Gregory L. Cvetanovich, MD

ABSTRACT

Antegrade reamed intramedullary nailing has the advantages of high fracture union and early weight-bearing, making it the gold standard for fixation of diaphyseal femur fractures. However, knowledge of distal femoral anatomy may mitigate the risk of secondary complications.

We present a previously unrecognized complication of antegrade femoral nailing in which a 23-year-old man sustained iatrogenic rupture of the medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) caused by the distal interlocking screw of the femoral nail. The patient had a history of antegrade intramedullary nailing that was revised for rotational malalignment, after which he began experiencing recurrent episodes of atraumatic bloody joint effusion and swelling of the right knee with associated patellar instability. Plain radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging revealed a large effusion with a prominent intra-articular distal interlocking screw disrupting the MPFL. The patient underwent a right knee arthroscopic-assisted MPFL reconstruction and removal of the distal interlocking screw. Following surgery, the patient experienced resolution of his effusions, no recurrent patellar instability, and was able to return to his activities.

This case demonstrates that iatrogenic MPFL injury is a potential complication of antegrade femoral nailing and a previously unrecognized cause of patellar instability. Surgeons should be aware of this potential complication and strive to avoid the MPFL origin when placing their distal interlocking screw.

Continue to: Reamed intramedullary nails...

Reamed intramedullary nails are the gold standard for fixation of femoral diaphyseal fractures.¹ Antegrade or retrograde nails are effective options, with the choice of technique based on factors including surgeon preference, patient factors, and concomitant injuries.² Interlocking screws are generally placed to allow control of both rotation and length.¹ Advantages of intramedullary treatment of femoral diaphyseal fractures compared with plate fixation include low rates of infection, lower nonunion rate, and faster patient mobilization and weight-bearing.³

Complications of antegrade intramedullary fixation of femoral shaft fractures include infection, nonunion, malunion, anterior cortical perforation, heterotopic ossification, abductor weakness, and soft tissue irritation from interlocking screws.^2-4 Femoral intramedullary nails are not routinely removed because the hardware is rarely symptomatic and removing the nail involves additional surgical morbidity with the potential for complications.⁵ Interlocking screws are removed in select cases due to soft tissue irritation, generally after fracture union. Although hardware removal may help in select cases, removal of intramedullary nails is associated with low rates of symptom resolution.^6-8

We present a case of iatrogenic medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) disruption by the distal interlocking screw leading to patellar instability, a previously unrecognized complication of antegrade femoral nailing for femoral diaphyseal fractures. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

CASE REPORT

We present a case of a 23-year-old man whose status was 2 years post antegrade reamed femoral intramedullary nailing at an outside institution for a right diaphyseal femur fracture. This issue was revised for external rotational malalignment, and he presented with right anterior knee pain, recurrent patellar subluxation, and recurrent effusions. The extent of external rotational malalignment and subsequent rotational correction were not evident from the available outside institution records. These symptoms began after his femoral nail revision for malalignment, and he had no subsequent trauma. The femoral fracture healed uneventfully. The patient denied any history of knee pain, swelling, or patellar instability before his femoral nail revision for malalignment. These episodes of effusion, instability, and pain occurred several times per year, generally with activities of daily living (ADL). On one occasion, he presented to a local emergency room where knee aspiration revealed no evidence of crystals or infection. The patient was referred to the senior author (Dr. Nho) for consultation.

Physical examination revealed right knee full extension with flexion to 80°. A moderate right knee effusion was present. The patient was tender over the medial femoral epicondyle and the superomedial aspect of the patella without joint line tenderness. Lateral patellar instability was present with 2 quadrants of translation (compared with 1 on the contralateral side) and patellar apprehension. The patient’s knee was ligamentously stable, and meniscal signs were absent. His lower extremity rotational profile was symmetric to the contralateral uninjured side.

Right femur and knee X-rays showed an antegrade intramedullary nail with a well-healed diaphyseal fracture and a single distal interlocking screw oriented from posterolateral to anteromedial (Figures 1A-1G). The screw tip was prominent on sunrise X-ray view anterior to the medial femoral epicondyle (Figure 1C). Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated a large effusion and lateral patellar subluxation with a prominent intra-articular distal interlocking screw disrupting the MPFL near the femoral attachment (Figure 2). Patellar height, trochlear morphology, and tibial tubercle-trochlear groove distance were assessed and found to be normal.

Continue to: The patient elected...

The patient elected to have a right knee arthroscopic-assisted MPFL reconstruction and removal of the distal interlocking screw. Diagnostic arthroscopy revealed the distal interlocking screw to be intra-articular medially, prominent by 3 mm causing attritional disruption of the mid-substance MPFL (Figure 3A). The patella was noted to be subluxated and tracking laterally (Figure 3B). Both the anterior cruciate ligament and posterior cruciate ligament were intact, and menisci and articular cartilage were normal. The distal interlocking screw was removed under fluoroscopic guidance through a small lateral incision (Figure 3C).

Due to the nature of the longstanding attritional disruption of the MPFL in this case with associated patellar instability over a 2-year period, the decision was made to proceed with formal MPFL reconstruction as opposed to repair. A 2-cm incision was made at the medial aspect of the patella. The proximal half of the patella was decorticated. Guide pins were placed within the proximal half of the patella, ensuring at least a 1-cm bone bridge between them, and two 4.75-mm SwiveLock suture anchors (Arthrex) were inserted. A semitendinosus graft was used for MPFL reconstruction with the 2 ends of the graft secured to 2 suture anchors with a whipstitch. Lateral fluoroscopy was used to identify Schöttle’s point, denoting the femoral origin of the MPFL⁹ (Figure 3D). A 2-cm incision was made at this location. A guide pin was then placed at Schöttle’s point under fluoroscopic guidance, aimed proximally, and the knee was brought through a range of motion (ROM), to verify graft isometry. Once verified, the guide pin was over-reamed to 8 mm. The layer between the retinaculum and the capsule was carefully dissected, and the graft was passed extra-articularly in the plane between the retinaculum and the capsule, out through the medial incision, and docked into the bone tunnel. An 8-mm BioComposite interference screw (Arthrex) was then placed with the knee flexed to 30°. The knee was then passed through a ROM and an arthroscopic evaluation confirmed that the patella was no longer subluxated laterally. There was normal tracking of the patellofemoral joint on arthroscopic evaluation.

Postoperatively, the patient was maintained in a hinged knee brace for 6 weeks. He was weight-bearing as tolerated when locked in full extension beginning immediately postoperatively, and allowed to unlock the brace to start non-weight-bearing active flexion and extension with therapy on postoperative day 1. Radiographs confirmed removal of the distal interlocking screw (Figures 4A, 4B). Following surgery, the patient experienced resolution of his effusions, no recurrent patellar instability at 1-year postoperative, and was able to return to his ADL and recreational sporting activities (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS] ADL, 100; KOOS sporting and recreational activities, 95; quality of life, 100; Marx Activity Rating Scale, 12).

DISCUSSION

The MPFL connects the superomedial edge of the patella to the medial femur and is injured in nearly 100% of patellar dislocations.⁶ The femoral origin lies between the adductor tubercle and the medial epicondyle.⁷ The MPFL prevents lateral subluxation of the patella and acts as the major restraint during the first 20° of knee flexion. Although radiographic parameters for identifying the MPFL femoral origin have been defined by both Schöttle and colleagues⁹ and Stephen and colleagues¹⁰, it is important to check the isometry intraoperatively through a ROM when performing MPFL reconstruction. In this case, the patient’s history and physical examination showed patellar instability, which was determined to be iatrogenically related to the distal interlocking screw rupture of the MPFL. Following screw removal and MPFL reconstruction, the patient had no further symptoms of pain, effusion, or patellar instability and returned to his normal activities.

Femoral malrotation following intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures is a common complication,⁴ with a 22% incidence of malrotation of at least 15° in 1 series from an academic trauma center.¹¹ There are mixed data as to whether malrotation is more common in complex fracture patterns, in cases performed during night hours, and in cases performed by non-trauma fellowship-trained surgeons.^11-13 The natural history of malrotation is not well elucidated, but there is some suggestion that it alters load bearing in the distal joints of the involved leg including the patellofemoral joint. Patients also may not tolerate malrotation due to the abnormal foot progression angle, particularly with malrotation >15°.⁴ In this case, the patient’s initial femoral nail was placed in an externally rotated position, requiring revision. The result of this was an unusual trajectory of the distal interlocking screw from posterolateral to anteromedial. Combined with the prominent screw tip, the trajectory of this distal interlocking screw likely contributed to the injury to the MPFL observed in this case. This trajectory would also pose potential risk to the common peroneal nerve, which is usually situated posterior to the insertion point for distal femoral interlocking screws. The prominent distal interlock screw is a well-recognized problem with femoral intramedullary nails. This issue results from the tapering of the width of the distal femur from being larger posteriorly to being smaller anteriorly. To avoid placement of a prominent distal interlocking screw, surgeons often will obtain an intraoperative anterior-posterior radiograph with the lower extremity in 30° of internal rotation to account for the angle of the medial aspect of the distal femur.

This practice represents, to our knowledge, a previously unreported cause of patellar instability as well as an unreported complication of antegrade femoral intramedullary nailing. Surgeons treating these conditions should consider this potential complication and pursue advanced imaging if patients present with these complaints after femoral intramedullary nail placement. Knowledge of both MPFL origin and insertional anatomy and avoidance of prominent distal interlocking screws in the region of the MPFL, if possible, would likely prevent this complication.

Limitations of this study include the case report design, which makes it impossible to comment on the incidence of this complication or to make comparisons regarding treatment options. There is, of course, the possibility that the patient had a concurrent MPFL injury from the injury in which he sustained the femur fracture. Nevertheless, the clinical history, examination, imaging, and arthroscopic findings all strongly suggest that the prominent distal interlocking screw was the cause of his MPFL injury and patellar instability. Finally, the point widely defined by Schöttle and colleagues¹² was used for MPFL reconstruction in this case based on an intraoperative true lateral radiograph of the distal femur. It should be noted that recent literature has debated the accuracy of this method for determining the femoral origin, the anatomy of the MPFL in relation to the quadriceps, and type of fixation for MPFL reconstruction with some advocating soft tissue only fixation.^14-17 For purposes of this case report, we focused on a different cause of MPFL disruption in this patient and our technique for MPFL reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

This case demonstrates that iatrogenic MPFL injury is a potential complication of antegrade femoral nailing and a previously unrecognized cause of patellar instability. Surgeons should be aware of this potential complication and strive to avoid the MPFL origin when placing their distal interlocking screw.

This paper will be judged for the Resident Writer’s Award.

ABSTRACT

Antegrade reamed intramedullary nailing has the advantages of high fracture union and early weight-bearing, making it the gold standard for fixation of diaphyseal femur fractures. However, knowledge of distal femoral anatomy may mitigate the risk of secondary complications.

We present a previously unrecognized complication of antegrade femoral nailing in which a 23-year-old man sustained iatrogenic rupture of the medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) caused by the distal interlocking screw of the femoral nail. The patient had a history of antegrade intramedullary nailing that was revised for rotational malalignment, after which he began experiencing recurrent episodes of atraumatic bloody joint effusion and swelling of the right knee with associated patellar instability. Plain radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging revealed a large effusion with a prominent intra-articular distal interlocking screw disrupting the MPFL. The patient underwent a right knee arthroscopic-assisted MPFL reconstruction and removal of the distal interlocking screw. Following surgery, the patient experienced resolution of his effusions, no recurrent patellar instability, and was able to return to his activities.

This case demonstrates that iatrogenic MPFL injury is a potential complication of antegrade femoral nailing and a previously unrecognized cause of patellar instability. Surgeons should be aware of this potential complication and strive to avoid the MPFL origin when placing their distal interlocking screw.

Continue to: Reamed intramedullary nails...

Reamed intramedullary nails are the gold standard for fixation of femoral diaphyseal fractures.¹ Antegrade or retrograde nails are effective options, with the choice of technique based on factors including surgeon preference, patient factors, and concomitant injuries.² Interlocking screws are generally placed to allow control of both rotation and length.¹ Advantages of intramedullary treatment of femoral diaphyseal fractures compared with plate fixation include low rates of infection, lower nonunion rate, and faster patient mobilization and weight-bearing.³

Complications of antegrade intramedullary fixation of femoral shaft fractures include infection, nonunion, malunion, anterior cortical perforation, heterotopic ossification, abductor weakness, and soft tissue irritation from interlocking screws.^2-4 Femoral intramedullary nails are not routinely removed because the hardware is rarely symptomatic and removing the nail involves additional surgical morbidity with the potential for complications.⁵ Interlocking screws are removed in select cases due to soft tissue irritation, generally after fracture union. Although hardware removal may help in select cases, removal of intramedullary nails is associated with low rates of symptom resolution.^6-8

We present a case of iatrogenic medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) disruption by the distal interlocking screw leading to patellar instability, a previously unrecognized complication of antegrade femoral nailing for femoral diaphyseal fractures. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

CASE REPORT

We present a case of a 23-year-old man whose status was 2 years post antegrade reamed femoral intramedullary nailing at an outside institution for a right diaphyseal femur fracture. This issue was revised for external rotational malalignment, and he presented with right anterior knee pain, recurrent patellar subluxation, and recurrent effusions. The extent of external rotational malalignment and subsequent rotational correction were not evident from the available outside institution records. These symptoms began after his femoral nail revision for malalignment, and he had no subsequent trauma. The femoral fracture healed uneventfully. The patient denied any history of knee pain, swelling, or patellar instability before his femoral nail revision for malalignment. These episodes of effusion, instability, and pain occurred several times per year, generally with activities of daily living (ADL). On one occasion, he presented to a local emergency room where knee aspiration revealed no evidence of crystals or infection. The patient was referred to the senior author (Dr. Nho) for consultation.

