Update: This article was updated on May 19, 2021 because of previous errors, which were discovered after the preliminary version of the article was posted online. In the legend for Figure 3-A, the phrase that had read “T1-weighted coronal MRI showing a right knee” now reads “T1-weighted coronal MRI showing a left knee.” On page 924, in the section entitled “Materials and Methods,” the sentence that had read “If there was no radiographic evidence or if there was a clinical note that documented visible deformity around the knee with no reduction maneuver being performed, then the patient was classified into the non-dislocated MLKI group.” now reads “If there was no radiographic evidence or if there was no clinical note that documented visible deformity around the knee with no reduction maneuver being performed, then the patient was classified into the non-dislocated MLKI group.” On page 925, in the section entitled “Analysis,” the sentence that had read “Our study included 78 dislocated MLKIs and non-dislocated MLKIs, so both cohorts were adequately powered for the overall analysis.” now reads “Our study included 45 dislocated MLKIs and 78 non-dislocated MLKIs, so both cohorts were adequately powered for the overall analysis.” Finally, on page 927, in the section entitled “Discussion,” the sentence that had read “Interestingly, we found that MLKIs with a documented knee dislocation had a substantially higher rate of vascular injury (23%) compared with those without (3%).” now reads “Interestingly, we found that MLKIs with a documented knee dislocation had a substantially higher rate of vascular injury (18%) compared with those without (4%).” Background: The terms “knee dislocation” and “multiligamentous knee injury” (MLKI) have been used interchangeably in the literature, and MLKI without a documented knee dislocation has often been described as a knee dislocation that “spontaneously reduced.” We hypothesized that MLKI with documented tibiofemoral dislocation represents a more severe injury than MLKI without documented dislocation. We aimed to better characterize the injuries associated with documented knee dislocations versus MLKIs without evidence of tibiofemoral dislocation. Methods: A total of 124 patients who were treated for an MLKI or knee dislocation to a single level-I trauma center between January 2001 and January 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were stratified into 2 groups, those with and those without a documented knee dislocation, and 123 of 124 patients were included in the analysis (78 in the non-dislocated group and 45 in the dislocated group). Data regarding patient demographics, injury pattern, and associated neurovascular injury were collected and compared between groups. Results: Dislocated MLKIs, compared with non-dislocated MLKIs, had higher rates of peroneal nerve injury (38% versus 14%, respectively; p = 0.004), vascular injury (18% versus 4%; p = 0.018), and an increased number of medial-sided injuries (53% versus 30%; p = 0.009). There was no difference between dislocated and non-dislocated MLKIs in the number of bicruciate ligament injuries (82% versus 77%, respectively; p = 0.448), or lateral-sided injuries (73% versus 74%; p = 0.901). Conclusions: Dislocated MLKIs were found to have increased rates of neurovascular injury compared with non-dislocated MLKIs, suggesting that knee dislocation and MLKI may not be synonymous in terms of associated injuries. Not all MLKIs are the result of a knee dislocation, and thus a documented tibiofemoral dislocation is a distinct entity that carries a greater risk of neurovascular compromise. We propose that these terms not be used interchangeably as previously described, and also that a high degree of vigilance must be maintained to evaluate for potential limb-threatening neurovascular injuries in any type of MLKI. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Bone bruises are commonly seen on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in acute anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries and can provide insight into the underlying mechanism of injury. There are limited reports that have compared the bone bruise patterns between contact and noncontact mechanisms of ACL injury. Purpose: To examine and compare the number and location of bone bruises in contact and noncontact ACL injuries. Study Design: Cross-sectional study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Three hundred twenty patients who underwent ACL reconstruction surgery between 2015 and 2021 were identified. Inclusion criteria were clear documentation of the mechanism of injury and MRI within 30 days of the injury on a 3-T scanner. Patients with concomitant fractures, injuries to the posterolateral corner or posterior cruciate ligament, and/or previous ipsilateral knee injury were excluded. Patients were stratified into 2 cohorts based on a contact or noncontact mechanism. Preoperative MRI scans were retrospectively reviewed by 2 musculoskeletal radiologists for bone bruises. The number and location of the bone bruises were recorded in the coronal and sagittal planes using fat-suppressed T2-weighted images and a standardized mapping technique. Lateral and medial meniscal tears were recorded from the operative notes, while medial collateral ligament (MCL) injuries were graded on MRI. Results: A total of 220 patients were included, with 142 (64.5%) noncontact injuries and 78 (35.5%) contact