BOSTON – Amid a plethora of quality research, several abstracts stood out at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, Arun J. Sanyal, MD, said during the final debrief.

He focused first on nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), which has lacked rigorous studies of disease evolution. Consequently, “current therapeutic development is based on small retrospective data sets with heterogenous populations,” Dr. Sanyal said. Therefore, he and his associates correlated serial biopsies with clinical data (abstract 37). The results confirmed the waxing and waning nature of NAFLD and linked regressing or progressive fibrosis to several factors, including NAFLD Disease Activity score (NAS). NAFLD and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) are “not two different diseases, it’s the same disease,” Dr. Sanyal said. “Establishing disease activity as a driver of disease progression is highly relevant for development of noninvasive biomarkers, and also gives us a foundation for the development of clinical trials in this space.”

BOSTON – Amid a plethora of quality research, several abstracts stood out at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, Arun J. Sanyal, MD, said during the final debrief.

He focused first on nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), which has lacked rigorous studies of disease evolution. Consequently, “current therapeutic development is based on small retrospective data sets with heterogenous populations,” Dr. Sanyal said. Therefore, he and his associates correlated serial biopsies with clinical data (abstract 37). The results confirmed the waxing and waning nature of NAFLD and linked regressing or progressive fibrosis to several factors, including NAFLD Disease Activity score (NAS). NAFLD and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) are “not two different diseases, it’s the same disease,” Dr. Sanyal said. “Establishing disease activity as a driver of disease progression is highly relevant for development of noninvasive biomarkers, and also gives us a foundation for the development of clinical trials in this space.”

BOSTON – Amid a plethora of quality research, several abstracts stood out at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, Arun J. Sanyal, MD, said during the final debrief.

He focused first on nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), which has lacked rigorous studies of disease evolution. Consequently, “current therapeutic development is based on small retrospective data sets with heterogenous populations,” Dr. Sanyal said. Therefore, he and his associates correlated serial biopsies with clinical data (abstract 37). The results confirmed the waxing and waning nature of NAFLD and linked regressing or progressive fibrosis to several factors, including NAFLD Disease Activity score (NAS). NAFLD and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) are “not two different diseases, it’s the same disease,” Dr. Sanyal said. “Establishing disease activity as a driver of disease progression is highly relevant for development of noninvasive biomarkers, and also gives us a foundation for the development of clinical trials in this space.”

Cellulite is a cosmetic problem, not a disease process. It affects 85% to 90% of all women worldwide and was described nearly 100 years ago.¹ Causes may be genetic, hormonal, or vascular in nature and may be related to the septa configuration in the subdermal tissue. Fibrosis at the dermal-subcutaneous junction as well as decreased vascular and lymphatic circulation also may be causative factors.

Cellulite has a multifactorial etiology. Khan et al² noted that there are specific classic patterns of cellulite that affect women exclusively. White women tend to have somewhat higher rates of cellulite than Asian women. The authors also stated that lifestyle factors such as high carbohydrate diets may lead to an increase in total body fat content, which enhances the appearance of cellulite.²

The subdermal anatomy affects the appearance of cellulite. Utilizing in vivo magnetic resonance imaging, Querleux et al³ showed that women with visible cellulite have dermal septa that are thinner and generally more perpendicular to the skin’s surface than women without cellulite. In women without cellulite, the orientation of the septa is more angled into a crisscross pattern. In women with a high percentage of perpendicular septa, the perpendicular septa allow for fat herniation with dimpling of the skin compared to the crisscross septa pattern.² Other investigators have discussed the reduction of blood flow in specific areas of the body in women, particularly in cellulite-prone areas such as the buttocks and thighs, as another causative factor.^2,4,5 Rossi and Vergnanini⁶ showed that the blood flow was 35% lower in affected cellulite regions than in nonaffected regions without cellulite, which can cause congestion of blood and lymphatic flow and increased subdermal pressure, thus increasing the appearance of cellulite.

Although there is some controversy regarding the effects of weight loss on the appearance of cellulite,^2,7 it appears that the subdermal septa and morphology have more of an effect on the appearance of cellulite.^2,3,8

Rossi and Vergnanini⁶ proposed a 4-grade system for evaluating the appearance of cellulite (grade I, no cellulite; grade II, skin that is smooth and without any pronounced dimpling upon standing or lying down but may show some dimpling upon pinching and strong muscle contraction; grade III, cellulite is present in upright positions but not when the patient is in a supine position; grade IV, cellulite can be seen when the patient is standing and in a supine position). Both grades III and IV can be exacerbated by maximal voluntary contraction and strong pinching of the skin because these actions cause the subcutaneous fat to move toward the surface of the skin between the septa. This grading system aligns with categories I through III described by Mirrashed et al.⁹

There are many cellulite treatments available but few actually create a reduction in the visible appearance of cellulite. A number of these treatments were reviewed by Khan et al,¹⁰ including massage; a noninvasive suction-assisted massage technique; and topical agents such as xanthine, retinols, and other botanicals.^4,11-14 Liposuction has not been shown to be effective in the treatment of cellulite and in fact may increase the appearance of cellulite.^9,15 Mesotherapy, a modality that entails injecting substances into the subcutaneous fat layer, is another treatment of cellulite. Two of the most common agents purported to dissolve fat include phosphatidylcholine and sodium deoxycholate. The efficacy and safety of mesotherapy remains controversial and unproven. A July 2008 position statement from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons stated that “low levels of validity and quality of the literature does not allow [American Society of Plastic Surgeons] to support a recommendation for the use of mesotherapy/injection lipolysis for fat reduction.”¹⁶ Other modalities such as noninvasive dual-wavelength laser/suction devices; low-energy diode laser, contact cooling, suction, and massage devices; and infrared, bipolar radiofrequency, and suction with mechanical massage devices are available and show some small improvements in the visible appearance of cellulite, but no rating scales were used in any of these studies.^17,18 DiBernardo¹⁹ utilized a 1440-nm pulsed laser to treat cellulite. It is an invasive treatment that works by breaking down some of the connective tissue septa responsible for the majority and greater severity of the dermal dimpling seen in cellulite, increasing the thickness of the dermis as well as its elasticity, reducing subcutaneous fat, and improving circulation and reducing general lymphatic congestion.¹⁹ The system showed promise but was an invasive treatment, and one session could cost $5000 to $7000 for bilateral areas and another $2500 for each additional area.²⁰ Burns²¹ expressed that the short-term results showed promise in reducing the appearance of cellulite. Noninvasive ultrasound^22,23 as well as extracorporeal shock wave therapy^24,25 also has shown some improvement in the firmness of collagen but generally not in the appearance of cellulite.

We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a noninvasive mechanical treatment of cellulite.

Methods

This study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines set forth by the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Policy for Protection of Human Research Subjects and the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki. Participants were recruited through local area medical facilities in southeastern Michigan. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to beginning the study.

Patients with grades II to IV cellulite, according to the Rossi and Vergnanini⁶ grading system, were allowed to participate. All participants in the study were asked not to make lifestyle changes (eg, exercise habits, diet) or use any other treatments for cellulite that might be available to them during the study period. Exclusion criteria included history of deep vein thrombosis, cancer diagnosed within the last year, pregnancy, hemophilia, severe lymphedema, presence of a pacemaker, epilepsy, seizure disorder, or current use of anticoagulants. History of partial or total joint replacements, acute hernia, nonunited fractures, advanced arthritis, or detached retina also excluded participation in the study.

Participants completed an 8-week, twice-weekly treatment protocol with a noninvasive mechanical device performed in clinic. The device consisted of a 10.16-cm belt with a layer of nonslip material wrapped around the belt. The belt was attached to a mechanical oscillator. We adjusted the stroke length to approximately 2 cm and moved the dermis at that length at approximately 1000 strokes per minute.

Each participant was treated for a total treatment time of 18 to 24 minutes. The total treatment area included the top of the iliac crest to just above the top of the popliteal space. The width of the belt (10.16 cm) was equal to 1 individual treatment area. Each individual treatment area was treated for 2 minutes. First the buttocks and bilateral thighs were treated, followed by the right lateral thigh and the left lateral thigh. The belt was moved progressively down the total treatment area until all individual treatment areas were addressed. The average participant had 3 to 4 bilateral thigh and buttocks treatment areas and 3 to 4 lateral treatment areas on both the left and right sides of the body.

Digital photographs were taken with standardized lighting for all participants. Photographs were taken before the first treatment on the lateral and posterior aspects of the participant and were taken again at the end of the treatment program immediately before the last treatment. Participants were asked to contract the gluteal musculature for all photographs.

Two board-certified plastic surgeons were asked to rate the before/after photographs in a blinded manner. They graded each photograph on a rating scale of 0 to 10 (0=no cellulite; 10=worst possible cellulite). These data were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test. These data were compared to the participants self-evaluation of the appearance of cellulite in the photographs from the initial and final treatments using a rating scale of 0 to 10 (0=no cellulite; 10=worst possible cellulite).

The circumference of the widest part of the gluteal area was measured before and after treatment (+/–0.5 cm). The data were analyzed using a paired t test.

Results

The study included 43 participants (age range, 21–67 years; mean age, 37.6 years; weight range, 51–97 kg; mean weight, 64.95 kg) who resided in the Midwestern United States, were interested in reducing their cellulite, and were willing to commit to treatment 2 times weekly for the duration of the 8-week study. Fourteen percent (6/43) of participants were smokers. Participant self-assessments were divided into 3 categories based on the Rossi and Vergnanini⁶ grading system: category II, n=7; category III, n=12; and category IV, n=24. Although all the categories in our analysis showed statistically significant improvements, we found that there was more improvement in category II participants versus category III, and then again more improvement in category III versus category IV. The data for each treatment were analyzed separately using a paired t test, as we were not interested in comparing categories, only the effect of the treatment. We were testing to see if the difference was greater than 0, and the paired t values were statistically significant in all cases (category II, P=.003; category III, P=.001; category IV, P=.002)(Figure 1).

Using a correlation analysis, we found that age, body weight, or body mass index were not significantly correlated with the difference between the before and after physician rating. The difference between before and after treatment also was independent of whether or not the participant exercised or had an adverse reaction to the belt. Adverse reactions to the belt were characterized by redness and/or minor raising of the skin immediately following the treatment. These reactions all dissipated within 12 hours. It also appeared that the rating scales correlated well with the participants self-perception of their cellulite and the improvements seen in the photographs (Figures 2 and 3).

Of the 2 blinded board-certified plastic surgeons, one physician rated all participants in category III as significantly improved (P<.05) and rated the other categories as marginally insignificantly improved; the second physician rated all categories as marginally insignificantly improved.

Comment

Although there are a large number of treatment protocols that have been introduced and studied for the reduction of the appearance of cellulite,^4,9,11-18 many have not shown promising long-term results. Some treatments have shown improvement in the firmness of collagen and the dermis but not in the appearance of cellulite.^22-25 One of the only treatments that has shown some promise is an expensive invasive treatment.²⁰

The system used in this study was shown to be safe in all study participants. No significant adverse reactions were noted, and each participant successfully completed the protocol. Figures 2 and 3 show the strong correlation between the treatment and the reduction in the visible appearance of cellulite in this study population, which was supported by statistical analysis, particularly the participant self-reported ratings. The participants and the blinded physicians were not in agreement on the improvement of cellulite. Although the participants knew the changes that occurred to their bodies, the physicians only had photographs from which to make their decisions. The participants clearly observed noticeable differences to their bodies, while the physicians either saw no change or some improvement.

The physicians were asked to evaluate only the cellulite, but the process we employed changed more than the cellulite. The first step in the process was a toning of the legs and buttocks, which was readily observable by the patients but was outside the scope of the physicians’ assessment. After the body toning, the cellulite began to improve. It is possible that the participants were responding to the entire process, which clearly was positive, while the physicians were responding only to the cellulite end point.

Our treatment regimen accomplished reduction of the visible appearance of cellulite by breaking down connective tissue septa as well as increasing the thickness of the dermis and its elasticity. It also helped reduce subcutaneous fat, improve circulation, and reduce general lymphatic congestion. The parallel motions of the unit could be adjusted, but we kept them at a mid-level range of motion. The motion at this frequency would have a tendency to not only heat the epidermis and dermal layer that we were attempting to affect but would also help accomplish breaking down the septa and improving the elasticity of the dermis. Also, the rapid motion over a period of time of pulling the dermis parallel to the subdermal tissue and fascia most likely helped improve the circulation and lymphatic flow in treated areas as well as possibly broke down the subcutaneous fat. All of these factors appear to have led to an improvement in the appearance of cellulite in our study participants.

A maintenance-type program, if continued, would likely demonstrate improved results by further breaking down the septa and improving the other factors that reduce the appearance of cellulite. We believe that the participants would eventually be able to discontinue the use of the unit or reduce its use substantially once the desired results were obtained.

When utilizing the device, the participants were in a standing posture and leaning into the belt with a moderate force, which seemed to secondarily improve the tone of the gluteal and thigh musculature that was being treated. It may be that the oscillatory motion and the standing posture caused the muscles to isometrically co-contract, adding a secondary exerciselike effect.^26-29

Proving our suggested mechanisms of action would require tissue biopsies and/or magnetic resonance imaging studies that were beyond the scope of this study. However, regardless of the mechanism of action, we do believe that this treatment has been shown to be effective, convenient, and most importantly safe.

Conclusion

The unique device that was utilized in our study is a safe and cost-effective method of reducing the appearance of cellulite for home use and would allow for a noninvasive, low-risk procedure.

Cellulite is a cosmetic problem, not a disease process. It affects 85% to 90% of all women worldwide and was described nearly 100 years ago.¹ Causes may be genetic, hormonal, or vascular in nature and may be related to the septa configuration in the subdermal tissue. Fibrosis at the dermal-subcutaneous junction as well as decreased vascular and lymphatic circulation also may be causative factors.

Cellulite has a multifactorial etiology. Khan et al² noted that there are specific classic patterns of cellulite that affect women exclusively. White women tend to have somewhat higher rates of cellulite than Asian women. The authors also stated that lifestyle factors such as high carbohydrate diets may lead to an increase in total body fat content, which enhances the appearance of cellulite.²

The subdermal anatomy affects the appearance of cellulite. Utilizing in vivo magnetic resonance imaging, Querleux et al³ showed that women with visible cellulite have dermal septa that are thinner and generally more perpendicular to the skin’s surface than women without cellulite. In women without cellulite, the orientation of the septa is more angled into a crisscross pattern. In women with a high percentage of perpendicular septa, the perpendicular septa allow for fat herniation with dimpling of the skin compared to the crisscross septa pattern.² Other investigators have discussed the reduction of blood flow in specific areas of the body in women, particularly in cellulite-prone areas such as the buttocks and thighs, as another causative factor.^2,4,5 Rossi and Vergnanini⁶ showed that the blood flow was 35% lower in affected cellulite regions than in nonaffected regions without cellulite, which can cause congestion of blood and lymphatic flow and increased subdermal pressure, thus increasing the appearance of cellulite.

Although there is some controversy regarding the effects of weight loss on the appearance of cellulite,^2,7 it appears that the subdermal septa and morphology have more of an effect on the appearance of cellulite.^2,3,8

Rossi and Vergnanini⁶ proposed a 4-grade system for evaluating the appearance of cellulite (grade I, no cellulite; grade II, skin that is smooth and without any pronounced dimpling upon standing or lying down but may show some dimpling upon pinching and strong muscle contraction; grade III, cellulite is present in upright positions but not when the patient is in a supine position; grade IV, cellulite can be seen when the patient is standing and in a supine position). Both grades III and IV can be exacerbated by maximal voluntary contraction and strong pinching of the skin because these actions cause the subcutaneous fat to move toward the surface of the skin between the septa. This grading system aligns with categories I through III described by Mirrashed et al.⁹

There are many cellulite treatments available but few actually create a reduction in the visible appearance of cellulite. A number of these treatments were reviewed by Khan et al,¹⁰ including massage; a noninvasive suction-assisted massage technique; and topical agents such as xanthine, retinols, and other botanicals.^4,11-14 Liposuction has not been shown to be effective in the treatment of cellulite and in fact may increase the appearance of cellulite.^9,15 Mesotherapy, a modality that entails injecting substances into the subcutaneous fat layer, is another treatment of cellulite. Two of the most common agents purported to dissolve fat include phosphatidylcholine and sodium deoxycholate. The efficacy and safety of mesotherapy remains controversial and unproven. A July 2008 position statement from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons stated that “low levels of validity and quality of the literature does not allow [American Society of Plastic Surgeons] to support a recommendation for the use of mesotherapy/injection lipolysis for fat reduction.”¹⁶ Other modalities such as noninvasive dual-wavelength laser/suction devices; low-energy diode laser, contact cooling, suction, and massage devices; and infrared, bipolar radiofrequency, and suction with mechanical massage devices are available and show some small improvements in the visible appearance of cellulite, but no rating scales were used in any of these studies.^17,18 DiBernardo¹⁹ utilized a 1440-nm pulsed laser to treat cellulite. It is an invasive treatment that works by breaking down some of the connective tissue septa responsible for the majority and greater severity of the dermal dimpling seen in cellulite, increasing the thickness of the dermis as well as its elasticity, reducing subcutaneous fat, and improving circulation and reducing general lymphatic congestion.¹⁹ The system showed promise but was an invasive treatment, and one session could cost $5000 to $7000 for bilateral areas and another $2500 for each additional area.²⁰ Burns²¹ expressed that the short-term results showed promise in reducing the appearance of cellulite. Noninvasive ultrasound^22,23 as well as extracorporeal shock wave therapy^24,25 also has shown some improvement in the firmness of collagen but generally not in the appearance of cellulite.

We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a noninvasive mechanical treatment of cellulite.

Methods

This study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines set forth by the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Policy for Protection of Human Research Subjects and the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki. Participants were recruited through local area medical facilities in southeastern Michigan. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to beginning the study.

Patients with grades II to IV cellulite, according to the Rossi and Vergnanini⁶ grading system, were allowed to participate. All participants in the study were asked not to make lifestyle changes (eg, exercise habits, diet) or use any other treatments for cellulite that might be available to them during the study period. Exclusion criteria included history of deep vein thrombosis, cancer diagnosed within the last year, pregnancy, hemophilia, severe lymphedema, presence of a pacemaker, epilepsy, seizure disorder, or current use of anticoagulants. History of partial or total joint replacements, acute hernia, nonunited fractures, advanced arthritis, or detached retina also excluded participation in the study.

Participants completed an 8-week, twice-weekly treatment protocol with a noninvasive mechanical device performed in clinic. The device consisted of a 10.16-cm belt with a layer of nonslip material wrapped around the belt. The belt was attached to a mechanical oscillator. We adjusted the stroke length to approximately 2 cm and moved the dermis at that length at approximately 1000 strokes per minute.

Each participant was treated for a total treatment time of 18 to 24 minutes. The total treatment area included the top of the iliac crest to just above the top of the popliteal space. The width of the belt (10.16 cm) was equal to 1 individual treatment area. Each individual treatment area was treated for 2 minutes. First the buttocks and bilateral thighs were treated, followed by the right lateral thigh and the left lateral thigh. The belt was moved progressively down the total treatment area until all individual treatment areas were addressed. The average participant had 3 to 4 bilateral thigh and buttocks treatment areas and 3 to 4 lateral treatment areas on both the left and right sides of the body.

Digital photographs were taken with standardized lighting for all participants. Photographs were taken before the first treatment on the lateral and posterior aspects of the participant and were taken again at the end of the treatment program immediately before the last treatment. Participants were asked to contract the gluteal musculature for all photographs.

Two board-certified plastic surgeons were asked to rate the before/after photographs in a blinded manner. They graded each photograph on a rating scale of 0 to 10 (0=no cellulite; 10=worst possible cellulite). These data were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test. These data were compared to the participants self-evaluation of the appearance of cellulite in the photographs from the initial and final treatments using a rating scale of 0 to 10 (0=no cellulite; 10=worst possible cellulite).

The circumference of the widest part of the gluteal area was measured before and after treatment (+/–0.5 cm). The data were analyzed using a paired t test.

Results

The study included 43 participants (age range, 21–67 years; mean age, 37.6 years; weight range, 51–97 kg; mean weight, 64.95 kg) who resided in the Midwestern United States, were interested in reducing their cellulite, and were willing to commit to treatment 2 times weekly for the duration of the 8-week study. Fourteen percent (6/43) of participants were smokers. Participant self-assessments were divided into 3 categories based on the Rossi and Vergnanini⁶ grading system: category II, n=7; category III, n=12; and category IV, n=24. Although all the categories in our analysis showed statistically significant improvements, we found that there was more improvement in category II participants versus category III, and then again more improvement in category III versus category IV. The data for each treatment were analyzed separately using a paired t test, as we were not interested in comparing categories, only the effect of the treatment. We were testing to see if the difference was greater than 0, and the paired t values were statistically significant in all cases (category II, P=.003; category III, P=.001; category IV, P=.002)(Figure 1).