Physical examination revealed right knee full extension with flexion to 80°. A moderate right knee effusion was present. The patient was tender over the medial femoral epicondyle and the superomedial aspect of the patella without joint line tenderness. Lateral patellar instability was present with 2 quadrants of translation (compared with 1 on the contralateral side) and patellar apprehension. The patient’s knee was ligamentously stable, and meniscal signs were absent. His lower extremity rotational profile was symmetric to the contralateral uninjured side.

Right femur and knee X-rays showed an antegrade intramedullary nail with a well-healed diaphyseal fracture and a single distal interlocking screw oriented from posterolateral to anteromedial (Figures 1A-1G). The screw tip was prominent on sunrise X-ray view anterior to the medial femoral epicondyle (Figure 1C). Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated a large effusion and lateral patellar subluxation with a prominent intra-articular distal interlocking screw disrupting the MPFL near the femoral attachment (Figure 2). Patellar height, trochlear morphology, and tibial tubercle-trochlear groove distance were assessed and found to be normal.

Continue to: The patient elected...

The patient elected to have a right knee arthroscopic-assisted MPFL reconstruction and removal of the distal interlocking screw. Diagnostic arthroscopy revealed the distal interlocking screw to be intra-articular medially, prominent by 3 mm causing attritional disruption of the mid-substance MPFL (Figure 3A). The patella was noted to be subluxated and tracking laterally (Figure 3B). Both the anterior cruciate ligament and posterior cruciate ligament were intact, and menisci and articular cartilage were normal. The distal interlocking screw was removed under fluoroscopic guidance through a small lateral incision (Figure 3C).

Due to the nature of the longstanding attritional disruption of the MPFL in this case with associated patellar instability over a 2-year period, the decision was made to proceed with formal MPFL reconstruction as opposed to repair. A 2-cm incision was made at the medial aspect of the patella. The proximal half of the patella was decorticated. Guide pins were placed within the proximal half of the patella, ensuring at least a 1-cm bone bridge between them, and two 4.75-mm SwiveLock suture anchors (Arthrex) were inserted. A semitendinosus graft was used for MPFL reconstruction with the 2 ends of the graft secured to 2 suture anchors with a whipstitch. Lateral fluoroscopy was used to identify Schöttle’s point, denoting the femoral origin of the MPFL⁹ (Figure 3D). A 2-cm incision was made at this location. A guide pin was then placed at Schöttle’s point under fluoroscopic guidance, aimed proximally, and the knee was brought through a range of motion (ROM), to verify graft isometry. Once verified, the guide pin was over-reamed to 8 mm. The layer between the retinaculum and the capsule was carefully dissected, and the graft was passed extra-articularly in the plane between the retinaculum and the capsule, out through the medial incision, and docked into the bone tunnel. An 8-mm BioComposite interference screw (Arthrex) was then placed with the knee flexed to 30°. The knee was then passed through a ROM and an arthroscopic evaluation confirmed that the patella was no longer subluxated laterally. There was normal tracking of the patellofemoral joint on arthroscopic evaluation.

Postoperatively, the patient was maintained in a hinged knee brace for 6 weeks. He was weight-bearing as tolerated when locked in full extension beginning immediately postoperatively, and allowed to unlock the brace to start non-weight-bearing active flexion and extension with therapy on postoperative day 1. Radiographs confirmed removal of the distal interlocking screw (Figures 4A, 4B). Following surgery, the patient experienced resolution of his effusions, no recurrent patellar instability at 1-year postoperative, and was able to return to his ADL and recreational sporting activities (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS] ADL, 100; KOOS sporting and recreational activities, 95; quality of life, 100; Marx Activity Rating Scale, 12).

DISCUSSION

The MPFL connects the superomedial edge of the patella to the medial femur and is injured in nearly 100% of patellar dislocations.⁶ The femoral origin lies between the adductor tubercle and the medial epicondyle.⁷ The MPFL prevents lateral subluxation of the patella and acts as the major restraint during the first 20° of knee flexion. Although radiographic parameters for identifying the MPFL femoral origin have been defined by both Schöttle and colleagues⁹ and Stephen and colleagues¹⁰, it is important to check the isometry intraoperatively through a ROM when performing MPFL reconstruction. In this case, the patient’s history and physical examination showed patellar instability, which was determined to be iatrogenically related to the distal interlocking screw rupture of the MPFL. Following screw removal and MPFL reconstruction, the patient had no further symptoms of pain, effusion, or patellar instability and returned to his normal activities.

Femoral malrotation following intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures is a common complication,⁴ with a 22% incidence of malrotation of at least 15° in 1 series from an academic trauma center.¹¹ There are mixed data as to whether malrotation is more common in complex fracture patterns, in cases performed during night hours, and in cases performed by non-trauma fellowship-trained surgeons.^11-13 The natural history of malrotation is not well elucidated, but there is some suggestion that it alters load bearing in the distal joints of the involved leg including the patellofemoral joint. Patients also may not tolerate malrotation due to the abnormal foot progression angle, particularly with malrotation >15°.⁴ In this case, the patient’s initial femoral nail was placed in an externally rotated position, requiring revision. The result of this was an unusual trajectory of the distal interlocking screw from posterolateral to anteromedial. Combined with the prominent screw tip, the trajectory of this distal interlocking screw likely contributed to the injury to the MPFL observed in this case. This trajectory would also pose potential risk to the common peroneal nerve, which is usually situated posterior to the insertion point for distal femoral interlocking screws. The prominent distal interlock screw is a well-recognized problem with femoral intramedullary nails. This issue results from the tapering of the width of the distal femur from being larger posteriorly to being smaller anteriorly. To avoid placement of a prominent distal interlocking screw, surgeons often will obtain an intraoperative anterior-posterior radiograph with the lower extremity in 30° of internal rotation to account for the angle of the medial aspect of the distal femur.

This practice represents, to our knowledge, a previously unreported cause of patellar instability as well as an unreported complication of antegrade femoral intramedullary nailing. Surgeons treating these conditions should consider this potential complication and pursue advanced imaging if patients present with these complaints after femoral intramedullary nail placement. Knowledge of both MPFL origin and insertional anatomy and avoidance of prominent distal interlocking screws in the region of the MPFL, if possible, would likely prevent this complication.

Limitations of this study include the case report design, which makes it impossible to comment on the incidence of this complication or to make comparisons regarding treatment options. There is, of course, the possibility that the patient had a concurrent MPFL injury from the injury in which he sustained the femur fracture. Nevertheless, the clinical history, examination, imaging, and arthroscopic findings all strongly suggest that the prominent distal interlocking screw was the cause of his MPFL injury and patellar instability. Finally, the point widely defined by Schöttle and colleagues¹² was used for MPFL reconstruction in this case based on an intraoperative true lateral radiograph of the distal femur. It should be noted that recent literature has debated the accuracy of this method for determining the femoral origin, the anatomy of the MPFL in relation to the quadriceps, and type of fixation for MPFL reconstruction with some advocating soft tissue only fixation.^14-17 For purposes of this case report, we focused on a different cause of MPFL disruption in this patient and our technique for MPFL reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

This case demonstrates that iatrogenic MPFL injury is a potential complication of antegrade femoral nailing and a previously unrecognized cause of patellar instability. Surgeons should be aware of this potential complication and strive to avoid the MPFL origin when placing their distal interlocking screw.

This paper will be judged for the Resident Writer’s Award.

ABSTRACT

Antegrade reamed intramedullary nailing has the advantages of high fracture union and early weight-bearing, making it the gold standard for fixation of diaphyseal femur fractures. However, knowledge of distal femoral anatomy may mitigate the risk of secondary complications.

We present a previously unrecognized complication of antegrade femoral nailing in which a 23-year-old man sustained iatrogenic rupture of the medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) caused by the distal interlocking screw of the femoral nail. The patient had a history of antegrade intramedullary nailing that was revised for rotational malalignment, after which he began experiencing recurrent episodes of atraumatic bloody joint effusion and swelling of the right knee with associated patellar instability. Plain radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging revealed a large effusion with a prominent intra-articular distal interlocking screw disrupting the MPFL. The patient underwent a right knee arthroscopic-assisted MPFL reconstruction and removal of the distal interlocking screw. Following surgery, the patient experienced resolution of his effusions, no recurrent patellar instability, and was able to return to his activities.

This case demonstrates that iatrogenic MPFL injury is a potential complication of antegrade femoral nailing and a previously unrecognized cause of patellar instability. Surgeons should be aware of this potential complication and strive to avoid the MPFL origin when placing their distal interlocking screw.

Continue to: Reamed intramedullary nails...

Reamed intramedullary nails are the gold standard for fixation of femoral diaphyseal fractures.¹ Antegrade or retrograde nails are effective options, with the choice of technique based on factors including surgeon preference, patient factors, and concomitant injuries.² Interlocking screws are generally placed to allow control of both rotation and length.¹ Advantages of intramedullary treatment of femoral diaphyseal fractures compared with plate fixation include low rates of infection, lower nonunion rate, and faster patient mobilization and weight-bearing.³

Complications of antegrade intramedullary fixation of femoral shaft fractures include infection, nonunion, malunion, anterior cortical perforation, heterotopic ossification, abductor weakness, and soft tissue irritation from interlocking screws.^2-4 Femoral intramedullary nails are not routinely removed because the hardware is rarely symptomatic and removing the nail involves additional surgical morbidity with the potential for complications.⁵ Interlocking screws are removed in select cases due to soft tissue irritation, generally after fracture union. Although hardware removal may help in select cases, removal of intramedullary nails is associated with low rates of symptom resolution.^6-8

We present a case of iatrogenic medial patellofemoral ligament (MPFL) disruption by the distal interlocking screw leading to patellar instability, a previously unrecognized complication of antegrade femoral nailing for femoral diaphyseal fractures. The patient provided written informed consent for print and electronic publication of this case report.

CASE REPORT

We present a case of a 23-year-old man whose status was 2 years post antegrade reamed femoral intramedullary nailing at an outside institution for a right diaphyseal femur fracture. This issue was revised for external rotational malalignment, and he presented with right anterior knee pain, recurrent patellar subluxation, and recurrent effusions. The extent of external rotational malalignment and subsequent rotational correction were not evident from the available outside institution records. These symptoms began after his femoral nail revision for malalignment, and he had no subsequent trauma. The femoral fracture healed uneventfully. The patient denied any history of knee pain, swelling, or patellar instability before his femoral nail revision for malalignment. These episodes of effusion, instability, and pain occurred several times per year, generally with activities of daily living (ADL). On one occasion, he presented to a local emergency room where knee aspiration revealed no evidence of crystals or infection. The patient was referred to the senior author (Dr. Nho) for consultation.

Physical examination revealed right knee full extension with flexion to 80°. A moderate right knee effusion was present. The patient was tender over the medial femoral epicondyle and the superomedial aspect of the patella without joint line tenderness. Lateral patellar instability was present with 2 quadrants of translation (compared with 1 on the contralateral side) and patellar apprehension. The patient’s knee was ligamentously stable, and meniscal signs were absent. His lower extremity rotational profile was symmetric to the contralateral uninjured side.

Right femur and knee X-rays showed an antegrade intramedullary nail with a well-healed diaphyseal fracture and a single distal interlocking screw oriented from posterolateral to anteromedial (Figures 1A-1G). The screw tip was prominent on sunrise X-ray view anterior to the medial femoral epicondyle (Figure 1C). Magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated a large effusion and lateral patellar subluxation with a prominent intra-articular distal interlocking screw disrupting the MPFL near the femoral attachment (Figure 2). Patellar height, trochlear morphology, and tibial tubercle-trochlear groove distance were assessed and found to be normal.

Continue to: The patient elected...

The patient elected to have a right knee arthroscopic-assisted MPFL reconstruction and removal of the distal interlocking screw. Diagnostic arthroscopy revealed the distal interlocking screw to be intra-articular medially, prominent by 3 mm causing attritional disruption of the mid-substance MPFL (Figure 3A). The patella was noted to be subluxated and tracking laterally (Figure 3B). Both the anterior cruciate ligament and posterior cruciate ligament were intact, and menisci and articular cartilage were normal. The distal interlocking screw was removed under fluoroscopic guidance through a small lateral incision (Figure 3C).

