Arthroscopy-The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery最新文献

Purpose: To assess the statistical fragility of randomized controlled trials that assess the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (OA) and report a continuous primary outcome measure with statistical significance.

Methods: A systematic electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database was performed on August 10, 2024. All randomized controlled trials addressing the use of PRP for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis were included that reported statistically significant primary continuous outcomes. The continuous fragility index (CFI) and continuous fragility quotient (CFQ) were calculated using approximative method, as previously described using the mean and standard deviation of the outcomes of interest.

Results: There were a total of 34 eligible outcomes available for analysis. The overall median CFI across all included studies was 5.7 (IQR: 4.8-9.9). The overall median CFQ across all included studies was 0.131 (IQR: 0.055-0.243). Loss to follow-up was greater than the CFI in only 3 of 34 eligible outcomes (8.8%). The most analyzed outcome was the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) total score (n = 9) with a median CFI of 6.6 and median CFQ of 0.250. The outcome with the highest median CFI was the WOMAC stiffness subscale at 93. Spearman correlation analysis demonstrated a nonstatistically significant trend toward decreasing CFI (-0.497) and a statistically significant decrease in CFQ (-0.681; p = 0.03) with increasing grades of osteoarthritis.

Conclusions: There was an overall median CFI of 5.7 and CFQ of 0.131 for RCTs that report statistically significant continuous outcomes for the use of PRP in treating symptomatic knee OA. Although there are no current guidelines regarding statistical fragility of continuous outcomes, these results can be considered fragile given statistical significance may be reversed with only a few changes in patient outcomes.

Level of evidence: II; systematic review of Level I and II studies.

Purpose: To determine (1) which criteria are used to determine return to sport (RTS), (2) the number of patients who are unable to RTS after any superior labral pathophysiology treatment, and (3) which reasons are reported for not returning.

Methods: A systematic review was performed across 5 databases, including studies that report rates for RTS after any treatment of superior labral pathophysiology. Study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. Definitions for no return to sport (nRTS) were extracted as reported in the studies. The ranges of nRTS and no return to preinjury level (nRTPL) were summarized. Reasons for nRTS and nRTPL were categorized using a predefined coding scheme.

Results: Among 45 studies with level of evidence ranging from II to IV, 1,857 patients were involved in sports, 78% (n = 1453) of whom underwent superior labral reattachment, 21% (n = 381) biceps tenodesis, and 9.4% (n = 175) nonoperative treatment. None of the studies provided criteria for RTS, and 2 studies provided criteria for return to preinjury level. The ranges of nRTS and nRTPL varied after superior labral reattachment (0-60%, n = 206; 0-89%, n = 424, respectively), biceps tenodesis (0-25%, n = 43; 3, 8%-48%, n = 78), and nonoperative treatment (11%-75%, n = 62; 18%-100%, n = 78). Reasons for nRTS and nRTPL were related to physical sensations (pain, feeling of instability, discomfort, weakness, lack of motion), psychological factors (fear of reinjury, lack of confidence), personal factors (lifestyle change, social reasons), and injury at another site.

Conclusions: Criteria for determining successful RTS and return to preinjury level after superior labral pathophysiology treatment were not reported by most studies. The nRTS and nRTPL rates varied greatly within and between treatments. The reasons for this unsuccessful return were diverse and related to physical sensations, psychological factors, personal factors, and injury unrelated to treatment.

Level of evidence: Level IV, Systematic review of Level II-IV studies.

Purpose: To better define the rate of return to work in patients undergoing Latarjet surgery for anterior shoulder instability.

Methods: A systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus were queried in October 2023 with the following keywords: ((latarjet) OR (anterior shoulder instability)) AND ((work) or (compensation)). Articles were included if they reported return to work in patients (including military members) undergoing Latarjet surgery for traumatic anterior shoulder instability with bone loss and were written in English. This study was registered in Prospero (ID blinded).

