Is there a difference in outcomes between the first and second surgical procedures in patients who have bilateral shoulder operations?

BACKGROUND: Some patients who have shoulder surgery on 1 shoulder go on to have surgery on their contralateral shoulder. It is unclear whether the clinical improvements following the second surgical procedure are as significant as the improvements after the first surgical procedure. METHODS: All patients who underwent surgery on both shoulders performed by a single surgeon between March 2013 and June 2018 were eligible for inclusion. Visual analog scale (VAS) scores were obtained preoperatively and at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years for both shoulders. Scores were then compared based on hand dominance and which shoulder was treated first. Complications were also recorded. RESULTS: Overall, 105 patients (210 surgical procedures) were included. Of the patients, 66 underwent bilateral open shoulder surgery and 39 underwent bilateral arthroscopic shoulder surgery. There was a significant reduction in VAS scores from preoperative to postoperative levels following surgery (5.9 before surgery vs. 1.7 after surgery). We found no difference in VAS scores at any time point when comparing whether the dominant or nondominant shoulder was operated on first. Significantly higher VAS scores were observed at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months following the first shoulder operation compared with the second; by 6 months and beyond, there was no longer a difference. CONCLUSION: Patients who undergo bilateral shoulder surgery have more pain in the first 3 months following their first shoulder operation compared with their second. However, there is no difference in pain scores at 6 months and beyond between shoulders.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for proximal humerus fracture: a more complex episode of care than for cuff tear arthropathy.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this investigation is to identify the in-hospital and 30-day postoperative complications for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) performed because of proximal humerus fracture (PHFx) vs. cuff tear arthropathy (CTA), and determine whether acute fracture is associated with differences in complications after RTSA. METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was queried for RTSA performed for PHFx and CTA. This database contains surgical outcomes within 30 days after the index procedure. Patients underwent a 1:1 propensity matched based on preoperative demographics and comorbidities. Outcomes included operative time, length of stay (LOS), complications, transfusion, readmission, and discharge destination. RESULTS: A total of 1006 patients (503 per group) were included. With a PHFx, operative time was longer (129.5 ± 54.2 vs. 96.0 ± 40.0 minutes, P < .001), and the patients were more likely to have an adverse event (19.0% vs. 8.2%, P < .001), require transfusion (15.71% vs. 3.98%, P < .001), have longer LOS (3.8 ± 3.6 vs. 2.2 ± 1.7 days, P < .001), and were more likely to be discharged to an extended care facility (27.2% vs. 10.3%, P < .001). PHFx was an independent risk factor for an adverse event after an RTSA. CONCLUSIONS: RTSA to treat PHFx is associated with longer LOS, increased complications, and discharge to an extended care facility compared with RTSA for CTA. Patients with PHFx require more health care resources than patients with CTA. It is imperative for surgeons, patients, families, governments, hospital systems, and insurance payers to recognize the differences in resource utilization for RTSA in treating PHFx compared with CTA.

Does early motion lead to a higher failure rate or better outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair? A systematic review of overlapping meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: The aims of the study were as follows: to perform a systematic review of meta-analyses comparing "early motion" and "delayed motion" after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair; to provide a framework to analyze the best available evidence to develop recommendations; and to identify gaps where suggestions could be made for future investigations. METHODS: Literature searches were performed to identify meta-analyses examining arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with early-motion vs. delayed-motion rehabilitation protocols. Clinical data were extracted, and meta-analysis quality was assessed using the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses and Oxman-Guyatt scales. RESULTS: Nine meta-analyses met inclusion criteria. No clear superiority was noted in clinical outcome scores for early-motion or delayed-motion rehabilitation. Results of tendon healing were found to be either no different or in favor of delayed motion, but no differences were noted in rotator cuff tear recurrence rates postoperatively. The majority of meta-analyses found significantly better range of motion with early motion up to a year postoperatively for forward elevation and up to 6 months for external rotation, but significant differences were not reported for functional improvements and strength at 12 months postoperatively. Subgroup analyses suggested that larger preoperative tear sizes have significantly greater retear rates with early-motion rehabilitation. CONCLUSIONS: The current highest level of evidence suggests that early-motion rehabilitation after rotator cuff repair results in superior postoperative range of motion up to 1 year. Whereas early motion and delayed motion after cuff repair may lead to comparable functional outcomes and retear rates, concern exists that early motion may result in greater retear rates, particularly with larger tear sizes.