Due to the nature of the longstanding attritional disruption of the MPFL in this case with associated patellar instability over a 2-year period, the decision was made to proceed with formal MPFL reconstruction as opposed to repair. A 2-cm incision was made at the medial aspect of the patella. The proximal half of the patella was decorticated. Guide pins were placed within the proximal half of the patella, ensuring at least a 1-cm bone bridge between them, and two 4.75-mm SwiveLock suture anchors (Arthrex) were inserted. A semitendinosus graft was used for MPFL reconstruction with the 2 ends of the graft secured to 2 suture anchors with a whipstitch. Lateral fluoroscopy was used to identify Schöttle’s point, denoting the femoral origin of the MPFL⁹ (Figure 3D). A 2-cm incision was made at this location. A guide pin was then placed at Schöttle’s point under fluoroscopic guidance, aimed proximally, and the knee was brought through a range of motion (ROM), to verify graft isometry. Once verified, the guide pin was over-reamed to 8 mm. The layer between the retinaculum and the capsule was carefully dissected, and the graft was passed extra-articularly in the plane between the retinaculum and the capsule, out through the medial incision, and docked into the bone tunnel. An 8-mm BioComposite interference screw (Arthrex) was then placed with the knee flexed to 30°. The knee was then passed through a ROM and an arthroscopic evaluation confirmed that the patella was no longer subluxated laterally. There was normal tracking of the patellofemoral joint on arthroscopic evaluation.

Postoperatively, the patient was maintained in a hinged knee brace for 6 weeks. He was weight-bearing as tolerated when locked in full extension beginning immediately postoperatively, and allowed to unlock the brace to start non-weight-bearing active flexion and extension with therapy on postoperative day 1. Radiographs confirmed removal of the distal interlocking screw (Figures 4A, 4B). Following surgery, the patient experienced resolution of his effusions, no recurrent patellar instability at 1-year postoperative, and was able to return to his ADL and recreational sporting activities (Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS] ADL, 100; KOOS sporting and recreational activities, 95; quality of life, 100; Marx Activity Rating Scale, 12).

DISCUSSION

The MPFL connects the superomedial edge of the patella to the medial femur and is injured in nearly 100% of patellar dislocations.⁶ The femoral origin lies between the adductor tubercle and the medial epicondyle.⁷ The MPFL prevents lateral subluxation of the patella and acts as the major restraint during the first 20° of knee flexion. Although radiographic parameters for identifying the MPFL femoral origin have been defined by both Schöttle and colleagues⁹ and Stephen and colleagues¹⁰, it is important to check the isometry intraoperatively through a ROM when performing MPFL reconstruction. In this case, the patient’s history and physical examination showed patellar instability, which was determined to be iatrogenically related to the distal interlocking screw rupture of the MPFL. Following screw removal and MPFL reconstruction, the patient had no further symptoms of pain, effusion, or patellar instability and returned to his normal activities.

Femoral malrotation following intramedullary nailing of femoral shaft fractures is a common complication,⁴ with a 22% incidence of malrotation of at least 15° in 1 series from an academic trauma center.¹¹ There are mixed data as to whether malrotation is more common in complex fracture patterns, in cases performed during night hours, and in cases performed by non-trauma fellowship-trained surgeons.^11-13 The natural history of malrotation is not well elucidated, but there is some suggestion that it alters load bearing in the distal joints of the involved leg including the patellofemoral joint. Patients also may not tolerate malrotation due to the abnormal foot progression angle, particularly with malrotation >15°.⁴ In this case, the patient’s initial femoral nail was placed in an externally rotated position, requiring revision. The result of this was an unusual trajectory of the distal interlocking screw from posterolateral to anteromedial. Combined with the prominent screw tip, the trajectory of this distal interlocking screw likely contributed to the injury to the MPFL observed in this case. This trajectory would also pose potential risk to the common peroneal nerve, which is usually situated posterior to the insertion point for distal femoral interlocking screws. The prominent distal interlock screw is a well-recognized problem with femoral intramedullary nails. This issue results from the tapering of the width of the distal femur from being larger posteriorly to being smaller anteriorly. To avoid placement of a prominent distal interlocking screw, surgeons often will obtain an intraoperative anterior-posterior radiograph with the lower extremity in 30° of internal rotation to account for the angle of the medial aspect of the distal femur.

This practice represents, to our knowledge, a previously unreported cause of patellar instability as well as an unreported complication of antegrade femoral intramedullary nailing. Surgeons treating these conditions should consider this potential complication and pursue advanced imaging if patients present with these complaints after femoral intramedullary nail placement. Knowledge of both MPFL origin and insertional anatomy and avoidance of prominent distal interlocking screws in the region of the MPFL, if possible, would likely prevent this complication.

Limitations of this study include the case report design, which makes it impossible to comment on the incidence of this complication or to make comparisons regarding treatment options. There is, of course, the possibility that the patient had a concurrent MPFL injury from the injury in which he sustained the femur fracture. Nevertheless, the clinical history, examination, imaging, and arthroscopic findings all strongly suggest that the prominent distal interlocking screw was the cause of his MPFL injury and patellar instability. Finally, the point widely defined by Schöttle and colleagues¹² was used for MPFL reconstruction in this case based on an intraoperative true lateral radiograph of the distal femur. It should be noted that recent literature has debated the accuracy of this method for determining the femoral origin, the anatomy of the MPFL in relation to the quadriceps, and type of fixation for MPFL reconstruction with some advocating soft tissue only fixation.^14-17 For purposes of this case report, we focused on a different cause of MPFL disruption in this patient and our technique for MPFL reconstruction.

CONCLUSION

This case demonstrates that iatrogenic MPFL injury is a potential complication of antegrade femoral nailing and a previously unrecognized cause of patellar instability. Surgeons should be aware of this potential complication and strive to avoid the MPFL origin when placing their distal interlocking screw.

This paper will be judged for the Resident Writer’s Award.

ABSTRACT

An increasing interest focuses on the rates and risk factors for hospital readmission. However, little is known regarding the readmission following total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). This study aims to determine the rates, risk factors, and reasons for hospital readmission following primary TSA. Patients undergoing TSA (anatomic or reverse) as part of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in 2011 to 2013 were identified. The rate of unplanned readmission to the hospital within 30 postoperative days was characterized. Using multivariate regression, demographic and comorbidity factors were tested for independent association with readmission. Finally, the reasons for readmission were characterized. A total of 3627 patients were identified. Among the admitted patients, 93 (2.56%) were readmitted within 30 days of surgery. The independent risk factors for readmission included old age (for age 60-69 years, relative risk [RR] = 1.6; for age 70-79 years, RR = 2.3; for age ≥80 years, RR = 23.1; P = .042), male sex (RR = 1.6, P = .025), anemia (RR = 1.9, P = .005), and dependent functional status (RR = 2.8, P = .012). The reasons for readmission were available for 84 of the 93 readmitted patients. The most common reasons for readmission comprised pneumonia (14 cases, 16.7%), dislocation (7 cases, 8.3%), pulmonary embolism (7 cases, 8.3%), and surgical site infection (6 cases, 7.1%). Unplanned readmission occurs following about 1 in 40 cases of TSA. The most common causes of readmission include pneumonia, dislocation, pulmonary embolism, and surgical site infection. Patients with old age, male sex, anemia, and dependent functional status are at higher risk for readmission and should be counseled and monitored accordingly.

Continue to: Total shoulder arthroplasty...

Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is performed with increasing frequency in the United States and is considered to be cost-effective.^1-4 Following the procedure, patients generally achieve shoulder function and pain relief.^5-8 Despite the success of the procedure, the growing literature on TSA has also reported rates of complications between 3.6% and 25% of the treated patients.^9-16

In recent years, an increasing interest has focused on the rates and risk factors for unplanned hospital readmissions; these variables may not only reflect the quality of patient care but also result in considerable costs to the healthcare system. For instance, among Medicare patients, readmissions within 30 days of discharge occur in almost 20% of cases, costing $17.4 billion per year.¹⁷ Readmission rates increasingly factor into hospital performance metrics and reimbursement, including the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that reduces Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services payments to hospitals with high 30-day readmission rates.¹⁸

To date, only a few studies have evaluated readmission following TSA, with 30- to 90-day readmission rates ranging from 4.5% to 7.3%.^19-23 These studies comprised single institution series^20,22 and analyses of administrative databases.^19,21,23 Most studies have shown that readmission occurs more often for medical than surgical reasons, with surgical reasons most commonly including infection and dislocation.^19-23 However, only limited analyses have been conducted regarding risk factors for readmission.^21,23 To date and to our knowledge, no study has investigated reasons for readmission following TSA using nationwide data.

This study aims to determine the rates, risk factors, and reasons for hospital readmission following primary TSA in the United States using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database.

METHODS

DATA SOURCE

The NSQIP database was utilized to address the study purpose. NSQIP is a nationwide prospective surgical registry established by the American College of Surgeons and reports data from academic and community hospitals across the United States.²⁴ Patients undertaking surgery at these centers are followed by the surgical clinical reviewers at the participating NSQIP sites prospectively for 30 days following the procedure to record complications including readmission. Preoperative and surgical data, such as demographics, medical comorbid diseases, and operative time, are also included. Previous studies have analyzed the complications of various orthopedic surgeries using the NSQIP data.^14,16,25-30

DATA COLLECTION

We retrospectively identified from NSQIP the patients who underwent primary TSA (anatomic or reverse) in 2013 to 2014. The timeframe 2013 to 2014 was used because NSQIP only began recording reasons for readmission in 2013. The inclusion criteria were as follows: Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code for TSA (23472); preoperative diagnosis according to the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes 714.0, 715.11, 715.31, 715.91, 715.21, 715.89, 716.xx 718.xx, 719.xx, 726.x, 727.xx, and 733.41 (where x is a wild card digit); and no missing demographic, comorbidity, or outcome data. Anatomic and reverse TSA were analyzed together because they share the same CPT code, and the NSQIP database prevents searching by the ICD-9 procedure code.

The rate of unplanned readmission to the hospital within 30 postoperative days was characterized. The reasons for readmission in this 30-day period were only available in 2013 and were determined using the ICD-9 diagnosis codes. Patient demographics were recorded for use in identifying potential risk factors for readmission; the demographic data included sex, age, smoking status, body mass index (BMI), and comorbidities, including end-stage renal disease, dyspnea on exertion, congestive heart failure, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Continue to: Statistical analysis...

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Statistical analyses were performed using Stata version 13.1 (StataCorp). First, using bivariate and multivariate regression, demographic and comorbidity factors were tested for independent association with readmission to the hospital within 30 days of surgery. Second, among the readmitted patients, the reasons for readmission were tabulated. Of note, the reasons for readmission were only documented for the procedures performed in 2013. All tests were 2-tailed and conducted at an α level of 0.05.

RESTULTS

A total of 3627 TSA patients were identified. The mean age (± standard deviation) was 69.4 ± 9.5 years, 55.8% of patients were female, and mean BMI was 30.1 ± 7.0 years. Table 1 provides the additional demographic data. Of the 3627 included patients, 93 (2.56%) were readmitted within 30 days of surgery. The 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of readmission reached 2.05% to 3.08%.

Table 1. Patient Population

Abbreviation: COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

In the bivariate analyses (Table 2), the following factors were positively associated readmission: older age (60-69 years, relative risk [RR] = 1.6; 70-79 years, RR = 2.2; ≥80 years, RR = 3.3; P = .011), dependent functional status (RR = 2.9, P = .008), and anemia (RR = 2.2, P < .001).

Table 2. Bivariate Analysis of Risk Factors for Readmission

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; RR, relative risk.

In the multivariate analyses (Table 3), the following factors were independent risk factors for readmission: older age (60-69 years, RR = 1.6; 70-79 years, RR = 2.3; ≥80 years, RR = 3.1; P =.027), male sex (RR = 1.6, P = .025), anemia (RR = 1.9, P = .005), and dependent functional status (RR = 2.8, P = .012). Interestingly, readmission showed no independent association with diabetes, dyspnea on exertion, BMI, COPD, hypertension, or current smoking status (P > .05 for each).

Table 3. Independent Risk Factors for Readmission on Multivariate Analysis

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; RR, relative risk.

Continue to: Table 4...

The reasons for readmission were available for 84 of the 93 readmitted patients. The most common reasons for readmission included pneumonia (14 cases, 16.7%), dislocation (7 cases, 8.3%), pulmonary embolism (7 cases, 8.3%), and surgical site infection (6 cases, 7.1%) (Table 4).

Table 4. Reasons for Readmission

DISCUSSION

Our analysis of 3042 TSAs from the NSQIP database suggests that unplanned readmission to the hospital occurs following about 1 in 40 cases of TSA. The study also suggests that the most common reasons for readmission encompass pneumonia, dislocation, pulmonary embolism, and surgical site infection. Old age, male sex, anemia, and dependent functional status serve as risk factors for readmission, and patients with such factors should be counseled and monitored accordingly.

In recent years, an increasing emphasis has centered on reducing rates of hospital readmission, with programs such as the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program of the Affordable Care Act cutting reimbursements for hospitals with high 30-day readmission rates.^17,18 To date, only a few studies have evaluated the reasons for readmission and readmission rates for TSA.^19-23 Initial reports consisted of single-institution TSA registry reviews. For example, Mahoney and colleagues²⁰ retrospectively evaluated shoulder arthroplasty procedures at their institution to document the readmission rates, finding a 5.9% readmission rate at 30 days. Readmission occurred more frequently in the first 30 days following discharge than in the 30- to 90-day period, with the most common reasons for readmission including medical complications, infection, and dislocation. Streubel and colleagues²² evaluated reoperation rates from their institution’s TSA registry, finding a 0.6% reoperation rate for primary TSA at 30 days and 1.5% for revision TSA. Instability and infection were the most common indications for reoperation. Our findings confirm these single-institution results and demonstrate their application to a nationwide sample of TSA, not just to high-volume academic centers. We similarly observed that dislocation, surgical site infection, and medical complications (mostly pneumonia and pulmonary embolism) were common causes of readmission, and that the 30-day readmission rate was about 1 in 40.