Using a correlation analysis, we found that age, body weight, or body mass index were not significantly correlated with the difference between the before and after physician rating. The difference between before and after treatment also was independent of whether or not the participant exercised or had an adverse reaction to the belt. Adverse reactions to the belt were characterized by redness and/or minor raising of the skin immediately following the treatment. These reactions all dissipated within 12 hours. It also appeared that the rating scales correlated well with the participants self-perception of their cellulite and the improvements seen in the photographs (Figures 2 and 3).

Of the 2 blinded board-certified plastic surgeons, one physician rated all participants in category III as significantly improved (P<.05) and rated the other categories as marginally insignificantly improved; the second physician rated all categories as marginally insignificantly improved.

Comment

Although there are a large number of treatment protocols that have been introduced and studied for the reduction of the appearance of cellulite,^4,9,11-18 many have not shown promising long-term results. Some treatments have shown improvement in the firmness of collagen and the dermis but not in the appearance of cellulite.^22-25 One of the only treatments that has shown some promise is an expensive invasive treatment.²⁰

The system used in this study was shown to be safe in all study participants. No significant adverse reactions were noted, and each participant successfully completed the protocol. Figures 2 and 3 show the strong correlation between the treatment and the reduction in the visible appearance of cellulite in this study population, which was supported by statistical analysis, particularly the participant self-reported ratings. The participants and the blinded physicians were not in agreement on the improvement of cellulite. Although the participants knew the changes that occurred to their bodies, the physicians only had photographs from which to make their decisions. The participants clearly observed noticeable differences to their bodies, while the physicians either saw no change or some improvement.

The physicians were asked to evaluate only the cellulite, but the process we employed changed more than the cellulite. The first step in the process was a toning of the legs and buttocks, which was readily observable by the patients but was outside the scope of the physicians’ assessment. After the body toning, the cellulite began to improve. It is possible that the participants were responding to the entire process, which clearly was positive, while the physicians were responding only to the cellulite end point.

Our treatment regimen accomplished reduction of the visible appearance of cellulite by breaking down connective tissue septa as well as increasing the thickness of the dermis and its elasticity. It also helped reduce subcutaneous fat, improve circulation, and reduce general lymphatic congestion. The parallel motions of the unit could be adjusted, but we kept them at a mid-level range of motion. The motion at this frequency would have a tendency to not only heat the epidermis and dermal layer that we were attempting to affect but would also help accomplish breaking down the septa and improving the elasticity of the dermis. Also, the rapid motion over a period of time of pulling the dermis parallel to the subdermal tissue and fascia most likely helped improve the circulation and lymphatic flow in treated areas as well as possibly broke down the subcutaneous fat. All of these factors appear to have led to an improvement in the appearance of cellulite in our study participants.

A maintenance-type program, if continued, would likely demonstrate improved results by further breaking down the septa and improving the other factors that reduce the appearance of cellulite. We believe that the participants would eventually be able to discontinue the use of the unit or reduce its use substantially once the desired results were obtained.

When utilizing the device, the participants were in a standing posture and leaning into the belt with a moderate force, which seemed to secondarily improve the tone of the gluteal and thigh musculature that was being treated. It may be that the oscillatory motion and the standing posture caused the muscles to isometrically co-contract, adding a secondary exerciselike effect.^26-29

Proving our suggested mechanisms of action would require tissue biopsies and/or magnetic resonance imaging studies that were beyond the scope of this study. However, regardless of the mechanism of action, we do believe that this treatment has been shown to be effective, convenient, and most importantly safe.

Conclusion

The unique device that was utilized in our study is a safe and cost-effective method of reducing the appearance of cellulite for home use and would allow for a noninvasive, low-risk procedure.

Cellulite is a cosmetic problem, not a disease process. It affects 85% to 90% of all women worldwide and was described nearly 100 years ago.¹ Causes may be genetic, hormonal, or vascular in nature and may be related to the septa configuration in the subdermal tissue. Fibrosis at the dermal-subcutaneous junction as well as decreased vascular and lymphatic circulation also may be causative factors.

Cellulite has a multifactorial etiology. Khan et al² noted that there are specific classic patterns of cellulite that affect women exclusively. White women tend to have somewhat higher rates of cellulite than Asian women. The authors also stated that lifestyle factors such as high carbohydrate diets may lead to an increase in total body fat content, which enhances the appearance of cellulite.²

The subdermal anatomy affects the appearance of cellulite. Utilizing in vivo magnetic resonance imaging, Querleux et al³ showed that women with visible cellulite have dermal septa that are thinner and generally more perpendicular to the skin’s surface than women without cellulite. In women without cellulite, the orientation of the septa is more angled into a crisscross pattern. In women with a high percentage of perpendicular septa, the perpendicular septa allow for fat herniation with dimpling of the skin compared to the crisscross septa pattern.² Other investigators have discussed the reduction of blood flow in specific areas of the body in women, particularly in cellulite-prone areas such as the buttocks and thighs, as another causative factor.^2,4,5 Rossi and Vergnanini⁶ showed that the blood flow was 35% lower in affected cellulite regions than in nonaffected regions without cellulite, which can cause congestion of blood and lymphatic flow and increased subdermal pressure, thus increasing the appearance of cellulite.

Although there is some controversy regarding the effects of weight loss on the appearance of cellulite,^2,7 it appears that the subdermal septa and morphology have more of an effect on the appearance of cellulite.^2,3,8

Rossi and Vergnanini⁶ proposed a 4-grade system for evaluating the appearance of cellulite (grade I, no cellulite; grade II, skin that is smooth and without any pronounced dimpling upon standing or lying down but may show some dimpling upon pinching and strong muscle contraction; grade III, cellulite is present in upright positions but not when the patient is in a supine position; grade IV, cellulite can be seen when the patient is standing and in a supine position). Both grades III and IV can be exacerbated by maximal voluntary contraction and strong pinching of the skin because these actions cause the subcutaneous fat to move toward the surface of the skin between the septa. This grading system aligns with categories I through III described by Mirrashed et al.⁹

There are many cellulite treatments available but few actually create a reduction in the visible appearance of cellulite. A number of these treatments were reviewed by Khan et al,¹⁰ including massage; a noninvasive suction-assisted massage technique; and topical agents such as xanthine, retinols, and other botanicals.^4,11-14 Liposuction has not been shown to be effective in the treatment of cellulite and in fact may increase the appearance of cellulite.^9,15 Mesotherapy, a modality that entails injecting substances into the subcutaneous fat layer, is another treatment of cellulite. Two of the most common agents purported to dissolve fat include phosphatidylcholine and sodium deoxycholate. The efficacy and safety of mesotherapy remains controversial and unproven. A July 2008 position statement from the American Society of Plastic Surgeons stated that “low levels of validity and quality of the literature does not allow [American Society of Plastic Surgeons] to support a recommendation for the use of mesotherapy/injection lipolysis for fat reduction.”¹⁶ Other modalities such as noninvasive dual-wavelength laser/suction devices; low-energy diode laser, contact cooling, suction, and massage devices; and infrared, bipolar radiofrequency, and suction with mechanical massage devices are available and show some small improvements in the visible appearance of cellulite, but no rating scales were used in any of these studies.^17,18 DiBernardo¹⁹ utilized a 1440-nm pulsed laser to treat cellulite. It is an invasive treatment that works by breaking down some of the connective tissue septa responsible for the majority and greater severity of the dermal dimpling seen in cellulite, increasing the thickness of the dermis as well as its elasticity, reducing subcutaneous fat, and improving circulation and reducing general lymphatic congestion.¹⁹ The system showed promise but was an invasive treatment, and one session could cost $5000 to $7000 for bilateral areas and another $2500 for each additional area.²⁰ Burns²¹ expressed that the short-term results showed promise in reducing the appearance of cellulite. Noninvasive ultrasound^22,23 as well as extracorporeal shock wave therapy^24,25 also has shown some improvement in the firmness of collagen but generally not in the appearance of cellulite.

We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a noninvasive mechanical treatment of cellulite.

Methods

This study was conducted in accordance with the guidelines set forth by the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Policy for Protection of Human Research Subjects and the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki. Participants were recruited through local area medical facilities in southeastern Michigan. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to beginning the study.

Patients with grades II to IV cellulite, according to the Rossi and Vergnanini⁶ grading system, were allowed to participate. All participants in the study were asked not to make lifestyle changes (eg, exercise habits, diet) or use any other treatments for cellulite that might be available to them during the study period. Exclusion criteria included history of deep vein thrombosis, cancer diagnosed within the last year, pregnancy, hemophilia, severe lymphedema, presence of a pacemaker, epilepsy, seizure disorder, or current use of anticoagulants. History of partial or total joint replacements, acute hernia, nonunited fractures, advanced arthritis, or detached retina also excluded participation in the study.

Participants completed an 8-week, twice-weekly treatment protocol with a noninvasive mechanical device performed in clinic. The device consisted of a 10.16-cm belt with a layer of nonslip material wrapped around the belt. The belt was attached to a mechanical oscillator. We adjusted the stroke length to approximately 2 cm and moved the dermis at that length at approximately 1000 strokes per minute.

Each participant was treated for a total treatment time of 18 to 24 minutes. The total treatment area included the top of the iliac crest to just above the top of the popliteal space. The width of the belt (10.16 cm) was equal to 1 individual treatment area. Each individual treatment area was treated for 2 minutes. First the buttocks and bilateral thighs were treated, followed by the right lateral thigh and the left lateral thigh. The belt was moved progressively down the total treatment area until all individual treatment areas were addressed. The average participant had 3 to 4 bilateral thigh and buttocks treatment areas and 3 to 4 lateral treatment areas on both the left and right sides of the body.

Digital photographs were taken with standardized lighting for all participants. Photographs were taken before the first treatment on the lateral and posterior aspects of the participant and were taken again at the end of the treatment program immediately before the last treatment. Participants were asked to contract the gluteal musculature for all photographs.

Two board-certified plastic surgeons were asked to rate the before/after photographs in a blinded manner. They graded each photograph on a rating scale of 0 to 10 (0=no cellulite; 10=worst possible cellulite). These data were analyzed using a Wilcoxon signed rank test. These data were compared to the participants self-evaluation of the appearance of cellulite in the photographs from the initial and final treatments using a rating scale of 0 to 10 (0=no cellulite; 10=worst possible cellulite).

The circumference of the widest part of the gluteal area was measured before and after treatment (+/–0.5 cm). The data were analyzed using a paired t test.

Results

The study included 43 participants (age range, 21–67 years; mean age, 37.6 years; weight range, 51–97 kg; mean weight, 64.95 kg) who resided in the Midwestern United States, were interested in reducing their cellulite, and were willing to commit to treatment 2 times weekly for the duration of the 8-week study. Fourteen percent (6/43) of participants were smokers. Participant self-assessments were divided into 3 categories based on the Rossi and Vergnanini⁶ grading system: category II, n=7; category III, n=12; and category IV, n=24. Although all the categories in our analysis showed statistically significant improvements, we found that there was more improvement in category II participants versus category III, and then again more improvement in category III versus category IV. The data for each treatment were analyzed separately using a paired t test, as we were not interested in comparing categories, only the effect of the treatment. We were testing to see if the difference was greater than 0, and the paired t values were statistically significant in all cases (category II, P=.003; category III, P=.001; category IV, P=.002)(Figure 1).

Using a correlation analysis, we found that age, body weight, or body mass index were not significantly correlated with the difference between the before and after physician rating. The difference between before and after treatment also was independent of whether or not the participant exercised or had an adverse reaction to the belt. Adverse reactions to the belt were characterized by redness and/or minor raising of the skin immediately following the treatment. These reactions all dissipated within 12 hours. It also appeared that the rating scales correlated well with the participants self-perception of their cellulite and the improvements seen in the photographs (Figures 2 and 3).

Of the 2 blinded board-certified plastic surgeons, one physician rated all participants in category III as significantly improved (P<.05) and rated the other categories as marginally insignificantly improved; the second physician rated all categories as marginally insignificantly improved.

Comment

Although there are a large number of treatment protocols that have been introduced and studied for the reduction of the appearance of cellulite,^4,9,11-18 many have not shown promising long-term results. Some treatments have shown improvement in the firmness of collagen and the dermis but not in the appearance of cellulite.^22-25 One of the only treatments that has shown some promise is an expensive invasive treatment.²⁰

The system used in this study was shown to be safe in all study participants. No significant adverse reactions were noted, and each participant successfully completed the protocol. Figures 2 and 3 show the strong correlation between the treatment and the reduction in the visible appearance of cellulite in this study population, which was supported by statistical analysis, particularly the participant self-reported ratings. The participants and the blinded physicians were not in agreement on the improvement of cellulite. Although the participants knew the changes that occurred to their bodies, the physicians only had photographs from which to make their decisions. The participants clearly observed noticeable differences to their bodies, while the physicians either saw no change or some improvement.

The physicians were asked to evaluate only the cellulite, but the process we employed changed more than the cellulite. The first step in the process was a toning of the legs and buttocks, which was readily observable by the patients but was outside the scope of the physicians’ assessment. After the body toning, the cellulite began to improve. It is possible that the participants were responding to the entire process, which clearly was positive, while the physicians were responding only to the cellulite end point.

Our treatment regimen accomplished reduction of the visible appearance of cellulite by breaking down connective tissue septa as well as increasing the thickness of the dermis and its elasticity. It also helped reduce subcutaneous fat, improve circulation, and reduce general lymphatic congestion. The parallel motions of the unit could be adjusted, but we kept them at a mid-level range of motion. The motion at this frequency would have a tendency to not only heat the epidermis and dermal layer that we were attempting to affect but would also help accomplish breaking down the septa and improving the elasticity of the dermis. Also, the rapid motion over a period of time of pulling the dermis parallel to the subdermal tissue and fascia most likely helped improve the circulation and lymphatic flow in treated areas as well as possibly broke down the subcutaneous fat. All of these factors appear to have led to an improvement in the appearance of cellulite in our study participants.

A maintenance-type program, if continued, would likely demonstrate improved results by further breaking down the septa and improving the other factors that reduce the appearance of cellulite. We believe that the participants would eventually be able to discontinue the use of the unit or reduce its use substantially once the desired results were obtained.

When utilizing the device, the participants were in a standing posture and leaning into the belt with a moderate force, which seemed to secondarily improve the tone of the gluteal and thigh musculature that was being treated. It may be that the oscillatory motion and the standing posture caused the muscles to isometrically co-contract, adding a secondary exerciselike effect.^26-29

Proving our suggested mechanisms of action would require tissue biopsies and/or magnetic resonance imaging studies that were beyond the scope of this study. However, regardless of the mechanism of action, we do believe that this treatment has been shown to be effective, convenient, and most importantly safe.

Conclusion

The unique device that was utilized in our study is a safe and cost-effective method of reducing the appearance of cellulite for home use and would allow for a noninvasive, low-risk procedure.

How does psoriatic arthritis present?

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) can present in psoriasis patients with an average latency of approximately 10 years. In patients with a strong genetic predisposition, another more severe form of PsA can present earlier in life (<20 years of age). Although PsA generally is classified as a seronegative spondyloarthropathy, more than 10% of patients may in fact be rheumatoid factor-positive. Nail pitting is a feature that can suggest the possibility of PsA, present in almost 90% of patients with PsA.

Who should treat PsA?

Although involving our colleagues in rheumatology is usually beneficial for our patients, in most cases dermatologists can and should effectively manage the care of PsA. The immunology of PsA is the same as psoriasis, which contrasts with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Although active human immunodeficiency virus infection can trigger widespread psoriasis and PsA, RA conversely improves with the depletion of CD4+ cells. Methotrexate, which is used cavalierly by rheumatologists for RA, has a different effect in psoriasis; liver damage is 3 times as likely in psoriasis versus RA at the same doses, while cirrhosis without transaminitis is much more likely with psoriasis patients. Thus, a dermatologist's experience with using systemic medications to treat psoriasis is paramount in successful treatment of PsA.

What medications can we use to treat PsA?

Because halting the progression of PsA is the key to limiting long-term sequelae, systemic therapy is the mainstay of treatment. Treatment options range from methotrexate to most of the newer biologics. Acitretin tends to be ineffective. Apremilast is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors also have demonstrated efficacy in PsA trials. There are some biologics that are used for PsA but do not have an approval for psoriasis, such as certolizumab pegol.

What's new in PsA?

The literature is well established in the classic progression and presentation of PsA, but there is new evidence that the development of PsA in patients with psoriasis is preceded by a period of nonspecific musculoskeletal symptoms, such as joint pain, arthralgia, fatigue, heel pain, and stiffness (Eder et al). The presence of these symptoms may help guide focused questioning and examination.

Another recent study has shown that the incidence of Crohn disease and ulcerative colitis are more likely in patients with PsA (Zohar et al). It is another important consideration for our patients, especially with recent concerns regarding onset of inflammatory bowel disease with some of the newer biologics we may use to treat psoriasis.

As newer classes of biologic treatments emerge, it will be interesting to see how effective they are in treating PsA in addition to plaque psoriasis. We should be aggressive about treating our patients with psoriasis using systemic therapy if they develop joint pain.

Suggested Readings

Eder L, Polachek A, Rosen CF, et al. The development of PsA in patients with psoriasis is preceded by a period of non-specific musculoskeletal symptoms: a prospective cohort study [published online October 28, 2016]. Arthritis Rheumatol. doi:10.1002/art.39973.

Zohar A, Cohen AD, Bitterman H, et al. Gastrointestinal comorbidities in patients with psoriatic arthritis [published online August 17, 2016]. Clin Rheumatol. 2016;35:2679-2684.

How does psoriatic arthritis present?

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) can present in psoriasis patients with an average latency of approximately 10 years. In patients with a strong genetic predisposition, another more severe form of PsA can present earlier in life (<20 years of age). Although PsA generally is classified as a seronegative spondyloarthropathy, more than 10% of patients may in fact be rheumatoid factor-positive. Nail pitting is a feature that can suggest the possibility of PsA, present in almost 90% of patients with PsA.

Who should treat PsA?

Although involving our colleagues in rheumatology is usually beneficial for our patients, in most cases dermatologists can and should effectively manage the care of PsA. The immunology of PsA is the same as psoriasis, which contrasts with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Although active human immunodeficiency virus infection can trigger widespread psoriasis and PsA, RA conversely improves with the depletion of CD4+ cells. Methotrexate, which is used cavalierly by rheumatologists for RA, has a different effect in psoriasis; liver damage is 3 times as likely in psoriasis versus RA at the same doses, while cirrhosis without transaminitis is much more likely with psoriasis patients. Thus, a dermatologist's experience with using systemic medications to treat psoriasis is paramount in successful treatment of PsA.

What medications can we use to treat PsA?

Because halting the progression of PsA is the key to limiting long-term sequelae, systemic therapy is the mainstay of treatment. Treatment options range from methotrexate to most of the newer biologics. Acitretin tends to be ineffective. Apremilast is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors also have demonstrated efficacy in PsA trials. There are some biologics that are used for PsA but do not have an approval for psoriasis, such as certolizumab pegol.

What's new in PsA?

The literature is well established in the classic progression and presentation of PsA, but there is new evidence that the development of PsA in patients with psoriasis is preceded by a period of nonspecific musculoskeletal symptoms, such as joint pain, arthralgia, fatigue, heel pain, and stiffness (Eder et al). The presence of these symptoms may help guide focused questioning and examination.

Another recent study has shown that the incidence of Crohn disease and ulcerative colitis are more likely in patients with PsA (Zohar et al). It is another important consideration for our patients, especially with recent concerns regarding onset of inflammatory bowel disease with some of the newer biologics we may use to treat psoriasis.

As newer classes of biologic treatments emerge, it will be interesting to see how effective they are in treating PsA in addition to plaque psoriasis. We should be aggressive about treating our patients with psoriasis using systemic therapy if they develop joint pain.

Suggested Readings

Eder L, Polachek A, Rosen CF, et al. The development of PsA in patients with psoriasis is preceded by a period of non-specific musculoskeletal symptoms: a prospective cohort study [published online October 28, 2016]. Arthritis Rheumatol. doi:10.1002/art.39973.

Zohar A, Cohen AD, Bitterman H, et al. Gastrointestinal comorbidities in patients with psoriatic arthritis [published online August 17, 2016]. Clin Rheumatol. 2016;35:2679-2684.

How does psoriatic arthritis present?

Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) can present in psoriasis patients with an average latency of approximately 10 years. In patients with a strong genetic predisposition, another more severe form of PsA can present earlier in life (<20 years of age). Although PsA generally is classified as a seronegative spondyloarthropathy, more than 10% of patients may in fact be rheumatoid factor-positive. Nail pitting is a feature that can suggest the possibility of PsA, present in almost 90% of patients with PsA.

Who should treat PsA?

Although involving our colleagues in rheumatology is usually beneficial for our patients, in most cases dermatologists can and should effectively manage the care of PsA. The immunology of PsA is the same as psoriasis, which contrasts with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Although active human immunodeficiency virus infection can trigger widespread psoriasis and PsA, RA conversely improves with the depletion of CD4+ cells. Methotrexate, which is used cavalierly by rheumatologists for RA, has a different effect in psoriasis; liver damage is 3 times as likely in psoriasis versus RA at the same doses, while cirrhosis without transaminitis is much more likely with psoriasis patients. Thus, a dermatologist's experience with using systemic medications to treat psoriasis is paramount in successful treatment of PsA.

