Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction is a common and predominantly successful surgical intervention. But are there any specific preoperative patient characteristics or intraoperative surgical decisions that lead to better or worse outcomes? And can understanding brain function changes of patients after ACL reconstruction reveal how to improve postsurgical rehabilitation to further enhance outcomes?
These intriguing and clinically applicable questions will be addressed on Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 8:00 PM EDT during a complimentary* LIVE webinar, hosted jointly by The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (JBJS) and the Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy (JOSPT).
- JBJS co-author Kurt Spindler, MD, will discuss findings that identified baseline patient characteristics and intraoperative choices that predicted higher and lower SF-36 Physical Component scores after ACL reconstruction.
- JOSPT co-author Dustin Grooms, PhD, will share recently published results of a study that employed functional MRI to investigate brain-activation differences between patients who did and did not undergo ACL reconstruction.
Moderated by Kevin Wilk, PT, DPT, a leading authority on rehabilitation of sports injuries, the webinar will include additional insights from expert commentators Eric McCarty, MD, and Karin Silbernagel, PT, PhD. The last 15 minutes will be devoted to a live Q&A session between the audience and panelists.
Seats are limited, so Register Now.
* This webinar is complimentary for those who attend the event live.
OrthoBuzz occasionally receives posts from guest bloggers. This guest post comes from Chad Krueger, MD, in response to a recent study in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
Few disease processes are as prevalent within the United States as hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). While OA is commonly thought to be a disease of older age, the reality is that over half of all individuals with knee arthritis are younger than 65. While some of those individuals will eventually go on to have a knee arthroplasty, before that, most OA patients try various other treatments in an effort to decrease pain and increase function. Medications such as NSAIDs and others are certainly a part of these treatment efforts, but nonpharmacologic treatments are also widely recommended.
However, as Bennell et al. clearly state in their Annals article, patients face multiple barriers to the implementation of these nonoperative, nonpharmacologic modalities, including cost and transportation to relevant clinical specialists. The authors used these barriers as the rationale for a randomized trial in which an intervention group of knee OA patients received Internet-based educational material, online pain-coping skills training, and videoconferencing with a physiotherapist who provided individualized exercises for each patient. A control group received only the educational material.
At 3 and 9 months, both groups showed improvements in pain and function, but the intervention group had significantly greater improvements than the control group. More importantly, the people in the intervention group largely adhered to all online programs on their own and were very satisfied with the prescribed treatments, especially the video-based physiotherapy component.
Internet-based health interventions are certainly not new. However, my suspicion is that 20 years from now we will look back and wonder why we did not use them more often. They are self-directed, cost-effective, reproducible, and available to any of the 87% of Americans over the age of 50 who, according to the Pew Research Center, use the Internet. These online interventions require no driving to an office, and patients can easily track their own progress by seeing how many modules they have completed.
While there are certainly limitations to the findings from Benell et al., as an accompanying editorial by Lisa Mandl, MD points out, the study serves as a very strong proof of concept that should be expanded upon. Dr. Mandl herself proclaims that “these results are encouraging and show that ‘telemedicine’ is clearly ready for prime time.”
With the number of ways we “stay connected” always increasing, it seems important for orthopaedists to learn how to use these technologies to benefit our patients. Doing so may require some adjustments, but the ultimate goal of improving the quality of life for our patients warrants whatever creativity and open-mindedness might be necessary.
Chad Krueger, MD is a military orthopaedic surgeon at Womack Army Medical Center in Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
Every month, JBJS publishes a Specialty Update—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 OrthoBuzz Specialty Update summaries.
This month, Gwo-Chin Lee, MD, author of the January 18, 2017 Specialty Update on Adult Reconstructive Knee Surgery, selected the five most clinically compelling findings from among the more than 100 studies summarized in the Specialty Update.
Nonoperative Knee OA Treatment
—Weight loss is one popular nonoperative recommendation for treating symptoms of knee osteoarthritis (OA). An analysis of data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative found that delayed progression of cartilage degeneration, as revealed on MRI and clinical symptoms, positively correlated with BMI reductions >10% over 48 months.1
Total Knee Arthroplasty
—In total knee arthroplasty (TKA), the drive toward producing normal anatomy has led to explorations of alternative alignment paradigms. A prospective randomized study found that small deviations from the traditional mechanical axis (known as kinematic alignment) can be well tolerated and do not lead to decreased survivorship or poorer functional outcomes at short-term follow up.2
—Controversy exists about the optimal method to achieve stemmed implant fixation in revision TKA. A randomized controlled trial of TKA patients with mild to moderate tibial bone loss found no difference in tibial implant micromotion between cemented and hybrid press-fit stem designs, based on radiostereometric analysis.