Results: Six studies reporting on 419 shoulders were included in the review. Five studies reported on patients in the general population, and 1 reported on military members. Mean age ± standard deviation of patients ranged from 23.1 ± 5.8 to 32.0 ± 12.3 years. Moreover, there were 286 primary Latarjet procedures, 131 revision Latarjet procedures, and 2 unspecified as primary or revision surgery. Mean glenoid bone loss ranged from 14.5% to 22.9%. Return-to-work rates ranged from 89.1% to 100%, with 2 studies reporting all patients were able to return to work. Among military members, 89.1% were able to return to duty. Mean time to return to work ranged from 8.69 to 34.8 weeks after surgery. Four studies also reported return to sport, which ranged from 60.9% to 100%. Mean time for returning to sport varied between 10.0 and 35.2 weeks after the Latarjet procedure.

Conclusions: Patients with anterior shoulder instability who undergo an arthroscopic or open Latarjet procedure can expect high rates of return to work and sport. All studies reported return-to-work rates over 89%, with 89.1% of military members able to return to duty.

Level of evidence: Level IV, systematic review of Level III and Level IV studies.

The content accuracy of off-the-shelf large language models (LLMs) mirrors the content accuracy of the unregulated Internet from which these generative artificial intelligence models are supplied. With error rates approximating 30% in terms of treatment recommendations for the management of common musculoskeletal conditions, seeking expert opinion remains paramount. However, custom LLMs represent an excellent opportunity to infuse niche, bespoke expertise from the many specialties and subspecialties within medicine. Methods of customizing these generative models broadly fall under the categories of prompt engineering; "retrieval-augmented generation" prioritizing retrieval of relevant information from a specific domain of data; "fine-tuning" of a basic pretrained model into one that is refined for health care-related vernacular and acronyms; and "agentic augmentation" including software that breaks down complex tasks into smaller ones, recruiting multiple LLMs (with or without retrieval-augmented generation), optimizing the output, internally deciding whether the response is appropriate or sufficient, and even passing on an unmet outcome to a human for supervision ("phone a friend"). Custom LLMs offer physicians and their associated organizations the rare opportunity to regain control of our profession by re-establishing authority in our increasingly digital landscape.

Compared with total hip arthroplasty, hip arthroscopy is a relatively new procedure, and as such, hip-spine syndrome in young adults is an emerging topic of research. In the past decade, our understanding of spinopelvic alignment has improved the stability and survivorship of hip replacements in patients with prior lumbar fusions. Obviously, the hip affects the spine and the spine affects the hip. In terms of hip arthroscopy, just as older patients and patients with cartilage damage have inferior outcomes, patients with spine pathology are at risk for postoperative worsening spinal symptoms, including sciatica. In addition, back and radicular pain may limit postoperative hip rehabilitation. Yet other patients show resolution of back symptoms after hip arthroscopy. Today, surgeons indicating hip arthroscopy must first investigate patient sagittal balance, which includes pelvis tilt, pelvic incidence, and sacral slope. When properly indicated, hip-spine pain patients show greater percentage improvement with no increased failure risk compared with patients with isolated FAIS. Exceptions include patients with concomitant lumbar stenosis or lumbar fusion. Rate of revision hip arthroscopy and conversion to total hip replacement is 2-fold compared with controls if patients had prior 1-2 level fusion and 3-fold if 3 or more levels are fused. Our understanding of hip-spine patients with regard to arthroscopy outcomes continues to develop. In addition to a comprehensive spine exam, the patient's spine surgical history and current spine symptoms must be investigated to predict the efficacy of hip arthroscopy. If patients have both hip and spine symptoms, a diagnostic hip injection to determine the prime pain generator is essential. If the hip is the source of pain, patients should be counseled that back symptoms will likely improve after hip arthroscopy but not in all cases. EOS imaging to measure sagittal balance may allow the surgeon to predict if impingement measurements on hip radiographs may be underestimated in the setting of a stiff spine. If the patient has multiple risk factors for poor outcomes such as advancing age, articular cartilage damage, borderline dysplasia, or hypermobility, on top of a history of multilevel lumbar fusion or spinal deformity, hip arthroscopy may not be ideal, and hip arthroplasty should be considered. Clearly, the spine may not be ignored in patients with femoroacetabular impingement.