What medications can we use to treat PsA?

Because halting the progression of PsA is the key to limiting long-term sequelae, systemic therapy is the mainstay of treatment. Treatment options range from methotrexate to most of the newer biologics. Acitretin tends to be ineffective. Apremilast is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, and Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors also have demonstrated efficacy in PsA trials. There are some biologics that are used for PsA but do not have an approval for psoriasis, such as certolizumab pegol.

What's new in PsA?

The literature is well established in the classic progression and presentation of PsA, but there is new evidence that the development of PsA in patients with psoriasis is preceded by a period of nonspecific musculoskeletal symptoms, such as joint pain, arthralgia, fatigue, heel pain, and stiffness (Eder et al). The presence of these symptoms may help guide focused questioning and examination.

Another recent study has shown that the incidence of Crohn disease and ulcerative colitis are more likely in patients with PsA (Zohar et al). It is another important consideration for our patients, especially with recent concerns regarding onset of inflammatory bowel disease with some of the newer biologics we may use to treat psoriasis.

As newer classes of biologic treatments emerge, it will be interesting to see how effective they are in treating PsA in addition to plaque psoriasis. We should be aggressive about treating our patients with psoriasis using systemic therapy if they develop joint pain.

Suggested Readings

Eder L, Polachek A, Rosen CF, et al. The development of PsA in patients with psoriasis is preceded by a period of non-specific musculoskeletal symptoms: a prospective cohort study [published online October 28, 2016]. Arthritis Rheumatol. doi:10.1002/art.39973.

Zohar A, Cohen AD, Bitterman H, et al. Gastrointestinal comorbidities in patients with psoriatic arthritis [published online August 17, 2016]. Clin Rheumatol. 2016;35:2679-2684.

When you pick up the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) manual and read it, you may wonder what certain terms mean and how they may be looked at by payers and auditors. As your eyes glaze over from reading mind-numbing descriptions, a few points should be obvious, but conversations with friends, colleagues, and US Office of Inspector General and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services forensic investigators have convinced me that it is time for a refresher.

Excisions

For excisions (11400–11646), size is easy to determine. You measure the longest diameter of the lesion and the smallest margin required based on your judgment. The sum of the diameter and twice the margin is your lesion size. For benign lesions, the margin can be as small as 0 to 1 mm. For malignancies, it might be 5 to 9 mm for a melanoma in situ, 1 cm or more for an invasive melanoma with similar margins for squamous cell carcinoma, and somewhat less than 1 cm for basal cell carcinomas and more than 1 cm for Merkel cell carcinomas or spindle cell neoplasms. Unlike the shave removal codes (11300–11313), which do not involve subcutaneous tissue, an excision is at least full thickness through the dermis, which means a clever auditor would expect to see at least some fat on sections in most cases. Assuming you are through to fat, you may or may not close the wound. If you close the wound in a nonlayered manner, the repair is included and is not separately reportable. If you need to perform an intermediate layered closure (12031–12057) to get optimal function and cosmesis, the repair is separately reportable, as is a complex repair (13100–13163), which often includes wide undermining and other factors that differentiate it from an intermediate repair. If a more demanding repair is needed, you might use an adjacent tissue transfer (14000–14061), but the excision is included and not separately reportable. Skin grafts, most commonly split-thickness grafts, do not include the excision, which can be reported separately; direct closure of the graft donor site also is included.

There are times when you may delay a repair for medical reasons, which you would document in the medical record, but if you systematically delay a repair overnight to avoid the multiple procedure payment reduction, you may become “a person of interest,” which is a bad thing.

The shave removal codes (11300–11313) do not require repair and hemostasis is included. The size of the lesion determines the size of the lesion reported, and margins are not included. Hemostasis is included in the value of the CPT code and is not separately reportable.

It is not uncommon for a patient, usually one well known to you, to present with another skin cancer that has classic clinical findings. You review options with your patient and proceed to take one of the following approaches.

Option 1: You can tangentially remove or curette the tumor bulk and send the specimen for pathology review. At the same time, you curette and cauterize the base. In this case, you should hold your bill and await pathology. If the lesion is malignant, you would report the appropriate malignant destruction code (17260–17286) only. If it is benign, you would report a biopsy based on site or a benign destruction (17110) if for some reason the destruction was medically necessary. If it is an actinic keratosis, you could report either a biopsy or a premalignant destruction (17000).

Option 2: You perform a full-thickness excision of the lesion with a margin to remove it and send the specimen for pathology review. You should hold your bill and await pathology. If the lesion is malignant, you would report the appropriate malignant excision (11600–11646) and repair as discussed above. If it is benign, you would report the appropriate benign excision (11400–11446) and repair as discussed above.

If a shave, excision, or destruction is performed, a biopsy of the tissue should never be reported separately simply because the tissue may be sent to the laboratory. In other words, a biopsy is not separately reportable when another procedure was done at the same site on the same day.

Biopsy

Biopsies come in 2 varieties: general and site specific. All dermatologists are familiar with the basic skin biopsy codes 11110 and 11101 (biopsy of skin, subcutaneous tissue and/or mucous membrane [including simple closure], unless otherwise listed). Many are not aware of site-specific biopsy codes that often are more appropriate and should be used when their localization is more precise than the general skin biopsy.

Biopsies of the nail unit (eg, plate, bed, matrix, hyponychium, proximal and lateral nail folds) are reported using CPT code 11755. A simple nail clipping for culture or periodic acid–Schiff stain is not a nail biopsy and should not be separately reported from the evaluation and management component of the visit.

The lip biopsy code (40490) is used appropriately when the vermilion is sampled, not the skin around it. If the skin and vermilion are contiguously sampled, only report 40490. Specific codes exist for the vestibule of the mouth (40808), the anterior two-thirds (41100) and posterior one-third (41105) of the tongue, the floor (41108) and roof (42100) of the mouth, and the salivary glands by needle (42400) or by incision (42405).

The penis can be biopsied on the surface (54100) or deep structures can be sampled (54105), though the latter is uncommon in dermatology practices. The vulva can be sampled with codes comparable to general biopsy, with 54605 for the first biopsy and 54606 used for each additional one.

An incisional biopsy of the eyelid margin is reported with 67810, while conjunctival biopsy is reported with 68100; 68510 describes a lacrimal gland biopsy. The ear, not to be left out, has its own biopsy codes, with 69100 for the external ear and 69105 for the auditory canal.

Clipping of hair or tape stripping of skin (similar to nail clipping described above) are not biopsies and are not separately reportable, as the work involved is considered incident to the cognitive visit taking place.

Final Thoughts

These points should all be fairly straightforward—yes, the skin biopsy includes mucosa, but if a mucosal site such as the mouth has a more specific code, then that code is correct—and the simplest test for the clinician is to ask yourself, “If I were reviewing the claim, what would I expect to see?” As always, document what you do, do what you document, and report that which is medically necessary.

When you pick up the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) manual and read it, you may wonder what certain terms mean and how they may be looked at by payers and auditors. As your eyes glaze over from reading mind-numbing descriptions, a few points should be obvious, but conversations with friends, colleagues, and US Office of Inspector General and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services forensic investigators have convinced me that it is time for a refresher.

Excisions

For excisions (11400–11646), size is easy to determine. You measure the longest diameter of the lesion and the smallest margin required based on your judgment. The sum of the diameter and twice the margin is your lesion size. For benign lesions, the margin can be as small as 0 to 1 mm. For malignancies, it might be 5 to 9 mm for a melanoma in situ, 1 cm or more for an invasive melanoma with similar margins for squamous cell carcinoma, and somewhat less than 1 cm for basal cell carcinomas and more than 1 cm for Merkel cell carcinomas or spindle cell neoplasms. Unlike the shave removal codes (11300–11313), which do not involve subcutaneous tissue, an excision is at least full thickness through the dermis, which means a clever auditor would expect to see at least some fat on sections in most cases. Assuming you are through to fat, you may or may not close the wound. If you close the wound in a nonlayered manner, the repair is included and is not separately reportable. If you need to perform an intermediate layered closure (12031–12057) to get optimal function and cosmesis, the repair is separately reportable, as is a complex repair (13100–13163), which often includes wide undermining and other factors that differentiate it from an intermediate repair. If a more demanding repair is needed, you might use an adjacent tissue transfer (14000–14061), but the excision is included and not separately reportable. Skin grafts, most commonly split-thickness grafts, do not include the excision, which can be reported separately; direct closure of the graft donor site also is included.

There are times when you may delay a repair for medical reasons, which you would document in the medical record, but if you systematically delay a repair overnight to avoid the multiple procedure payment reduction, you may become “a person of interest,” which is a bad thing.

The shave removal codes (11300–11313) do not require repair and hemostasis is included. The size of the lesion determines the size of the lesion reported, and margins are not included. Hemostasis is included in the value of the CPT code and is not separately reportable.

It is not uncommon for a patient, usually one well known to you, to present with another skin cancer that has classic clinical findings. You review options with your patient and proceed to take one of the following approaches.

Option 1: You can tangentially remove or curette the tumor bulk and send the specimen for pathology review. At the same time, you curette and cauterize the base. In this case, you should hold your bill and await pathology. If the lesion is malignant, you would report the appropriate malignant destruction code (17260–17286) only. If it is benign, you would report a biopsy based on site or a benign destruction (17110) if for some reason the destruction was medically necessary. If it is an actinic keratosis, you could report either a biopsy or a premalignant destruction (17000).

Option 2: You perform a full-thickness excision of the lesion with a margin to remove it and send the specimen for pathology review. You should hold your bill and await pathology. If the lesion is malignant, you would report the appropriate malignant excision (11600–11646) and repair as discussed above. If it is benign, you would report the appropriate benign excision (11400–11446) and repair as discussed above.

If a shave, excision, or destruction is performed, a biopsy of the tissue should never be reported separately simply because the tissue may be sent to the laboratory. In other words, a biopsy is not separately reportable when another procedure was done at the same site on the same day.

Biopsy

Biopsies come in 2 varieties: general and site specific. All dermatologists are familiar with the basic skin biopsy codes 11110 and 11101 (biopsy of skin, subcutaneous tissue and/or mucous membrane [including simple closure], unless otherwise listed). Many are not aware of site-specific biopsy codes that often are more appropriate and should be used when their localization is more precise than the general skin biopsy.

Biopsies of the nail unit (eg, plate, bed, matrix, hyponychium, proximal and lateral nail folds) are reported using CPT code 11755. A simple nail clipping for culture or periodic acid–Schiff stain is not a nail biopsy and should not be separately reported from the evaluation and management component of the visit.

The lip biopsy code (40490) is used appropriately when the vermilion is sampled, not the skin around it. If the skin and vermilion are contiguously sampled, only report 40490. Specific codes exist for the vestibule of the mouth (40808), the anterior two-thirds (41100) and posterior one-third (41105) of the tongue, the floor (41108) and roof (42100) of the mouth, and the salivary glands by needle (42400) or by incision (42405).

The penis can be biopsied on the surface (54100) or deep structures can be sampled (54105), though the latter is uncommon in dermatology practices. The vulva can be sampled with codes comparable to general biopsy, with 54605 for the first biopsy and 54606 used for each additional one.

An incisional biopsy of the eyelid margin is reported with 67810, while conjunctival biopsy is reported with 68100; 68510 describes a lacrimal gland biopsy. The ear, not to be left out, has its own biopsy codes, with 69100 for the external ear and 69105 for the auditory canal.

Clipping of hair or tape stripping of skin (similar to nail clipping described above) are not biopsies and are not separately reportable, as the work involved is considered incident to the cognitive visit taking place.

Final Thoughts

These points should all be fairly straightforward—yes, the skin biopsy includes mucosa, but if a mucosal site such as the mouth has a more specific code, then that code is correct—and the simplest test for the clinician is to ask yourself, “If I were reviewing the claim, what would I expect to see?” As always, document what you do, do what you document, and report that which is medically necessary.

When you pick up the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) manual and read it, you may wonder what certain terms mean and how they may be looked at by payers and auditors. As your eyes glaze over from reading mind-numbing descriptions, a few points should be obvious, but conversations with friends, colleagues, and US Office of Inspector General and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services forensic investigators have convinced me that it is time for a refresher.

Excisions

For excisions (11400–11646), size is easy to determine. You measure the longest diameter of the lesion and the smallest margin required based on your judgment. The sum of the diameter and twice the margin is your lesion size. For benign lesions, the margin can be as small as 0 to 1 mm. For malignancies, it might be 5 to 9 mm for a melanoma in situ, 1 cm or more for an invasive melanoma with similar margins for squamous cell carcinoma, and somewhat less than 1 cm for basal cell carcinomas and more than 1 cm for Merkel cell carcinomas or spindle cell neoplasms. Unlike the shave removal codes (11300–11313), which do not involve subcutaneous tissue, an excision is at least full thickness through the dermis, which means a clever auditor would expect to see at least some fat on sections in most cases. Assuming you are through to fat, you may or may not close the wound. If you close the wound in a nonlayered manner, the repair is included and is not separately reportable. If you need to perform an intermediate layered closure (12031–12057) to get optimal function and cosmesis, the repair is separately reportable, as is a complex repair (13100–13163), which often includes wide undermining and other factors that differentiate it from an intermediate repair. If a more demanding repair is needed, you might use an adjacent tissue transfer (14000–14061), but the excision is included and not separately reportable. Skin grafts, most commonly split-thickness grafts, do not include the excision, which can be reported separately; direct closure of the graft donor site also is included.

There are times when you may delay a repair for medical reasons, which you would document in the medical record, but if you systematically delay a repair overnight to avoid the multiple procedure payment reduction, you may become “a person of interest,” which is a bad thing.

The shave removal codes (11300–11313) do not require repair and hemostasis is included. The size of the lesion determines the size of the lesion reported, and margins are not included. Hemostasis is included in the value of the CPT code and is not separately reportable.

It is not uncommon for a patient, usually one well known to you, to present with another skin cancer that has classic clinical findings. You review options with your patient and proceed to take one of the following approaches.

Option 1: You can tangentially remove or curette the tumor bulk and send the specimen for pathology review. At the same time, you curette and cauterize the base. In this case, you should hold your bill and await pathology. If the lesion is malignant, you would report the appropriate malignant destruction code (17260–17286) only. If it is benign, you would report a biopsy based on site or a benign destruction (17110) if for some reason the destruction was medically necessary. If it is an actinic keratosis, you could report either a biopsy or a premalignant destruction (17000).

Option 2: You perform a full-thickness excision of the lesion with a margin to remove it and send the specimen for pathology review. You should hold your bill and await pathology. If the lesion is malignant, you would report the appropriate malignant excision (11600–11646) and repair as discussed above. If it is benign, you would report the appropriate benign excision (11400–11446) and repair as discussed above.

If a shave, excision, or destruction is performed, a biopsy of the tissue should never be reported separately simply because the tissue may be sent to the laboratory. In other words, a biopsy is not separately reportable when another procedure was done at the same site on the same day.

Biopsy

Biopsies come in 2 varieties: general and site specific. All dermatologists are familiar with the basic skin biopsy codes 11110 and 11101 (biopsy of skin, subcutaneous tissue and/or mucous membrane [including simple closure], unless otherwise listed). Many are not aware of site-specific biopsy codes that often are more appropriate and should be used when their localization is more precise than the general skin biopsy.

Biopsies of the nail unit (eg, plate, bed, matrix, hyponychium, proximal and lateral nail folds) are reported using CPT code 11755. A simple nail clipping for culture or periodic acid–Schiff stain is not a nail biopsy and should not be separately reported from the evaluation and management component of the visit.

The lip biopsy code (40490) is used appropriately when the vermilion is sampled, not the skin around it. If the skin and vermilion are contiguously sampled, only report 40490. Specific codes exist for the vestibule of the mouth (40808), the anterior two-thirds (41100) and posterior one-third (41105) of the tongue, the floor (41108) and roof (42100) of the mouth, and the salivary glands by needle (42400) or by incision (42405).

The penis can be biopsied on the surface (54100) or deep structures can be sampled (54105), though the latter is uncommon in dermatology practices. The vulva can be sampled with codes comparable to general biopsy, with 54605 for the first biopsy and 54606 used for each additional one.

An incisional biopsy of the eyelid margin is reported with 67810, while conjunctival biopsy is reported with 68100; 68510 describes a lacrimal gland biopsy. The ear, not to be left out, has its own biopsy codes, with 69100 for the external ear and 69105 for the auditory canal.

Clipping of hair or tape stripping of skin (similar to nail clipping described above) are not biopsies and are not separately reportable, as the work involved is considered incident to the cognitive visit taking place.

Final Thoughts

These points should all be fairly straightforward—yes, the skin biopsy includes mucosa, but if a mucosal site such as the mouth has a more specific code, then that code is correct—and the simplest test for the clinician is to ask yourself, “If I were reviewing the claim, what would I expect to see?” As always, document what you do, do what you document, and report that which is medically necessary.

Despite overwhelming evidence indicating vaccines are safe and effective at preventing diseases,¹ physicians are still faced with the dilemma of convincing patients to receive their recommended vaccinations. The topic comes up regularly on television talk shows; presidential debates; or in new documentary films, such as “Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe,” which was pulled from the Tribeca Film Festival in March 2016.² The central debate over vaccines traces back almost 20 years to the study published in The Lancet regarding the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and the link to autism. Although the article was retracted in 2010 and no evidence has been found linking vaccines with autism,^1,3 vaccination coverage gaps still exist. These gaps can leave communities vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases.⁴ This lack of protection is especially glaring for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, putting health care professionals including dermatologists in the position of educating parents and guardians to have their children immunized.

More than 10 years after the federal government approved the first vaccines to fight the cancer-causing HPV, less than half of adolescent girls and only a fifth of adolescent boys are getting immunized. The reasons for the low vaccination rates are particularly complicated because they play not only into fears over vaccines but also over a perceived risk the vaccine may encourage sexual activity in adolescents, which has not been proven.⁵ Another factor is reluctance on the part of physicians to discuss the vaccine with patients and to fully embrace its lifesaving potential. A recent study showed how physicians are contributing to the low rate.⁶ “The single biggest barrier to increasing HPV vaccination is not receiving a health care provider’s recommendation,” said Harvard University researcher Melissa Gilkey.⁷

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as of 2014, only 40% of adolescent girls aged 13 to 17 years had completed the 3-dose course of the HPV vaccine and just 22% of adolescent boys,⁸ which is short of the 80% public health goal set in 2010 by the federal government.⁹ Vexingly, HPV vaccination rates lag behind the other 2 vaccines recommended in the same age group: the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis booster (88%) and the vaccine to prevent meningococcal disease (79%).⁸

Malo et al⁶ surveyed 776 primary care physicians and reported that more than a quarter of primary care respondents (27%) do not strongly endorse the HPV vaccine when talking with their patients’ families. Nearly 2 in 5 physicians (39%) did not recommend on-time HPV vaccination for their male patients compared to 26% for female patients.⁶

The starkest findings, however, related to how the physicians approached their discussions with parents and guardians. Only half recommended the vaccine the same day they discussed it, and 59% said they approached discussions by assessing the child’s risk for contracting the disease rather than consistently recommending it to all children as a routine immunization.⁶

Despite physician hesitancy, when looking at the facts there should be no debate. In December 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the 9-valent HPV (9vHPV) vaccine for males and females aged 9 to 26 years. The vaccine covers HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18, which are part of the quadrivalent HPV (qHPV) vaccine, along with HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. The 9vHPV vaccine has the potential to offer protection against 30% to 35% more high-grade cervical lesions and to increase cervical cancer prevention from approximately 70% to 90%.¹⁰ It also will protect against 90% of the virus strains responsible for causing anogenital warts. According to CDC estimates, for every year that coverage does not increase, an additional 4400 women will develop cervical cancer. If providers can push the HPV vaccination rate up to the goal rate of 80%, the CDC estimates that 53,000 cases of cervical cancer could be prevented during the lifetime of patients younger than 12 years.¹¹

In a clinical trial of 14,215 women, Joura et al¹² reported that the 9vHPV vaccine had an efficacy of 96.7% to prevent high-grade cervical, vulvar, or vaginal dysplasia related to HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 in women. Antibody responses to HPV-6, 11, 16, and 18 among participants who received the 9vHPV vaccine were noninferior to those who received the qHPV vaccine. The incidence of disease related to HPV-6, 11, 16, and 18 was similar in the 2 vaccine groups. The introduction of 9vHPV vaccination in both males and females was cost saving compared to the qHPV vaccine in cost-effectiveness analyses. Injection-site reactions were slightly more common with the 9vHPV vaccine compared to the qHPV vaccine but were generally mild with less than 0.1% of study participants discontinuing due to vaccine-related adverse events.¹²

Additionally, the vaccine has the potential to offer protection against penile, anal, vulvar, vaginal, and oropharyngeal cancers (OPCs). Data from Joura et al¹² demonstrate that 55% of anal and penile cancers biopsied in the study carried the 5 HPV types that are included only in the 9vHPV vaccine.