Several authors have since used statewide databases to analyze and determine risk factors for readmission following TSA. Lyman and colleagues¹⁹ used the New York State Database to show that higher hospital TSA surgical volume was associated with a lower rate of readmission when age and comorbidities were controlled for in a multivariate model. Old age was also associated with an increased readmission rate in their multivariate analysis, but comorbidities (as measured by the Charlson comorbidity index) presented a nonsignificant associative trend. These authors opted not to determine specific causes of readmission. Schairer and colleagues²¹ used State Inpatient Databases from 7 states, finding a 90-day readmission rate of 7.3%, 82% of which were due to medical complications and 18% of which were due to surgical complications (mostly infection and dislocation). Their multivariate regression revealed that male sex, reverse TSA, Medicaid insurance, patients discharged to inpatient rehabilitation or nursing facilities, medical comorbidities, and low-volume TSA hospitals were associated with readmission. Zhang and colleagues²³ used the same source to show that the 90-day readmission rate reached 14% for surgically treated proximal humerus fractures and higher for patients who underwent open reduction internal fixation, were female, were African American, were discharged to a nursing facility, possessed Medicaid insurance, or experienced medical comorbidities. Most recently, Basques and colleagues³¹ analyzed 1505 TSA cases from 2011 and 2012 in the NSQIP database, finding a 3.3% rate of readmission, with heart disease and hypertension as risk factors for readmission. Although the limitations of the NSQIP database prevented us from analyzing surgeon and hospital TSA volume or reverse vs anatomic TSA, our results confirm that the findings from statewide database studies apply to the United States nationwide NSQIP database. Old patient age, male sex, and medical comorbidities (anemia and dependent functional status) are independent risk factors for TSA readmission. We identified pneumonia, dislocation, pulmonary embolism, and surgical site infection as the most common reasons for readmission.

This study features several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. Anatomic and reverse TSA share a CPT code and were not separated using NSQIP data. A number of studies have reported that reverse TSA may place patients at higher risk for readmission;^20,21 however, confounding by other patient factors could play a role in this finding. The 30-day timeframe for readmission is another potential limitation; however, this timeframe is frequently used in other studies and is the relevant timeframe for the reduced reimbursement penalties from the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program of the Affordable Care Act.¹⁸ Furthermore, the NSQIP database contains no information on surgeon or hospital TSA volume, which is a result of safeguards for patient and provider privacy. Additionally, readmission data were only available for 2011 to 2013, with causes of readmission only present in 2013. Although provided with such current information, we cannot analyze readmission trends over time, such as in response to the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Finally, although NSQIP surgical clinical reviewers strive to identify readmissions to other hospitals during their reviews of outpatient medical records, proportions of these readmissions are possibly missed. Therefore, our 30-day readmission rate may slightly underestimate the true rate.

Despite these limitations, the NSQIP database offers a unique opportunity to examine risk factors and reasons for readmission following TSA. The prior literature on readmission following TSA stemmed either from limited samples or administrative data, which feature known limitations.³² By utilizing a large, prospective, non-administrative, nationwide sample, our findings are probably both more reliable and generalizable to the country as a whole.

CONCLUSION

Unplanned readmission occurs following about 1 in 40 cases of TSA. The most common causes of readmission include pneumonia, dislocation, pulmonary embolism, and surgical site infection. Patients with old age, male sex, anemia, and dependent functional status are at a higher risk for readmission and should be counseled and monitored accordingly.

This paper will be judged for the Resident Writer’s Award.

ABSTRACT

An increasing interest focuses on the rates and risk factors for hospital readmission. However, little is known regarding the readmission following total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). This study aims to determine the rates, risk factors, and reasons for hospital readmission following primary TSA. Patients undergoing TSA (anatomic or reverse) as part of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in 2011 to 2013 were identified. The rate of unplanned readmission to the hospital within 30 postoperative days was characterized. Using multivariate regression, demographic and comorbidity factors were tested for independent association with readmission. Finally, the reasons for readmission were characterized. A total of 3627 patients were identified. Among the admitted patients, 93 (2.56%) were readmitted within 30 days of surgery. The independent risk factors for readmission included old age (for age 60-69 years, relative risk [RR] = 1.6; for age 70-79 years, RR = 2.3; for age ≥80 years, RR = 23.1; P = .042), male sex (RR = 1.6, P = .025), anemia (RR = 1.9, P = .005), and dependent functional status (RR = 2.8, P = .012). The reasons for readmission were available for 84 of the 93 readmitted patients. The most common reasons for readmission comprised pneumonia (14 cases, 16.7%), dislocation (7 cases, 8.3%), pulmonary embolism (7 cases, 8.3%), and surgical site infection (6 cases, 7.1%). Unplanned readmission occurs following about 1 in 40 cases of TSA. The most common causes of readmission include pneumonia, dislocation, pulmonary embolism, and surgical site infection. Patients with old age, male sex, anemia, and dependent functional status are at higher risk for readmission and should be counseled and monitored accordingly.

Continue to: Total shoulder arthroplasty...

Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is performed with increasing frequency in the United States and is considered to be cost-effective.^1-4 Following the procedure, patients generally achieve shoulder function and pain relief.^5-8 Despite the success of the procedure, the growing literature on TSA has also reported rates of complications between 3.6% and 25% of the treated patients.^9-16

In recent years, an increasing interest has focused on the rates and risk factors for unplanned hospital readmissions; these variables may not only reflect the quality of patient care but also result in considerable costs to the healthcare system. For instance, among Medicare patients, readmissions within 30 days of discharge occur in almost 20% of cases, costing $17.4 billion per year.¹⁷ Readmission rates increasingly factor into hospital performance metrics and reimbursement, including the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that reduces Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services payments to hospitals with high 30-day readmission rates.¹⁸

To date, only a few studies have evaluated readmission following TSA, with 30- to 90-day readmission rates ranging from 4.5% to 7.3%.^19-23 These studies comprised single institution series^20,22 and analyses of administrative databases.^19,21,23 Most studies have shown that readmission occurs more often for medical than surgical reasons, with surgical reasons most commonly including infection and dislocation.^19-23 However, only limited analyses have been conducted regarding risk factors for readmission.^21,23 To date and to our knowledge, no study has investigated reasons for readmission following TSA using nationwide data.

This study aims to determine the rates, risk factors, and reasons for hospital readmission following primary TSA in the United States using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database.

METHODS

DATA SOURCE

The NSQIP database was utilized to address the study purpose. NSQIP is a nationwide prospective surgical registry established by the American College of Surgeons and reports data from academic and community hospitals across the United States.²⁴ Patients undertaking surgery at these centers are followed by the surgical clinical reviewers at the participating NSQIP sites prospectively for 30 days following the procedure to record complications including readmission. Preoperative and surgical data, such as demographics, medical comorbid diseases, and operative time, are also included. Previous studies have analyzed the complications of various orthopedic surgeries using the NSQIP data.^14,16,25-30

DATA COLLECTION

We retrospectively identified from NSQIP the patients who underwent primary TSA (anatomic or reverse) in 2013 to 2014. The timeframe 2013 to 2014 was used because NSQIP only began recording reasons for readmission in 2013. The inclusion criteria were as follows: Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code for TSA (23472); preoperative diagnosis according to the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes 714.0, 715.11, 715.31, 715.91, 715.21, 715.89, 716.xx 718.xx, 719.xx, 726.x, 727.xx, and 733.41 (where x is a wild card digit); and no missing demographic, comorbidity, or outcome data. Anatomic and reverse TSA were analyzed together because they share the same CPT code, and the NSQIP database prevents searching by the ICD-9 procedure code.

The rate of unplanned readmission to the hospital within 30 postoperative days was characterized. The reasons for readmission in this 30-day period were only available in 2013 and were determined using the ICD-9 diagnosis codes. Patient demographics were recorded for use in identifying potential risk factors for readmission; the demographic data included sex, age, smoking status, body mass index (BMI), and comorbidities, including end-stage renal disease, dyspnea on exertion, congestive heart failure, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Continue to: Statistical analysis...

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Statistical analyses were performed using Stata version 13.1 (StataCorp). First, using bivariate and multivariate regression, demographic and comorbidity factors were tested for independent association with readmission to the hospital within 30 days of surgery. Second, among the readmitted patients, the reasons for readmission were tabulated. Of note, the reasons for readmission were only documented for the procedures performed in 2013. All tests were 2-tailed and conducted at an α level of 0.05.

RESTULTS

A total of 3627 TSA patients were identified. The mean age (± standard deviation) was 69.4 ± 9.5 years, 55.8% of patients were female, and mean BMI was 30.1 ± 7.0 years. Table 1 provides the additional demographic data. Of the 3627 included patients, 93 (2.56%) were readmitted within 30 days of surgery. The 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of readmission reached 2.05% to 3.08%.

Table 1. Patient Population

Abbreviation: COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

In the bivariate analyses (Table 2), the following factors were positively associated readmission: older age (60-69 years, relative risk [RR] = 1.6; 70-79 years, RR = 2.2; ≥80 years, RR = 3.3; P = .011), dependent functional status (RR = 2.9, P = .008), and anemia (RR = 2.2, P < .001).

Table 2. Bivariate Analysis of Risk Factors for Readmission

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; RR, relative risk.

In the multivariate analyses (Table 3), the following factors were independent risk factors for readmission: older age (60-69 years, RR = 1.6; 70-79 years, RR = 2.3; ≥80 years, RR = 3.1; P =.027), male sex (RR = 1.6, P = .025), anemia (RR = 1.9, P = .005), and dependent functional status (RR = 2.8, P = .012). Interestingly, readmission showed no independent association with diabetes, dyspnea on exertion, BMI, COPD, hypertension, or current smoking status (P > .05 for each).

Table 3. Independent Risk Factors for Readmission on Multivariate Analysis

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; RR, relative risk.

Continue to: Table 4...

The reasons for readmission were available for 84 of the 93 readmitted patients. The most common reasons for readmission included pneumonia (14 cases, 16.7%), dislocation (7 cases, 8.3%), pulmonary embolism (7 cases, 8.3%), and surgical site infection (6 cases, 7.1%) (Table 4).

Table 4. Reasons for Readmission

DISCUSSION

Our analysis of 3042 TSAs from the NSQIP database suggests that unplanned readmission to the hospital occurs following about 1 in 40 cases of TSA. The study also suggests that the most common reasons for readmission encompass pneumonia, dislocation, pulmonary embolism, and surgical site infection. Old age, male sex, anemia, and dependent functional status serve as risk factors for readmission, and patients with such factors should be counseled and monitored accordingly.

In recent years, an increasing emphasis has centered on reducing rates of hospital readmission, with programs such as the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program of the Affordable Care Act cutting reimbursements for hospitals with high 30-day readmission rates.^17,18 To date, only a few studies have evaluated the reasons for readmission and readmission rates for TSA.^19-23 Initial reports consisted of single-institution TSA registry reviews. For example, Mahoney and colleagues²⁰ retrospectively evaluated shoulder arthroplasty procedures at their institution to document the readmission rates, finding a 5.9% readmission rate at 30 days. Readmission occurred more frequently in the first 30 days following discharge than in the 30- to 90-day period, with the most common reasons for readmission including medical complications, infection, and dislocation. Streubel and colleagues²² evaluated reoperation rates from their institution’s TSA registry, finding a 0.6% reoperation rate for primary TSA at 30 days and 1.5% for revision TSA. Instability and infection were the most common indications for reoperation. Our findings confirm these single-institution results and demonstrate their application to a nationwide sample of TSA, not just to high-volume academic centers. We similarly observed that dislocation, surgical site infection, and medical complications (mostly pneumonia and pulmonary embolism) were common causes of readmission, and that the 30-day readmission rate was about 1 in 40.

Several authors have since used statewide databases to analyze and determine risk factors for readmission following TSA. Lyman and colleagues¹⁹ used the New York State Database to show that higher hospital TSA surgical volume was associated with a lower rate of readmission when age and comorbidities were controlled for in a multivariate model. Old age was also associated with an increased readmission rate in their multivariate analysis, but comorbidities (as measured by the Charlson comorbidity index) presented a nonsignificant associative trend. These authors opted not to determine specific causes of readmission. Schairer and colleagues²¹ used State Inpatient Databases from 7 states, finding a 90-day readmission rate of 7.3%, 82% of which were due to medical complications and 18% of which were due to surgical complications (mostly infection and dislocation). Their multivariate regression revealed that male sex, reverse TSA, Medicaid insurance, patients discharged to inpatient rehabilitation or nursing facilities, medical comorbidities, and low-volume TSA hospitals were associated with readmission. Zhang and colleagues²³ used the same source to show that the 90-day readmission rate reached 14% for surgically treated proximal humerus fractures and higher for patients who underwent open reduction internal fixation, were female, were African American, were discharged to a nursing facility, possessed Medicaid insurance, or experienced medical comorbidities. Most recently, Basques and colleagues³¹ analyzed 1505 TSA cases from 2011 and 2012 in the NSQIP database, finding a 3.3% rate of readmission, with heart disease and hypertension as risk factors for readmission. Although the limitations of the NSQIP database prevented us from analyzing surgeon and hospital TSA volume or reverse vs anatomic TSA, our results confirm that the findings from statewide database studies apply to the United States nationwide NSQIP database. Old patient age, male sex, and medical comorbidities (anemia and dependent functional status) are independent risk factors for TSA readmission. We identified pneumonia, dislocation, pulmonary embolism, and surgical site infection as the most common reasons for readmission.