Blood Management in TKA
—Minimizing blood loss and transfusions is crucial to minimizing complications after TKA. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial found that intra-articular and intravenous administration of tranexamic acid (TXA) was more effective than intravenous TXA alone, without an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). However, the optimal regimen for TXA remains undefined.
—VTE prophylaxis is essential for all patients undergoing TKA. A risk-stratification study of pulmonary embolism (PE) after elective total joint arthroplasty reported that the incidence of PE within 30 days after either hip or knee replacement was 0.5%. Risk factors associated with PE were age of > 70 years, female sex, and higher BMI. The presence of anemia was protective against PE. The authors developed an easy-to-use scoring system to determine risk for VTE to help guide chemical prophylaxis.3
- 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. Epub 2016 Jan 30.
- Calliess T, Bauer K, Stukenborg-Colsman C, Windhagen H, Budde S, Ettinger M. PSI kinematic versus non-PSI mechanical alignment in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2016 Apr 27. [Epub ahead of print]
- Bohl DD, Maltenfort MG, Huang R, Parvizi J, Lieberman JR, Della Valle CJ. Development and validation of a risk stratification system for pulmonary embolism after elective primary total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2016 Sep;31(9)(Suppl):187-91. Epub 2016 Mar 17.
OrthoBuzz regularly brings you a current commentary on a “classic” article from The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery. These articles have been selected by the Editor-in-Chief and Deputy Editors of The Journal because of their long-standing significance to the orthopaedic community and the many citations they receive in the literature. Our OrthoBuzz commentators highlight the impact that these JBJS articles have had on the practice of orthopaedics. Please feel free to join the conversation by clicking on the “Leave a Comment” button in the box to the left.
Prior to the advent and subsequently ubiquitous use of MRI that most young surgeons are now accustomed to, it was difficult to determine the incidence of several common sports-related injuries. Frank Noyes’ 1980 classic JBJS manuscript, “Arthroscopy in Acute Traumatic Hemarthrosis of the Knee,” was one of the first articles to establish the clear relationship between hemarthrosis and significant intra-articular knee pathology. While the importance of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) had just come to light, Noyes’ landmark findings demonstrated the high incidence of ACL injury in association with acute traumatic hemarthrosis (ATH). Furthermore, he delineated arthroscopy’s critical role in accurately diagnosing other associated knee injuries.
This classic manuscript advocated for the use of arthroscopy as a diagnostic tool for the evaluation of ATH at a time when the consequences of a “knee sprain” with acute swelling were unclear. In patients who did not have obvious laxity, an existing acute rupture of the ACL was often left undiagnosed during initial clinical evaluations. Noyes’ innovation pushed the field to couple clinical examination with arthroscopy in cases of acute knee injuries, to allow for more accurate diagnosis. Following this paper’s publication, and well into the 1980s, research continued to confirm Noyes’ findings that one of the best uses of arthroscopy was for diagnosis of acute knee injuries.
This paper and another Noyes study were among the first to identify the high rate of serious knee injuries among patients with ATH. Noyes’ JBJS paper showed that 72% of knees with ATH were characterized by some degree of ACL injury. Moreover, in knees with complete ACL disruption, both the anterior drawer and flexion-rotation drawer tests proved to be more accurate diagnostically when performed with the patient under anesthesia than when the tests were performed in the clinic. Further, he also established that ACL tear, meniscus tear, and/or cartilage injury must be included in the differential diagnosis of an ATH.
Noyes’ group revolutionized the course of treatment and care for patients with ATH. While we generally no longer use knee arthroscopy as a diagnostic tool, because of this article, we routinely order MRI in the setting of ATH. Noyes’ piece remains timeless and well-deserving of the title of a “JBJS Classic.”