Studies also show that the rate of OPC caused by HPV is rising rapidly and increasing more among men than women. Remarkably, OPC is projected to become more common than cervical cancer in 2020, with an estimated 70% of OPCs being caused by HPV in the United States.¹³ Theoretically, the 9vHPV vaccine has the potential to protect against even more cases of OPC because of its even broader coverage.¹⁴

Although optimal timing for the HPV vaccine would still be in preadolescence prior to sexual activity when exposure to HPV is less likely, CDC studies have shown benefit even in older patients who may have already been exposed to 1 or more HPV strains.¹⁵

Simply put, all the combined data highlight the overwhelming importance of HPV vaccination, with the 9vHPV vaccine representing a meaningful advantage over existing HPV vaccines. As physicians, we have a duty to our patients to emphasize the importance of this vaccine. It is a vaccine that has the potential to prevent multiple cancers, cancers for which we currently have no evidence-based prevention modalities, except in the case of cervical cancer. This responsibility falls on all providers, not just primary care providers. With a strong message from providers to vaccinate age-eligible males and females, we can move the United States from among the lowest rates of HPV vaccination to the highest, with subsequent reductions in the national cancer burden to follow.

Despite overwhelming evidence indicating vaccines are safe and effective at preventing diseases,¹ physicians are still faced with the dilemma of convincing patients to receive their recommended vaccinations. The topic comes up regularly on television talk shows; presidential debates; or in new documentary films, such as “Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe,” which was pulled from the Tribeca Film Festival in March 2016.² The central debate over vaccines traces back almost 20 years to the study published in The Lancet regarding the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and the link to autism. Although the article was retracted in 2010 and no evidence has been found linking vaccines with autism,^1,3 vaccination coverage gaps still exist. These gaps can leave communities vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases.⁴ This lack of protection is especially glaring for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, putting health care professionals including dermatologists in the position of educating parents and guardians to have their children immunized.

More than 10 years after the federal government approved the first vaccines to fight the cancer-causing HPV, less than half of adolescent girls and only a fifth of adolescent boys are getting immunized. The reasons for the low vaccination rates are particularly complicated because they play not only into fears over vaccines but also over a perceived risk the vaccine may encourage sexual activity in adolescents, which has not been proven.⁵ Another factor is reluctance on the part of physicians to discuss the vaccine with patients and to fully embrace its lifesaving potential. A recent study showed how physicians are contributing to the low rate.⁶ “The single biggest barrier to increasing HPV vaccination is not receiving a health care provider’s recommendation,” said Harvard University researcher Melissa Gilkey.⁷

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as of 2014, only 40% of adolescent girls aged 13 to 17 years had completed the 3-dose course of the HPV vaccine and just 22% of adolescent boys,⁸ which is short of the 80% public health goal set in 2010 by the federal government.⁹ Vexingly, HPV vaccination rates lag behind the other 2 vaccines recommended in the same age group: the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis booster (88%) and the vaccine to prevent meningococcal disease (79%).⁸

Malo et al⁶ surveyed 776 primary care physicians and reported that more than a quarter of primary care respondents (27%) do not strongly endorse the HPV vaccine when talking with their patients’ families. Nearly 2 in 5 physicians (39%) did not recommend on-time HPV vaccination for their male patients compared to 26% for female patients.⁶

The starkest findings, however, related to how the physicians approached their discussions with parents and guardians. Only half recommended the vaccine the same day they discussed it, and 59% said they approached discussions by assessing the child’s risk for contracting the disease rather than consistently recommending it to all children as a routine immunization.⁶

Despite physician hesitancy, when looking at the facts there should be no debate. In December 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the 9-valent HPV (9vHPV) vaccine for males and females aged 9 to 26 years. The vaccine covers HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18, which are part of the quadrivalent HPV (qHPV) vaccine, along with HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. The 9vHPV vaccine has the potential to offer protection against 30% to 35% more high-grade cervical lesions and to increase cervical cancer prevention from approximately 70% to 90%.¹⁰ It also will protect against 90% of the virus strains responsible for causing anogenital warts. According to CDC estimates, for every year that coverage does not increase, an additional 4400 women will develop cervical cancer. If providers can push the HPV vaccination rate up to the goal rate of 80%, the CDC estimates that 53,000 cases of cervical cancer could be prevented during the lifetime of patients younger than 12 years.¹¹

In a clinical trial of 14,215 women, Joura et al¹² reported that the 9vHPV vaccine had an efficacy of 96.7% to prevent high-grade cervical, vulvar, or vaginal dysplasia related to HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 in women. Antibody responses to HPV-6, 11, 16, and 18 among participants who received the 9vHPV vaccine were noninferior to those who received the qHPV vaccine. The incidence of disease related to HPV-6, 11, 16, and 18 was similar in the 2 vaccine groups. The introduction of 9vHPV vaccination in both males and females was cost saving compared to the qHPV vaccine in cost-effectiveness analyses. Injection-site reactions were slightly more common with the 9vHPV vaccine compared to the qHPV vaccine but were generally mild with less than 0.1% of study participants discontinuing due to vaccine-related adverse events.¹²

Additionally, the vaccine has the potential to offer protection against penile, anal, vulvar, vaginal, and oropharyngeal cancers (OPCs). Data from Joura et al¹² demonstrate that 55% of anal and penile cancers biopsied in the study carried the 5 HPV types that are included only in the 9vHPV vaccine.

Studies also show that the rate of OPC caused by HPV is rising rapidly and increasing more among men than women. Remarkably, OPC is projected to become more common than cervical cancer in 2020, with an estimated 70% of OPCs being caused by HPV in the United States.¹³ Theoretically, the 9vHPV vaccine has the potential to protect against even more cases of OPC because of its even broader coverage.¹⁴

Although optimal timing for the HPV vaccine would still be in preadolescence prior to sexual activity when exposure to HPV is less likely, CDC studies have shown benefit even in older patients who may have already been exposed to 1 or more HPV strains.¹⁵

Simply put, all the combined data highlight the overwhelming importance of HPV vaccination, with the 9vHPV vaccine representing a meaningful advantage over existing HPV vaccines. As physicians, we have a duty to our patients to emphasize the importance of this vaccine. It is a vaccine that has the potential to prevent multiple cancers, cancers for which we currently have no evidence-based prevention modalities, except in the case of cervical cancer. This responsibility falls on all providers, not just primary care providers. With a strong message from providers to vaccinate age-eligible males and females, we can move the United States from among the lowest rates of HPV vaccination to the highest, with subsequent reductions in the national cancer burden to follow.

Despite overwhelming evidence indicating vaccines are safe and effective at preventing diseases,¹ physicians are still faced with the dilemma of convincing patients to receive their recommended vaccinations. The topic comes up regularly on television talk shows; presidential debates; or in new documentary films, such as “Vaxxed: From Cover-up to Catastrophe,” which was pulled from the Tribeca Film Festival in March 2016.² The central debate over vaccines traces back almost 20 years to the study published in The Lancet regarding the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine and the link to autism. Although the article was retracted in 2010 and no evidence has been found linking vaccines with autism,^1,3 vaccination coverage gaps still exist. These gaps can leave communities vulnerable to vaccine-preventable diseases.⁴ This lack of protection is especially glaring for the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine, putting health care professionals including dermatologists in the position of educating parents and guardians to have their children immunized.

More than 10 years after the federal government approved the first vaccines to fight the cancer-causing HPV, less than half of adolescent girls and only a fifth of adolescent boys are getting immunized. The reasons for the low vaccination rates are particularly complicated because they play not only into fears over vaccines but also over a perceived risk the vaccine may encourage sexual activity in adolescents, which has not been proven.⁵ Another factor is reluctance on the part of physicians to discuss the vaccine with patients and to fully embrace its lifesaving potential. A recent study showed how physicians are contributing to the low rate.⁶ “The single biggest barrier to increasing HPV vaccination is not receiving a health care provider’s recommendation,” said Harvard University researcher Melissa Gilkey.⁷

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as of 2014, only 40% of adolescent girls aged 13 to 17 years had completed the 3-dose course of the HPV vaccine and just 22% of adolescent boys,⁸ which is short of the 80% public health goal set in 2010 by the federal government.⁹ Vexingly, HPV vaccination rates lag behind the other 2 vaccines recommended in the same age group: the tetanus-diphtheria-acellular pertussis booster (88%) and the vaccine to prevent meningococcal disease (79%).⁸

Malo et al⁶ surveyed 776 primary care physicians and reported that more than a quarter of primary care respondents (27%) do not strongly endorse the HPV vaccine when talking with their patients’ families. Nearly 2 in 5 physicians (39%) did not recommend on-time HPV vaccination for their male patients compared to 26% for female patients.⁶

The starkest findings, however, related to how the physicians approached their discussions with parents and guardians. Only half recommended the vaccine the same day they discussed it, and 59% said they approached discussions by assessing the child’s risk for contracting the disease rather than consistently recommending it to all children as a routine immunization.⁶

Despite physician hesitancy, when looking at the facts there should be no debate. In December 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration approved the 9-valent HPV (9vHPV) vaccine for males and females aged 9 to 26 years. The vaccine covers HPV types 6, 11, 16, and 18, which are part of the quadrivalent HPV (qHPV) vaccine, along with HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58. The 9vHPV vaccine has the potential to offer protection against 30% to 35% more high-grade cervical lesions and to increase cervical cancer prevention from approximately 70% to 90%.¹⁰ It also will protect against 90% of the virus strains responsible for causing anogenital warts. According to CDC estimates, for every year that coverage does not increase, an additional 4400 women will develop cervical cancer. If providers can push the HPV vaccination rate up to the goal rate of 80%, the CDC estimates that 53,000 cases of cervical cancer could be prevented during the lifetime of patients younger than 12 years.¹¹

In a clinical trial of 14,215 women, Joura et al¹² reported that the 9vHPV vaccine had an efficacy of 96.7% to prevent high-grade cervical, vulvar, or vaginal dysplasia related to HPV types 31, 33, 45, 52, and 58 in women. Antibody responses to HPV-6, 11, 16, and 18 among participants who received the 9vHPV vaccine were noninferior to those who received the qHPV vaccine. The incidence of disease related to HPV-6, 11, 16, and 18 was similar in the 2 vaccine groups. The introduction of 9vHPV vaccination in both males and females was cost saving compared to the qHPV vaccine in cost-effectiveness analyses. Injection-site reactions were slightly more common with the 9vHPV vaccine compared to the qHPV vaccine but were generally mild with less than 0.1% of study participants discontinuing due to vaccine-related adverse events.¹²

Additionally, the vaccine has the potential to offer protection against penile, anal, vulvar, vaginal, and oropharyngeal cancers (OPCs). Data from Joura et al¹² demonstrate that 55% of anal and penile cancers biopsied in the study carried the 5 HPV types that are included only in the 9vHPV vaccine.

Studies also show that the rate of OPC caused by HPV is rising rapidly and increasing more among men than women. Remarkably, OPC is projected to become more common than cervical cancer in 2020, with an estimated 70% of OPCs being caused by HPV in the United States.¹³ Theoretically, the 9vHPV vaccine has the potential to protect against even more cases of OPC because of its even broader coverage.¹⁴

Although optimal timing for the HPV vaccine would still be in preadolescence prior to sexual activity when exposure to HPV is less likely, CDC studies have shown benefit even in older patients who may have already been exposed to 1 or more HPV strains.¹⁵

Simply put, all the combined data highlight the overwhelming importance of HPV vaccination, with the 9vHPV vaccine representing a meaningful advantage over existing HPV vaccines. As physicians, we have a duty to our patients to emphasize the importance of this vaccine. It is a vaccine that has the potential to prevent multiple cancers, cancers for which we currently have no evidence-based prevention modalities, except in the case of cervical cancer. This responsibility falls on all providers, not just primary care providers. With a strong message from providers to vaccinate age-eligible males and females, we can move the United States from among the lowest rates of HPV vaccination to the highest, with subsequent reductions in the national cancer burden to follow.

VIENNA – A once-weekly oral antifungal drug known as VT-1161 will move into phase III clinical testing in 2017 based on its impressive performance in an interim analysis of a phase IIb study, Amir Tavakkol, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“We saw robust evidence of clinical and mycologic efficacy in patients with moderate to severe onychomycosis. This was true even in patients with nails considered very difficult to treat because of dermatophytomas and spikes, which are usually poor prognostic elements,” said Dr. Tavakkol, chief development officer at Viamet Pharmaceuticals in Durham, N.C., which is developing VT-1161.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]
 

VIENNA – A once-weekly oral antifungal drug known as VT-1161 will move into phase III clinical testing in 2017 based on its impressive performance in an interim analysis of a phase IIb study, Amir Tavakkol, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“We saw robust evidence of clinical and mycologic efficacy in patients with moderate to severe onychomycosis. This was true even in patients with nails considered very difficult to treat because of dermatophytomas and spikes, which are usually poor prognostic elements,” said Dr. Tavakkol, chief development officer at Viamet Pharmaceuticals in Durham, N.C., which is developing VT-1161.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]
 

VIENNA – A once-weekly oral antifungal drug known as VT-1161 will move into phase III clinical testing in 2017 based on its impressive performance in an interim analysis of a phase IIb study, Amir Tavakkol, PhD, reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“We saw robust evidence of clinical and mycologic efficacy in patients with moderate to severe onychomycosis. This was true even in patients with nails considered very difficult to treat because of dermatophytomas and spikes, which are usually poor prognostic elements,” said Dr. Tavakkol, chief development officer at Viamet Pharmaceuticals in Durham, N.C., which is developing VT-1161.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]
 

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – For patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, intravesicular administration of an oncolytic virus was both feasible and safe, and in a small study was associated with at least one complete tumor response, investigators reported.

Instillation into the bladder of coxsackievirus A21 (CVA21; Cavatak), alone or in combination with low-dose mitomycin C, was associated with increases in immune cell filtrates and ramped-up expression of the programmed death-1 ligand (PD-L1) in the tumor microenvironment, reported Nicola Annels, PhD, a research fellow at the University of Surrey in England.

Neil Osterweil/Frontline Medical News

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – For patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, intravesicular administration of an oncolytic virus was both feasible and safe, and in a small study was associated with at least one complete tumor response, investigators reported.

Instillation into the bladder of coxsackievirus A21 (CVA21; Cavatak), alone or in combination with low-dose mitomycin C, was associated with increases in immune cell filtrates and ramped-up expression of the programmed death-1 ligand (PD-L1) in the tumor microenvironment, reported Nicola Annels, PhD, a research fellow at the University of Surrey in England.

Neil Osterweil/Frontline Medical News

NATIONAL HARBOR, MD – For patients with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, intravesicular administration of an oncolytic virus was both feasible and safe, and in a small study was associated with at least one complete tumor response, investigators reported.

Instillation into the bladder of coxsackievirus A21 (CVA21; Cavatak), alone or in combination with low-dose mitomycin C, was associated with increases in immune cell filtrates and ramped-up expression of the programmed death-1 ligand (PD-L1) in the tumor microenvironment, reported Nicola Annels, PhD, a research fellow at the University of Surrey in England.

Neil Osterweil/Frontline Medical News

Prioritize bone health, as osteoporotic fracture is a major source of morbidity and mortality among women. In this article: fracture risk with OC use in perimenopause, data that inform calcium’s role in cardiovascular disease, sarcopenia management, and an emerging treatment.

Most women’s health care providers are aware of recent changes and controversies regarding cervical cancer screening, mammography frequency, and whether a pelvic bimanual exam should be part of our annual well woman evaluation.¹ However, I believe one of the most important things we as clinicians can do is be frontline in promoting bone health. Osteoporotic fracture is a major source of morbidity and mortality.^2,3 Thus, promoting the maintenance of bone health is a priority in my own practice. It is also one of my many academic interests.

What follows is an update on bone health. In past years, this update has been entitled, “Update on osteoporosis,” but what we are trying to accomplish is fracture reduction. Thus, priorities for bone health consist of recognition of risk, lifestyle and dietary counseling, as well as the use of pharmacologic agents when appropriate. Certain research stands out as informative for your practice:

• a recent study on the risk of fracture with oral contraceptive (OC) use in perimenopause
• 3 just-published studies that inform our understanding of calcium’s role in cardiovascular health
• a review on sarcopenia management
• new data on romosozumab.

Oral contraceptive use in perimenopause

Scholes D, LaCroix AZ, Hubbard RA, et al. Oral contraceptive use and fracture risk around the menopausal transition. Menopause. 2016;23(2):166-174.

The use of OCs in women of older reproductive age has increased ever since the cutoff age of 35 years was eliminated.⁴ Lower doses have continued to be utilized in these "older" women with excellent control of irregular bleeding due to ovulatory dysfunction (and reduction in psychosocial symptoms as well).⁵

The effect of OC use on risk of fracture remains unclear, and use during later reproductive life may be increasing. To determine the association between OC use during later reproductive life and risk of fracture across the menopausal transition, Scholes and colleagues conducted a population-based case-controlled study in a Pacific Northwest HMO, Group Health Cooperative.

Details of the study

Scholes and colleagues enrolled 1,204 case women aged 45 to 59 years with incident fractures, and 2,275 control women. Potential cases with fracture codes in automated data were adjudicated by electronic health record review. Potential control women without fracture codes were selected concurrently, sampling based on age. Participants received a structured study interview. Using logistic regression, associations between OC use and fracture risk were calculated as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Participation was 69% for cases and 64% for controls. The study sample was 82% white; mean age was 54 years. The most common fracture site for cases was the wrist/forearm (32%). Adjusted fracture risk did not differ between cases and controls for OC use:

• in the 10 years before menopause (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74-1.11)
• after age 38 years (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78-1.14)
• over the duration, or
• for other OC exposures.

Related article:
2016 Update on female sexual dysfunction

Association between fractures and OC use near menopause

The current study does not show an association between fractures near the menopausal transition and OC use in the decade before menopause or after age 38 years. For women considering OC use at these times, fracture risk does not seem to be either reduced or increased.

These results, looking at fracture, seem to be further supported by trials conducted by Gambacciani and colleagues,6 in which researchers randomly assigned irregularly cycling perimenopausal women (aged 40-49 years) to 20 &#956;g ethinyl estradiol OCs or calcium/placebo. Results showed that this low-dose OC use significantly increased bone density at the femoral neck, spine, and other sites relative to control women after 24 months. 

In the current Scholes study, the use of OCs in the decade before menopause or after age 38 did not reduce fracture risk in the years around the time of menopause. It is reassuring that their use was not associated with any increased fracture risk.

Calcium and calcium supplements: The data continue to grow

Anderson JJ, Kruszka B, Delaney JA, et al. Calcium intake from diet and supplements and the risk of coronary artery calcification and its progression among older adults: 10-year follow-up of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) [published online ahead of print October 11, 2016]. J Am Heart Assoc. pii: e003815.

Billington EO, Bristow SM, Gamble GD, et al. Acute effects of calcium supplements on blood pressure: randomised, crossover trial in postmenopausal women [published online ahead of print August 20, 2016]. Osteoporos Int. doi:10.1007/s00198-016-3744-y.

Crandall CJ, Aragaki AK, LeBoff MS, et al. Calcium plus vitamin D supplementation and height loss: findings from the Women's Health Initiative Calcium and Vitamin D clinical trial [published online ahead of print August 1, 2016]. Menopause. doi:10.1097 /GME.0000000000000704.

In 2001, a National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Development Panel on osteoporosis concluded that calcium intake is crucial to maintain bone mass and should be maintained at 1,000-1,500 mg/day in older adults. The panel acknowledged that the majority of older adults did not meet the recommended intake from dietary sources alone, and therefore would require calcium supplementation. Calcium supplements are one of the most commonly used dietary supplements, and population-based surveys have shown that they are used by the majority of older men and women in the United States.⁷ 

More recently results from large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of calcium supplements have been reported, leading to concerns about calcium efficacy for fracture risk and safety. Bolland and colleagues⁸ reported that calcium supplements increased the rate of cardiovascular events in healthy older women and suggested that their role in osteoporosis management be reconsidered. More recently, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended against calcium supplements for the primary prevention of fractures in noninstitutionalized postmenopausal women.⁹ 

The association between calcium intake and CVD events

Anderson and colleagues acknowledged that recent randomized data suggest that calcium supplements may be associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. Using a longitudinal cohort study, they assessed the association between calcium intake, from both foods and supplements, and atherosclerosis, as measured by coronary artery calcification (CAC).

Details of the study by Anderson and colleagues
The authors studied 5,448 adults free of clinically diagnosed CVD (52% female; age range, 45-84 years) from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Baseline total calcium intake was assessed from diet (using a food frequency questionnaire) and calcium supplements (by a medication inventory) and categorized into quintiles based on overall population distribution. Baseline CAC was measured by computed tomography (CT) scan, and CAC measurements were repeated in 2,742 participants approximately 10 years later. Women had higher calcium intakes than men. 

After adjustment for potential confounders, among 1,567 participants without baseline CAC, the relative risk (RR) of developing incident CAC over 10 years, by quintile 1 to 5 of calcium intake is included in the TABLE. After accounting for total calcium intake, calcium supplement use was associated with increased risk for incident CAC (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.07-1.39). No relation was found between baseline calcium intake and 10-year changes in CAC among those participants with baseline CAC less than zero.

