What’s New in Orthopaedic Rehabilitation 2019

Every month, JBJS publishes a review of the most pertinent and impactful studies published in the orthopaedic literature during the previous year in 13 subspecialties. Click here for a collection of all such OrthoBuzz summaries.

This month, co-author Nitin B. Jain, MD, MSPH selected the most clinically compelling findings from the 40 studies summarized in the November 20, 2019 “What’s New in Orthopaedic Rehabilitation.

Pain Management
–A randomized controlled trial compared pain-related function, pain intensity, and adverse effects among 240 patients with chronic back, hip, or knee pain who were randomized to receive opioids or non-opioid medication.1 After 12 months, there were no between-group differences in pain-related function. Statistically, the pain intensity score was significantly lower in the non-opioid group, although the difference is probably not clinically meaningful. Adverse events were significantly more frequent in the opioid group.

–A series of nested case-control studies found that the use of the NSAID diclofenac was associated with an increase in the risk of myocardial infarction in patients with spondyloarthritis and osteoarthritis, relative to those taking the NSAID naproxen.2

–Intra-articular injections of corticosteroids or hyaluronic acid are often used for pain relief prior to an eventual total knee arthroplasty (TKA). An analysis of insurance data found that patients who had either type of injection within three months of a TKA had a higher risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after the operation than those who had injections >3 months prior to TKA.

Partial-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears
–A randomized controlled trial of 78 patients with a partial-thickness rotator cuff compared outcomes of those who underwent immediate arthroscopic repair with outcomes among those who delayed operative repair until completing 6 months of nonoperative treatment, which included activity modification, PT, corticosteroid injections, and NSAIDs.3 At 2 and 12 months post-repair, both groups demonstrated improved function relative to initial evaluations. At the final follow-up, there were no significant between-group differences in range of motion, VAS, Constant score, or ASES score. Ten (29.4%) of the patients in the delayed group dropped out of the study due to symptom improvement.

Stem Cell Therapy
–A systematic review that assessed 46 studies investigating stem cell therapy for articular cartilage repair4 found low mean methodology scores, indicating overall poor-quality research. Only 1 of the 46 studies was classified as excellent, prompting the authors to conclude that evidence to support the use of stem cell therapy for cartilage repair is limited by a lack of high-quality studies and heterogeneity in the cell lines studied.

References

  1. Krebs EE, Gravely A, Nugent S, Jensen AC, DeRonne B, Goldsmith ES, Kroenke K, Bair MJ, Noorbaloochi S. Effect of opioid vs nonopioid medications on pain-related function in patients with chronic back pain or hip or knee osteoarthritis pain: the SPACE randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018 Mar 6;319(9):872-82.
  2. Dubreuil M, Louie-Gao Q, Peloquin CE, Choi HK, Zhang Y, Neogi T. Risk ofcmyocardial infarction with use of selected non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs incpatients with spondyloarthritis and osteoarthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2018 Aug;77(8): 1137-42. Epub 2018 Apr 19.
  3. Kim YS, Lee HJ, Kim JH, Noh DY. When should we repair partial-thickness rotator cuff tears? Outcome comparison between immediate surgical repair versus delayed repair after 6-month period of nonsurgical treatment. Am J Sports Med. 2018 Apr;46(5):1091-6. Epub 2018 Mar 5.
  4. Park YB, Ha CW, Rhim JH, Lee HJ. Stem cell therapy for articular cartilage repair: review of the entity of cell populations used and the result of the clinical application of each entity. Am J Sports Med. 2018 Aug;46(10):2540-52. Epub 2017 Oct 12.

The Evolution of Orthopaedic Surgical Skills Simulation

Surgical skills education in orthopaedics has changed dramatically from the “see one, do one, teach one” process of 30 years ago. These changes have come with a greater degree of supervision and formal skills assessments, and they have been aided by the visionary leadership at the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and our own orthopaedic Residency Review Committee. These skill-acquisition enhancements have benefited both our trainees and the patients we collectively care for.

