undergoing revision ACLR were identified and prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Study inclusion criteria were patients undergoing single-bundle graft reconstructions. Patients were followed up at 2 years and asked to complete an identical set of outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, WOMAC, and Marx Activity Rating Scale) as well as provide information regarding revision ACL graft failure. A regression model with graft failure as the dependent variable included age, sex, graft type at the time of the revision ACL surgery, and physiologic preoperative passive HE ≥5° (yes/no) to assess these as potential risk factors for clinical outcomes 2 years after revision ACLR.ResultsAnalyses included 1145 patients, for whom 2-year follow-up was attained for 91%. The median age was 26 years, with age being a continuous variable. Those below the median were grouped as "younger" and those above as "older" (age: interquartile range = 20, 35 years), and 42% of patients were female. There were 50% autografts, 48% allografts, and 2% that had a combination of autograft plus allograft. Passive knee HE ≥5° was present in 374 (33%) patients in the revision cohort, with 52% being female. Graft rupture at 2-year follow-up occurred in 34 cases in the entire cohort, of which 12 were in the HE ≥5° group (3.2% failure rate) and 22 in the non-HE group (2.9% failure rate). The median age of patients who failed was 19 years, as opposed to 26 years for those with intact grafts. Three variables in the regression model were significant predictors of graft failure: younger age (odds ratio [OR] = 3.6; 95% CI, 1.6-7.9; P = .002), use of allograft (OR = 3.3; 95% CI, 1.5-7.4; P = .003), and HE ≥5° (OR = 2.12; 95% CI, 1.1-4.7; P = .03).ConclusionThis study revealed that preoperative physiologic passive knee HE ≥5° is present in one-third of patients who undergo revision ACLR. HE ≥5° was an independent significant predictor of graft failure after revision ACLR with a &gt;2-fold OR of subsequent graft rupture in revision ACL surgery. Registration: NCT00625885 ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier)

Surgical Predictors of Clinical Outcomes After Revision Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction

BackgroundRevision anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been documented to have worse outcomes compared with primary ACL reconstruction.HypothesisCertain factors under the control of the surgeon at the time of revision surgery can both negatively and positively affect outcomes.Study designCase-control study; Level of evidence, 3.MethodsPatients undergoing revision ACL reconstruction were identified and prospectively enrolled between 2006 and 2011. Data collected included baseline demographics, intraoperative surgical technique and joint disorders, and a series of validated patient-reported outcome instruments (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] subjective form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC], and Marx activity rating scale) completed before surgery. Patients were followed up for 2 years and asked to complete an identical set of outcome instruments. Regression analysis was used to control for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), activity level, baseline outcome scores, revision number, time since last ACL reconstruction, and a variety of previous and current surgical variables to assess the surgical risk factors for clinical outcomes 2 years after revision ACL reconstruction.ResultsA total of 1205 patients (697 male [58%]) met the inclusion criteria and were successfully enrolled. The median age was 26 years, and the median time since their last ACL reconstruction was 3.4 years. Two-year follow-up was obtained on 82% (989/1205). Both previous and current surgical factors were found to be significant contributors toward poorer clinical outcomes at 2 years. Having undergone previous arthrotomy (nonarthroscopic open approach) for ACL reconstruction compared with the 1-incision technique resulted in significantly poorer outcomes for the 2-year IKDC ( P = .037; odds ratio [OR], 2.43; 95% CI, 1.05-5.88) and KOOS pain, sports/recreation, and quality of life (QOL) subscales ( P ≤ .05; OR range, 2.38-4.35; 95% CI, 1.03-10.00). The use of a metal interference screw for current femoral fixation resulted in significantly better outcomes for the 2-year KOOS symptoms, pain, and QOL subscales ( P ≤ .05; OR range, 1.70-1.96; 95% CI, 1.00-3.33) as well as WOMAC stiffness subscale ( P = .041; OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.02-3.03). Not performing notchplasty at revision significantly improved 2-year outcomes for the IKDC ( P = .013; OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.08-1.99), KOOS activities of daily living (ADL) and QOL subscales ( P ≤ .04; OR range, 1.40-1.41; 95% CI, 1.03-1.93), and WOMAC stiffness and ADL subscales ( P ≤ .04; OR range, 1.41-1.49; 95% CI, 1.03-2.05). Factors before revision ACL reconstruction that increased the risk of poorer clinical outcomes at 2 years included lower baseline outcome scores, a lower Marx activity score at the time of revision, a higher BMI, female sex, and a shorter time since the patient's last ACL reconstruction. Prior femoral fixation, prior femoral tunnel aperture position, and knee flexion angle at the time of revision graft fixation were not found to affect 2-year outcomes in this revision cohort.ConclusionThere are certain surgical variables that the physician can control at the time of revision ACL reconstruction that can modify clinical outcomes at 2 years. Whenever possible, opting for an anteromedial portal or transtibial surgical exposure, choosing a metal interference screw for femoral fixation, and not performing notchplasty are associated with significantly better 2-year clinical outcomes

Predictors of clinical outcome following revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

The underlying theme throughout this series of studies authored by the Multicenter anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) Revision Study consortium has been to determine the modifiable predictors or risk factors of long-term outcomes of revision ACL reconstruction. The observational studies described and summarized in the manuscript are both clinically relevant and of great interest in finding out the long-term consequences of the intervention and its relationship to the original injury. The successful completion of these studies has important implications for both therapy and future clinical trials. The identification of modifiable risk factors will play an important role in secondary prevention, while the identification of nonmodifiable risk factors will aid us in counseling our patients and making surgical decisions. Thus, we expect a profound clinical impact on patients' care. More importantly, this project represents an important step forward in bringing evidence to bear in clinical decision making in orthopedic surgery