This study features several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. Anatomic and reverse TSA share a CPT code and were not separated using NSQIP data. A number of studies have reported that reverse TSA may place patients at higher risk for readmission;^20,21 however, confounding by other patient factors could play a role in this finding. The 30-day timeframe for readmission is another potential limitation; however, this timeframe is frequently used in other studies and is the relevant timeframe for the reduced reimbursement penalties from the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program of the Affordable Care Act.¹⁸ Furthermore, the NSQIP database contains no information on surgeon or hospital TSA volume, which is a result of safeguards for patient and provider privacy. Additionally, readmission data were only available for 2011 to 2013, with causes of readmission only present in 2013. Although provided with such current information, we cannot analyze readmission trends over time, such as in response to the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Finally, although NSQIP surgical clinical reviewers strive to identify readmissions to other hospitals during their reviews of outpatient medical records, proportions of these readmissions are possibly missed. Therefore, our 30-day readmission rate may slightly underestimate the true rate.

Despite these limitations, the NSQIP database offers a unique opportunity to examine risk factors and reasons for readmission following TSA. The prior literature on readmission following TSA stemmed either from limited samples or administrative data, which feature known limitations.³² By utilizing a large, prospective, non-administrative, nationwide sample, our findings are probably both more reliable and generalizable to the country as a whole.

CONCLUSION

Unplanned readmission occurs following about 1 in 40 cases of TSA. The most common causes of readmission include pneumonia, dislocation, pulmonary embolism, and surgical site infection. Patients with old age, male sex, anemia, and dependent functional status are at a higher risk for readmission and should be counseled and monitored accordingly.

This paper will be judged for the Resident Writer’s Award.

ABSTRACT

An increasing interest focuses on the rates and risk factors for hospital readmission. However, little is known regarding the readmission following total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). This study aims to determine the rates, risk factors, and reasons for hospital readmission following primary TSA. Patients undergoing TSA (anatomic or reverse) as part of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program in 2011 to 2013 were identified. The rate of unplanned readmission to the hospital within 30 postoperative days was characterized. Using multivariate regression, demographic and comorbidity factors were tested for independent association with readmission. Finally, the reasons for readmission were characterized. A total of 3627 patients were identified. Among the admitted patients, 93 (2.56%) were readmitted within 30 days of surgery. The independent risk factors for readmission included old age (for age 60-69 years, relative risk [RR] = 1.6; for age 70-79 years, RR = 2.3; for age ≥80 years, RR = 23.1; P = .042), male sex (RR = 1.6, P = .025), anemia (RR = 1.9, P = .005), and dependent functional status (RR = 2.8, P = .012). The reasons for readmission were available for 84 of the 93 readmitted patients. The most common reasons for readmission comprised pneumonia (14 cases, 16.7%), dislocation (7 cases, 8.3%), pulmonary embolism (7 cases, 8.3%), and surgical site infection (6 cases, 7.1%). Unplanned readmission occurs following about 1 in 40 cases of TSA. The most common causes of readmission include pneumonia, dislocation, pulmonary embolism, and surgical site infection. Patients with old age, male sex, anemia, and dependent functional status are at higher risk for readmission and should be counseled and monitored accordingly.

Continue to: Total shoulder arthroplasty...

Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is performed with increasing frequency in the United States and is considered to be cost-effective.^1-4 Following the procedure, patients generally achieve shoulder function and pain relief.^5-8 Despite the success of the procedure, the growing literature on TSA has also reported rates of complications between 3.6% and 25% of the treated patients.^9-16

In recent years, an increasing interest has focused on the rates and risk factors for unplanned hospital readmissions; these variables may not only reflect the quality of patient care but also result in considerable costs to the healthcare system. For instance, among Medicare patients, readmissions within 30 days of discharge occur in almost 20% of cases, costing $17.4 billion per year.¹⁷ Readmission rates increasingly factor into hospital performance metrics and reimbursement, including the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that reduces Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services payments to hospitals with high 30-day readmission rates.¹⁸

To date, only a few studies have evaluated readmission following TSA, with 30- to 90-day readmission rates ranging from 4.5% to 7.3%.^19-23 These studies comprised single institution series^20,22 and analyses of administrative databases.^19,21,23 Most studies have shown that readmission occurs more often for medical than surgical reasons, with surgical reasons most commonly including infection and dislocation.^19-23 However, only limited analyses have been conducted regarding risk factors for readmission.^21,23 To date and to our knowledge, no study has investigated reasons for readmission following TSA using nationwide data.

This study aims to determine the rates, risk factors, and reasons for hospital readmission following primary TSA in the United States using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database.

METHODS

DATA SOURCE

The NSQIP database was utilized to address the study purpose. NSQIP is a nationwide prospective surgical registry established by the American College of Surgeons and reports data from academic and community hospitals across the United States.²⁴ Patients undertaking surgery at these centers are followed by the surgical clinical reviewers at the participating NSQIP sites prospectively for 30 days following the procedure to record complications including readmission. Preoperative and surgical data, such as demographics, medical comorbid diseases, and operative time, are also included. Previous studies have analyzed the complications of various orthopedic surgeries using the NSQIP data.^14,16,25-30

DATA COLLECTION

We retrospectively identified from NSQIP the patients who underwent primary TSA (anatomic or reverse) in 2013 to 2014. The timeframe 2013 to 2014 was used because NSQIP only began recording reasons for readmission in 2013. The inclusion criteria were as follows: Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code for TSA (23472); preoperative diagnosis according to the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes 714.0, 715.11, 715.31, 715.91, 715.21, 715.89, 716.xx 718.xx, 719.xx, 726.x, 727.xx, and 733.41 (where x is a wild card digit); and no missing demographic, comorbidity, or outcome data. Anatomic and reverse TSA were analyzed together because they share the same CPT code, and the NSQIP database prevents searching by the ICD-9 procedure code.

The rate of unplanned readmission to the hospital within 30 postoperative days was characterized. The reasons for readmission in this 30-day period were only available in 2013 and were determined using the ICD-9 diagnosis codes. Patient demographics were recorded for use in identifying potential risk factors for readmission; the demographic data included sex, age, smoking status, body mass index (BMI), and comorbidities, including end-stage renal disease, dyspnea on exertion, congestive heart failure, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).

Continue to: Statistical analysis...

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Statistical analyses were performed using Stata version 13.1 (StataCorp). First, using bivariate and multivariate regression, demographic and comorbidity factors were tested for independent association with readmission to the hospital within 30 days of surgery. Second, among the readmitted patients, the reasons for readmission were tabulated. Of note, the reasons for readmission were only documented for the procedures performed in 2013. All tests were 2-tailed and conducted at an α level of 0.05.

RESTULTS

A total of 3627 TSA patients were identified. The mean age (± standard deviation) was 69.4 ± 9.5 years, 55.8% of patients were female, and mean BMI was 30.1 ± 7.0 years. Table 1 provides the additional demographic data. Of the 3627 included patients, 93 (2.56%) were readmitted within 30 days of surgery. The 95% confidence interval for the estimated rate of readmission reached 2.05% to 3.08%.

Table 1. Patient Population

Abbreviation: COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

In the bivariate analyses (Table 2), the following factors were positively associated readmission: older age (60-69 years, relative risk [RR] = 1.6; 70-79 years, RR = 2.2; ≥80 years, RR = 3.3; P = .011), dependent functional status (RR = 2.9, P = .008), and anemia (RR = 2.2, P < .001).

Table 2. Bivariate Analysis of Risk Factors for Readmission

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; RR, relative risk.

In the multivariate analyses (Table 3), the following factors were independent risk factors for readmission: older age (60-69 years, RR = 1.6; 70-79 years, RR = 2.3; ≥80 years, RR = 3.1; P =.027), male sex (RR = 1.6, P = .025), anemia (RR = 1.9, P = .005), and dependent functional status (RR = 2.8, P = .012). Interestingly, readmission showed no independent association with diabetes, dyspnea on exertion, BMI, COPD, hypertension, or current smoking status (P > .05 for each).

Table 3. Independent Risk Factors for Readmission on Multivariate Analysis

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; RR, relative risk.

Continue to: Table 4...

The reasons for readmission were available for 84 of the 93 readmitted patients. The most common reasons for readmission included pneumonia (14 cases, 16.7%), dislocation (7 cases, 8.3%), pulmonary embolism (7 cases, 8.3%), and surgical site infection (6 cases, 7.1%) (Table 4).

Table 4. Reasons for Readmission

DISCUSSION

Our analysis of 3042 TSAs from the NSQIP database suggests that unplanned readmission to the hospital occurs following about 1 in 40 cases of TSA. The study also suggests that the most common reasons for readmission encompass pneumonia, dislocation, pulmonary embolism, and surgical site infection. Old age, male sex, anemia, and dependent functional status serve as risk factors for readmission, and patients with such factors should be counseled and monitored accordingly.

In recent years, an increasing emphasis has centered on reducing rates of hospital readmission, with programs such as the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program of the Affordable Care Act cutting reimbursements for hospitals with high 30-day readmission rates.^17,18 To date, only a few studies have evaluated the reasons for readmission and readmission rates for TSA.^19-23 Initial reports consisted of single-institution TSA registry reviews. For example, Mahoney and colleagues²⁰ retrospectively evaluated shoulder arthroplasty procedures at their institution to document the readmission rates, finding a 5.9% readmission rate at 30 days. Readmission occurred more frequently in the first 30 days following discharge than in the 30- to 90-day period, with the most common reasons for readmission including medical complications, infection, and dislocation. Streubel and colleagues²² evaluated reoperation rates from their institution’s TSA registry, finding a 0.6% reoperation rate for primary TSA at 30 days and 1.5% for revision TSA. Instability and infection were the most common indications for reoperation. Our findings confirm these single-institution results and demonstrate their application to a nationwide sample of TSA, not just to high-volume academic centers. We similarly observed that dislocation, surgical site infection, and medical complications (mostly pneumonia and pulmonary embolism) were common causes of readmission, and that the 30-day readmission rate was about 1 in 40.

Several authors have since used statewide databases to analyze and determine risk factors for readmission following TSA. Lyman and colleagues¹⁹ used the New York State Database to show that higher hospital TSA surgical volume was associated with a lower rate of readmission when age and comorbidities were controlled for in a multivariate model. Old age was also associated with an increased readmission rate in their multivariate analysis, but comorbidities (as measured by the Charlson comorbidity index) presented a nonsignificant associative trend. These authors opted not to determine specific causes of readmission. Schairer and colleagues²¹ used State Inpatient Databases from 7 states, finding a 90-day readmission rate of 7.3%, 82% of which were due to medical complications and 18% of which were due to surgical complications (mostly infection and dislocation). Their multivariate regression revealed that male sex, reverse TSA, Medicaid insurance, patients discharged to inpatient rehabilitation or nursing facilities, medical comorbidities, and low-volume TSA hospitals were associated with readmission. Zhang and colleagues²³ used the same source to show that the 90-day readmission rate reached 14% for surgically treated proximal humerus fractures and higher for patients who underwent open reduction internal fixation, were female, were African American, were discharged to a nursing facility, possessed Medicaid insurance, or experienced medical comorbidities. Most recently, Basques and colleagues³¹ analyzed 1505 TSA cases from 2011 and 2012 in the NSQIP database, finding a 3.3% rate of readmission, with heart disease and hypertension as risk factors for readmission. Although the limitations of the NSQIP database prevented us from analyzing surgeon and hospital TSA volume or reverse vs anatomic TSA, our results confirm that the findings from statewide database studies apply to the United States nationwide NSQIP database. Old patient age, male sex, and medical comorbidities (anemia and dependent functional status) are independent risk factors for TSA readmission. We identified pneumonia, dislocation, pulmonary embolism, and surgical site infection as the most common reasons for readmission.

This study features several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. Anatomic and reverse TSA share a CPT code and were not separated using NSQIP data. A number of studies have reported that reverse TSA may place patients at higher risk for readmission;^20,21 however, confounding by other patient factors could play a role in this finding. The 30-day timeframe for readmission is another potential limitation; however, this timeframe is frequently used in other studies and is the relevant timeframe for the reduced reimbursement penalties from the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program of the Affordable Care Act.¹⁸ Furthermore, the NSQIP database contains no information on surgeon or hospital TSA volume, which is a result of safeguards for patient and provider privacy. Additionally, readmission data were only available for 2011 to 2013, with causes of readmission only present in 2013. Although provided with such current information, we cannot analyze readmission trends over time, such as in response to the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Finally, although NSQIP surgical clinical reviewers strive to identify readmissions to other hospitals during their reviews of outpatient medical records, proportions of these readmissions are possibly missed. Therefore, our 30-day readmission rate may slightly underestimate the true rate.