A decade ago, we entered a new phase of skill development and enhancement with computer-based surgical simulators. With advances in software and widespread interest across North America in goal-driven learning through simulation, great progress has been made. In the November 20, 2019 issue of JBJS, Weber et al. report on the further validation of a surgical simulator focused specifically on percutaneous, fluoroscopically guided pin placement for femoral neck fractures. The simulator was developed in partnership between the AAOS and OTA.

This study sought to determine whether novice practitioners (medical students, in this case) who completed 9 training modules before using the simulator (the “trained” group) would perform the simulated pinning task better than peers who did not complete the presimulation training (the “untrained” group). It was no surprise to me that the trained group had a significantly higher overall performance score on the simulator. In addition, relative to the untrained group, the trained students also showed improved performance on 4 specific measures—3 of which were related to the angle between the placed pins.

These findings are clearly supportive of continued development of this and additional simulation environments. But at the same time, we need to move forward with improved documentation of surgical skill acquisition among orthopaedic residents and fellows. As simulator technology continues to improve, the next decade should yield even more positive results in skills acquisition than we saw in the last decade. We are clearly on the right path with the use of advanced technology for surgical skill development among orthopaedic trainees.

Marc Swiontkowski, MD
JBJS Editor-in-Chief

Sprifermin: Another Shot at Joint Preservation

This post comes from Fred Nelson, MD, an orthopaedic surgeon in the Department of Orthopedics at Henry Ford Hospital and a clinical associate professor at Wayne State Medical School. Some of Dr. Nelson’s tips go out weekly to more than 3,000 members of the Orthopaedic Research Society (ORS), and all are distributed to more than 30 orthopaedic residency programs. Those not sent to the ORS are periodically reposted in OrthoBuzz with the permission of Dr. Nelson.

To date, we have found only one documented disease-modifying intervention that slows the progression of knee osteoarthritis (OA)—weight loss.1 There are few positive findings about drugs or other therapeutic interventions that might prolong the life of the human joint. However, sprifermin, a recombinant human fibroblast growth factor that can be genetically engineered from bacteria, has been tested in a randomized proof-of-concept trial as an intra-articular injection in humans,2 with modestly promising results.

In a very recent study on the effect of sprifermin and several other potentially disease-modifying compounds on bovine chondrocytes, researchers used 3D cultures to assess chondrocyte proliferation and/or extracellular matrix production.3 All of the growth factors evaluated, including sprifermin, resulted in elevated markers of anabolic chondrocyte activity. For the most part, cyclic doses were more effective than continuous doses over 4 weeks. Of importance, only sprifermin decreased type I collagen expression and had no hypertrophic effects. The authors conclude in the abstract that “these results confirm that sprifermin is a promising disease-modifying OA drug.”

In a 5-year randomized human dose-finding trial,4 patients with symptomatic knee OA were divided into 5 groups, as follows:

  1. 100 μg of sprifermin administered every 6 months (n = 110)
  2. 100 μg of sprifermin administered every 12 months (n = 110)
  3. 30 μg of sprifermin administered every 6 months (n = 111)
  4. 30 μg of sprifermin administered every 12 months (n = 110)
  5. Placebo injections administered every 6 months (n = 108)

The greatest changes in the primary endpoint—increased total femorotibial joint cartilage thickness from baseline to 2 years—was 0.05 mm (95% CI, 0.03 to 0.07 mm) in the group that received 100 μg of sprifermin every 6 months and 0.04 mm (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.06 mm) in the group that received 100 μg of sprifermin every 12 months. However, compared with the placebo group, those receiving sprifermin had no statistically different change in WOMAC scores. On average, 40% of all the patients in the study experienced arthralgia associated with the injections.

More certainty about the efficacy, safety, and durability of sprifermin may come when data from the remaining 3 years of this study are analyzed (see ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01919164).