Does the Use of Platelet-Rich Plasma at the Time of Surgery Improve Clinical Outcomes in Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair When Compared With Control Cohorts? A Systematic Review of Meta-analyses.

PURPOSE: The aims of the study were as follows: (1) to perform a systematic review of meta-analyses evaluating platelet-rich plasma (PRP) use at the time of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair surgery and to determine its effect on retear rates and clinical outcomes; (2) to provide a framework for the analysis and interpretation of the best currently available evidence; and (3) to identify gaps within the literature where suggestions for continued investigational efforts would be valid. METHODS: Literature searches were performed to identify meta-analyses examining arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs augmented with PRP versus control (no PRP). Clinical data were extracted and meta-analysis quality was assessed using the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses and Oxman-Guyatt scales. RESULTS: Seven meta-analyses met inclusion and exclusion criteria. All were considered as being of similar quality with Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses scores >15 and Oxman scores of 7. A total of 3,193 overlapping patients treated were included with mean follow-up from 12 to 31 months. When compared with control patients, use of PRP at the time of rotator cuff repair did not result in significantly lower overall retear rates or improved clinical outcome scores. The following postoperative functional scores comparing PRP versus control were reported: Constant (no significant difference demonstrated with PRP use in 5 of 6 reporting meta-analyses), University of California - Los Angeles (no difference, 6 of 6), American Shoulder and Elbow Society (no difference, 4 of 4), and Simple Shoulder Test (no difference, 3 of 5). Subgroup analysis performed by 3 meta-analyses showed evidence of improved outcomes with solid PRP matrix versus liquid, small- and/or medium-sized versus large and/or massive tears, PRP application at the tendon-bone interface versus over tendon, and in the setting of double-row versus single-row rotator cuff. CONCLUSIONS: The current highest level of evidence suggests that PRP use at the time of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair does not universally improve retear rates or affect clinical outcome scores. However, the effects of PRP use on retear rates trend toward beneficial outcomes if evaluated in the context of the following specific variables: use of a solid PRP matrix; application of PRP at the tendon-bone interface; in double-row repairs; and with small- and/or medium-sized rotator cuff tears. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level II and III studies.

Outcomes of arthroscopic anterior shoulder instability in the beach chair versus lateral decubitus position: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to systematically review the clinical outcomes and recurrence rates after arthroscopic anterior shoulder stabilization in the beach chair (BC) and lateral decubitus (LD) positions. METHODS: The authors performed a systematic review of multiple medical databases using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. All English-language literature from 1990 to 2013 reporting clinical outcomes after arthroscopic anterior shoulder stabilization with suture anchors or tacks with a minimum 2-year follow-up period were reviewed by 2 independent reviewers. Data on recurrent instability rate, return to activity/sport, range of motion, and subjective outcome measures were collected. Study methodological quality was evaluated with the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS) and the Quality Appraisal Tool (QAT). To quantify the structured review of observational data, meta-analytic statistical methods were used. RESULTS: Sixty-four studies (38 BC position, 26 LD position) met inclusion criteria. A total of 3,668 shoulders were included, with 2,211 of patients in the BC position (average age, 26.7 ± 3.8 years; 84.5% male sex) and 1,457 patients in the LD position (average age, 26.0 ± 3.0 years; 82.7% male sex). The average follow-up was 49.8 ± 29.5 months in the BC group compared with 38.7 ± 23.3 months in the LD group. Average overall recurrent instability rates were 14.65 ± 8.4% in the BC group (range, 0% to 38%) compared with 8.5% ± 7.1% in the LD group (range, 0% to 30%; P = .002). The average postoperative loss in external rotation motion (in abduction) was reported in 19 studies in the BC group and in13 studies in the LD group, with an average loss of 2.4° ± 1.0° and 3.6° ± 2.6° in each group, respectively (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Excellent clinical outcomes with low recurrence rates can be obtained after arthroscopic anterior shoulder stabilization in either the BC or the LD position; however, lower recurrence rates are noted in the LD position. Additional long-term randomized clinical trials comparing these positions are needed to better understand the potential advantages and disadvantages of each position. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of studies with Level I through Level IV evidence.