They concluded that high total calcium intake was associated with a decreased risk of incident atherosclerosis over long-term follow-up, particularly if achieved without supplement use. However, calcium supplement use may increase the risk for incident CAC.

Related article:
Does the discontinuation of menopausal hormone therapy affect a woman’s cardiovascular risk?

Calcium supplements and blood pressure

Billington and colleagues acknowledged that calcium supplements appear to increase cardiovascular risk but that the mechanism is unknown. They had previously reported that blood pressure declines over the course of the day in older women.¹⁰

Details of the study by Billington and colleagues
In this new study the investigators examined the acute effects of calcium supplements on blood pressure in a randomized controlled crossover trial in 40 healthy postmenopausal women (mean age, 71 years; body mass index [BMI], 27.2 kg/m²). Women attended on 2 occasions, with visits separated by 7 or more days. At each visit, they received either 1 g of calcium as citrate or placebo. Blood pressure and serum calcium concentrations were measured immediately before and 2, 4, and 6 hours after each intervention.

Ionized and total calcium concentrations increased after calcium (P<.0001 vs placebo). Systolic blood pressure (SBP) measurements decreased after both calcium and placebo but significantly less so after calcium (P=.02). The reduction in SBP from baseline was smaller after calcium compared with placebo by 6 mm Hg at 4 hours (P=.036) and by 9 mm Hg at 6 hours (P=.002). The reduction in diastolic blood pressure was similar after calcium and placebo.

These findings indicate that the use of calcium supplements in postmenopausal women attenuates the postbreakfast reduction in SBP by 6 to 9 mm Hg. Whether these changes in blood pressure influence cardiovascular risk requires further study.

Association between calcium, vitamin D, and height loss

Crandall and colleagues looked at the association between calcium and vitamin D supplementation and height loss in 36,282 participants of the Women's Health Initiative Calcium and Vitamin D trial.

Details of the study by Crandall and colleagues

The authors performed a post hoc analysis of data from a double-blind randomized controlled trial of 1,000 mg of elemental calcium as calcium carbonate with 400 IU of vitamin D3 daily (CaD) or placebo in postmenopausal women at 40 US clinical centers. Height was measured annually (mean follow-up, 5.9 years) with a stadiometer.

Average height loss was 1.28 mm/yr among participants assigned to CaD, versus 1.26 mm/yr for women assigned to placebo (P=.35). A strong association (P<.001) was observed between age group and height loss. The study authors concluded that, compared with placebo, calcium and vitamin D supplementation used in this trial did not prevent height loss in healthy postmenopausal women.

Sarcopenia:  Still important, clinical approaches to easily detect it

Beaudart C, McCloskey E, Bruyére O, et al. Sarcopenia in daily practice:  assessment and management. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16(1):170.

In last year's update, I reviewed the article by He and colleagues¹¹ on the relationship between sarcopenia and body composition with osteoporosis. Sarcopenia, which is the age-related loss of muscle mass and strength, is important to address in patients. Body composition and muscle strength are directly correlated with bone density, and this is not surprising since bone and muscle share some common hormonal, genetic, nutritional, and lifestyle determinants.^12,13 Sarcopenia can be diagnosed via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan looking at lean muscle mass.

The term sarcopenia was first coined by Rosenberg and colleagues in 1989¹⁴ as a progressive loss of skeletal muscle mass with advancing age. Since then, the definition has expanded to incorporate the notion of impaired muscle strength or physical performance. Sarcopenia is associated with morbidity and mortality from linked physical disability, falls, fractures, poor quality of life, depression, and hospitalization.¹⁵

Current research is focusing on nutritional exercise/activity-based and other novel interventions for improving the quality and quantity of skeletal muscle in older people. Some studies demonstrated that resistance training combined with nutritional supplements can improve muscle function.¹⁶

Details of the study

Beaudart and colleagues propose some user-friendly and inexpensive methods that can be utilized to assess sarcopenia in real life settings. They acknowledge that in research settings or even specialist clinical settings, DXA or computed tomography (CT) scans are the best assessment of muscle mass.

Anthropometric measurements. In a primary care setting, anthropometric measurement, especially calf circumference and mid-upper arm muscle circumference, correlate with overall muscle mass and reflect both health and nutritional status and predict performance, health, and survival in older people.

However, with advancing age, changes in the distribution of fat and loss of skin elasticity are such that circumference incurs a loss of accuracy and precision in older people. Some studies suggest that an adjustment of anthropometric measurements for age, sex, or BMI results in a better correlation with DXA-measured lean mass.¹⁷ Anthropometric measurements are simple clinical prediction tools that can be easily applied for sarcopenia since they offer the most portable, commonly applicable, inexpensive, and noninvasive technique for assessing size, proportions, and composition of the human body. However, their validity is limited when applied to individuals because cutoff points to identify low muscle mass still need to be defined. Still, serial measurements in a patient over time may be valuable.

Related article:
2014 Update on osteoporosis

Handgrip strength, as measured with a dynamometer, appears to be the most widely used method for the measurement of muscle strength. In general, isometric handgrip strength shows a good correlation with leg strength and also with lower extremity power, and calf cross-sectional muscle area. The measurement is easy to perform, inexpensive and does not require a specialist-trained staff.

Standardized conditions for the test include seating the patient in a standard chair with her forearms resting flat on the chair arms. Clinicians should demonstrate the use of the dynamometer and show that gripping very tightly registers the best score. Six measurements should be taken, 3 with each arm. Ideally, patients should be encouraged to squeeze as hard and tightly as possible during 3 to 5 seconds for each of the 6 trials; usually the highest reading of the 6 measurements is reported as the final result. The Jamar dynamometer, or similar hydraulic dynamometer, is the gold standard for this measurement.

Gait speed measurement. The most widely used tool in clinical practice for the assessment of physical performance is the gait speed measurement. The test is highly acceptable for participants and health professionals in clinical settings. No special equipment is required; it needs only a flat floor devoid of obstacles. In the 4-meter gait speed test, men and women with a gait speed of less than 0.8 meters/sec are described as having a poor physical performance. The average extra time added to the consultation by measuring the 4-meter gait speed was only 95 seconds (SD, 20 seconds).

Romosozumab: An interesting new agent to look forward to

Cosman F, Crittenden DB, Adachi JD, et al. Romosozumab treatment in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(16):1532-1543.

Romosozumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds sclerostin, increasing bone formation and decreasing bone resorption. Cosman and colleagues enrolled 7,180 postmenopausal women with a T score of -2.5 to -3.5 at the total hip or femoral neck. Participants were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous injections of romosozumab 210 mg or placebo monthly for 12 months. Thereafter, women in each group received subcutaneous denosumab 60 mg for 12 months--administered every 6 months. The coprimary end points were the cumulative incidences of new vertebral fractures at 12 and 24 months. Secondary end points included clinical and nonvertebral fractures.

Details of the study

At 12 months, new vertebral fractures had occurred in 16 of 3,321 women (0.5%) in the romosozumab group, as compared with 59 of 3,322 (1.8%) in the placebo group (representing a 73% lower risk of fracture with romosozumab; P<.001). Clinical fractures had occurred in 58 of 3,589 women (1.6%) in the romosozumab group, as compared with 90 of 3,591 (2.5%) in the placebo group (a 36% lower fracture risk with romosozumab;  P = .008). Nonvertebral fractures had occurred in 56 of 3,589 women (1.6%) in the romosozumab group and in 75 of 3,591 (2.1%) in the placebo group (P = .10).

At 24 months, the rates of vertebral fractures were significantly lower in the romosozumab group than in the placebo group after each group made the transition to denosumab (0.6% [21 of 3,325 women] in the romosozumab group vs 2.5% [84 of 3,327 women] in the placebo group, a 75% lower risk with romosozumab; P<.001). Adverse events, including cardiovascular events, osteoarthritis, and cancer, appeared to be balanced between the groups. One atypical femoral fracture and 2 cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw were observed in the romosozumab group.

Lower risk of fracture

Thus, in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, romosozumab was associated with a lower risk of vertebral fracture than placebo at 12 months and, after the transition to denosumab, at 24 months. The lower risk of clinical fracture that was seen with romosozumab was evident at 1 year.

Of note, the effect of romosozumab on the risk of vertebral fracture was rapid, with only 2 additional vertebral fractures (of a total of 16 such fractures in the romosozumab group) occurring in the second 6 months of the first year of therapy. Because vertebral and clinical fractures are associated with increased morbidity and considerable  health care costs, a treatment that would reduce this risk rapidly could offer appropriate patients an important benefit.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Prioritize bone health, as osteoporotic fracture is a major source of morbidity and mortality among women. In this article: fracture risk with OC use in perimenopause, data that inform calcium’s role in cardiovascular disease, sarcopenia management, and an emerging treatment.

Most women’s health care providers are aware of recent changes and controversies regarding cervical cancer screening, mammography frequency, and whether a pelvic bimanual exam should be part of our annual well woman evaluation.¹ However, I believe one of the most important things we as clinicians can do is be frontline in promoting bone health. Osteoporotic fracture is a major source of morbidity and mortality.^2,3 Thus, promoting the maintenance of bone health is a priority in my own practice. It is also one of my many academic interests.

What follows is an update on bone health. In past years, this update has been entitled, “Update on osteoporosis,” but what we are trying to accomplish is fracture reduction. Thus, priorities for bone health consist of recognition of risk, lifestyle and dietary counseling, as well as the use of pharmacologic agents when appropriate. Certain research stands out as informative for your practice:

• a recent study on the risk of fracture with oral contraceptive (OC) use in perimenopause
• 3 just-published studies that inform our understanding of calcium’s role in cardiovascular health
• a review on sarcopenia management
• new data on romosozumab.

Oral contraceptive use in perimenopause

Scholes D, LaCroix AZ, Hubbard RA, et al. Oral contraceptive use and fracture risk around the menopausal transition. Menopause. 2016;23(2):166-174.

The use of OCs in women of older reproductive age has increased ever since the cutoff age of 35 years was eliminated.⁴ Lower doses have continued to be utilized in these "older" women with excellent control of irregular bleeding due to ovulatory dysfunction (and reduction in psychosocial symptoms as well).⁵

The effect of OC use on risk of fracture remains unclear, and use during later reproductive life may be increasing. To determine the association between OC use during later reproductive life and risk of fracture across the menopausal transition, Scholes and colleagues conducted a population-based case-controlled study in a Pacific Northwest HMO, Group Health Cooperative.

Details of the study

Scholes and colleagues enrolled 1,204 case women aged 45 to 59 years with incident fractures, and 2,275 control women. Potential cases with fracture codes in automated data were adjudicated by electronic health record review. Potential control women without fracture codes were selected concurrently, sampling based on age. Participants received a structured study interview. Using logistic regression, associations between OC use and fracture risk were calculated as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Participation was 69% for cases and 64% for controls. The study sample was 82% white; mean age was 54 years. The most common fracture site for cases was the wrist/forearm (32%). Adjusted fracture risk did not differ between cases and controls for OC use:

• in the 10 years before menopause (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74-1.11)
• after age 38 years (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78-1.14)
• over the duration, or
• for other OC exposures.

Related article:
2016 Update on female sexual dysfunction

Association between fractures and OC use near menopause

The current study does not show an association between fractures near the menopausal transition and OC use in the decade before menopause or after age 38 years. For women considering OC use at these times, fracture risk does not seem to be either reduced or increased.

These results, looking at fracture, seem to be further supported by trials conducted by Gambacciani and colleagues,6 in which researchers randomly assigned irregularly cycling perimenopausal women (aged 40-49 years) to 20 &#956;g ethinyl estradiol OCs or calcium/placebo. Results showed that this low-dose OC use significantly increased bone density at the femoral neck, spine, and other sites relative to control women after 24 months. 

In the current Scholes study, the use of OCs in the decade before menopause or after age 38 did not reduce fracture risk in the years around the time of menopause. It is reassuring that their use was not associated with any increased fracture risk.

Calcium and calcium supplements: The data continue to grow

Anderson JJ, Kruszka B, Delaney JA, et al. Calcium intake from diet and supplements and the risk of coronary artery calcification and its progression among older adults: 10-year follow-up of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) [published online ahead of print October 11, 2016]. J Am Heart Assoc. pii: e003815.

Billington EO, Bristow SM, Gamble GD, et al. Acute effects of calcium supplements on blood pressure: randomised, crossover trial in postmenopausal women [published online ahead of print August 20, 2016]. Osteoporos Int. doi:10.1007/s00198-016-3744-y.

Crandall CJ, Aragaki AK, LeBoff MS, et al. Calcium plus vitamin D supplementation and height loss: findings from the Women's Health Initiative Calcium and Vitamin D clinical trial [published online ahead of print August 1, 2016]. Menopause. doi:10.1097 /GME.0000000000000704.

In 2001, a National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Development Panel on osteoporosis concluded that calcium intake is crucial to maintain bone mass and should be maintained at 1,000-1,500 mg/day in older adults. The panel acknowledged that the majority of older adults did not meet the recommended intake from dietary sources alone, and therefore would require calcium supplementation. Calcium supplements are one of the most commonly used dietary supplements, and population-based surveys have shown that they are used by the majority of older men and women in the United States.⁷ 

More recently results from large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of calcium supplements have been reported, leading to concerns about calcium efficacy for fracture risk and safety. Bolland and colleagues⁸ reported that calcium supplements increased the rate of cardiovascular events in healthy older women and suggested that their role in osteoporosis management be reconsidered. More recently, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended against calcium supplements for the primary prevention of fractures in noninstitutionalized postmenopausal women.⁹ 

The association between calcium intake and CVD events

Anderson and colleagues acknowledged that recent randomized data suggest that calcium supplements may be associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. Using a longitudinal cohort study, they assessed the association between calcium intake, from both foods and supplements, and atherosclerosis, as measured by coronary artery calcification (CAC).

Details of the study by Anderson and colleagues
The authors studied 5,448 adults free of clinically diagnosed CVD (52% female; age range, 45-84 years) from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Baseline total calcium intake was assessed from diet (using a food frequency questionnaire) and calcium supplements (by a medication inventory) and categorized into quintiles based on overall population distribution. Baseline CAC was measured by computed tomography (CT) scan, and CAC measurements were repeated in 2,742 participants approximately 10 years later. Women had higher calcium intakes than men. 

After adjustment for potential confounders, among 1,567 participants without baseline CAC, the relative risk (RR) of developing incident CAC over 10 years, by quintile 1 to 5 of calcium intake is included in the TABLE. After accounting for total calcium intake, calcium supplement use was associated with increased risk for incident CAC (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.07-1.39). No relation was found between baseline calcium intake and 10-year changes in CAC among those participants with baseline CAC less than zero.

They concluded that high total calcium intake was associated with a decreased risk of incident atherosclerosis over long-term follow-up, particularly if achieved without supplement use. However, calcium supplement use may increase the risk for incident CAC.

Related article:
Does the discontinuation of menopausal hormone therapy affect a woman’s cardiovascular risk?

Calcium supplements and blood pressure

Billington and colleagues acknowledged that calcium supplements appear to increase cardiovascular risk but that the mechanism is unknown. They had previously reported that blood pressure declines over the course of the day in older women.¹⁰

Details of the study by Billington and colleagues
In this new study the investigators examined the acute effects of calcium supplements on blood pressure in a randomized controlled crossover trial in 40 healthy postmenopausal women (mean age, 71 years; body mass index [BMI], 27.2 kg/m²). Women attended on 2 occasions, with visits separated by 7 or more days. At each visit, they received either 1 g of calcium as citrate or placebo. Blood pressure and serum calcium concentrations were measured immediately before and 2, 4, and 6 hours after each intervention.

Ionized and total calcium concentrations increased after calcium (P<.0001 vs placebo). Systolic blood pressure (SBP) measurements decreased after both calcium and placebo but significantly less so after calcium (P=.02). The reduction in SBP from baseline was smaller after calcium compared with placebo by 6 mm Hg at 4 hours (P=.036) and by 9 mm Hg at 6 hours (P=.002). The reduction in diastolic blood pressure was similar after calcium and placebo.

These findings indicate that the use of calcium supplements in postmenopausal women attenuates the postbreakfast reduction in SBP by 6 to 9 mm Hg. Whether these changes in blood pressure influence cardiovascular risk requires further study.

Association between calcium, vitamin D, and height loss

Crandall and colleagues looked at the association between calcium and vitamin D supplementation and height loss in 36,282 participants of the Women's Health Initiative Calcium and Vitamin D trial.

Details of the study by Crandall and colleagues

The authors performed a post hoc analysis of data from a double-blind randomized controlled trial of 1,000 mg of elemental calcium as calcium carbonate with 400 IU of vitamin D3 daily (CaD) or placebo in postmenopausal women at 40 US clinical centers. Height was measured annually (mean follow-up, 5.9 years) with a stadiometer.

Average height loss was 1.28 mm/yr among participants assigned to CaD, versus 1.26 mm/yr for women assigned to placebo (P=.35). A strong association (P<.001) was observed between age group and height loss. The study authors concluded that, compared with placebo, calcium and vitamin D supplementation used in this trial did not prevent height loss in healthy postmenopausal women.

Sarcopenia:  Still important, clinical approaches to easily detect it

Beaudart C, McCloskey E, Bruyére O, et al. Sarcopenia in daily practice:  assessment and management. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16(1):170.

In last year's update, I reviewed the article by He and colleagues¹¹ on the relationship between sarcopenia and body composition with osteoporosis. Sarcopenia, which is the age-related loss of muscle mass and strength, is important to address in patients. Body composition and muscle strength are directly correlated with bone density, and this is not surprising since bone and muscle share some common hormonal, genetic, nutritional, and lifestyle determinants.^12,13 Sarcopenia can be diagnosed via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan looking at lean muscle mass.

The term sarcopenia was first coined by Rosenberg and colleagues in 1989¹⁴ as a progressive loss of skeletal muscle mass with advancing age. Since then, the definition has expanded to incorporate the notion of impaired muscle strength or physical performance. Sarcopenia is associated with morbidity and mortality from linked physical disability, falls, fractures, poor quality of life, depression, and hospitalization.¹⁵

Current research is focusing on nutritional exercise/activity-based and other novel interventions for improving the quality and quantity of skeletal muscle in older people. Some studies demonstrated that resistance training combined with nutritional supplements can improve muscle function.¹⁶

Details of the study

Beaudart and colleagues propose some user-friendly and inexpensive methods that can be utilized to assess sarcopenia in real life settings. They acknowledge that in research settings or even specialist clinical settings, DXA or computed tomography (CT) scans are the best assessment of muscle mass.

Anthropometric measurements. In a primary care setting, anthropometric measurement, especially calf circumference and mid-upper arm muscle circumference, correlate with overall muscle mass and reflect both health and nutritional status and predict performance, health, and survival in older people.

However, with advancing age, changes in the distribution of fat and loss of skin elasticity are such that circumference incurs a loss of accuracy and precision in older people. Some studies suggest that an adjustment of anthropometric measurements for age, sex, or BMI results in a better correlation with DXA-measured lean mass.¹⁷ Anthropometric measurements are simple clinical prediction tools that can be easily applied for sarcopenia since they offer the most portable, commonly applicable, inexpensive, and noninvasive technique for assessing size, proportions, and composition of the human body. However, their validity is limited when applied to individuals because cutoff points to identify low muscle mass still need to be defined. Still, serial measurements in a patient over time may be valuable.

Related article:
2014 Update on osteoporosis

Handgrip strength, as measured with a dynamometer, appears to be the most widely used method for the measurement of muscle strength. In general, isometric handgrip strength shows a good correlation with leg strength and also with lower extremity power, and calf cross-sectional muscle area. The measurement is easy to perform, inexpensive and does not require a specialist-trained staff.

Standardized conditions for the test include seating the patient in a standard chair with her forearms resting flat on the chair arms. Clinicians should demonstrate the use of the dynamometer and show that gripping very tightly registers the best score. Six measurements should be taken, 3 with each arm. Ideally, patients should be encouraged to squeeze as hard and tightly as possible during 3 to 5 seconds for each of the 6 trials; usually the highest reading of the 6 measurements is reported as the final result. The Jamar dynamometer, or similar hydraulic dynamometer, is the gold standard for this measurement.

Gait speed measurement. The most widely used tool in clinical practice for the assessment of physical performance is the gait speed measurement. The test is highly acceptable for participants and health professionals in clinical settings. No special equipment is required; it needs only a flat floor devoid of obstacles. In the 4-meter gait speed test, men and women with a gait speed of less than 0.8 meters/sec are described as having a poor physical performance. The average extra time added to the consultation by measuring the 4-meter gait speed was only 95 seconds (SD, 20 seconds).

Romosozumab: An interesting new agent to look forward to

Cosman F, Crittenden DB, Adachi JD, et al. Romosozumab treatment in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(16):1532-1543.

Romosozumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds sclerostin, increasing bone formation and decreasing bone resorption. Cosman and colleagues enrolled 7,180 postmenopausal women with a T score of -2.5 to -3.5 at the total hip or femoral neck. Participants were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous injections of romosozumab 210 mg or placebo monthly for 12 months. Thereafter, women in each group received subcutaneous denosumab 60 mg for 12 months--administered every 6 months. The coprimary end points were the cumulative incidences of new vertebral fractures at 12 and 24 months. Secondary end points included clinical and nonvertebral fractures.

Details of the study

At 12 months, new vertebral fractures had occurred in 16 of 3,321 women (0.5%) in the romosozumab group, as compared with 59 of 3,322 (1.8%) in the placebo group (representing a 73% lower risk of fracture with romosozumab; P<.001). Clinical fractures had occurred in 58 of 3,589 women (1.6%) in the romosozumab group, as compared with 90 of 3,591 (2.5%) in the placebo group (a 36% lower fracture risk with romosozumab;  P = .008). Nonvertebral fractures had occurred in 56 of 3,589 women (1.6%) in the romosozumab group and in 75 of 3,591 (2.1%) in the placebo group (P = .10).

At 24 months, the rates of vertebral fractures were significantly lower in the romosozumab group than in the placebo group after each group made the transition to denosumab (0.6% [21 of 3,325 women] in the romosozumab group vs 2.5% [84 of 3,327 women] in the placebo group, a 75% lower risk with romosozumab; P<.001). Adverse events, including cardiovascular events, osteoarthritis, and cancer, appeared to be balanced between the groups. One atypical femoral fracture and 2 cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw were observed in the romosozumab group.

Lower risk of fracture

Thus, in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, romosozumab was associated with a lower risk of vertebral fracture than placebo at 12 months and, after the transition to denosumab, at 24 months. The lower risk of clinical fracture that was seen with romosozumab was evident at 1 year.

Of note, the effect of romosozumab on the risk of vertebral fracture was rapid, with only 2 additional vertebral fractures (of a total of 16 such fractures in the romosozumab group) occurring in the second 6 months of the first year of therapy. Because vertebral and clinical fractures are associated with increased morbidity and considerable  health care costs, a treatment that would reduce this risk rapidly could offer appropriate patients an important benefit.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

Prioritize bone health, as osteoporotic fracture is a major source of morbidity and mortality among women. In this article: fracture risk with OC use in perimenopause, data that inform calcium’s role in cardiovascular disease, sarcopenia management, and an emerging treatment.

Most women’s health care providers are aware of recent changes and controversies regarding cervical cancer screening, mammography frequency, and whether a pelvic bimanual exam should be part of our annual well woman evaluation.¹ However, I believe one of the most important things we as clinicians can do is be frontline in promoting bone health. Osteoporotic fracture is a major source of morbidity and mortality.^2,3 Thus, promoting the maintenance of bone health is a priority in my own practice. It is also one of my many academic interests.

What follows is an update on bone health. In past years, this update has been entitled, “Update on osteoporosis,” but what we are trying to accomplish is fracture reduction. Thus, priorities for bone health consist of recognition of risk, lifestyle and dietary counseling, as well as the use of pharmacologic agents when appropriate. Certain research stands out as informative for your practice:

• a recent study on the risk of fracture with oral contraceptive (OC) use in perimenopause
• 3 just-published studies that inform our understanding of calcium’s role in cardiovascular health
• a review on sarcopenia management
• new data on romosozumab.

Oral contraceptive use in perimenopause

Scholes D, LaCroix AZ, Hubbard RA, et al. Oral contraceptive use and fracture risk around the menopausal transition. Menopause. 2016;23(2):166-174.

The use of OCs in women of older reproductive age has increased ever since the cutoff age of 35 years was eliminated.⁴ Lower doses have continued to be utilized in these "older" women with excellent control of irregular bleeding due to ovulatory dysfunction (and reduction in psychosocial symptoms as well).⁵

The effect of OC use on risk of fracture remains unclear, and use during later reproductive life may be increasing. To determine the association between OC use during later reproductive life and risk of fracture across the menopausal transition, Scholes and colleagues conducted a population-based case-controlled study in a Pacific Northwest HMO, Group Health Cooperative.

Details of the study

Scholes and colleagues enrolled 1,204 case women aged 45 to 59 years with incident fractures, and 2,275 control women. Potential cases with fracture codes in automated data were adjudicated by electronic health record review. Potential control women without fracture codes were selected concurrently, sampling based on age. Participants received a structured study interview. Using logistic regression, associations between OC use and fracture risk were calculated as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Participation was 69% for cases and 64% for controls. The study sample was 82% white; mean age was 54 years. The most common fracture site for cases was the wrist/forearm (32%). Adjusted fracture risk did not differ between cases and controls for OC use:

• in the 10 years before menopause (OR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.74-1.11)
• after age 38 years (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.78-1.14)
• over the duration, or
• for other OC exposures.

Related article:
2016 Update on female sexual dysfunction

Association between fractures and OC use near menopause

The current study does not show an association between fractures near the menopausal transition and OC use in the decade before menopause or after age 38 years. For women considering OC use at these times, fracture risk does not seem to be either reduced or increased.

These results, looking at fracture, seem to be further supported by trials conducted by Gambacciani and colleagues,6 in which researchers randomly assigned irregularly cycling perimenopausal women (aged 40-49 years) to 20 &#956;g ethinyl estradiol OCs or calcium/placebo. Results showed that this low-dose OC use significantly increased bone density at the femoral neck, spine, and other sites relative to control women after 24 months. 

In the current Scholes study, the use of OCs in the decade before menopause or after age 38 did not reduce fracture risk in the years around the time of menopause. It is reassuring that their use was not associated with any increased fracture risk.

Calcium and calcium supplements: The data continue to grow

Anderson JJ, Kruszka B, Delaney JA, et al. Calcium intake from diet and supplements and the risk of coronary artery calcification and its progression among older adults: 10-year follow-up of the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) [published online ahead of print October 11, 2016]. J Am Heart Assoc. pii: e003815.

Billington EO, Bristow SM, Gamble GD, et al. Acute effects of calcium supplements on blood pressure: randomised, crossover trial in postmenopausal women [published online ahead of print August 20, 2016]. Osteoporos Int. doi:10.1007/s00198-016-3744-y.

Crandall CJ, Aragaki AK, LeBoff MS, et al. Calcium plus vitamin D supplementation and height loss: findings from the Women's Health Initiative Calcium and Vitamin D clinical trial [published online ahead of print August 1, 2016]. Menopause. doi:10.1097 /GME.0000000000000704.

In 2001, a National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Development Panel on osteoporosis concluded that calcium intake is crucial to maintain bone mass and should be maintained at 1,000-1,500 mg/day in older adults. The panel acknowledged that the majority of older adults did not meet the recommended intake from dietary sources alone, and therefore would require calcium supplementation. Calcium supplements are one of the most commonly used dietary supplements, and population-based surveys have shown that they are used by the majority of older men and women in the United States.⁷ 

More recently results from large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of calcium supplements have been reported, leading to concerns about calcium efficacy for fracture risk and safety. Bolland and colleagues⁸ reported that calcium supplements increased the rate of cardiovascular events in healthy older women and suggested that their role in osteoporosis management be reconsidered. More recently, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended against calcium supplements for the primary prevention of fractures in noninstitutionalized postmenopausal women.⁹ 

The association between calcium intake and CVD events

Anderson and colleagues acknowledged that recent randomized data suggest that calcium supplements may be associated with increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) events. Using a longitudinal cohort study, they assessed the association between calcium intake, from both foods and supplements, and atherosclerosis, as measured by coronary artery calcification (CAC).

Details of the study by Anderson and colleagues
The authors studied 5,448 adults free of clinically diagnosed CVD (52% female; age range, 45-84 years) from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Baseline total calcium intake was assessed from diet (using a food frequency questionnaire) and calcium supplements (by a medication inventory) and categorized into quintiles based on overall population distribution. Baseline CAC was measured by computed tomography (CT) scan, and CAC measurements were repeated in 2,742 participants approximately 10 years later. Women had higher calcium intakes than men. 

After adjustment for potential confounders, among 1,567 participants without baseline CAC, the relative risk (RR) of developing incident CAC over 10 years, by quintile 1 to 5 of calcium intake is included in the TABLE. After accounting for total calcium intake, calcium supplement use was associated with increased risk for incident CAC (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.07-1.39). No relation was found between baseline calcium intake and 10-year changes in CAC among those participants with baseline CAC less than zero.

They concluded that high total calcium intake was associated with a decreased risk of incident atherosclerosis over long-term follow-up, particularly if achieved without supplement use. However, calcium supplement use may increase the risk for incident CAC.

Related article:
Does the discontinuation of menopausal hormone therapy affect a woman’s cardiovascular risk?

Calcium supplements and blood pressure

Billington and colleagues acknowledged that calcium supplements appear to increase cardiovascular risk but that the mechanism is unknown. They had previously reported that blood pressure declines over the course of the day in older women.¹⁰

Details of the study by Billington and colleagues
In this new study the investigators examined the acute effects of calcium supplements on blood pressure in a randomized controlled crossover trial in 40 healthy postmenopausal women (mean age, 71 years; body mass index [BMI], 27.2 kg/m²). Women attended on 2 occasions, with visits separated by 7 or more days. At each visit, they received either 1 g of calcium as citrate or placebo. Blood pressure and serum calcium concentrations were measured immediately before and 2, 4, and 6 hours after each intervention.

Ionized and total calcium concentrations increased after calcium (P<.0001 vs placebo). Systolic blood pressure (SBP) measurements decreased after both calcium and placebo but significantly less so after calcium (P=.02). The reduction in SBP from baseline was smaller after calcium compared with placebo by 6 mm Hg at 4 hours (P=.036) and by 9 mm Hg at 6 hours (P=.002). The reduction in diastolic blood pressure was similar after calcium and placebo.

These findings indicate that the use of calcium supplements in postmenopausal women attenuates the postbreakfast reduction in SBP by 6 to 9 mm Hg. Whether these changes in blood pressure influence cardiovascular risk requires further study.

Association between calcium, vitamin D, and height loss

Crandall and colleagues looked at the association between calcium and vitamin D supplementation and height loss in 36,282 participants of the Women's Health Initiative Calcium and Vitamin D trial.

Details of the study by Crandall and colleagues

The authors performed a post hoc analysis of data from a double-blind randomized controlled trial of 1,000 mg of elemental calcium as calcium carbonate with 400 IU of vitamin D3 daily (CaD) or placebo in postmenopausal women at 40 US clinical centers. Height was measured annually (mean follow-up, 5.9 years) with a stadiometer.

Average height loss was 1.28 mm/yr among participants assigned to CaD, versus 1.26 mm/yr for women assigned to placebo (P=.35). A strong association (P<.001) was observed between age group and height loss. The study authors concluded that, compared with placebo, calcium and vitamin D supplementation used in this trial did not prevent height loss in healthy postmenopausal women.

Sarcopenia:  Still important, clinical approaches to easily detect it

Beaudart C, McCloskey E, Bruyére O, et al. Sarcopenia in daily practice:  assessment and management. BMC Geriatr. 2016;16(1):170.

In last year's update, I reviewed the article by He and colleagues¹¹ on the relationship between sarcopenia and body composition with osteoporosis. Sarcopenia, which is the age-related loss of muscle mass and strength, is important to address in patients. Body composition and muscle strength are directly correlated with bone density, and this is not surprising since bone and muscle share some common hormonal, genetic, nutritional, and lifestyle determinants.^12,13 Sarcopenia can be diagnosed via dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan looking at lean muscle mass.

The term sarcopenia was first coined by Rosenberg and colleagues in 1989¹⁴ as a progressive loss of skeletal muscle mass with advancing age. Since then, the definition has expanded to incorporate the notion of impaired muscle strength or physical performance. Sarcopenia is associated with morbidity and mortality from linked physical disability, falls, fractures, poor quality of life, depression, and hospitalization.¹⁵

Current research is focusing on nutritional exercise/activity-based and other novel interventions for improving the quality and quantity of skeletal muscle in older people. Some studies demonstrated that resistance training combined with nutritional supplements can improve muscle function.¹⁶

Details of the study

Beaudart and colleagues propose some user-friendly and inexpensive methods that can be utilized to assess sarcopenia in real life settings. They acknowledge that in research settings or even specialist clinical settings, DXA or computed tomography (CT) scans are the best assessment of muscle mass.

Anthropometric measurements. In a primary care setting, anthropometric measurement, especially calf circumference and mid-upper arm muscle circumference, correlate with overall muscle mass and reflect both health and nutritional status and predict performance, health, and survival in older people.

However, with advancing age, changes in the distribution of fat and loss of skin elasticity are such that circumference incurs a loss of accuracy and precision in older people. Some studies suggest that an adjustment of anthropometric measurements for age, sex, or BMI results in a better correlation with DXA-measured lean mass.¹⁷ Anthropometric measurements are simple clinical prediction tools that can be easily applied for sarcopenia since they offer the most portable, commonly applicable, inexpensive, and noninvasive technique for assessing size, proportions, and composition of the human body. However, their validity is limited when applied to individuals because cutoff points to identify low muscle mass still need to be defined. Still, serial measurements in a patient over time may be valuable.

Related article:
2014 Update on osteoporosis

Handgrip strength, as measured with a dynamometer, appears to be the most widely used method for the measurement of muscle strength. In general, isometric handgrip strength shows a good correlation with leg strength and also with lower extremity power, and calf cross-sectional muscle area. The measurement is easy to perform, inexpensive and does not require a specialist-trained staff.

Standardized conditions for the test include seating the patient in a standard chair with her forearms resting flat on the chair arms. Clinicians should demonstrate the use of the dynamometer and show that gripping very tightly registers the best score. Six measurements should be taken, 3 with each arm. Ideally, patients should be encouraged to squeeze as hard and tightly as possible during 3 to 5 seconds for each of the 6 trials; usually the highest reading of the 6 measurements is reported as the final result. The Jamar dynamometer, or similar hydraulic dynamometer, is the gold standard for this measurement.

Gait speed measurement. The most widely used tool in clinical practice for the assessment of physical performance is the gait speed measurement. The test is highly acceptable for participants and health professionals in clinical settings. No special equipment is required; it needs only a flat floor devoid of obstacles. In the 4-meter gait speed test, men and women with a gait speed of less than 0.8 meters/sec are described as having a poor physical performance. The average extra time added to the consultation by measuring the 4-meter gait speed was only 95 seconds (SD, 20 seconds).

Romosozumab: An interesting new agent to look forward to

Cosman F, Crittenden DB, Adachi JD, et al. Romosozumab treatment in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(16):1532-1543.

Romosozumab is a monoclonal antibody that binds sclerostin, increasing bone formation and decreasing bone resorption. Cosman and colleagues enrolled 7,180 postmenopausal women with a T score of -2.5 to -3.5 at the total hip or femoral neck. Participants were randomly assigned to receive subcutaneous injections of romosozumab 210 mg or placebo monthly for 12 months. Thereafter, women in each group received subcutaneous denosumab 60 mg for 12 months--administered every 6 months. The coprimary end points were the cumulative incidences of new vertebral fractures at 12 and 24 months. Secondary end points included clinical and nonvertebral fractures.

Details of the study

At 12 months, new vertebral fractures had occurred in 16 of 3,321 women (0.5%) in the romosozumab group, as compared with 59 of 3,322 (1.8%) in the placebo group (representing a 73% lower risk of fracture with romosozumab; P<.001). Clinical fractures had occurred in 58 of 3,589 women (1.6%) in the romosozumab group, as compared with 90 of 3,591 (2.5%) in the placebo group (a 36% lower fracture risk with romosozumab;  P = .008). Nonvertebral fractures had occurred in 56 of 3,589 women (1.6%) in the romosozumab group and in 75 of 3,591 (2.1%) in the placebo group (P = .10).

At 24 months, the rates of vertebral fractures were significantly lower in the romosozumab group than in the placebo group after each group made the transition to denosumab (0.6% [21 of 3,325 women] in the romosozumab group vs 2.5% [84 of 3,327 women] in the placebo group, a 75% lower risk with romosozumab; P<.001). Adverse events, including cardiovascular events, osteoarthritis, and cancer, appeared to be balanced between the groups. One atypical femoral fracture and 2 cases of osteonecrosis of the jaw were observed in the romosozumab group.

Lower risk of fracture

Thus, in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, romosozumab was associated with a lower risk of vertebral fracture than placebo at 12 months and, after the transition to denosumab, at 24 months. The lower risk of clinical fracture that was seen with romosozumab was evident at 1 year.

Of note, the effect of romosozumab on the risk of vertebral fracture was rapid, with only 2 additional vertebral fractures (of a total of 16 such fractures in the romosozumab group) occurring in the second 6 months of the first year of therapy. Because vertebral and clinical fractures are associated with increased morbidity and considerable  health care costs, a treatment that would reduce this risk rapidly could offer appropriate patients an important benefit.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

WASHINGTON – Mycophenolate sodium conferred complete remission sooner and more often than did azathioprine in a 24-month, open-label, randomized trial of patients with nonrenal systemic lupus erythematosus.

The enteric-coated version of mycophenolate used in the study was well tolerated, too, with just 7.5% of patients reporting gastrointestinal symptoms – a distinct advantage, Josefina Cortés-Hernández, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

But azathioprine still holds one critical advantage over mycophenolate, said Dr. Cortés-Hernández of Vall d´Hebron Hospital, Barcelona: It is safe for use in pregnancy. “This is a very important advantage that we should not lose sight of,” she said.

Dr. Cortés-Hernández and her associates at 13 centers across Spain randomized 240 patients with nonrenal, active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) to either azathioprine (target dose, 2 mg/kg per day) or the enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (target dose, 1,440 mg/day). Patients could add both a corticosteroid and an antimalarial as needed. No patient was allowed to take immunosuppressive therapy for at least 3 months before randomization.

The primary endpoint of the trial was complete remission at 3 months and 24 months, defined as an SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) less than 4 and/or absence of any BILAG (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group) A or B flares. Secondary endpoints were time to remission, time to first flare, and changes in prednisone use.

The patients were primarily women with a mean age of 41 years and mean disease duration of 5 years. The mean SLEDAI was 9.5; 45% had a mean SLEDAI of 10 or higher. The mean BILAG score was about 19. All the patients had autoantibodies, and about half had anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies. Half of the patients also had low complement C3 and/or C4 levels. About 80% were taking an antimalarial and 95%, a corticosteroid; the mean daily prednisone dose equivalent was about 19 mg.

In an intent-to-treat analysis, patients treated with mycophenolate had a higher remission rate at both 3 and 24 months. At 3 months, the complete remission rate was 33% for mycophenolate, compared with 19% for azathioprine. Clinical response improved over time in both groups, but mycophenolate remained significantly more effective over the entire study period. By 24 months, complete remission was present in 71% of those taking mycophenolate versus 48% of those taking azathioprine.

Both groups had significant improvements over baseline in both the SLEDAI and BILAG scores. By 24 months, the SLEDAI had dropped to a mean of 3 in the mycophenolate group and 4 in the azathioprine group. The BILAG dropped from a mean of 19 at baseline to 2 in the mycophenolate group and 5 in the azathioprine group.

BILAG A/B flares occurred in 50% of the mycophenolate group and 72% of the azathioprine group. The time to first flare was longer with mycophenolate, as was the time to a severe flare. New BILAG A flares occurred in 8% of the mycophenolate group and 22% of the azathioprine group. Azathioprine was associated with more renal flares (7% vs. 2%) and more hematologic flares (7.5% vs. 2.5%)

Steroid use declined to a prednisone equivalent of less than 7.5 mg/day in significantly more patients taking mycophenolate than azathioprine (95% vs. 85%).

Adverse events occurred in about 70% of each group; these were serious in about 10% of each group. Three patients taking mycophenolate and 10 taking azathioprine discontinued because of an adverse event, but this wasn’t statistically significant. Infections were the most common problem, occurring in about a quarter of each group; these were serious in five mycophenolate patients and seven azathioprine patients. There were two deaths, one in each group. Cancers occurred in three taking azathioprine and one taking mycophenolate. Leukopenia occurred in five patients taking azathioprine but in no one taking mycophenolate.

The study was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Health. Dr. Cortés-Hernández had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @alz_gal

WASHINGTON – Mycophenolate sodium conferred complete remission sooner and more often than did azathioprine in a 24-month, open-label, randomized trial of patients with nonrenal systemic lupus erythematosus.

The enteric-coated version of mycophenolate used in the study was well tolerated, too, with just 7.5% of patients reporting gastrointestinal symptoms – a distinct advantage, Josefina Cortés-Hernández, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

But azathioprine still holds one critical advantage over mycophenolate, said Dr. Cortés-Hernández of Vall d´Hebron Hospital, Barcelona: It is safe for use in pregnancy. “This is a very important advantage that we should not lose sight of,” she said.

Dr. Cortés-Hernández and her associates at 13 centers across Spain randomized 240 patients with nonrenal, active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) to either azathioprine (target dose, 2 mg/kg per day) or the enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (target dose, 1,440 mg/day). Patients could add both a corticosteroid and an antimalarial as needed. No patient was allowed to take immunosuppressive therapy for at least 3 months before randomization.