References

  1. Gersing AS, Solka M, Joseph GB, Schwaiger BJ, Heilmeier U, Feuerriegel G, Nevitt MC, McCulloch CE, Link TM. Progression of cartilage degeneration and clinical symptoms in obese and overweight individuals is dependent on the amount of weight loss: 48-month data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2016 Jul;24(7):1126-34. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2016.01.984. PMID: 26828356 PMCID: PMC4907808.
  2. Lohmander LS, Hellot S, Dreher D, et al. 2014. Intraarticular sprifermin (recombinant human fibroblast growth factor 18) in knee osteoarthritis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arthritis Rheumatol. 66(7):1820–31.
  3. Müller S, Lindemann S, Gigout A. Effects of sprifermin, IGF1, IGF2, BMP7 or CNP on bovine chondrocytes in monolayer and 3D culture. J Orthop Res. 2019 Oct 14. doi: 10.1002/jor.24491. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 31608492.
  4. Hochberg MC, Guermazi A, Guehring H, Aydemir A, Wax S, Fleuranceau-Morel P, Bihlet AR, Byrjalsen I, Andersen JR, Eckstein F. Effect of Intra-Articular Sprifermin vs Placebo on Femorotibial Joint Cartilage Thickness in Patients With OsteoarthritisThe FORWARD Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2019;322(14):1360-1370. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.14735

The Risk of Vascular Injury During Hip-Fracture Fixation

According to the orthopaedic literature, the risk of vascular injury during internal fixation of a proximal femoral fracture is low. But applying the findings from an anatomical analysis by Jaipurwala et al. in the November 6, 2019 issue of The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery could help minimize that risk even further.

The authors examined lower-limb CT angiograms of 47 patients (mean age 69) who had the scans performed for reasons other than a femoral fracture. They then measured the distance from the tip of the greater trochanter to the profunda femoris artery and its perforators within 5 mm of the medial femoral shaft, along the length of typical placement of dynamic hip screws used for fixation of proximal femoral fractures. (The authors assumed the use of a 4-hole, 78 mm plate or a 6-hole, 110 mm plate.)

All 47 patients had 2 vessels within 5 mm of the medial femoral shaft along the line of presumed dynamic hip screw insertion. Noting that these vessels could be damaged by reduction instruments or during drilling and plate-screw insertion during actual cases of femoral-fracture fixation, Jaipurwala et al. make the following suggestions:

  • Avoid or take special care when drilling or inserting screws along the femoral shaft from 110 to 120 mm from the tip of the greater trochanter in women and from 120 to 130 mm in men.
  • If possible, avoid inserting a screw in the fourth hole of a 4-hole dynamic hip screw plate or inserting a screw in the fourth and fifth holes of a 6-hole plate.

The authors emphasize that these suggestions are based on measurements taken from patients who did not have a hip fracture and that “a femoral fracture may potentially alter local anatomy because of swelling and damage to surrounding structures.” But they conclude that the risk of vascular injuries in patients with a proximal femoral fracture would be further reduced if surgeons took these findings into account during operative planning and execution of hip-fracture fixation.

Hemi vs THA Findings Helpful, But Not Practice-Changing

OrthoBuzz occasionally receives posts from guest bloggers. In response to a recent study in The New England Journal of Medicinethe following commentary comes from Paul E. Matuszewski, MD.

A recent issue of The New England Journal of Medicine published the results from a large, multicenter randomized trial comparing the outcomes of hemiarthroplasty versus total hip arthroplasty (THA) to treat displaced femoral neck fractures in ambulatory adults.

The HEALTH investigators enrolled 1,495 patients in the study, and 85.1% of those patients had complete data for analysis after 2 years. The researchers found no significant differences between the groups with regard to the primary outcome—secondary hip procedures (7.9% in the THA group vs 8.3% in the hemi group). The risk of secondary hip procedures during the first year was higher in the THA group, but the hemiarthroplasty group had a higher risk of secondary procedures in the second year. Open/closed reductions of hip dislocations were the most common secondary procedures among the THA group, and revision to THA was the most common secondary procedure in the hemiarthroplasty group. The THA group had slightly better WOMAC scores, but the difference was not within a clinically significant range. There were no between-group differences noted in other patient-reported outcomes.