Despite these limitations, the NSQIP database offers a unique opportunity to examine risk factors and reasons for readmission following TSA. The prior literature on readmission following TSA stemmed either from limited samples or administrative data, which feature known limitations.³² By utilizing a large, prospective, non-administrative, nationwide sample, our findings are probably both more reliable and generalizable to the country as a whole.

CONCLUSION

Unplanned readmission occurs following about 1 in 40 cases of TSA. The most common causes of readmission include pneumonia, dislocation, pulmonary embolism, and surgical site infection. Patients with old age, male sex, anemia, and dependent functional status are at a higher risk for readmission and should be counseled and monitored accordingly.

This paper will be judged for the Resident Writer’s Award.

Take-Home Points

• TTO specifics depend on anatomy, radiographic alignment characteristics, and presence of chondral defects.
• Osteotomy and movement of the tibial tubercle can include anteriorization, anteromedialization, proximalization, medialization, or distalization.
• TTO was most commonly performed for isolated patellar instability in the presence of knee pain.
• Young women with prior surgery on the affected knee made up the primary patient population for this procedure.
• While TTO significantly improves knee pain and clinical outcome scores, >1 in 5 patients required reoperation for hardware removal.

Patellofemoral pain and patellofemoral instability are common orthopedic problems. Studies have found that 30% of patients 13 to 19 years old have patellofemoral pain and that 29 in 100,000 patients 10 to 17 years old have patellofemoral instability.^1-3 The reported rate of recurrence after nonoperative management of patellofemoral instability is 33%.⁴ Tibial tubercle osteotomy (TTO), first described by Hauser⁵ in 1938, is an effective treatment option for many patellofemoral disorders.

TTO indications include patellofemoral maltracking or malalignment, patellar instability, patellofemoral arthritis, and focal patellofemoral chondral defects.⁶ With TTO, the goal is to move the tibial tubercle in a direction that will either improve patellar tracking or offload the medial or lateral patellar facet to improve pain and function.^7,8 This action typically involves anterior, medial, lateral, or distal translation of the tibial tubercle, as posteriorization can lead to increased contact forces across the patellofemoral joint, resulting in accelerated patellofemoral wear and increased pain.⁹

We systematically reviewed the TTO literature to identify indications, clinical outcomes, complications, and reoperations. We hypothesized that the overall complication rate and the overall reoperation rate would both be <10%.

Clinical Evaluation of Patellofemoral Pathology

Patients with patellofemoral pain often report anterior knee pain, which typically begins gradually and is often activity related. Several symptoms may be present: pain with prolonged sitting with knees bent; pain on rising from a seated position; pain or crepitus with climbing stairs; and pain during repetitive activity such as running, squatting, or jumping. Location, duration, and onset of symptoms should be elicited. Patellofemoral instability can be described as dislocation events or subluxation events; number of events, mechanisms of injury, and resulting need for reduction should be documented. As age, sex, body mass index, and physical fitness are relevant to risk of recurrence, the physician should ask about general ligamentous laxity, other joint dislocations, and prior surgical intervention. Swelling or mechanical symptoms may indicate patellofemoral joint pathology.^6,10

Physical examination of patients with patellofemoral pathology begins with assessment for overall limb alignment (including resting position of patella and corresponding quadriceps angle [Q-angle]), generalized ligamentous laxity (including hypermobile joints, evaluated with Brighton criteria), overall peri-knee muscle tone and strength, effusion, and gait pattern.

Common TTO Procedures

TTO specifics depend on anatomy, radiographic alignment characteristics, and presence of chondral defects. Essentially, the patella is translated to offload the affected areas. Osteotomy and movement of the tibial tubercle can include anteriorization, anteromedialization, proximalization, medialization, or distalization.

Methods

Search Strategy and Data Collection

We searched the PubMed (Medline) database for all English-language TTO studies published between database inception and April 9, 2015. After PROSPERO registration, and following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we used the algorithm (“tibial” AND “tubercle” AND “osteotomy”) NOT (“total” AND “knee” AND “arthroplasty”) to search the literature. Inclusion criteria included level I-IV studies on TTO indications, operative findings, and outcomes. Exclusion criteria were non-English studies, unpublished studies, level V evidence, letters to the editor, editorials, review articles, basic science articles, technique articles, revision procedures, articles without clinical outcomes, and conference proceeding abstracts. Studies that reported on duplicate populations were included only with the most recent available clinical outcomes. All abstracts were reviewed in duplicate by Dr. Levy and Dr. Rao and assessed with respect to the criteria outlined. Then the same authors performed full-text reviews of eligible studies before including these studies in the systematic review.

Assessment of Study Quality

The quality of each TTO study in the review was assessed with a modified Coleman methodology score (MCMS), which ranges from 0 to 100. A study with an MCMS of <55 points is considered a poor-quality study.¹¹

Data Synthesis and Statistical Analysis

Given that most of the included studies were level IV, a formal meta-analysis was not indicated. In this article, we report categorical data as frequencies with percentages and preoperative and postoperative continuous data as means (SDs), with weighted means based on number of patients in each study, where applicable. We used 2-tailed t tests for comparisons made with the free Meta-Analysis Calculator and Grapher (http://www.healthstrategy.com/meta/meta.pl ). Statistical significance was set at P < .05. 

Results

Search Results and Included Studies

Only 1 study provided preoperative body mass index (27 kg/m2). There were 55.35% of patients who had prior surgery on the affected knee (6 studies reporting).

Preoperative Data

Preoperative pathologic, radiographic, and clinical scoring data were scarcely reported and nonuniform (Table 2). The most common pathology treated with TTO was isolated patellofemoral instability (746/1055 patients, 70.7%). The other pathologies addressed were isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis/chondromalacia patellae (143, 13.6%), patellofemoral instability with patella alta (61, 5.8%), patellofemoral instability with patellofemoral osteoarthritis (45, 4.3%), isolated patella baja (41, 3.9%), isolated patella alta (19, 1.8%), and patellofemoral osteoarthritis with patella baja (2, 0.2%). Five hundred fifty-five patients (53%) had a preoperative complaint that included knee pain, and 809 (77%) reported preoperative patellar laxity or instability events. The imaging data reported were Q-angle, Insall-Salvati ratio, Caton-Deschamps index, Blackburne-Peel ratio, Outerbridge osteoarthritis grade, and TT-TG distance. Preoperative clinical scoring data most prominently included a visual analog scale (VAS) score of 70.50 (4 studies reporting), a Lysholm score of 59.19 (5 studies), and a Kujala score of 41.16 (4 studies). Shelbourne-Trumper and Cox-Insall scores were reported in 1 and 2 studies, respectively.

Operative Characteristics

Of the 21 studies, 12 reported only on patients who had TTO performed in isolation; in the other 9 studies, cohorts included patients who underwent concurrent procedures. In the 17 studies (856 patients) that listed numbers of patients who underwent specific concomitant procedures, 715 patients (83.5%) underwent an isolated TTO procedure, and the other 141 (16.5%) underwent either concomitant lateral femoral trochleoplasty, arthroscopic drilling of chondral lesions, patellar shaving chondroplasty, partial meniscectomy or concomitant meniscal repair, intra-articular loose body removal, and/or lateral release with or without medial plication. 

Postoperative Data

There was a cumulative total of 79 complications (8% of cohort): 17 recurrent patellar dislocations (1.9%), 4 recurrent patellar subluxations (0.4%), 10 wound complications (1.0%), 2 intraoperative complications (0.2%), 14 tibial tubercle fractures (1.3%), 19 proximal tibia fractures (1.8%), 4 cases of anterior knee pain (0.4%), 4 cases of neuropraxia (0.4%), and 5 infections (0.5%). Of note, 219 knees (21%) required reoperation, but 170 (16.3%) of these were for painful hardware removal. Sixteen knees (1.5%) required revision TTO, 1 (0.1%) required subsequent high tibial osteotomy, 2 (0.2%) underwent patellofemoral arthroplasty for advanced arthritic changes, and 5 (0.5%) underwent total knee arthroplasty for advanced arthritic changes.

Studies With TTO Performed in Isolation

Twelve studies reported outcomes of isolated TTO procedures. In the 638 patients who underwent isolated TTO, the pathologies addressed were instability/laxity (429 patients, 67%), patellofemoral osteoarthritis (74, 12%), patella alta with instability (61, 10%), patellofemoral osteoarthritis with instability (31, 5%), patella baja (24, 4%), and patella alta (19, 3%). Pain was a preoperative issue in 289 (45%) of these patients and instability in 472 (74%).

Only 2.8% of patients experienced postoperative patellar dislocation events. Of the 12 studies, 2 reported VAS scores (34-point weighted mean improvement, 65 points before surgery to 31 after surgery), 3 reported Lysholm scores (30-point improvement, from 60 to 90), and 2 reported Kujala scores (21-point improvement, from 46 to 67).

Complication rates for this isolated-TTO pooled cohort of patients were 1.2% for revision TTOs, 0.5% for wound complications, 0.8% for tibial tubercle fractures, and 1.9% for proximal tibia fractures. In total, 16% of patients required hardware removal after surgery. 

Discussion

This study found that TTO improved patient pain and clinical outcome scores despite having a high (16%) rate of reoperation for painful hardware in patients with preoperative pain or instability, or with patellofemoral osteoarthritis or aberrant patellar anatomy. This reoperation rate and the overall complication rate both exceeded our hypothesized 10% cumulative rate. However, <1% of patients required conversion to a definitive end-stage surgery (patellofemoral arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty) by final follow-up, and the rates of comorbidities (anterior knee pain, wound infection, recurrent patellar subluxation/dislocation, tibial fracture) were relatively low.

Patellofemoral disorders are common in the general population and a frequent primary complaint on presentation to orthopedic offices. Having a thorough understanding of knee joint biomechanics is imperative when trying to determine whether surgery is appropriate for these complaints and how to proceed. Extensor mechanism abnormalities, including high lateral force vectors (or larger TT-TG distances) and excessive patellar tilt, can affect alignment and increase the risk for patellofemoral dislocations, patellofemoral anterior- based knee pains, and chondral lesions. Patella alta, an elevated patella, risks increased contact stresses between the patella and the trochlear groove³³ and decreases the osseous constraints that inhibit dislocation of the patella with physiologic flexion of the joint.³⁴ With TTO, the change in tuberosity position can alter angles in the extensor mechanism and thereby decrease joint reaction forces and patellofemoral contact area forces.^35,36

Although its use began as an option for combating patellar instability events in patients with predisposed patellofemoral kinematics,⁵ TTO has evolved in its therapeutic uses to include offloading patellar and trochlear focal chondral lesions and slowing progression of patellofemoral arthritis. Multiple iterations and modifications of the procedure have involved distal and medial transfer of the tibial tuberosity, medialization alone, concurrent anterior and medial elevation of the tuberosity, and proximal or distal transfers, depending on the pathology being corrected. Although TTO is highly versatile in treating multiple patellofemoral joint pathologies, this study found that its primary indication continues to be patellar instability, with anteromedialization as the most common direction of tubercle transfer in support of the medial structures providing the medial force vector that keeps the patella in place. These medial structures include the medial patellofemoral ligament, the vastus medialis obliquus, the medial patellotibial ligament, and the medial retinaculum. 

Also notable was the relatively high rate of reoperation after TTO. However, >75% of reoperations were performed to remove painful hardware, and the need for reoperation seemed to have no effect on the statistically significant overall preoperative-to-postoperative improvement in VAS, Lysholm, and Kujala scores. Rates of definitive surgery for end-stage patellofemoral changes, including patellofemoral arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty, were quite low at the weighted mean follow-up of several years after surgery, suggesting a role for TTO in avoiding arthroplasty. Although the infection rate was <1%, the rate of tibial tubercle or proximal tibia fractures was a cumulative 3.1%. Patients should be counseled on this complication risk, as treatment can require cast immobilization and weight-bearing limitations.²⁴

The 69% proportion of women in the overall cohort and the mean (SD) age of 27.68 (10.45) years highlight the primary patient population that undergoes TTO. Compared with men, young women are more likely to have aberrant patellofemoral biomechanics, owing to their native anatomy, including their relatively larger Q-angle and TT-TG distance and thus increased lateral translational force vectors on the patella.³⁷ In addition, more than half of patients who are having TTO underwent previous surgery on the affected knee—an indication that TTO is still not universally considered first-line in addressing patellofemoral pathology.

Limitations of the Analysis

The limitations of this analysis derive from the limitations of the included studies, which were mostly retrospective case series with relatively short follow-up. The low MCMS (<55) of all 21 studies highlights their low quality as well. These studies showed considerable heterogeneity in their reporting of specific preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative radiographic, physical examination, and clinical outcome scores, which may be indicative of the relatively low rate of use of TTO, a procedure originally described decades ago. These studies also showed ample heterogeneity in the specific radiographic parameters or outcome scales they used to present their data. We were therefore limited in our ability to cohesively summarize and provide cumulative data points from the patients as a unified cohort. There was substantial variety in the procedures performed, surgical techniques used, concomitant pathologies addressed at time of surgery, and diagnoses treated—indicating a performance bias. This additionally precluded any significant meta-analysis within the patient cohort. A higher quality study, a randomized controlled trial, is needed to answer more definitively and completely the questions we left unanswered, including the effect on radiographic parameters, additional clinical outcomes, and patient satisfaction.