Robert G. Marx, MD, MSc, FRCSC
JBJS Deputy Editor
Naaman Mehta, BS
Stephen Thompson, MD, MEd, FRCSC
JBJS Deputy Editor
 Noyes FR, Paulos L, Mooar LA, Signer B. Knee Sprains and Acute Knee Hemarthrosis: Misdiagnosis of Anterior Cruciate Ligament Tears. Phys Ther. 60(12): 1596-1601, 1980.
Early on, patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) often get sufficient pain relief with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. But as the condition progresses, many opt for knee replacement. Although knee replacement shows remarkable long-term results, immediate postsurgical pain management is a crucial consideration for orthopaedists and patients.
On Tuesday, December 13, 2016 at 12:30 PM EST, The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (JBJS) and PAIN, the official journal of the International Association for the Study of Pain, will host a complimentary webinar focused on relieving pain before and after surgery for knee arthritis.
- Sachiyuki Tsukada, MD, coauthor of a study in JBJS, will compare pain relief and side effects from intraoperative periarticular injections versus postoperative epidural analgesia after unilateral knee replacement.
- PAIN author Lars Arendt-Nielsen, Dr.Med.Sci, will delve into findings from a study examining biomarker and clinical outcomes associated with the COX-2 inhibitor etoricoxib in patients with knee OA.
Moderated by JBJS Associate Editor Nitin Jain, MD, the webinar will include an additional perspective from musculoskeletal pain-management expert Michael Taunton, MD. The last 15 minutes will be devoted to a live Q&A session, during which the audience can ask questions of all three panelists.
Seats are limited, so register now!
One of the observations that I have made during my years in academic medicine is that the more popular a topic appears to be in the literature, the less likely we are to really understand it. After all, if we need to write about it so much, it must mean that there is still much to learn. This certainly seems to be the case with regard to injuries of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). ACL injuries are among the most common injuries sustained in the United States. Over 100,000 ACL reconstructions were performed in the United States in 2006, and the annual rate has continued to increase over time. Although some patients have achieved good results after nonoperative treatment, a survey of the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine showed that the majority of respondents used nonoperative treatment for fewer than 25% of their patients with ACL injuries.
Noyes et al.1 described the so-called “rule of thirds.” According to this rule, one-third of patients with an ACL injury will compensate well with nonoperative treatment (copers), one-third will avoid symptoms of instability by modifying activities (adapters), and one-third will require operative reconstruction (noncopers). Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any way to predict which group an individual patient will fall into. Thus, there is still substantial ambiguity in determining which patients are most likely to benefit from early intervention with ACL reconstruction following injury.
In this month’s issue of JBJS Reviews, Secrist et al. used the literature to perform a comparison of operative and nonoperative treatment of ACL injuries. They noted that only 3 randomized controlled trials have compared operative and nonoperative treatment of ACL injuries and that 2 of those studies involved the use of ACL suturing as opposed to more modern forms of reconstruction. The third study involved only 32 patients. All studies had substantial methodological limitations. The authors concluded that there have been no Level-I studies comparing ACL reconstruction with nonoperative treatment.
In their review article, Secrist et al. attempted to define and evaluate the available data on the natural history of nonoperatively treated ACL injuries and to determine how the functional outcomes and injury risks associated with nonoperative treatment compared with those associated with reconstruction. Moreover, they sought to define prognostic factors and rehabilitation protocols associated with successful operative outcomes. Finally, they compared the outcomes following early versus delayed ACL reconstruction.
However, by the end of the article, one gets the feeling that the authors have “come full circle.” The authors summarize their findings by saying that some patients can cope with a torn ACL and return to preinjury activity levels, including participation in pivoting sports. On the other hand, patients who have an ACL injury along with a concomitant meniscal injury are at increased risk for osteoarthritis, and it is unclear what effect reconstruction of an isolated ACL has on future osteoarthritis risk in ACL-deficient patients who are identified as “copers.”
I suspect that we will continue to see articles on this topic for many years to come. In light of the “rule of thirds” and the additional impact of meniscal injury, the allocation of a particular patient to operative or nonoperative treatment remains unclear.
Thomas A. Einhorn, MD
Editor, JBJS Reviews
- Noyes FR, Matthews DS, Mooar PA, Grood ES. The symptomatic anterior cruciate-deficient knee. Part II: the results of rehabilitation, activity modification, and counseling on functional disability. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1983 Feb;65(2):163-74 Medline.