The HEALTH investigators followed these patients for only two years, which is notably the standard for many orthopaedic studies, but this short follow-up limits the practical application of these findings. The authors note that after the first year, primary THA was favorable with regard to secondary hip procedures. It is reasonable to think that this difference may become more compelling beyond 2 years, as more patients who received hemiarthroplasty are likely to be converted to THA.

The suggestion that there may not be an early benefit of THA over hemiarthroplasty in the ambulatory adult with a displaced femoral neck fracture contrasts with current recommendations from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. However, the 2-year follow-up of this trial represents only a “snapshot” of the continuum of outcomes from these two hip-fracture treatments. The findings may add to our understanding of what our patients can expect during the first 2 years following these procedures, but I would caution surgeons against making any drastic changes to their current practice in response to this data.

Paul E. Matuszewski, MD is the Director of Orthopaedic Trauma Research and Assistant Professor of Orthopaedic Traumatology at the University of Kentucky.

Language Processing Algorithms Can Boost Orthopaedic Research

Manufacturing, farming, and shopping…These are just 3 diverse examples of how technology is advancing daily and automating tedious tasks, decreasing costs, and improving efficiencies. Orthopaedics and orthopaedic research are not being left behind in this progression. In the November 6, 2019 edition of JBJS, Wyles et al. evaluate the accuracy of natural language processing (NLP) tools in automating the extraction of orthopaedic data from electronic health records (EHRs) and registries. The findings suggest that NLP-generated algorithms can indeed reliably extract data without the labor-intensive and costly process of manual chart reviews.

First, using an open-source NLP “engine,” the researchers developed NLP algorithms focused on 3 elements of >1,500 total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures captured in the Mayo Total Joint Registry: (1) operative approach, (2) fixation technique, and (3) bearing surface. They then applied the algorithm to operative notes from THAs performed at Mayo and to THA-specific EHR data from outside facilities to determine external validity.

Relative to the current “gold-standard” of manual chart reviews, the algorithm had an accuracy of 99.2% in identifying the operative approach, 90.7% in identifying the fixation technique, and 95.8% in identifying the bearing surface. The researchers found similar accuracy rates when they applied the algorithm to external operative notes.

The findings from this study strongly suggest that properly “trained” NLP algorithms may someday eliminate the need for manual data extraction. That, in turn, could substantially streamline future research, policy, and surveillance tasks within orthopaedics. As Gwo-Chin Lee, MD predicts in his Commentary on this study, “When perfected, NLP will become the gold standard in the initial data mining of patient records for research, billing, and quality-improvement initiatives.” Dr. Lee is quick to add, however, that “no machine learning can occur…without the integral and indispensable input of the human element.”

Orthopaedic surgeons are already using robots to assist them in performing total joint arthroplasties. Wyles et al. show how we can use technology to reliably expedite research on that same subject. I believe the future holds much promise for the use of ever-advancing technologies in orthopaedic surgery and research.

Matthew R. Schmitz, MD
JBJS Deputy Editor for Social Media

Elite Reviewer Spotlight: Roger van Riet

JBJS is pleased to highlight our Elite Reviewers. The Elite Reviewers Program recognizes our best reviewers for their outstanding efforts. All JBJS reviewers help us maintain the highest standards for quality orthopaedic publishing.

Name: Roger van Riet, MD, PhD

Affiliation: AZ Monica and University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium

Years in practice: 10 years

How did you begin reviewing for other journals and for JBJS in particular?

I was invited to review because of my publications in the field of elbow surgery.

What is your top piece of advice for those reviewers who aspire to reach Elite status?

Be critical.

Aside from orthopaedic manuscripts, what have you been reading lately?

I enjoy reading autobiographies of elite athletes to find out what drives them and how they set and achieve their goals.

Learn more about the JBJS Elite Reviewers program.