Conclusion

TTO is most commonly performed for isolated patellar instability in the presence of knee pain. Other pathologies addressed are patellofemoral osteoarthritis, and patella alta and patella baja with and without associated knee pain. TTO significantly improves knee pain and clinical outcome scores, though 21% of patients (>1 in 5) require reoperation for hardware removal. Young women with prior surgery on the affected knee are the primary patient population.

Take-Home Points

• TTO specifics depend on anatomy, radiographic alignment characteristics, and presence of chondral defects.
• Osteotomy and movement of the tibial tubercle can include anteriorization, anteromedialization, proximalization, medialization, or distalization.
• TTO was most commonly performed for isolated patellar instability in the presence of knee pain.
• Young women with prior surgery on the affected knee made up the primary patient population for this procedure.
• While TTO significantly improves knee pain and clinical outcome scores, >1 in 5 patients required reoperation for hardware removal.

Patellofemoral pain and patellofemoral instability are common orthopedic problems. Studies have found that 30% of patients 13 to 19 years old have patellofemoral pain and that 29 in 100,000 patients 10 to 17 years old have patellofemoral instability.^1-3 The reported rate of recurrence after nonoperative management of patellofemoral instability is 33%.⁴ Tibial tubercle osteotomy (TTO), first described by Hauser⁵ in 1938, is an effective treatment option for many patellofemoral disorders.

TTO indications include patellofemoral maltracking or malalignment, patellar instability, patellofemoral arthritis, and focal patellofemoral chondral defects.⁶ With TTO, the goal is to move the tibial tubercle in a direction that will either improve patellar tracking or offload the medial or lateral patellar facet to improve pain and function.^7,8 This action typically involves anterior, medial, lateral, or distal translation of the tibial tubercle, as posteriorization can lead to increased contact forces across the patellofemoral joint, resulting in accelerated patellofemoral wear and increased pain.⁹

We systematically reviewed the TTO literature to identify indications, clinical outcomes, complications, and reoperations. We hypothesized that the overall complication rate and the overall reoperation rate would both be <10%.

Clinical Evaluation of Patellofemoral Pathology

Patients with patellofemoral pain often report anterior knee pain, which typically begins gradually and is often activity related. Several symptoms may be present: pain with prolonged sitting with knees bent; pain on rising from a seated position; pain or crepitus with climbing stairs; and pain during repetitive activity such as running, squatting, or jumping. Location, duration, and onset of symptoms should be elicited. Patellofemoral instability can be described as dislocation events or subluxation events; number of events, mechanisms of injury, and resulting need for reduction should be documented. As age, sex, body mass index, and physical fitness are relevant to risk of recurrence, the physician should ask about general ligamentous laxity, other joint dislocations, and prior surgical intervention. Swelling or mechanical symptoms may indicate patellofemoral joint pathology.^6,10

Physical examination of patients with patellofemoral pathology begins with assessment for overall limb alignment (including resting position of patella and corresponding quadriceps angle [Q-angle]), generalized ligamentous laxity (including hypermobile joints, evaluated with Brighton criteria), overall peri-knee muscle tone and strength, effusion, and gait pattern.

Common TTO Procedures

TTO specifics depend on anatomy, radiographic alignment characteristics, and presence of chondral defects. Essentially, the patella is translated to offload the affected areas. Osteotomy and movement of the tibial tubercle can include anteriorization, anteromedialization, proximalization, medialization, or distalization.

Methods

Search Strategy and Data Collection

We searched the PubMed (Medline) database for all English-language TTO studies published between database inception and April 9, 2015. After PROSPERO registration, and following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we used the algorithm (“tibial” AND “tubercle” AND “osteotomy”) NOT (“total” AND “knee” AND “arthroplasty”) to search the literature. Inclusion criteria included level I-IV studies on TTO indications, operative findings, and outcomes. Exclusion criteria were non-English studies, unpublished studies, level V evidence, letters to the editor, editorials, review articles, basic science articles, technique articles, revision procedures, articles without clinical outcomes, and conference proceeding abstracts. Studies that reported on duplicate populations were included only with the most recent available clinical outcomes. All abstracts were reviewed in duplicate by Dr. Levy and Dr. Rao and assessed with respect to the criteria outlined. Then the same authors performed full-text reviews of eligible studies before including these studies in the systematic review.

Assessment of Study Quality

The quality of each TTO study in the review was assessed with a modified Coleman methodology score (MCMS), which ranges from 0 to 100. A study with an MCMS of <55 points is considered a poor-quality study.¹¹

Data Synthesis and Statistical Analysis

Given that most of the included studies were level IV, a formal meta-analysis was not indicated. In this article, we report categorical data as frequencies with percentages and preoperative and postoperative continuous data as means (SDs), with weighted means based on number of patients in each study, where applicable. We used 2-tailed t tests for comparisons made with the free Meta-Analysis Calculator and Grapher (http://www.healthstrategy.com/meta/meta.pl ). Statistical significance was set at P < .05. 

Results

Search Results and Included Studies

Only 1 study provided preoperative body mass index (27 kg/m2). There were 55.35% of patients who had prior surgery on the affected knee (6 studies reporting).

Preoperative Data

Preoperative pathologic, radiographic, and clinical scoring data were scarcely reported and nonuniform (Table 2). The most common pathology treated with TTO was isolated patellofemoral instability (746/1055 patients, 70.7%). The other pathologies addressed were isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis/chondromalacia patellae (143, 13.6%), patellofemoral instability with patella alta (61, 5.8%), patellofemoral instability with patellofemoral osteoarthritis (45, 4.3%), isolated patella baja (41, 3.9%), isolated patella alta (19, 1.8%), and patellofemoral osteoarthritis with patella baja (2, 0.2%). Five hundred fifty-five patients (53%) had a preoperative complaint that included knee pain, and 809 (77%) reported preoperative patellar laxity or instability events. The imaging data reported were Q-angle, Insall-Salvati ratio, Caton-Deschamps index, Blackburne-Peel ratio, Outerbridge osteoarthritis grade, and TT-TG distance. Preoperative clinical scoring data most prominently included a visual analog scale (VAS) score of 70.50 (4 studies reporting), a Lysholm score of 59.19 (5 studies), and a Kujala score of 41.16 (4 studies). Shelbourne-Trumper and Cox-Insall scores were reported in 1 and 2 studies, respectively.

Operative Characteristics

Of the 21 studies, 12 reported only on patients who had TTO performed in isolation; in the other 9 studies, cohorts included patients who underwent concurrent procedures. In the 17 studies (856 patients) that listed numbers of patients who underwent specific concomitant procedures, 715 patients (83.5%) underwent an isolated TTO procedure, and the other 141 (16.5%) underwent either concomitant lateral femoral trochleoplasty, arthroscopic drilling of chondral lesions, patellar shaving chondroplasty, partial meniscectomy or concomitant meniscal repair, intra-articular loose body removal, and/or lateral release with or without medial plication. 

Postoperative Data

There was a cumulative total of 79 complications (8% of cohort): 17 recurrent patellar dislocations (1.9%), 4 recurrent patellar subluxations (0.4%), 10 wound complications (1.0%), 2 intraoperative complications (0.2%), 14 tibial tubercle fractures (1.3%), 19 proximal tibia fractures (1.8%), 4 cases of anterior knee pain (0.4%), 4 cases of neuropraxia (0.4%), and 5 infections (0.5%). Of note, 219 knees (21%) required reoperation, but 170 (16.3%) of these were for painful hardware removal. Sixteen knees (1.5%) required revision TTO, 1 (0.1%) required subsequent high tibial osteotomy, 2 (0.2%) underwent patellofemoral arthroplasty for advanced arthritic changes, and 5 (0.5%) underwent total knee arthroplasty for advanced arthritic changes.

Studies With TTO Performed in Isolation

Twelve studies reported outcomes of isolated TTO procedures. In the 638 patients who underwent isolated TTO, the pathologies addressed were instability/laxity (429 patients, 67%), patellofemoral osteoarthritis (74, 12%), patella alta with instability (61, 10%), patellofemoral osteoarthritis with instability (31, 5%), patella baja (24, 4%), and patella alta (19, 3%). Pain was a preoperative issue in 289 (45%) of these patients and instability in 472 (74%).

Only 2.8% of patients experienced postoperative patellar dislocation events. Of the 12 studies, 2 reported VAS scores (34-point weighted mean improvement, 65 points before surgery to 31 after surgery), 3 reported Lysholm scores (30-point improvement, from 60 to 90), and 2 reported Kujala scores (21-point improvement, from 46 to 67).

Complication rates for this isolated-TTO pooled cohort of patients were 1.2% for revision TTOs, 0.5% for wound complications, 0.8% for tibial tubercle fractures, and 1.9% for proximal tibia fractures. In total, 16% of patients required hardware removal after surgery. 

Discussion

This study found that TTO improved patient pain and clinical outcome scores despite having a high (16%) rate of reoperation for painful hardware in patients with preoperative pain or instability, or with patellofemoral osteoarthritis or aberrant patellar anatomy. This reoperation rate and the overall complication rate both exceeded our hypothesized 10% cumulative rate. However, <1% of patients required conversion to a definitive end-stage surgery (patellofemoral arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty) by final follow-up, and the rates of comorbidities (anterior knee pain, wound infection, recurrent patellar subluxation/dislocation, tibial fracture) were relatively low.

Patellofemoral disorders are common in the general population and a frequent primary complaint on presentation to orthopedic offices. Having a thorough understanding of knee joint biomechanics is imperative when trying to determine whether surgery is appropriate for these complaints and how to proceed. Extensor mechanism abnormalities, including high lateral force vectors (or larger TT-TG distances) and excessive patellar tilt, can affect alignment and increase the risk for patellofemoral dislocations, patellofemoral anterior- based knee pains, and chondral lesions. Patella alta, an elevated patella, risks increased contact stresses between the patella and the trochlear groove³³ and decreases the osseous constraints that inhibit dislocation of the patella with physiologic flexion of the joint.³⁴ With TTO, the change in tuberosity position can alter angles in the extensor mechanism and thereby decrease joint reaction forces and patellofemoral contact area forces.^35,36

Although its use began as an option for combating patellar instability events in patients with predisposed patellofemoral kinematics,⁵ TTO has evolved in its therapeutic uses to include offloading patellar and trochlear focal chondral lesions and slowing progression of patellofemoral arthritis. Multiple iterations and modifications of the procedure have involved distal and medial transfer of the tibial tuberosity, medialization alone, concurrent anterior and medial elevation of the tuberosity, and proximal or distal transfers, depending on the pathology being corrected. Although TTO is highly versatile in treating multiple patellofemoral joint pathologies, this study found that its primary indication continues to be patellar instability, with anteromedialization as the most common direction of tubercle transfer in support of the medial structures providing the medial force vector that keeps the patella in place. These medial structures include the medial patellofemoral ligament, the vastus medialis obliquus, the medial patellotibial ligament, and the medial retinaculum. 

Also notable was the relatively high rate of reoperation after TTO. However, >75% of reoperations were performed to remove painful hardware, and the need for reoperation seemed to have no effect on the statistically significant overall preoperative-to-postoperative improvement in VAS, Lysholm, and Kujala scores. Rates of definitive surgery for end-stage patellofemoral changes, including patellofemoral arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty, were quite low at the weighted mean follow-up of several years after surgery, suggesting a role for TTO in avoiding arthroplasty. Although the infection rate was <1%, the rate of tibial tubercle or proximal tibia fractures was a cumulative 3.1%. Patients should be counseled on this complication risk, as treatment can require cast immobilization and weight-bearing limitations.²⁴

The 69% proportion of women in the overall cohort and the mean (SD) age of 27.68 (10.45) years highlight the primary patient population that undergoes TTO. Compared with men, young women are more likely to have aberrant patellofemoral biomechanics, owing to their native anatomy, including their relatively larger Q-angle and TT-TG distance and thus increased lateral translational force vectors on the patella.³⁷ In addition, more than half of patients who are having TTO underwent previous surgery on the affected knee—an indication that TTO is still not universally considered first-line in addressing patellofemoral pathology.

Limitations of the Analysis

The limitations of this analysis derive from the limitations of the included studies, which were mostly retrospective case series with relatively short follow-up. The low MCMS (<55) of all 21 studies highlights their low quality as well. These studies showed considerable heterogeneity in their reporting of specific preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative radiographic, physical examination, and clinical outcome scores, which may be indicative of the relatively low rate of use of TTO, a procedure originally described decades ago. These studies also showed ample heterogeneity in the specific radiographic parameters or outcome scales they used to present their data. We were therefore limited in our ability to cohesively summarize and provide cumulative data points from the patients as a unified cohort. There was substantial variety in the procedures performed, surgical techniques used, concomitant pathologies addressed at time of surgery, and diagnoses treated—indicating a performance bias. This additionally precluded any significant meta-analysis within the patient cohort. A higher quality study, a randomized controlled trial, is needed to answer more definitively and completely the questions we left unanswered, including the effect on radiographic parameters, additional clinical outcomes, and patient satisfaction.