The outcomes and surgical techniques of the latarjet procedure.

PURPOSE: To determine the optimal position and orientation of the coracoid bone graft for the Latarjet procedure for recurrent instability in patients with recurrent anterior instability and high degrees of glenoid bone loss. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed (1980-2012), and Medline (1980-2012) was conducted. The following search teams were used: glenoid bone graft, coracoid transfer, glenoid rim fracture, osseous glenoid defect, and Latarjet. Studies deemed appropriate for inclusion were then analyzed. Study data collected included level of evidence, patient demographic characteristics, preoperative variables, intraoperative findings, technique details, and postoperative recovery and complications where available. RESULTS: The original search provided a total of 344 studies. A total of 334 studies were subsequently excluded because they were on an irrelevant topic, used an arthroscopic technique, or were not published in English or because they were review articles, leaving 10 studies eligible for inclusion. Given the different methods used in each of the studies included in the review, descriptive analysis was performed. The duration of follow-up ranged from 6 months to 14.3 years postoperatively. With the exception of 2 studies, all authors reported on recurrent shoulder instability after Latarjet reconstruction; the rate of recurrent anterior shoulder instability ranged from 0% to 8%. Overall patient satisfaction was listed in 4 studies, each of which reported good to excellent satisfaction rates of more than 90% at final follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: As noted in this review, the current literature on Latarjet outcomes consists mostly of retrospective Level IV case series. Although promising outcomes with regard to a low rate of recurrent instability have been seen with these reports, it should be noted that subtle variations in surgical technique, among other factors, may drastically impact the likelihood of glenohumeral degenerative changes arising in these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies.

Long-term outcomes after Bankart shoulder stabilization.

PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were (1) to analyze long-term outcomes in patients who have undergone open or arthroscopic Bankart repair and (2) to evaluate study methodologic quality through validated tools. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of Level I to IV Evidence using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Clinical outcome studies after open or arthroscopic Bankart repair with a minimum of 5 years' follow-up were analyzed. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were extracted and reported. Study methodologic quality was evaluated with Modified Coleman Methodology Scores and Quality Appraisal Tool scores. RESULTS: We analyzed 26 studies (1,781 patients). All but 2 studies were Level III or IV Evidence with low Modified Coleman Methodology Scores and Quality Appraisal Tool scores. Patients analyzed were young (mean age, 28 years) male patients (81%) with unilateral dominant shoulder (61%), post-traumatic recurrent (mean of 11 dislocations before surgery) anterior shoulder instability without significant glenoid bone loss. The mean length of clinical follow-up was 11 years. There was no significant difference in recurrence of instability with arthroscopic (11%) versus open (8%) techniques (P = .06). There was no significant difference in instability recurrence with arthroscopic suture anchor versus open Bankart repair (8.5% v 8%, P = .82). There was a significant difference in rate of return to sport between open (89%) and arthroscopic (74%) techniques (P < .01), whereas no significant difference was observed between arthroscopic suture anchor (87%) and open repair (89%) (P = .43). There was no significant difference in the rate of postoperative osteoarthritis between arthroscopic suture anchor and open Bankart repair (26% and 33%, respectively; P = .059). There was no significant difference in Rowe or Constant scores between groups (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical treatment of anterior shoulder instability using arthroscopic suture anchor and open Bankart techniques yields similar long-term clinical outcomes, with no significant difference in the rate of recurrent instability, clinical outcome scores, or rate of return to sport. No significant difference was shown in the incidence of postoperative osteoarthritis with open versus arthroscopic suture anchor repair. Study methodologic quality was poor, with most studies having Level III or IV Evidence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of studies with Level I through IV Evidence.