The primary endpoint of the trial was complete remission at 3 months and 24 months, defined as an SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) less than 4 and/or absence of any BILAG (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group) A or B flares. Secondary endpoints were time to remission, time to first flare, and changes in prednisone use.

The patients were primarily women with a mean age of 41 years and mean disease duration of 5 years. The mean SLEDAI was 9.5; 45% had a mean SLEDAI of 10 or higher. The mean BILAG score was about 19. All the patients had autoantibodies, and about half had anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies. Half of the patients also had low complement C3 and/or C4 levels. About 80% were taking an antimalarial and 95%, a corticosteroid; the mean daily prednisone dose equivalent was about 19 mg.

In an intent-to-treat analysis, patients treated with mycophenolate had a higher remission rate at both 3 and 24 months. At 3 months, the complete remission rate was 33% for mycophenolate, compared with 19% for azathioprine. Clinical response improved over time in both groups, but mycophenolate remained significantly more effective over the entire study period. By 24 months, complete remission was present in 71% of those taking mycophenolate versus 48% of those taking azathioprine.

Both groups had significant improvements over baseline in both the SLEDAI and BILAG scores. By 24 months, the SLEDAI had dropped to a mean of 3 in the mycophenolate group and 4 in the azathioprine group. The BILAG dropped from a mean of 19 at baseline to 2 in the mycophenolate group and 5 in the azathioprine group.

BILAG A/B flares occurred in 50% of the mycophenolate group and 72% of the azathioprine group. The time to first flare was longer with mycophenolate, as was the time to a severe flare. New BILAG A flares occurred in 8% of the mycophenolate group and 22% of the azathioprine group. Azathioprine was associated with more renal flares (7% vs. 2%) and more hematologic flares (7.5% vs. 2.5%)

Steroid use declined to a prednisone equivalent of less than 7.5 mg/day in significantly more patients taking mycophenolate than azathioprine (95% vs. 85%).

Adverse events occurred in about 70% of each group; these were serious in about 10% of each group. Three patients taking mycophenolate and 10 taking azathioprine discontinued because of an adverse event, but this wasn’t statistically significant. Infections were the most common problem, occurring in about a quarter of each group; these were serious in five mycophenolate patients and seven azathioprine patients. There were two deaths, one in each group. Cancers occurred in three taking azathioprine and one taking mycophenolate. Leukopenia occurred in five patients taking azathioprine but in no one taking mycophenolate.

The study was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Health. Dr. Cortés-Hernández had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @alz_gal

WASHINGTON – Mycophenolate sodium conferred complete remission sooner and more often than did azathioprine in a 24-month, open-label, randomized trial of patients with nonrenal systemic lupus erythematosus.

The enteric-coated version of mycophenolate used in the study was well tolerated, too, with just 7.5% of patients reporting gastrointestinal symptoms – a distinct advantage, Josefina Cortés-Hernández, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

But azathioprine still holds one critical advantage over mycophenolate, said Dr. Cortés-Hernández of Vall d´Hebron Hospital, Barcelona: It is safe for use in pregnancy. “This is a very important advantage that we should not lose sight of,” she said.

Dr. Cortés-Hernández and her associates at 13 centers across Spain randomized 240 patients with nonrenal, active systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) to either azathioprine (target dose, 2 mg/kg per day) or the enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (target dose, 1,440 mg/day). Patients could add both a corticosteroid and an antimalarial as needed. No patient was allowed to take immunosuppressive therapy for at least 3 months before randomization.

The primary endpoint of the trial was complete remission at 3 months and 24 months, defined as an SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) less than 4 and/or absence of any BILAG (British Isles Lupus Assessment Group) A or B flares. Secondary endpoints were time to remission, time to first flare, and changes in prednisone use.

The patients were primarily women with a mean age of 41 years and mean disease duration of 5 years. The mean SLEDAI was 9.5; 45% had a mean SLEDAI of 10 or higher. The mean BILAG score was about 19. All the patients had autoantibodies, and about half had anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies. Half of the patients also had low complement C3 and/or C4 levels. About 80% were taking an antimalarial and 95%, a corticosteroid; the mean daily prednisone dose equivalent was about 19 mg.

In an intent-to-treat analysis, patients treated with mycophenolate had a higher remission rate at both 3 and 24 months. At 3 months, the complete remission rate was 33% for mycophenolate, compared with 19% for azathioprine. Clinical response improved over time in both groups, but mycophenolate remained significantly more effective over the entire study period. By 24 months, complete remission was present in 71% of those taking mycophenolate versus 48% of those taking azathioprine.

Both groups had significant improvements over baseline in both the SLEDAI and BILAG scores. By 24 months, the SLEDAI had dropped to a mean of 3 in the mycophenolate group and 4 in the azathioprine group. The BILAG dropped from a mean of 19 at baseline to 2 in the mycophenolate group and 5 in the azathioprine group.

BILAG A/B flares occurred in 50% of the mycophenolate group and 72% of the azathioprine group. The time to first flare was longer with mycophenolate, as was the time to a severe flare. New BILAG A flares occurred in 8% of the mycophenolate group and 22% of the azathioprine group. Azathioprine was associated with more renal flares (7% vs. 2%) and more hematologic flares (7.5% vs. 2.5%)

Steroid use declined to a prednisone equivalent of less than 7.5 mg/day in significantly more patients taking mycophenolate than azathioprine (95% vs. 85%).

Adverse events occurred in about 70% of each group; these were serious in about 10% of each group. Three patients taking mycophenolate and 10 taking azathioprine discontinued because of an adverse event, but this wasn’t statistically significant. Infections were the most common problem, occurring in about a quarter of each group; these were serious in five mycophenolate patients and seven azathioprine patients. There were two deaths, one in each group. Cancers occurred in three taking azathioprine and one taking mycophenolate. Leukopenia occurred in five patients taking azathioprine but in no one taking mycophenolate.

The study was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Health. Dr. Cortés-Hernández had no relevant financial disclosures.

[email protected]

On Twitter @alz_gal

The incidence of midsubstance Achilles tendon ruptures is increasing in patients 30 years to 50 years of age, and more than 50% of these injuries occur during recreational basketball.^1,2 Achilles ruptures occur more in deconditioned individuals engaged in explosive push-off and jumping activities. Management of these injuries has been controversial over the past decade; there is no consensus on nonoperative treatment, surgical repair, or optimal repair technique.^1,3-7 According to American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) clinical practice guidelines, limited-incision approaches have fewer overall complications relative to traditional open repair.^3,4

Modern repair techniques, such as the Percutaneous Achilles Repair System (PARS; Arthrex), combine limited soft-tissue dissection with percutaneous suture insertion and knot tying.^1,8 This limited-incision technique, employed since 2010, uses a 2-cm transverse incision and nondisposable metal jig with divergent needle passes and locking suture fixation options to secure and fix both tendon ends with minimal dissection of skin, subcutaneous tissue, and paratenon. A review of 270 surgically treated Achilles tendon ruptures (101 PARS, 169 traditional open repair) found that, compared with the open repair group, the PARS group had significantly shorter operative times and more patients returning to baseline physical activities within 5 months after surgery.¹ Although the difference was not statistically significant, the overall postoperative complication rate was 5% for the PARS group and 11% for the open repair group. The PARS group had no cases of sural neuritis or deep infection requiring reoperation.

Although the PARS technique has had good outcomes with few complications, care must be taken during surgery to prevent sutures from pulling through the tendon near the rupture site, which can result from overtensioning and from suture knot irritation against superficial soft tissues. Given these potential issues, the PARS procedure was modified (Achilles Midsubstance SpeedBridge; Arthrex) to provide knotless restoration of musculotendinous length in a reliable, reproducible fashion and direct fixation of tendon to bone for early mobilization.⁹ This new procedure bypasses suture fixation in the compromised tendon ends adjacent to the rupture site, thereby reducing suture slippage and allowing for potential early range of motion and weight-bearing relative to previous techniques. Preliminary results from a cohort of 34 patients treated with this technique are promising: Average return to baseline activities was 18.2 weeks (range, 9-26 weeks), and there were no wound complications, nerve injuries, or reruptures.⁹Indications are overall health and an acute midsubstance Achilles rupture that presents within 3 weeks after injury (the time limit is used to ensure that both tendon ends can be mobilized and repaired to appropriate length). A relative contraindication is delayed presentation (≥4 weeks), which may require open reconstruction in combination with V-Y lengthening or other adjuvant procedures. Other relative contraindications are insertional rupture, Achilles tendinopathy, and a significant medical comorbidity that prohibits surgical intervention.

Surgical Technique

Operating Room Setup and Approach

The patient is positioned prone with chest rolls and kneepads and with arms at <90° of abduction (Figures 1A-1E).

A “no-touch” technique is used without pickups, and soft tissues are carefully dissected with small scissors down to the paratenon. The sural nerve typically is not visible in the operative field, but, if it is, it can be dissected out and retracted out of the way. A transverse incision is made through the paratenon, and expression of rupture hematoma often follows. Paratenon preservation is key in minimizing disruption of the native vascular supply of the tendon and allowing for repair at the end of the case. A freer can be placed within the wound to confirm that the center of the rupture has been identified.

An Allis clamp is inserted into the wound, and the proximal tendon stump is secured and then pulled about 1 cm through the wound. A freer is circumferentially run along the sides of the proximal tendon to release any potential adhesions that may limit distal excursion.

PARS Jig Insertion and Suture Passing

The PARS jig is inserted into the wound with the inner prongs in the narrowest position possible. The curved jig is inserted proximally, and the center turn wheel is used to widen the inner prongs so they can slide along the sides of the tendon in the paratenon. Proper jig placement should be smooth and encounter little resistance. The proximal tendon is in a superficial location and can be palpated within the prongs of the jig to double-check that the tendon is centered within the jig. A frequent error is to insert the jig too deep, which subsequently causes needles and sutures to miss the tendon and pull through.

Keeping the jig centralized in neutral rotation minimizes improper suture passing and avoids iatrogenic injury to the medial and lateral neurovascular structures. During suture passing, all needles (1.6 mm) with nitinol loops are first used unloaded without suture. The first 2 needles are inserted into their respective, numbered holes, through the tendon, and then through the opposite side of the jig. Each needle is checked to make sure that it does not pass outside the jig. Having 2 needles within the jig and tendon at all times during suture passing helps stabilize the jig and avoids adjacent suture piercing with the subsequent needle.

A No. 2 FiberWire suture (Arthrex) is then passed through the first hole using the needle suture passer and made even in length on both sides. The specific colors of the suture are not important, but the order of the sutures placed is. An assistant can write down the colors and order of the sutures passed. Before the second suture is passed, the first needle is inserted back through the jig and tendon into the third hole. The third and fourth sutures (green-striped) differ from the other sutures in that one end has a loop and the other has a tail, and they are passed in an oblique, crossing pattern. These sutures later help create a locking suture on either side of the tendon.

After these sutures are passed, the final result should be 1 green-striped loop and 1 green-striped tail on either side of the tendon. The fifth suture is passed straight across the tendon in a trajectory similar to that of the first suture. In large laborers, obese patients, and elite athletes, 2 additional green-striped sutures can be passed through the optional sixth and seventh holes to create an additional locking suture.

PARS Jig Removal and Suture Management

After all sutures are passed, the turn wheel is used to narrow the inner prongs while gentle, controlled tension is applied to the jig to remove it from the wound (Figures 2A-2C).

Pullout of any suture from the tendon indicates that the tendon was not centered in the jig or was not proximal enough along the tendon during suture passing. If a suture pulls out, it is removed, and the previous steps are repeated with close attention paid to tendon positioning within the jig. It is not advised to extend the incision longitudinally on either end of the transverse incision, as doing so can lead to potential wound-healing complications. After proximal fixation is achieved, all sutures on each side of the tendon are neatly spread apart in the following order from proximal to distal: first suture, second suture, looped green-striped (third) suture, tail green-striped (fourth) suture, fifth suture. The second suture on both sides is then looped around the 2 green-striped sutures and back proximally through the looped end of the green-striped suture.

The green-striped suture tail is pulled through the tendon to the opposite side to create a locking suture on both sides of the tendon. In the end, there are 2 nonlocking sutures and 1 locking suture on either side of the tendon. Each pair of sutures is pulled distally to confirm fixation and remove any initial suture creep from the system. A hemostat is placed on each group of 3 sutures to keep them out of the way during distal anchor preparation.

Distal Anchor Preparation and Banana SutureLasso Passing

Two longitudinal 5-mm incisions are made along the posterior aspect of the heel just distal to the area of maximal heel convexity. Incisions are spaced 1.5 cm apart along the sides of the Achilles tendon insertion. A 3.5-mm drill and a drill guide are used through each incision and placed flush against bone (Figures 3A-3E).

A Banana SutureLasso (Arthrex) with inner nitinol wire is passed through the center of the distal Achilles tendon stump and out the proximal incision to retrieve one side of the proximal sutures. SutureLasso passage through tendon can be facilitated with tactile feedback. The surgeon’s nondominant thumb is placed directly against the distal tendon while the dominant hand grasps the SutureLasso with the thumb near the tip. As the SutureLasso is advanced proximally through the tendon, the surgeon can feel its tip meeting mild resistance. Confirm that the tip of the SutureLasso is in the center of the distal tendon by direct visual inspection through the wound.

The inner nitinol wire is advanced 2 cm to 3 cm out of the tip of the SutureLasso, and sutures are passed through the distal Achilles tendon. During suture passing, the nitinol wire is drawn back to the tip of the SutureLasso, and then the entire SutureLasso is removed from the distal incision. Trying to pass the sutures only through the inner nitinol wire can result in suture tangling and increased resistance. The process is then repeated for the sutures on the opposite side. Suture pairs are placed under maximal tension and cycled multiple times (5-10) to remove any residual proximal suture creep.¹⁰

Achilles Tensioning and Anchor Insertion

The ankle is plantar flexed to tension the Achilles tendon relative to the contralateral limb and is held in place by an assistant (Figures 4A-4E).

Position of the drill holes can be rechecked with a Kirschner wire before anchor insertion, as their relative position changes with ankle plantar flexion. It is not necessary to premeasure and adjust suture length at the tip of the anchor as in other blind tunnel anchor insertion techniques (eg, InternalBrace; Arthrex). Once the anchor tip is malleted into bone, the free suture ends are released to avoid overtensioning the tendon. Before the anchor insertion handle is completely removed, the tip of a mosquito clamp can be used to feel the bony surface and confirm the anchor is completely seated.

With the ankle still held in the appropriate amount of plantarflexion, the process is repeated and the other SwiveLock anchor inserted. Sutures are cut flush with the anchor, and the surgeon performs wound irrigation and layered closure, with absorbable suture, of the paratenon and subcutaneous tissues. After skin closure with nylon suture, resting ankle plantarflexion is assessed and the Thompson test performed. The patient is placed in a well-padded non-weight-bearing plantar flexion splint for incision and initial tendon healing during the first 2 weeks after surgery.

Discussion

A key aspect of recovery is the balance achieved between skin and tendon healing and early mobilization, as outcomes of surgical repair of Achilles ruptures are improved with early weight-bearing and functional rehabilitation.^11-13 Some surgeons recommend weight-bearing immediately after surgery, given the direct tendon-to-bone fixation achieved with repair.⁹ I prefer 2 weeks of non-weight-bearing, which allows the skin to heal adequately and the initial soft-tissue inflammation to subside. If the incision is healed at 2 weeks, sutures are removed, and the patient is transitioned to a tall, non-weight-bearing CAM (controlled ankle motion) boot, worn for 1 to 2 weeks with initiation of gentle ankle range-of-motion exercises. If there is any concern about wound healing, sutures are maintained for another 1 to 2 weeks.

Between 3 and 8 weeks after surgery, progressive weight-bearing is initiated with a peel-away heel lift (~2 cm thick total, 3 layers). Each lift layer is removed as pain allows, every 2 to 3 days. The goal is full weight-bearing with the foot flat 5 to 6 weeks after surgery. Physical therapy focusing on ankle motion and gentle Achilles stretching and strengthening is started 5 to 6 weeks after surgery, depending on progression and functional needs. Between 8 and 12 weeks after surgery, the patient is transitioned to normal shoe wear with increased activities. Running and jumping are allowed, as pain and swelling allow, starting at 12 weeks.

Although preliminary outcomes and experience with the Achilles Midsubstance SpeedBridge have been favorable, long-term clinical and functional studies are needed to determine the specific advantages and disadvantages of this new technique relative to other repairs. The main benefits observed thus far are reduced subjective knot tying and tensioning, decreased reliance on suture fixation in compromised tissue at the rupture site, reduced risk of FiberWire knot irritation of superficial soft tissues, lower risk of distal suture pullout, and earlier mobilization owing to bony fixation of the tendon. Potential complications include anchor-site heel pain caused by prominent anchors or by the bone edema that occurs when a patient increases physical activity by a significant amount at 12 weeks.⁹ Heel pain caused by bone edema resolves by 20 weeks without intervention.

Stress shielding of the distal Achilles tendon is a theoretical concern given the tendon–bone construct, but there have been no reports of tendon atrophy or repair failure caused by stress shielding. The original PARS technique was often used to create Achilles tension with the ankle maximally plantar flexed—the idea being that the tendon would gradually stretch over time.¹ Overtensioning the Achilles repair is a potential complication with the SpeedBridge, as the distal anchors provide a more rigid point of distal fixation. Surgeons can avoid this complication by cycling the sutures to remove any residual creep and then tensioning the Achilles according to the contralateral limb and/or palpating tendon opposition at the rupture site.

Overall, this new limited-incision knotless Achilles tendon repair technique allows for minimal soft-tissue dissection, restoration of Achilles musculotendinous length, and direct tendon-to-bone fixation. Early results are promising, but long-term clinical outcomes and comparative analysis are needed. In addition, many details of this technique must be clarified—including incidence of short- and long-term complications in larger cohorts, optimal suture material and configuration, and risks and benefits of immediate (<2 weeks) and delayed (2-4 weeks) weight-bearing.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E487-E492. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

The incidence of midsubstance Achilles tendon ruptures is increasing in patients 30 years to 50 years of age, and more than 50% of these injuries occur during recreational basketball.^1,2 Achilles ruptures occur more in deconditioned individuals engaged in explosive push-off and jumping activities. Management of these injuries has been controversial over the past decade; there is no consensus on nonoperative treatment, surgical repair, or optimal repair technique.^1,3-7 According to American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) clinical practice guidelines, limited-incision approaches have fewer overall complications relative to traditional open repair.^3,4

Modern repair techniques, such as the Percutaneous Achilles Repair System (PARS; Arthrex), combine limited soft-tissue dissection with percutaneous suture insertion and knot tying.^1,8 This limited-incision technique, employed since 2010, uses a 2-cm transverse incision and nondisposable metal jig with divergent needle passes and locking suture fixation options to secure and fix both tendon ends with minimal dissection of skin, subcutaneous tissue, and paratenon. A review of 270 surgically treated Achilles tendon ruptures (101 PARS, 169 traditional open repair) found that, compared with the open repair group, the PARS group had significantly shorter operative times and more patients returning to baseline physical activities within 5 months after surgery.¹ Although the difference was not statistically significant, the overall postoperative complication rate was 5% for the PARS group and 11% for the open repair group. The PARS group had no cases of sural neuritis or deep infection requiring reoperation.

Although the PARS technique has had good outcomes with few complications, care must be taken during surgery to prevent sutures from pulling through the tendon near the rupture site, which can result from overtensioning and from suture knot irritation against superficial soft tissues. Given these potential issues, the PARS procedure was modified (Achilles Midsubstance SpeedBridge; Arthrex) to provide knotless restoration of musculotendinous length in a reliable, reproducible fashion and direct fixation of tendon to bone for early mobilization.⁹ This new procedure bypasses suture fixation in the compromised tendon ends adjacent to the rupture site, thereby reducing suture slippage and allowing for potential early range of motion and weight-bearing relative to previous techniques. Preliminary results from a cohort of 34 patients treated with this technique are promising: Average return to baseline activities was 18.2 weeks (range, 9-26 weeks), and there were no wound complications, nerve injuries, or reruptures.⁹Indications are overall health and an acute midsubstance Achilles rupture that presents within 3 weeks after injury (the time limit is used to ensure that both tendon ends can be mobilized and repaired to appropriate length). A relative contraindication is delayed presentation (≥4 weeks), which may require open reconstruction in combination with V-Y lengthening or other adjuvant procedures. Other relative contraindications are insertional rupture, Achilles tendinopathy, and a significant medical comorbidity that prohibits surgical intervention.

Surgical Technique

Operating Room Setup and Approach

The patient is positioned prone with chest rolls and kneepads and with arms at <90° of abduction (Figures 1A-1E).

A “no-touch” technique is used without pickups, and soft tissues are carefully dissected with small scissors down to the paratenon. The sural nerve typically is not visible in the operative field, but, if it is, it can be dissected out and retracted out of the way. A transverse incision is made through the paratenon, and expression of rupture hematoma often follows. Paratenon preservation is key in minimizing disruption of the native vascular supply of the tendon and allowing for repair at the end of the case. A freer can be placed within the wound to confirm that the center of the rupture has been identified.