Conclusion

TTO is most commonly performed for isolated patellar instability in the presence of knee pain. Other pathologies addressed are patellofemoral osteoarthritis, and patella alta and patella baja with and without associated knee pain. TTO significantly improves knee pain and clinical outcome scores, though 21% of patients (>1 in 5) require reoperation for hardware removal. Young women with prior surgery on the affected knee are the primary patient population.

Take-Home Points

• TTO specifics depend on anatomy, radiographic alignment characteristics, and presence of chondral defects.
• Osteotomy and movement of the tibial tubercle can include anteriorization, anteromedialization, proximalization, medialization, or distalization.
• TTO was most commonly performed for isolated patellar instability in the presence of knee pain.
• Young women with prior surgery on the affected knee made up the primary patient population for this procedure.
• While TTO significantly improves knee pain and clinical outcome scores, >1 in 5 patients required reoperation for hardware removal.

Patellofemoral pain and patellofemoral instability are common orthopedic problems. Studies have found that 30% of patients 13 to 19 years old have patellofemoral pain and that 29 in 100,000 patients 10 to 17 years old have patellofemoral instability.^1-3 The reported rate of recurrence after nonoperative management of patellofemoral instability is 33%.⁴ Tibial tubercle osteotomy (TTO), first described by Hauser⁵ in 1938, is an effective treatment option for many patellofemoral disorders.

TTO indications include patellofemoral maltracking or malalignment, patellar instability, patellofemoral arthritis, and focal patellofemoral chondral defects.⁶ With TTO, the goal is to move the tibial tubercle in a direction that will either improve patellar tracking or offload the medial or lateral patellar facet to improve pain and function.^7,8 This action typically involves anterior, medial, lateral, or distal translation of the tibial tubercle, as posteriorization can lead to increased contact forces across the patellofemoral joint, resulting in accelerated patellofemoral wear and increased pain.⁹

We systematically reviewed the TTO literature to identify indications, clinical outcomes, complications, and reoperations. We hypothesized that the overall complication rate and the overall reoperation rate would both be <10%.

Clinical Evaluation of Patellofemoral Pathology

Patients with patellofemoral pain often report anterior knee pain, which typically begins gradually and is often activity related. Several symptoms may be present: pain with prolonged sitting with knees bent; pain on rising from a seated position; pain or crepitus with climbing stairs; and pain during repetitive activity such as running, squatting, or jumping. Location, duration, and onset of symptoms should be elicited. Patellofemoral instability can be described as dislocation events or subluxation events; number of events, mechanisms of injury, and resulting need for reduction should be documented. As age, sex, body mass index, and physical fitness are relevant to risk of recurrence, the physician should ask about general ligamentous laxity, other joint dislocations, and prior surgical intervention. Swelling or mechanical symptoms may indicate patellofemoral joint pathology.^6,10

Physical examination of patients with patellofemoral pathology begins with assessment for overall limb alignment (including resting position of patella and corresponding quadriceps angle [Q-angle]), generalized ligamentous laxity (including hypermobile joints, evaluated with Brighton criteria), overall peri-knee muscle tone and strength, effusion, and gait pattern.

Common TTO Procedures

TTO specifics depend on anatomy, radiographic alignment characteristics, and presence of chondral defects. Essentially, the patella is translated to offload the affected areas. Osteotomy and movement of the tibial tubercle can include anteriorization, anteromedialization, proximalization, medialization, or distalization.

Methods

Search Strategy and Data Collection

We searched the PubMed (Medline) database for all English-language TTO studies published between database inception and April 9, 2015. After PROSPERO registration, and following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, we used the algorithm (“tibial” AND “tubercle” AND “osteotomy”) NOT (“total” AND “knee” AND “arthroplasty”) to search the literature. Inclusion criteria included level I-IV studies on TTO indications, operative findings, and outcomes. Exclusion criteria were non-English studies, unpublished studies, level V evidence, letters to the editor, editorials, review articles, basic science articles, technique articles, revision procedures, articles without clinical outcomes, and conference proceeding abstracts. Studies that reported on duplicate populations were included only with the most recent available clinical outcomes. All abstracts were reviewed in duplicate by Dr. Levy and Dr. Rao and assessed with respect to the criteria outlined. Then the same authors performed full-text reviews of eligible studies before including these studies in the systematic review.

Assessment of Study Quality

The quality of each TTO study in the review was assessed with a modified Coleman methodology score (MCMS), which ranges from 0 to 100. A study with an MCMS of <55 points is considered a poor-quality study.¹¹

Data Synthesis and Statistical Analysis

Given that most of the included studies were level IV, a formal meta-analysis was not indicated. In this article, we report categorical data as frequencies with percentages and preoperative and postoperative continuous data as means (SDs), with weighted means based on number of patients in each study, where applicable. We used 2-tailed t tests for comparisons made with the free Meta-Analysis Calculator and Grapher (http://www.healthstrategy.com/meta/meta.pl ). Statistical significance was set at P < .05. 

Results

Search Results and Included Studies

Only 1 study provided preoperative body mass index (27 kg/m2). There were 55.35% of patients who had prior surgery on the affected knee (6 studies reporting).

Preoperative Data

Preoperative pathologic, radiographic, and clinical scoring data were scarcely reported and nonuniform (Table 2). The most common pathology treated with TTO was isolated patellofemoral instability (746/1055 patients, 70.7%). The other pathologies addressed were isolated patellofemoral osteoarthritis/chondromalacia patellae (143, 13.6%), patellofemoral instability with patella alta (61, 5.8%), patellofemoral instability with patellofemoral osteoarthritis (45, 4.3%), isolated patella baja (41, 3.9%), isolated patella alta (19, 1.8%), and patellofemoral osteoarthritis with patella baja (2, 0.2%). Five hundred fifty-five patients (53%) had a preoperative complaint that included knee pain, and 809 (77%) reported preoperative patellar laxity or instability events. The imaging data reported were Q-angle, Insall-Salvati ratio, Caton-Deschamps index, Blackburne-Peel ratio, Outerbridge osteoarthritis grade, and TT-TG distance. Preoperative clinical scoring data most prominently included a visual analog scale (VAS) score of 70.50 (4 studies reporting), a Lysholm score of 59.19 (5 studies), and a Kujala score of 41.16 (4 studies). Shelbourne-Trumper and Cox-Insall scores were reported in 1 and 2 studies, respectively.

Operative Characteristics

Of the 21 studies, 12 reported only on patients who had TTO performed in isolation; in the other 9 studies, cohorts included patients who underwent concurrent procedures. In the 17 studies (856 patients) that listed numbers of patients who underwent specific concomitant procedures, 715 patients (83.5%) underwent an isolated TTO procedure, and the other 141 (16.5%) underwent either concomitant lateral femoral trochleoplasty, arthroscopic drilling of chondral lesions, patellar shaving chondroplasty, partial meniscectomy or concomitant meniscal repair, intra-articular loose body removal, and/or lateral release with or without medial plication. 

Postoperative Data

There was a cumulative total of 79 complications (8% of cohort): 17 recurrent patellar dislocations (1.9%), 4 recurrent patellar subluxations (0.4%), 10 wound complications (1.0%), 2 intraoperative complications (0.2%), 14 tibial tubercle fractures (1.3%), 19 proximal tibia fractures (1.8%), 4 cases of anterior knee pain (0.4%), 4 cases of neuropraxia (0.4%), and 5 infections (0.5%). Of note, 219 knees (21%) required reoperation, but 170 (16.3%) of these were for painful hardware removal. Sixteen knees (1.5%) required revision TTO, 1 (0.1%) required subsequent high tibial osteotomy, 2 (0.2%) underwent patellofemoral arthroplasty for advanced arthritic changes, and 5 (0.5%) underwent total knee arthroplasty for advanced arthritic changes.

Studies With TTO Performed in Isolation

Twelve studies reported outcomes of isolated TTO procedures. In the 638 patients who underwent isolated TTO, the pathologies addressed were instability/laxity (429 patients, 67%), patellofemoral osteoarthritis (74, 12%), patella alta with instability (61, 10%), patellofemoral osteoarthritis with instability (31, 5%), patella baja (24, 4%), and patella alta (19, 3%). Pain was a preoperative issue in 289 (45%) of these patients and instability in 472 (74%).

Only 2.8% of patients experienced postoperative patellar dislocation events. Of the 12 studies, 2 reported VAS scores (34-point weighted mean improvement, 65 points before surgery to 31 after surgery), 3 reported Lysholm scores (30-point improvement, from 60 to 90), and 2 reported Kujala scores (21-point improvement, from 46 to 67).

Complication rates for this isolated-TTO pooled cohort of patients were 1.2% for revision TTOs, 0.5% for wound complications, 0.8% for tibial tubercle fractures, and 1.9% for proximal tibia fractures. In total, 16% of patients required hardware removal after surgery. 

Discussion

This study found that TTO improved patient pain and clinical outcome scores despite having a high (16%) rate of reoperation for painful hardware in patients with preoperative pain or instability, or with patellofemoral osteoarthritis or aberrant patellar anatomy. This reoperation rate and the overall complication rate both exceeded our hypothesized 10% cumulative rate. However, <1% of patients required conversion to a definitive end-stage surgery (patellofemoral arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty) by final follow-up, and the rates of comorbidities (anterior knee pain, wound infection, recurrent patellar subluxation/dislocation, tibial fracture) were relatively low.

Patellofemoral disorders are common in the general population and a frequent primary complaint on presentation to orthopedic offices. Having a thorough understanding of knee joint biomechanics is imperative when trying to determine whether surgery is appropriate for these complaints and how to proceed. Extensor mechanism abnormalities, including high lateral force vectors (or larger TT-TG distances) and excessive patellar tilt, can affect alignment and increase the risk for patellofemoral dislocations, patellofemoral anterior- based knee pains, and chondral lesions. Patella alta, an elevated patella, risks increased contact stresses between the patella and the trochlear groove³³ and decreases the osseous constraints that inhibit dislocation of the patella with physiologic flexion of the joint.³⁴ With TTO, the change in tuberosity position can alter angles in the extensor mechanism and thereby decrease joint reaction forces and patellofemoral contact area forces.^35,36

Although its use began as an option for combating patellar instability events in patients with predisposed patellofemoral kinematics,⁵ TTO has evolved in its therapeutic uses to include offloading patellar and trochlear focal chondral lesions and slowing progression of patellofemoral arthritis. Multiple iterations and modifications of the procedure have involved distal and medial transfer of the tibial tuberosity, medialization alone, concurrent anterior and medial elevation of the tuberosity, and proximal or distal transfers, depending on the pathology being corrected. Although TTO is highly versatile in treating multiple patellofemoral joint pathologies, this study found that its primary indication continues to be patellar instability, with anteromedialization as the most common direction of tubercle transfer in support of the medial structures providing the medial force vector that keeps the patella in place. These medial structures include the medial patellofemoral ligament, the vastus medialis obliquus, the medial patellotibial ligament, and the medial retinaculum. 

Also notable was the relatively high rate of reoperation after TTO. However, >75% of reoperations were performed to remove painful hardware, and the need for reoperation seemed to have no effect on the statistically significant overall preoperative-to-postoperative improvement in VAS, Lysholm, and Kujala scores. Rates of definitive surgery for end-stage patellofemoral changes, including patellofemoral arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty, were quite low at the weighted mean follow-up of several years after surgery, suggesting a role for TTO in avoiding arthroplasty. Although the infection rate was <1%, the rate of tibial tubercle or proximal tibia fractures was a cumulative 3.1%. Patients should be counseled on this complication risk, as treatment can require cast immobilization and weight-bearing limitations.²⁴

The 69% proportion of women in the overall cohort and the mean (SD) age of 27.68 (10.45) years highlight the primary patient population that undergoes TTO. Compared with men, young women are more likely to have aberrant patellofemoral biomechanics, owing to their native anatomy, including their relatively larger Q-angle and TT-TG distance and thus increased lateral translational force vectors on the patella.³⁷ In addition, more than half of patients who are having TTO underwent previous surgery on the affected knee—an indication that TTO is still not universally considered first-line in addressing patellofemoral pathology.

Limitations of the Analysis

The limitations of this analysis derive from the limitations of the included studies, which were mostly retrospective case series with relatively short follow-up. The low MCMS (<55) of all 21 studies highlights their low quality as well. These studies showed considerable heterogeneity in their reporting of specific preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative radiographic, physical examination, and clinical outcome scores, which may be indicative of the relatively low rate of use of TTO, a procedure originally described decades ago. These studies also showed ample heterogeneity in the specific radiographic parameters or outcome scales they used to present their data. We were therefore limited in our ability to cohesively summarize and provide cumulative data points from the patients as a unified cohort. There was substantial variety in the procedures performed, surgical techniques used, concomitant pathologies addressed at time of surgery, and diagnoses treated—indicating a performance bias. This additionally precluded any significant meta-analysis within the patient cohort. A higher quality study, a randomized controlled trial, is needed to answer more definitively and completely the questions we left unanswered, including the effect on radiographic parameters, additional clinical outcomes, and patient satisfaction.

Conclusion

TTO is most commonly performed for isolated patellar instability in the presence of knee pain. Other pathologies addressed are patellofemoral osteoarthritis, and patella alta and patella baja with and without associated knee pain. TTO significantly improves knee pain and clinical outcome scores, though 21% of patients (>1 in 5) require reoperation for hardware removal. Young women with prior surgery on the affected knee are the primary patient population.

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.