Operative treatment of chondral defects in the glenohumeral joint.

PURPOSE: The objectives of this study were to conduct a systematic review of clinical outcomes after cartilage restorative and reparative procedures in the glenohumeral joint, to identify prognostic factors that predict clinical outcomes, to provide treatment recommendations based on the best available evidence, and to highlight literature gaps that require future research. METHODS: We searched Medline (1948 to week 1 of February 2012) and Embase (1980 to week 5 of 2012) for studies evaluating the results of arthroscopic debridement, microfracture, osteochondral autograft or allograft transplants, and autologous chondrocyte implantation for glenohumeral chondral lesions. Other inclusion criteria included minimum 8 months' follow-up. The Oxford Level of Evidence Guidelines and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) recommendations were used to rate the quality of evidence and to make treatment recommendations. RESULTS: Twelve articles met our inclusion criteria, which resulted in a total of 315 patients. Six articles pertained to arthroscopic debridement (n = 249), 3 to microfracture (n = 47), 2 to osteochondral autograft transplantation (n = 15), and 1 to autologous chondrocyte implantation (n = 5). Whereas most studies reported favorable results, sample heterogeneity and differences in the use of functional and radiographic outcomes precluded a meta-analysis. Several positive and negative prognostic factors were identified. All of the eligible studies were observational, retrospective case series without control groups; the quality of evidence available for the use of the aforementioned procedures is considered "very low" and "any estimate of effect is very uncertain." CONCLUSIONS: More research is necessary to determine which treatment for chondral pathology in the shoulder provides the best long-term outcomes. We encourage centers to establish the necessary alliances to conduct blinded, randomized clinical trials and prospective, comparative cohort studies necessary to rigorously determine which treatments result in the most optimal outcomes. At this time, high-quality evidence is lacking to make strong recommendations, and decision making in this patient population is performed on a case-by-case basis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies.

Outcomes of arthroscopic and open surgical repair of isolated subscapularis tendon tears.

PURPOSE: Reports of the results of subscapularis repairs make up a very small minority of the published literature on rotator cuff repairs, yet subscapularis tears cause significant pain and dysfunction for patients. The goals of this study were to systematically review the published results after subscapularis repair and to compare arthroscopic versus open techniques when appropriate. METHODS: The Cochrane, PubMed, and Embase databases were reviewed for studies evaluating isolated subscapularis repairs. If a study reported outcomes for both subscapularis and supraspinatus tears, a subgroup analysis of isolated subscapularis tears was necessary for inclusion in this review. Other inclusion criteria included a minimum of 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: We found 3 arthroscopic repair studies and 6 open repair studies that met all inclusion criteria. The mean patient age was 49.2 years, and the mean time from injury to surgical repair was 11.1 months. Constant scores were consistent between groups, with a mean postoperative score of 88.1. Pain scores improved significantly after repair, with a mean of 13.4 (on a scale ranging from 0 to 15, with 15 being no pain) in the arthroscopic repair group and 11.5 in the open repair group. Concomitant procedures were common, with biceps tenodesis being the most common, having been performed in 54.8% of shoulders, followed by biceps tenotomy and biceps recentering. Healing was reported in 90% to 95% of shoulders. CONCLUSIONS: Subscapularis tears can cause significant morbidity and often occur as traumatic injury in a younger population. Pain and function can be restored with repair, with excellent healing rates. The characteristic injury pattern suggested by a review of the literature is 1 where such tears are full thickness yet involve a portion of the tendon in the craniocaudal dimension. Concomitant procedures are common and can affect the results, because biceps tenotomy and tenodesis have been shown to significantly improve pain as well. All studies were Level IV, which introduced selection bias. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies.

