BACKGROUND: Knee arthroscopy is one of the most common orthopaedic procedures performed in the United States. The publication of a randomized controlled trial of arthroscopy versus sham surgery by Moseley et al in 2002 showed no efficacy and challenged the role of arthroscopy for the treatment of osteoarthritis. HYPOTHESIS: (1) Knee arthroscopy for osteoarthritis has decreased after the publication of the study by Moseley et al, (2) arthroscopy as a percentage of orthopaedic cases has decreased, and (3) the average age of patients undergoing arthroscopy has decreased. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive epidemiology study. METHODS: The authors examined the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) database that includes 6-month case logs for each examinee sitting for the Part II board examination for 1999 to 2009. Knee arthroscopy cases were identified by CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) code and knee osteoarthritis diagnosis was defined by ICD-9 (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision) code. Piecewise linear regression was used to evaluate knee arthroscopy before and after the publication of the Moseley et al article in 2002. RESULTS: The number of knee arthroscopy cases for patients with osteoarthritis had greatly decreased by 2009 after peaking in 2001 (1621 vs 966 total cases, 2.36 vs 1.40 cases per surgeon). Cases classified as chondroplasty also decreased from 10.0% to 5.8% of knee arthroscopies (P < .0001). In addition, the total number of knee arthroscopy cases per surgeon decreased from a high of 11.9 in 2003 to a low of 8.6 in 2009. As expected, knee arthroscopy as a percentage of total orthopaedic cases decreased from a high of 9.9% in 2003 to 6.6% in 2009 (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Knee arthroscopy for patients with osteoarthritis among orthopaedic surgeons during their ABOS examination case collection period has decreased after the publication of a highly publicized article demonstrating a lack of efficacy of this procedure. Further study is needed to determine if this change occurred in the orthopaedic community at large or if practice patterns only changed for surgeons during their board collection periods. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Randomized controlled trials can be effective in changing orthopaedic surgeon practice.
BACKGROUND: Knee arthroscopy is one of the most common orthopaedic procedures performed in the United States. The publication of a randomized controlled trial of arthroscopy versus sham surgery by Moseley et al in 2002 showed no efficacy and challenged the role of arthroscopy for the treatment of osteoarthritis. HYPOTHESIS: (1) Knee arthroscopy for osteoarthritis has decreased after the publication of the study by Moseley et al, (2) arthroscopy as a percentage of orthopaedic cases has decreased, and (3) the average age of patients undergoing arthroscopy has decreased. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive epidemiology study. METHODS: The authors examined the American Board of Orthopaedic Surgery (ABOS) database that includes 6-month case logs for each examinee sitting for the Part II board examination for 1999 to 2009. Knee arthroscopy cases were identified by CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) code and knee osteoarthritis diagnosis was defined by ICD-9 (International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision) code. Piecewise linear regression was used to evaluate knee arthroscopy before and after the publication of the Moseley et al article in 2002. RESULTS: The number of knee arthroscopy cases for patients with osteoarthritis had greatly decreased by 2009 after peaking in 2001 (1621 vs 966 total cases, 2.36 vs 1.40 cases per surgeon). Cases classified as chondroplasty also decreased from 10.0% to 5.8% of knee arthroscopies (P < .0001). In addition, the total number of knee arthroscopy cases per surgeon decreased from a high of 11.9 in 2003 to a low of 8.6 in 2009. As expected, knee arthroscopy as a percentage of total orthopaedic cases decreased from a high of 9.9% in 2003 to 6.6% in 2009 (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Knee arthroscopy for patients with osteoarthritis among orthopaedic surgeons during their ABOS examination case collection period has decreased after the publication of a highly publicized article demonstrating a lack of efficacy of this procedure. Further study is needed to determine if this change occurred in the orthopaedic community at large or if practice patterns only changed for surgeons during their board collection periods. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Randomized controlled trials can be effective in changing orthopaedic surgeon practice.
Authors: Hermann Otto Mayr; Matthias Rueschenschmidt; Romain Seil; David Dejour; Anke Bernstein; Norbert Suedkamp; Amelie Stoehr Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2013-05-19 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Jonathan R B Hutt; Johnathan Craik; Joideep Phadnis; Andrew G Cobb Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2014-08-09 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Ian A Harris; Navdeep S Madan; Justine M Naylor; Shanley Chong; Rajat Mittal; Bin B Jalaludin Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2013-04-23 Impact factor: 2.362