An Allis clamp is inserted into the wound, and the proximal tendon stump is secured and then pulled about 1 cm through the wound. A freer is circumferentially run along the sides of the proximal tendon to release any potential adhesions that may limit distal excursion.

PARS Jig Insertion and Suture Passing

The PARS jig is inserted into the wound with the inner prongs in the narrowest position possible. The curved jig is inserted proximally, and the center turn wheel is used to widen the inner prongs so they can slide along the sides of the tendon in the paratenon. Proper jig placement should be smooth and encounter little resistance. The proximal tendon is in a superficial location and can be palpated within the prongs of the jig to double-check that the tendon is centered within the jig. A frequent error is to insert the jig too deep, which subsequently causes needles and sutures to miss the tendon and pull through.

Keeping the jig centralized in neutral rotation minimizes improper suture passing and avoids iatrogenic injury to the medial and lateral neurovascular structures. During suture passing, all needles (1.6 mm) with nitinol loops are first used unloaded without suture. The first 2 needles are inserted into their respective, numbered holes, through the tendon, and then through the opposite side of the jig. Each needle is checked to make sure that it does not pass outside the jig. Having 2 needles within the jig and tendon at all times during suture passing helps stabilize the jig and avoids adjacent suture piercing with the subsequent needle.

A No. 2 FiberWire suture (Arthrex) is then passed through the first hole using the needle suture passer and made even in length on both sides. The specific colors of the suture are not important, but the order of the sutures placed is. An assistant can write down the colors and order of the sutures passed. Before the second suture is passed, the first needle is inserted back through the jig and tendon into the third hole. The third and fourth sutures (green-striped) differ from the other sutures in that one end has a loop and the other has a tail, and they are passed in an oblique, crossing pattern. These sutures later help create a locking suture on either side of the tendon.

After these sutures are passed, the final result should be 1 green-striped loop and 1 green-striped tail on either side of the tendon. The fifth suture is passed straight across the tendon in a trajectory similar to that of the first suture. In large laborers, obese patients, and elite athletes, 2 additional green-striped sutures can be passed through the optional sixth and seventh holes to create an additional locking suture.

PARS Jig Removal and Suture Management

After all sutures are passed, the turn wheel is used to narrow the inner prongs while gentle, controlled tension is applied to the jig to remove it from the wound (Figures 2A-2C).

Pullout of any suture from the tendon indicates that the tendon was not centered in the jig or was not proximal enough along the tendon during suture passing. If a suture pulls out, it is removed, and the previous steps are repeated with close attention paid to tendon positioning within the jig. It is not advised to extend the incision longitudinally on either end of the transverse incision, as doing so can lead to potential wound-healing complications. After proximal fixation is achieved, all sutures on each side of the tendon are neatly spread apart in the following order from proximal to distal: first suture, second suture, looped green-striped (third) suture, tail green-striped (fourth) suture, fifth suture. The second suture on both sides is then looped around the 2 green-striped sutures and back proximally through the looped end of the green-striped suture.

The green-striped suture tail is pulled through the tendon to the opposite side to create a locking suture on both sides of the tendon. In the end, there are 2 nonlocking sutures and 1 locking suture on either side of the tendon. Each pair of sutures is pulled distally to confirm fixation and remove any initial suture creep from the system. A hemostat is placed on each group of 3 sutures to keep them out of the way during distal anchor preparation.

Distal Anchor Preparation and Banana SutureLasso Passing

Two longitudinal 5-mm incisions are made along the posterior aspect of the heel just distal to the area of maximal heel convexity. Incisions are spaced 1.5 cm apart along the sides of the Achilles tendon insertion. A 3.5-mm drill and a drill guide are used through each incision and placed flush against bone (Figures 3A-3E).

A Banana SutureLasso (Arthrex) with inner nitinol wire is passed through the center of the distal Achilles tendon stump and out the proximal incision to retrieve one side of the proximal sutures. SutureLasso passage through tendon can be facilitated with tactile feedback. The surgeon’s nondominant thumb is placed directly against the distal tendon while the dominant hand grasps the SutureLasso with the thumb near the tip. As the SutureLasso is advanced proximally through the tendon, the surgeon can feel its tip meeting mild resistance. Confirm that the tip of the SutureLasso is in the center of the distal tendon by direct visual inspection through the wound.

The inner nitinol wire is advanced 2 cm to 3 cm out of the tip of the SutureLasso, and sutures are passed through the distal Achilles tendon. During suture passing, the nitinol wire is drawn back to the tip of the SutureLasso, and then the entire SutureLasso is removed from the distal incision. Trying to pass the sutures only through the inner nitinol wire can result in suture tangling and increased resistance. The process is then repeated for the sutures on the opposite side. Suture pairs are placed under maximal tension and cycled multiple times (5-10) to remove any residual proximal suture creep.¹⁰

Achilles Tensioning and Anchor Insertion

The ankle is plantar flexed to tension the Achilles tendon relative to the contralateral limb and is held in place by an assistant (Figures 4A-4E).

Position of the drill holes can be rechecked with a Kirschner wire before anchor insertion, as their relative position changes with ankle plantar flexion. It is not necessary to premeasure and adjust suture length at the tip of the anchor as in other blind tunnel anchor insertion techniques (eg, InternalBrace; Arthrex). Once the anchor tip is malleted into bone, the free suture ends are released to avoid overtensioning the tendon. Before the anchor insertion handle is completely removed, the tip of a mosquito clamp can be used to feel the bony surface and confirm the anchor is completely seated.

With the ankle still held in the appropriate amount of plantarflexion, the process is repeated and the other SwiveLock anchor inserted. Sutures are cut flush with the anchor, and the surgeon performs wound irrigation and layered closure, with absorbable suture, of the paratenon and subcutaneous tissues. After skin closure with nylon suture, resting ankle plantarflexion is assessed and the Thompson test performed. The patient is placed in a well-padded non-weight-bearing plantar flexion splint for incision and initial tendon healing during the first 2 weeks after surgery.

Discussion

A key aspect of recovery is the balance achieved between skin and tendon healing and early mobilization, as outcomes of surgical repair of Achilles ruptures are improved with early weight-bearing and functional rehabilitation.^11-13 Some surgeons recommend weight-bearing immediately after surgery, given the direct tendon-to-bone fixation achieved with repair.⁹ I prefer 2 weeks of non-weight-bearing, which allows the skin to heal adequately and the initial soft-tissue inflammation to subside. If the incision is healed at 2 weeks, sutures are removed, and the patient is transitioned to a tall, non-weight-bearing CAM (controlled ankle motion) boot, worn for 1 to 2 weeks with initiation of gentle ankle range-of-motion exercises. If there is any concern about wound healing, sutures are maintained for another 1 to 2 weeks.

Between 3 and 8 weeks after surgery, progressive weight-bearing is initiated with a peel-away heel lift (~2 cm thick total, 3 layers). Each lift layer is removed as pain allows, every 2 to 3 days. The goal is full weight-bearing with the foot flat 5 to 6 weeks after surgery. Physical therapy focusing on ankle motion and gentle Achilles stretching and strengthening is started 5 to 6 weeks after surgery, depending on progression and functional needs. Between 8 and 12 weeks after surgery, the patient is transitioned to normal shoe wear with increased activities. Running and jumping are allowed, as pain and swelling allow, starting at 12 weeks.

Although preliminary outcomes and experience with the Achilles Midsubstance SpeedBridge have been favorable, long-term clinical and functional studies are needed to determine the specific advantages and disadvantages of this new technique relative to other repairs. The main benefits observed thus far are reduced subjective knot tying and tensioning, decreased reliance on suture fixation in compromised tissue at the rupture site, reduced risk of FiberWire knot irritation of superficial soft tissues, lower risk of distal suture pullout, and earlier mobilization owing to bony fixation of the tendon. Potential complications include anchor-site heel pain caused by prominent anchors or by the bone edema that occurs when a patient increases physical activity by a significant amount at 12 weeks.⁹ Heel pain caused by bone edema resolves by 20 weeks without intervention.

Stress shielding of the distal Achilles tendon is a theoretical concern given the tendon–bone construct, but there have been no reports of tendon atrophy or repair failure caused by stress shielding. The original PARS technique was often used to create Achilles tension with the ankle maximally plantar flexed—the idea being that the tendon would gradually stretch over time.¹ Overtensioning the Achilles repair is a potential complication with the SpeedBridge, as the distal anchors provide a more rigid point of distal fixation. Surgeons can avoid this complication by cycling the sutures to remove any residual creep and then tensioning the Achilles according to the contralateral limb and/or palpating tendon opposition at the rupture site.

Overall, this new limited-incision knotless Achilles tendon repair technique allows for minimal soft-tissue dissection, restoration of Achilles musculotendinous length, and direct tendon-to-bone fixation. Early results are promising, but long-term clinical outcomes and comparative analysis are needed. In addition, many details of this technique must be clarified—including incidence of short- and long-term complications in larger cohorts, optimal suture material and configuration, and risks and benefits of immediate (<2 weeks) and delayed (2-4 weeks) weight-bearing.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E487-E492. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.

The incidence of midsubstance Achilles tendon ruptures is increasing in patients 30 years to 50 years of age, and more than 50% of these injuries occur during recreational basketball.^1,2 Achilles ruptures occur more in deconditioned individuals engaged in explosive push-off and jumping activities. Management of these injuries has been controversial over the past decade; there is no consensus on nonoperative treatment, surgical repair, or optimal repair technique.^1,3-7 According to American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) clinical practice guidelines, limited-incision approaches have fewer overall complications relative to traditional open repair.^3,4

Modern repair techniques, such as the Percutaneous Achilles Repair System (PARS; Arthrex), combine limited soft-tissue dissection with percutaneous suture insertion and knot tying.^1,8 This limited-incision technique, employed since 2010, uses a 2-cm transverse incision and nondisposable metal jig with divergent needle passes and locking suture fixation options to secure and fix both tendon ends with minimal dissection of skin, subcutaneous tissue, and paratenon. A review of 270 surgically treated Achilles tendon ruptures (101 PARS, 169 traditional open repair) found that, compared with the open repair group, the PARS group had significantly shorter operative times and more patients returning to baseline physical activities within 5 months after surgery.¹ Although the difference was not statistically significant, the overall postoperative complication rate was 5% for the PARS group and 11% for the open repair group. The PARS group had no cases of sural neuritis or deep infection requiring reoperation.

Although the PARS technique has had good outcomes with few complications, care must be taken during surgery to prevent sutures from pulling through the tendon near the rupture site, which can result from overtensioning and from suture knot irritation against superficial soft tissues. Given these potential issues, the PARS procedure was modified (Achilles Midsubstance SpeedBridge; Arthrex) to provide knotless restoration of musculotendinous length in a reliable, reproducible fashion and direct fixation of tendon to bone for early mobilization.⁹ This new procedure bypasses suture fixation in the compromised tendon ends adjacent to the rupture site, thereby reducing suture slippage and allowing for potential early range of motion and weight-bearing relative to previous techniques. Preliminary results from a cohort of 34 patients treated with this technique are promising: Average return to baseline activities was 18.2 weeks (range, 9-26 weeks), and there were no wound complications, nerve injuries, or reruptures.⁹Indications are overall health and an acute midsubstance Achilles rupture that presents within 3 weeks after injury (the time limit is used to ensure that both tendon ends can be mobilized and repaired to appropriate length). A relative contraindication is delayed presentation (≥4 weeks), which may require open reconstruction in combination with V-Y lengthening or other adjuvant procedures. Other relative contraindications are insertional rupture, Achilles tendinopathy, and a significant medical comorbidity that prohibits surgical intervention.

Surgical Technique

Operating Room Setup and Approach

The patient is positioned prone with chest rolls and kneepads and with arms at <90° of abduction (Figures 1A-1E).

A “no-touch” technique is used without pickups, and soft tissues are carefully dissected with small scissors down to the paratenon. The sural nerve typically is not visible in the operative field, but, if it is, it can be dissected out and retracted out of the way. A transverse incision is made through the paratenon, and expression of rupture hematoma often follows. Paratenon preservation is key in minimizing disruption of the native vascular supply of the tendon and allowing for repair at the end of the case. A freer can be placed within the wound to confirm that the center of the rupture has been identified.

An Allis clamp is inserted into the wound, and the proximal tendon stump is secured and then pulled about 1 cm through the wound. A freer is circumferentially run along the sides of the proximal tendon to release any potential adhesions that may limit distal excursion.

PARS Jig Insertion and Suture Passing

The PARS jig is inserted into the wound with the inner prongs in the narrowest position possible. The curved jig is inserted proximally, and the center turn wheel is used to widen the inner prongs so they can slide along the sides of the tendon in the paratenon. Proper jig placement should be smooth and encounter little resistance. The proximal tendon is in a superficial location and can be palpated within the prongs of the jig to double-check that the tendon is centered within the jig. A frequent error is to insert the jig too deep, which subsequently causes needles and sutures to miss the tendon and pull through.

Keeping the jig centralized in neutral rotation minimizes improper suture passing and avoids iatrogenic injury to the medial and lateral neurovascular structures. During suture passing, all needles (1.6 mm) with nitinol loops are first used unloaded without suture. The first 2 needles are inserted into their respective, numbered holes, through the tendon, and then through the opposite side of the jig. Each needle is checked to make sure that it does not pass outside the jig. Having 2 needles within the jig and tendon at all times during suture passing helps stabilize the jig and avoids adjacent suture piercing with the subsequent needle.

A No. 2 FiberWire suture (Arthrex) is then passed through the first hole using the needle suture passer and made even in length on both sides. The specific colors of the suture are not important, but the order of the sutures placed is. An assistant can write down the colors and order of the sutures passed. Before the second suture is passed, the first needle is inserted back through the jig and tendon into the third hole. The third and fourth sutures (green-striped) differ from the other sutures in that one end has a loop and the other has a tail, and they are passed in an oblique, crossing pattern. These sutures later help create a locking suture on either side of the tendon.

After these sutures are passed, the final result should be 1 green-striped loop and 1 green-striped tail on either side of the tendon. The fifth suture is passed straight across the tendon in a trajectory similar to that of the first suture. In large laborers, obese patients, and elite athletes, 2 additional green-striped sutures can be passed through the optional sixth and seventh holes to create an additional locking suture.

PARS Jig Removal and Suture Management

After all sutures are passed, the turn wheel is used to narrow the inner prongs while gentle, controlled tension is applied to the jig to remove it from the wound (Figures 2A-2C).

Pullout of any suture from the tendon indicates that the tendon was not centered in the jig or was not proximal enough along the tendon during suture passing. If a suture pulls out, it is removed, and the previous steps are repeated with close attention paid to tendon positioning within the jig. It is not advised to extend the incision longitudinally on either end of the transverse incision, as doing so can lead to potential wound-healing complications. After proximal fixation is achieved, all sutures on each side of the tendon are neatly spread apart in the following order from proximal to distal: first suture, second suture, looped green-striped (third) suture, tail green-striped (fourth) suture, fifth suture. The second suture on both sides is then looped around the 2 green-striped sutures and back proximally through the looped end of the green-striped suture.

The green-striped suture tail is pulled through the tendon to the opposite side to create a locking suture on both sides of the tendon. In the end, there are 2 nonlocking sutures and 1 locking suture on either side of the tendon. Each pair of sutures is pulled distally to confirm fixation and remove any initial suture creep from the system. A hemostat is placed on each group of 3 sutures to keep them out of the way during distal anchor preparation.

Distal Anchor Preparation and Banana SutureLasso Passing

Two longitudinal 5-mm incisions are made along the posterior aspect of the heel just distal to the area of maximal heel convexity. Incisions are spaced 1.5 cm apart along the sides of the Achilles tendon insertion. A 3.5-mm drill and a drill guide are used through each incision and placed flush against bone (Figures 3A-3E).

A Banana SutureLasso (Arthrex) with inner nitinol wire is passed through the center of the distal Achilles tendon stump and out the proximal incision to retrieve one side of the proximal sutures. SutureLasso passage through tendon can be facilitated with tactile feedback. The surgeon’s nondominant thumb is placed directly against the distal tendon while the dominant hand grasps the SutureLasso with the thumb near the tip. As the SutureLasso is advanced proximally through the tendon, the surgeon can feel its tip meeting mild resistance. Confirm that the tip of the SutureLasso is in the center of the distal tendon by direct visual inspection through the wound.

The inner nitinol wire is advanced 2 cm to 3 cm out of the tip of the SutureLasso, and sutures are passed through the distal Achilles tendon. During suture passing, the nitinol wire is drawn back to the tip of the SutureLasso, and then the entire SutureLasso is removed from the distal incision. Trying to pass the sutures only through the inner nitinol wire can result in suture tangling and increased resistance. The process is then repeated for the sutures on the opposite side. Suture pairs are placed under maximal tension and cycled multiple times (5-10) to remove any residual proximal suture creep.¹⁰

Achilles Tensioning and Anchor Insertion

The ankle is plantar flexed to tension the Achilles tendon relative to the contralateral limb and is held in place by an assistant (Figures 4A-4E).

Position of the drill holes can be rechecked with a Kirschner wire before anchor insertion, as their relative position changes with ankle plantar flexion. It is not necessary to premeasure and adjust suture length at the tip of the anchor as in other blind tunnel anchor insertion techniques (eg, InternalBrace; Arthrex). Once the anchor tip is malleted into bone, the free suture ends are released to avoid overtensioning the tendon. Before the anchor insertion handle is completely removed, the tip of a mosquito clamp can be used to feel the bony surface and confirm the anchor is completely seated.

With the ankle still held in the appropriate amount of plantarflexion, the process is repeated and the other SwiveLock anchor inserted. Sutures are cut flush with the anchor, and the surgeon performs wound irrigation and layered closure, with absorbable suture, of the paratenon and subcutaneous tissues. After skin closure with nylon suture, resting ankle plantarflexion is assessed and the Thompson test performed. The patient is placed in a well-padded non-weight-bearing plantar flexion splint for incision and initial tendon healing during the first 2 weeks after surgery.

Discussion

A key aspect of recovery is the balance achieved between skin and tendon healing and early mobilization, as outcomes of surgical repair of Achilles ruptures are improved with early weight-bearing and functional rehabilitation.^11-13 Some surgeons recommend weight-bearing immediately after surgery, given the direct tendon-to-bone fixation achieved with repair.⁹ I prefer 2 weeks of non-weight-bearing, which allows the skin to heal adequately and the initial soft-tissue inflammation to subside. If the incision is healed at 2 weeks, sutures are removed, and the patient is transitioned to a tall, non-weight-bearing CAM (controlled ankle motion) boot, worn for 1 to 2 weeks with initiation of gentle ankle range-of-motion exercises. If there is any concern about wound healing, sutures are maintained for another 1 to 2 weeks.

Between 3 and 8 weeks after surgery, progressive weight-bearing is initiated with a peel-away heel lift (~2 cm thick total, 3 layers). Each lift layer is removed as pain allows, every 2 to 3 days. The goal is full weight-bearing with the foot flat 5 to 6 weeks after surgery. Physical therapy focusing on ankle motion and gentle Achilles stretching and strengthening is started 5 to 6 weeks after surgery, depending on progression and functional needs. Between 8 and 12 weeks after surgery, the patient is transitioned to normal shoe wear with increased activities. Running and jumping are allowed, as pain and swelling allow, starting at 12 weeks.

Although preliminary outcomes and experience with the Achilles Midsubstance SpeedBridge have been favorable, long-term clinical and functional studies are needed to determine the specific advantages and disadvantages of this new technique relative to other repairs. The main benefits observed thus far are reduced subjective knot tying and tensioning, decreased reliance on suture fixation in compromised tissue at the rupture site, reduced risk of FiberWire knot irritation of superficial soft tissues, lower risk of distal suture pullout, and earlier mobilization owing to bony fixation of the tendon. Potential complications include anchor-site heel pain caused by prominent anchors or by the bone edema that occurs when a patient increases physical activity by a significant amount at 12 weeks.⁹ Heel pain caused by bone edema resolves by 20 weeks without intervention.

Stress shielding of the distal Achilles tendon is a theoretical concern given the tendon–bone construct, but there have been no reports of tendon atrophy or repair failure caused by stress shielding. The original PARS technique was often used to create Achilles tension with the ankle maximally plantar flexed—the idea being that the tendon would gradually stretch over time.¹ Overtensioning the Achilles repair is a potential complication with the SpeedBridge, as the distal anchors provide a more rigid point of distal fixation. Surgeons can avoid this complication by cycling the sutures to remove any residual creep and then tensioning the Achilles according to the contralateral limb and/or palpating tendon opposition at the rupture site.

Overall, this new limited-incision knotless Achilles tendon repair technique allows for minimal soft-tissue dissection, restoration of Achilles musculotendinous length, and direct tendon-to-bone fixation. Early results are promising, but long-term clinical outcomes and comparative analysis are needed. In addition, many details of this technique must be clarified—including incidence of short- and long-term complications in larger cohorts, optimal suture material and configuration, and risks and benefits of immediate (<2 weeks) and delayed (2-4 weeks) weight-bearing.

Am J Orthop. 2016;45(7):E487-E492. Copyright Frontline Medical Communications Inc. 2016. All rights reserved.