The role of subacromial decompression in patients undergoing arthroscopic repair of full-thickness tears of the rotator cuff: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears with and without subacromial decompression. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (third quarter of 2011), Medline (1948 to week 1 of September 2011), and Embase (1980 to week 37 of 2011) for eligible randomized controlled trials. Two reviewers selected studies for inclusion, assessed methodologic quality, and extracted data. Pooled analyses were performed by use of a random effects and relative risk model with computation of 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: We included 4 randomized trials and 373 patients. Methodologic quality was variable as assessed by the CLEAR NPT (Checklist to Evaluate a Report of a Non-pharmacological Trial) tool. One trial showed that there was no difference in disease-specific quality of life (Western Ontario Rotator Cuff questionnaire) between the 2 treatment groups. A meta-analysis of shoulder-specific outcome measures (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons or Constant scores) or the rate of reoperation between patients treated with subacromial decompression and those treated without it also showed no statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the currently available literature, there is no statistically significant difference in subjective outcome after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with or without acromioplasty at intermediate follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level I, systematic review of Level I studies.

Early return to work in workers' compensation patients after arthroscopic full-thickness rotator cuff repair.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the ability of patients to return to their preoperative work level and to identify functional prognostic factors in a group of Workers' Compensation (WC) patients after arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears at a minimum follow-up of 1 year. METHODS: Seventy-eight consecutive WC patients underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) and were retrospectively reviewed. Potential predictors of occupational outcomes were recorded. The primary outcomes included work level at the time of discharge, time to maximum medical improvement (MMI), and failures requiring revision rotator cuff repair. Secondary outcomes including physical examination and subjective scoring scales were also recorded. RESULTS: Overall, 88.5% of patients (n = 69) returned to their preoperative level of work at a mean time to MMI of 7.6 +/- 2.6 months. Of the WC patients, 55 (70.5%) were followed up for purposes of assessing shoulder function, with a mean follow-up of 33.6 +/- 13.9 months. The mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score at this time was 82.3 +/- 20.9, and the mean score on a visual analog scale was 1.7 +/- 2.3. An association was found between patients who underwent ARCR with open biceps tenodesis and delay in MMI (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: WC patients undergoing ARCR may expect a high likelihood of return to full duty at a mean time to MMI of 7.6 months. At the time of follow-up, patients reported good outcomes using validated scoring scales, but subjective outcomes remained inferior to non-WC patients based on historical controls. Alcohol use was the only prognostic factor to show a significant association with return to restricted-duty employment and repair failure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Primary Arthroscopic Repair of a Traumatic Isolated Subscapularis Tendon Rupture in an Adolescent Patient.

Subscapularis tendon tears in the pediatric population are most commonly associated with an avulsion fracture of the lesser tuberosity. Isolated subscapularis tendon ruptures are infrequently reported. According to previous reports, the diagnosis of subscapularis tendon injuries in pediatric patients is often delayed and management is typically conservative. When operative management is indicated, an open deltopectoral approach has been used and may include concomitant open reduction and internal fixation of the lesser tuberosity. The authors report the case of a healthy 15-year-old boy who had an isolated subscapularis tendon rupture. During operative management, labral tape sutures were passed through the subscapularis tendon at the junctions of the inferior one-third and superior two-thirds, along with the superior one-third and inferior two-thirds. Both suture limbs were implanted with a 4.75-mm polyetheretherketone suture anchor within the inferior one-third and superior one-third of the lesser tuberosity footprint. A mini-open subpectoral biceps tenodesis was also performed through an axillary incision. By 8 months postoperatively, the patient exhibited normal function with full range of motion and was allowed to return to sport-related activity. [Orthopedics. 2020;43(3):e182-e186.].