Negative Findings from Level-I Trial Still a Step Forward

Donor-site morbidity from harvesting autologous bone graft has driven the decades-long search for a substitute that performs at least as well as a patient’s own bone. Much of the clinical research on donor-site morbidity is flawed by detection bias, but other factors such as operating-room time and expense are still driving the search for the ideal substitute for autologous bone. Still, the discovery of an ideal bone-graft substitute continues to be elusive.

In The November 6, 2019 issue of The Journal, Myerson et al. report findings from a Level-I trial that investigated the use of adipose-derived cellular bone matrix (ACBM) as a graft substitute in patients undergoing subtalar arthrodesis. Among 57 patients who received autograft and 52 who received ACBM, the substitute delivered lower fusion rates as determined by both CT and plain radiographic/clinical evaluations at 6 months. In addition, patients treated with autologous bone graft had lower rates of serious adverse events.

I commend the authors and funders (AlloSource) of this well-designed clinical trial for reporting these negative results, because it is often just as important to know what doesn’t work as what does. (This manuscript was submitted even after AlloSource decided to halt further production of its ACBM product in 2017.) Such transparent reporting saves other investigators and graft substitute-focused companies from going down similar avenues of investigation. Perhaps even more importantly, publishing negative results such as this might save patients from undergoing procedures with similar formulations that would probably have minimal chance of helping and could do harm.

By contributing to the scientific “process of elimination,” this study brings us one step closer to the identification of a worthy substitute for autologous bone graft.

Marc Swiontkowski, MD
JBJS Editor-in-Chief

Elite Reviewer Spotlight: Lawrence Dorr

JBJS is pleased to highlight our Elite Reviewers. The Elite Reviewers Program recognizes our best reviewers for their outstanding efforts. All JBJS reviewers help us maintain the highest standards for quality orthopaedic publishing.

Name: Lawrence D. Dorr, MD

Affiliation: Dorr Institute for Research and Education, Pasadena, CA

Years in practice: 40

How did you begin reviewing for other journals and for JBJS in particular?

For JBJS, I applied to review.

What is your top piece of advice for those reviewers who aspire to reach Elite status?

Reviews have to be taken as seriously as writing a manuscript. Are the methods scientific? Is the data correctly analysed? Compare tables and figures to the results section – both for being accurate as well as not repetitive. Is the discussion a repetition of the results or do the authors compare and contrast their data with the appropriate citations? Is the data new, and will a surgeon change their practice because of this study?

Aside from orthopaedic manuscripts, what have you been reading lately?

Charnley biography

Lost Gutenberg by Margaret Davis

Matriarch by Barbara Bush

Learn more about the JBJS Elite Reviewers program.

Elite Reviewer Spotlight: Stein Janssen

JBJS is pleased to highlight our Elite Reviewers. The Elite Reviewers Program recognizes our best reviewers for their outstanding efforts. All JBJS reviewers help us maintain the highest standards for quality orthopaedic publishing.

Name: Stein J. Janssen, MD, PhD

Affiliation: Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Years in practice: I’m a 4th year resident in orthopaedic surgery.

How did you begin reviewing for other journals and for JBJS in particular?

I first reviewed some papers together with more experienced researchers and staff. Subsequently, I approached the Editor-in-Chief of two other top orthopaedic journals during a meeting and started reviewing. I reached out to JBJS after reading an editorial from Dr. Swiontkowski about the value of peer review and started reviewing soon thereafter.

What is your top piece of advice for those reviewers who aspire to reach Elite status?

Present a well-structured and detailed review suggesting ways for researchers to improve their work instead of only criticizing the manuscript. Several reporting guidelines (e.g. STROBE, PRISMA, CONSORT) can help to systematically evaluate a manuscript. In addition, review in a timely fashion.

Aside from orthopaedic manuscripts, what have you been reading lately?

I always check the table of contents of the top 4 medical journals (NEJM, the Lancet, BMJ, and JAMA) and read the most interesting papers.

Learn more about the JBJS Elite Reviewers program.