injuries. There was a significantly higher frequency of men in the contact cohort compared with the noncontact cohort (69.2% vs 54.2%, P = .030), while age and body mass index were comparable between the 2 cohorts. The bivariate analysis demonstrated a significantly higher rate of combined lateral tibiofemoral (lateral femoral condyle [LFC] + lateral tibial plateau [LTP]) bone bruises (82.1% vs 48.6%, P < .001) and a lower rate of combined medial tibiofemoral (medial femoral condyle [MFC] + medial tibial plateau [MTP]) bone bruises (39.7% vs 66.2%, P < .001) in knees with contact injuries. Similarly, noncontact injuries had a significantly higher rate of centrally located MFC bone bruises (80.3% vs 61.5%, P = .003) and posteriorly located MTP bruises (66.2% vs 52.6%, P = .047). When controlling for age and sex, the multivariate logistical regression model demonstrated that knees with contact injuries were more likely to have LTP bone bruises (OR, 4.721 [95% CI, 1.147-19.433], P = .032) and less likely to have combined medial tibiofemoral (MFC + MTP) bone bruises (OR, 0.331 [95% CI, 0.144-0.762], P = .009) compared with those with noncontact injuries. Conclusion: Significantly different bone bruise patterns were observed on MRI based on ACL injury mechanism, with contact and noncontact injuries demonstrating characteristic findings in the lateral tibiofemoral and medial tibiofemoral compartments, respectively.

Background: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) is a common procedure that typically requires opioid prescription for postoperative pain management. Purpose: To investigate the current prescription patterns and factors influencing 90-day postoperative opioid prescription trends for opioid-naïve patients who underwent ARCR. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Opioid-naïve adult patients who underwent ARCR between January 2010 and September 2020 and had a record of opioid prescriptions during the 90-day postoperative period were identified in the PearlDiver Mariner91 national administrative database. Exclusions included patients with prior shoulder procedures, a history of chronic pain, and opioid prescription records dated earlier than 4 weeks before surgery. Covariates included age group, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, and prescriber specialty (orthopaedic or nonorthopaedic). The primary outcome—90-day postoperative morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) prescribed per patient—was compared using univariate and multivariate regression analyses, and 90-day postoperative opioid prescription trends over the 10-year study period were analyzed with linear regression. Results: In total, 55,345 ARCR cases were identified. The mean ± SD amount prescribed within the first 90 days was 742.4 ± 256.5 MMEs, and the median was 487.5 MMEs. Multivariate linear regression analysis predicted higher 90-day postoperative MMEs for female patients and younger patients ( P < .01 for both). From 2010 to 2020, there was a 66% decrease in mean MME prescribed per patient (▵ = 660.4 MME; P < .01), with a mean reduction of 55.1 MME per patient per year. In 2020, the mean 90-day postoperative amount prescribed was 341.1 MME, which is equivalent to 51 tablets of 5-mg oxycodone (Percocet). Conclusion: Female sex and younger age were predictors of more MME being prescribed after ARCR. While opioid prescriptions following ARCR have substantially decreased over the past decade, the amount prescribed warrants further attention.

Semaglutide (the active agent in Ozempic [Novo Nordisk, Plainsboro, NJ, USA]) has been increasingly recognized as one of the most effective medications in the management of type II diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Patients with T2DM undergoing orthopedic surgery, such as total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), may be using this medication for management of their disease. While T2DM has been associated with inferior postoperative TSA outcomes, the correlation of preoperative semaglutide use on such outcomes has never been characterized. T2DM patients undergoing TSA (anatomic or reverse) were identified from the PearlDiver M165Ortho database using administrative coding. T2DM patients who utilized semaglutide within 1 year before TSA were identified and matched 1:4 with T2DM patients who did not based on age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, end-organ diabetes complications, body mass index, tobacco, insulin, and metformin use. Incidence of 90-day adverse events were compared by univariable and multivariable analyses. After matching, there were 632 T2DM +semaglutide and 2302 T2DM −semaglutide patients. On multivariable analysis of the matched populations, T2DM +semaglutide patients had significantly lower odds of surgical site infection (odds ratio (OR) 0.25, P = .003), cardiac events (OR 0.32, P = .003), venous thromboembolism (OR 0.36, P = .001), pneumonia (OR 0.25, P < .001), urinary tract infection (OR 0.30, P < .001), acute kidney injury (OR 0.39, P < .001), and emergency department visit (OR 0.37, P < .001). The current study encouragingly found reductions in 90-day adverse outcomes following TSA for patients with T2DM using semaglutide preoperatively. Further prospective analysis is warranted as the observed findings suggest clinical benefit of semaglutide integration into preoperative optimization pathways by the studied patient population.