Time Required to Achieve Clinically Significant Outcomes After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair.

BACKGROUND: Recent literature has focused on correlating statistically significant changes in outcome measures with clinically significant outcomes (CSOs). CSO benchmarks are being established for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR), but more remains to be defined about them. PURPOSE: To define the time-dependent nature of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State (PASS) after RCR and to define what factors affect this time to CSO achievement. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: An institutional registry was queried for patients who underwent arthroscopic RCR between 2014 and 2016 and completed preoperative, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Threshold values for MCID, SCB, and PASS were obtained from previous literature for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and subjective Constant score. The time in which patients achieved MCID, SCB, and PASS was calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. A Cox multivariate regression model was used to identify variables correlated with earlier or later achievement of CSOs. RESULTS: A total of 203 patients with an average age of 56.19 ± 9.96 years and average body mass index was 30.29 ± 6.49 were included. The time of mean achievement of MCID, SCB, and PASS for ASES was 5.77 ± 1.79 months, 6.22 ± 2.85 months, and 7.23 ± 3.81 months, respectively. The time of mean achievement of MCID, SCB, and PASS for SANE was 6.25 ± 2.42 months, 7.05 ± 4.10 months, and 9.26 ± 5.89 months, respectively. The time of mean achievement of MCID, SCB, and PASS for Constant was 6.94 ± 3.85 months, 7.13 ± 4.13 months, and 8.66 ± 5.46 months, respectively. Patients with dominant-sided surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 1.363; 95% CI, 1.065-1.745; P = .014) achieved CSOs earlier on ASES, while patients with workers' compensation status (HR, 0.752; 95% CI, 0.592-0.955; P = .019), who were current smokers (HR, 0.323; 95% CI, 0.119-0.882; P = .028), and with concomitant biceps tenodesis (HR, 0.763; 95% CI, 0.607-0.959; P = .021) achieved CSOs on ASES at later timepoints. Patients with distal clavicle excision (HR, 1.484; 95% CI, 1.028-2.143; P = .035) achieved CSOs earlier on SANE. Patients with distal clavicle excision (HR, 1.689; 95% CI, 1.183-2.411, P = .004) achieved CSOs earlier on Constant, while patients with workers' compensation insurance status (HR, 0.671; 95% CI, 0.506-0.891; P = .006) and partial-thickness tears (HR, 0.410; 95% CI, 0.250-0.671; P < .001) achieved CSOs later on Constant. Greater preoperative score was associated with delayed achievement of CSOs for ASES, SANE (HR, 0.993; 95% CI, 0.987-0.999; P = .020), and Constant (HR, 0.941; 95% CI, 0.928-0.962; P < .001). CONCLUSION: A majority of patients achieved MCID by 6 months after surgery. Dominant-sided surgery and concomitant distal clavicle excision resulted in faster CSO achievement, while workers' compensation status, concomitant biceps tenodesis, current smoking, partial-thickness rotator cuff tears, and higher preoperative PROMs resulted in delayed CSO achievement.