The recently launched JBJS Knee Spotlight offers highly relevant and potentially practice-changing knee content from the most trusted source of orthopaedic information.
Here are the five JBJS articles to which you will have full-text access through the Knee Spotlight during the month of October 2016.
- What’s New in Adult Reconstructive Knee Surgery
- The Effect of Timing of Manipulation Under Anesthesia to Improve Range of Motion and Functional Outcomes Following Total Knee Arthroplasty
- Nonsurgical or Surgical Treatment of ACL Injuries: Knee Function, Sports Participation, and Knee Reinjury
- Topical Intra-Articular Compared with Intravenous Tranexamic Acid to Reduce Blood Loss in Primary Total Knee Replacement
- Total Knee Replacement in Young, Active Patients: Long-Term Follow-up and Functional Outcome
Knee studies offered on the JBJS Knee Spotlight will be updated monthly, so check the site often.
This month’s Image Quiz from the JBJS Journal of Orthopaedics for Physician Assistants (JOPA) presents the case of a 74-year-old woman with a 2-month history of left knee pain. She was given an intra-articular knee injection for presumed osteoarthritis, which failed to provide any relief. At a follow-up visit, clinicians obtained the MRI shown here.
Pick among five possible diagnoses: secondary osteonecrosis, transient osteoporosis, spontaneous osteonecrosis, osteochondritis dissecans, or bone marrow edema lesion.
Hyaluronic Acid Injections for Treatment of Advanced Osteoarthritis of the Knee: Utilization and Cost in a National Population Sample
There is a rise in knee osteoarthritis, particularly in the aging U.S. population. A practice known as hyaluronic acid (HA) injections is used for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis; however, its efficacy and cost-effectiveness are being debated. In this study, the utilization and costs of HA injections were evaluated during the 12 months preceding total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and the usage of HA injections in end-stage knee osteoarthitis management in relation to other treatments was also evaluated. Truven Health Analytics databases (MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters and Medicare Supplemental and Cooridination of Benefits) were reviewed in order to find patients who underwent TKA from 2005 to 2012. All patient-specific osteoarthritis-related health care, including medications, corticosteroid injections, HA injections, imaging, and office visits, as well as payment information were analyzed during the 12 months before TKA.
244,059 patients met the inclusion criteria, and 35,935 (14.7%) of them had > 1 HA injections in the 12-month period. HA accounted for 16.4% of all payments related to osteoarthritis, coming in second only to imaging studies (18.2%). In terms of treatment-specific payments, HA injections accounted for 25.2%, a rate higher than that of any other treatment. Compared with patients who did not receive HA injections, patients who had the injections were significantly more likely to receive additional knee osteoarthritis-related treatment.
HA injections are still frequently used to treat osteoarthritis of the knee even though there have been numerous studies that question their efficacy and cost-effectiveness for that purpose. Based on the results and a lack of data supporting the effectiveness of HA injections in the current cost-conscious health-care climate, the authors of this study concluded that decreasing the use of HA injections for patients with end-stage knee osteoarthritis may substantially reduce cost without adversely affecting the quality of care.
Maybe—but only if larger, longer-term studies replicate the findings from a randomized trial of 144 patients (mean age = 66 years) published recently in the Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases.
Subjects with knee osteoarthritis (OA) in the double-blind Annals study received either placebo or up to 25 mg per week of oral methotrexate over a 28-week period. At 28 weeks, researchers found greater reductions in knee pain and larger improvements in scores of physical function and activities of daily living in the methotrexate group than in the placebo group. The authors also noted a significantly greater reduction in synovitis, measured both clinically and with ultrasound, in the methotrexate group relative to the placebo group.
Methotrexate is a powerful drug prescribed to treat certain cancers and refractory rheumatoid arthritis, but it has many well-known and potentially serious side effects, such as hematopoietic suppression and liver toxicity. Nevertheless, these authors reported few adverse events; those that did occur included self-limiting mucositis, alopecia, GI disturbance, and transaminitis.
While some people are thought to have a more inflammatory phenotype of osteoarthritis than others, this study did not stratify patients along inflammatory lines, so further research will be needed to determine whether methotrexate’s clinical benefits accrue equally to OA patients generally, or mostly to those with the inflammatory subtype.