Background: Knee fracture-dislocations are complex injuries; however, there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes a fracture-dislocation within the Schenck Knee Dislocation (KD) V subcategory. The purpose of this study was to establish a more precise definition for fracture patterns included within the Schenck KD V subcategory. Methods: A series of clinical scenarios encompassing various fracture patterns in association with a bicruciate knee ligament injury was created by a working group of 8 surgeons. Utilizing a modified Delphi technique, 46 surgeons from 18 countries and 6 continents with clinical and academic expertise in multiligamentous knee injuries undertook 3 rounds of online surveys to establish consensus. Consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement with responses of either “strongly agree” or “agree” for a positive consensus or “strongly disagree” or “disagree” for a negative consensus. Results: There was a 100% response rate for Rounds 1 and 2 and a 96% response rate for Round 3. A total of 11 fracture patterns reached consensus for inclusion: (1) nondisplaced articular fracture of the femur; (2) displaced articular fracture of the femur; (3) tibial plateau fracture involving the weight-bearing surface (with or without tibial spine involvement); (4) tibial plateau peripheral rim compression fracture; (5) posterolateral tibial plateau compression fracture, Bernholt type IIB; (6) posterolateral tibial plateau compression fracture, Bernholt type IIIA; (7) posterolateral tibial plateau compression fracture, Bernholt type IIIB; (8) Gerdy’s tubercle avulsion fracture with weight-bearing surface involvement; (9) displaced tibial tubercle fracture; (10) displaced patellar body fracture; and (11) displaced patellar inferior pole fracture. Fourteen fracture patterns reached consensus for exclusion from the definition. Two fracture patterns failed to reach consensus for either inclusion or exclusion from the definition. Conclusions: Using a modified Delphi technique, this study established consensus for specific fracture patterns to include within or exclude from the Schenck KD V subcategory. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level V. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Multiligament knee injury (MLKI) with associated extensor mechanism (EM) involvement is a rare injury, with limited evidence to guide optimal treatment. The purpose of this study was to identify areas of consensus among a group of international experts regarding the treatment of patients with MLKI and concomitant EM injury. Methods: Utilizing a classic Delphi technique, an international group of 46 surgeons from 6 continents with expertise in MLKI undertook 3 rounds of online surveys. Participants were presented with clinical scenarios involving EM disruption in association with MLKI, classified using the Schenck Knee-Dislocation (KD) Classification. Positive consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement with responses of either “strongly agree” or “agree,” and negative consensus was defined as ≥70% agreement with “strongly disagree” or “disagree.” Results: There was a 100% response rate for rounds 1 and 2 and a 96% response rate for round 3. There was strong positive consensus (87%) that an EM injury in combination with MLKI significantly alters the treatment algorithm. For an EM injury in conjunction with a KD2, KD3M, or KD3L injury, there was positive consensus to repair the EM injury only and negative consensus regarding performing concurrent ligamentous reconstruction at the time of initial surgery. Conclusions: In the setting of bicruciate MLKI, there was overall agreement on the significant impact of EM injury on the treatment algorithm. We therefore recommend that the Schenck KD Classification be updated with the addition of the modifier suffix “-EM” to highlight this impact. Treatment of the EM injury was judged to have the highest priority, and there was consensus to treat the EM injury only. However, given the lack of clinical outcome data, treatment decisions need to be made on a case-by-case basis with consideration of the numerous clinical factors that are encountered. Clinical Relevance: Little clinical evidence exists to guide the surgeon on the management of EM injury in the setting of a multiligament injured or dislocated knee. This survey highlights the impact that EM injury has on the treatment algorithm and provides some guidance for management until a further large case series or prospective studies are undertaken.