Medically Necessary Orthopaedic Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Safe Surgical Practices and a Classification to Guide Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly evolved as a viral pandemic. Countries worldwide have been affected by the recent outbreak caused by the SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome)-CoV-2 virus. As with prior viral pandemics, health-care workers are at increased risk. Orthopaedic surgical procedures are common in health-care systems, ranging from emergency to elective procedures. Many orthopaedic surgical procedures are life or limb-saving and cannot be postponed during the COVID-19 pandemic because of potential patient harm. Our goal is to analyze how orthopaedic surgeons can perform medically necessary procedures during the pandemic and to help guide decision-making perioperatively. METHODS: We performed a review of the existing literature regarding COVID-19 and prior viral outbreaks to help guide clinical practice in terms of how to safely perform medically necessary orthopaedic procedures during the pandemic for both asymptomatic patients and high-risk (e.g., COVID-19-positive) patients. We created a classification system based on COVID-19 positivity, patient health status, and COVID-19 prevalence to help guide perioperative decision-making. RESULTS: We advocate that only urgent and emergency surgical procedures be performed. By following recommendations from the American College of Surgeons, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the recent literature, safe orthopaedic surgery and perioperative care can be performed. Screening measures are needed for patients and perioperative teams. Surgeons and perioperative teams at risk for contracting COVID-19 should use appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), including N95 respirators or powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs), when risk of viral spread is high. When preparing for medically necessary orthopaedic procedures during the pandemic, our classification system will help to guide decision-making. A multidisciplinary care plan is needed to ensure patient safety with medically necessary orthopaedic procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Orthopaedic surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic can be performed safely when medically necessary but should be rare for COVID-19-positive or high-risk patients. Appropriate screening, PPE use, and multidisciplinary care will allow for safe medically necessary orthopaedic surgery to continue during the COVID-19 pandemic. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level V. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Does the literature support double-row suture anchor fixation for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair? A systematic review comparing double-row and single-row suture anchor configuration.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcome of single-row (SR) and double-row (DR) suture anchor fixation in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with a systematic review of the published literature. METHODS: We searched all published literature from January 1966 to December 2008 using Medline, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for the following key words: shoulder, rotator cuff, rotator cuff tear, rotator cuff repair, arthroscopic, arthroscopic-assisted, single row, double row, and transosseous equivalent. The inclusion criteria were cohort studies (Levels I to III) that compared SR and DR suture anchor configuration for the arthroscopic treatment of full-thickness rotator cuff tears. The exclusion criteria were studies that lacked a comparison group, and, therefore, case series were excluded from the analysis. RESULTS: There were 5 studies that met the criteria and were included in the final analysis: 5 in the SR group and 5 in the DR group. Data were abstracted from the studies for patient demographics, rotator cuff tear characteristics, surgical procedure, rehabilitation, range of motion, clinical scoring systems, and imaging studies. CONCLUSIONS: There are no clinical differences between the SR and DR suture anchor repair techniques for arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs. At present, the data in the published literature do not support the use of DR suture anchor fixation to improve clinical outcome, but there are some studies that report that DR suture anchor fixation may improve tendon healing. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Levels I to III studies.

A biomechanical analysis of capsular plication versus anchor repair of the shoulder: can the labrum be used as a suture anchor?

PURPOSE: To determine the biomechanical strength properties of suture capsulolabral plication to an intact labrum versus glenoid bone anchor fixation. METHODS: Fourteen paired fresh frozen shoulders with intact glenoid labrum and mean age of 43.3 +/- 11.1 were randomized to capsular plication in the anteroinferior and posteroinferior quadrants using either two suture-anchor fixation versus suture fixation to an intact labrum. The construct was then preconditioned at 10 N for 10 cycles (1 Hz), and then loaded to failure at 3 mm per minute. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference in ultimate load to failure between the suture anchor (304.3 +/- 92.8 N) and the intact labrum (285.6 +/- 66.7 N) groups. The suture anchor group demonstrated significantly less mean displacement (2.15 +/- 1.1 mm) than suture plication (3.43 +/- 1.38 mm; P = .007) at failure. There were no statistical differences of labrum strength and stiffness between the anteroinferior and posteroinferior quadrants. CONCLUSIONS: An intact labrum provides similar fixation strength to a glenoid anchor; however, the labrum displacement was higher with plication alone. There were no strength differences between the anteroinferior and posteroinferior labrum. However, displacement of up to 1.5 mm may be expected without the use of glenoid anchors. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The intact posteroinferior or anteroinferior labrum provides similar fixation strength to a glenoid anchor; however, the labrum displacement is higher versus plication alone.

Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis in the Young Patient.

Glenohumeral osteoarthritis in the young patient (aged <60 years) is a difficult condition, given both age and functional demands. Primary osteoarthritis is the most common etiology in this patient demographic, but secondary causes include osteonecrosis, previous trauma (eg, fracture-dislocation), previous infection (eg, septic arthritis), previous capsulorrhaphy, previous arthroscopic surgery (eg, chondrolysis), and glenoid dysplasia. Nonsurgical modalities, including activity modification, pharmacotherapy, physical therapy, and intra-articular injections, are the mainstay of management; however, in young patients who have exhausted nonsurgical management, surgical options include arthroscopic débridement, humeral head replacement with or without glenoid treatment (ie, biologic glenoid resurfacing, glenoid reaming), and total or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. Unfortunately, failure rates after surgical management are considerably higher in young patients compared with those observed in older, more sedentary patients. Here, we focus on the etiology, evaluation, and management of young patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis, with a focus on clinical outcomes.

Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: Indications and Techniques Across the World.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is a common treatment for rotator cuff tear arthropathy. We performed a systematic review of all the RTSA literature to answer if we are treating the same patients with RTSA, across the world. A systematic review was registered with PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews, and performed with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using 3 publicly available free databases. Therapeutic clinical outcome investigations reporting RTSA outcomes with levels of evidence I to IV were eligible for inclusion. All study, subject, and surgical technique demographics were analyzed and compared between continents. Statistical comparisons were conducted using linear regression, analysis of variance (ANOVA), Fisher's exact test, and Pearson's chi-square test. There were 103 studies included in the analysis (8973 patients; 62% female; mean age, 70.9 ± 6.7 years; mean length of follow-up, 34.3 ± 19.3 months) that had a low Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS) (mean, 36.9 ± 8.7: poor). Most patients (60.8%) underwent RTSA for a diagnosis of rotator cuff arthropathy, whereas 1% underwent RTSA for fracture; indications varied by continent. There were no consistent reports of preopeartive or postoperative scores from studies in any region. Studies from North America reported significantly higher postoperative external rotation (34.1° ± 13.3° vs 19.3° ± 8.9°) (P < .001) and a greater change in flexion (69.0° ± 24.5° vs 56.3° ± 11.3°) (P = .004) compared with studies from Europe. North America had the greatest total number of publications followed by Europe. The total yearly number of publications increased each year (P < .001), whereas the MCMS decreased each year (P = .037). The quantity, but not the quality of RTSA studies is increasing. Indications for RTSA varied by continent, although most patients underwent RTSA for rotator cuff arthropathy. The majority of patients undergoing RTSA are female over the age of 60 years for a diagnosis of rotator cuff arthropathy with pseudoparalysis.

Management of Isolated Greater Tuberosity Fractures: A Systematic Review.

As isolated fractures of the greater tuberosity present a therapeutic challenge, we systematically reviewed all studies of greater tuberosity fracture management. Inclusion criteria were level I to IV evidence and 2-year follow-up. Thirteen studies and 429 shoulders were included in our analyses, which compared 3 paired groups: treatment type (nonoperative vs operative), fracture displacement amount (<5 mm vs >5 mm), and surgery type (open vs arthroscopic). Concomitant anterior glenohumeral instability was documented in 28.1% of patients and was significantly more common in displaced vs nondisplaced fractures (44.3% vs 14.5%; P < .01). Compared with nonoperative patients, operative patients had significantly fewer radiographic losses of reduction (48.6% vs 5.2%; P < .01) but increased shoulder stiffness (0.0% vs 5.7%; P < .01). Heterotopic ossification was more common in displaced vs nondisplaced fractures (7.5% vs 0.0%; P < .01). There were no significant differences in outcome between arthroscopic and open surgery, but with screw fixation (vs suture constructs) there were significantly fewer cases of stiffness (0% vs 12.0%; P < .01) and reoperation (0% vs 8.0%; P = .051). Surgery for displaced fractures is associated with high patient satisfaction and low rates of complications and reoperations, regardless of technique and fixation mode.