Untwining the intertwined: a comprehensive review on differentiating pathologies of the shoulder and spine.

Background: The anatomic interplay and overlap between the cervical spine and the shoulder constitutes a challenge for shoulder and spine surgeons, as symptoms of spine and shoulder pathologies are often similar and may lead to entity misdiagnosis. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar (page 1-20) searches were updated to October 2023 in search of the qualified papers. Boolean Operators were used with a combination of the keywords "spine" OR "neck" And "Shoulder". Furthermore, reference lists from papers were also searched to find literature. Results: It is of pivotal importance to conduct comprehensive preoperative clinical investigation to appropriately evaluate and assess the source of the pathology and the leading causes behind it. Certain markers can help guide surgeons towards etiologies, and these include areas of pain and physical exam findings with the arm squeeze test having the highest sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing cervical radiculopathy. As for the shoulder, despite its low sensitivity, the Yergason test had the highest specificity for diagnosing subacromial impingement. Local anesthetic injection can help as well in the diagnostic approach. Moreover, the interplay between these anatomic locations is not solely related to preoperative diagnosis. Studies have shown that previous surgery for cervical spine pathology may negatively affect the outcomes of shoulder procedures like arthroplasties. Conclusion: Shoulder and spine surgeons should be wary and vigilant of accurately diagnosing the etiology of the presenting symptoms to ensure proper management and optimize prognosis.

Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantages influence outcomes following rotator cuff repair in the non-Medicaid population.

BACKGROUND: Prior investigations have utilized various surrogate markers of socioeconomic status to assess how health care disparities impact outcomes after rotator cuff repair (RCR). When taken as individual markers, these factors have inconsistent associations. Medicaid insurance status is an accessible marker that has recently been correlated with less optimal outcomes after RCR. Socioeconomic disparities exist within the non-Medicaid population as well and are arguably more difficult to characterize. The Area Deprivation Index (ADI) uses seventeen socioeconomic variables to establish a spectrum of neighborhood health care disparity. The purpose of this study was to determine the influence of neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantages, quantified by ADI, on 2-year patient reported outcome scores following RCR in the non-Medicaid population. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent RCR from 2015 to 2020 was performed. All procedures were performed by a group of 7 surgeons at a large academic center. Patient demographics and comorbidities were collected from charts. Rotator cuff tear size was assessed from arthroscopic pictures. ADI scores were calculated based on patients' home addresses using the Neighborhood Atlas tool. The primary outcome measure was American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. A linear regression analysis with covariate control for age and patient comorbidities was performed. RESULTS: There were 287 patients with a mean age of 60.11 years. The linear regression model between ADI and 2-year ASES score was significant (P = .02). When controlling for both age and patient comorbidities, every 0.9-point reduction in ADI resulted in a 1-point increase in the ASES score (P = .03). Patients with an ADI of 8, 9, or 10 had lower mean 2-year ASES scores than those with an ADI of 1 (87.08 vs. 93.19, P = .04), but both groups had similar change from preoperative ASES score (40.17 vs. 32.88, P = .12). The change in ASES score at 2-years in our study surpassed all established minimal clinically important difference values irrespective of ADI. CONCLUSION: Patients with greater levels of disparity in their home neighborhoods have worse final ASES scores at 2 years, but patients significantly improve from their preoperative state regardless of social disadvantages. This is the first study to the authors' knowledge that examines ADI and outcomes following RCR. Providers should be aware that patients with higher ADI scores may have inferior preoperative shoulder function. The results of this study support the utilization of primary RCR in applicable tears regardless of socioeconomic status.

Judicious use of corticosteroid injections prior to shoulder arthroplasty does not compromise outcomes at a minimum of 2 years following surgery.

BACKGROUND: The use of total shoulder arthroplasty is continuing to rise with its expanding indications. For patients with chronic conditions, such as glenohumeral arthritis and rotator cuff arthropathy, nonoperative treatment is typically done prior to arthroplasty and often includes corticosteroid injections (CSIs). Recent studies in the shoulder arthroplasty literature as well as applied from the hip and knee literature have focused on the risk of periprosthetic infection. Literature is lacking as to whether the judicious use of corticosteroids in the year prior to arthroplasty influences patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The purpose of this study was to determine if preoperative CSIs prior to shoulder arthroplasty affected 2-year PROs. METHODS: Retrospective review of anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) patients (n = 230) was performed at a single institution including multiple surgeons. Patients were included if they had preoperative and a minimum of 2-year postoperative PROs, including: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), visual analog scale, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, Veteran's RAND 12 Physical Component Score, and Veteran's RAND 12 Mental Component Score. Patients were included in the injection group if they had received an injection, either glenohumeral or subacromial, within 12 months prior to arthroplasty (inject = 134). Subgroup analysis included anatomic (total shoulder arthroplasty [TSA] = 92) and RSA (RSA = 138) as well as those with no injection within 12 months prior to surgery. An analysis of variance was used to compare outcomes between patients who received an injection and those who did not prior to TSA and RSA. RESULTS: There were 230 patients included with 134 patients in the injection group and 96 in the no injection group. Patients who received an injection in the year prior to arthroplasty displayed a significantly higher ASES (82 [16.23 standard deviation] vs. 76 [19.43 standard deviation], P < .01) and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (70 [24.49 standard deviation] vs. 63 [29.22 standard deviation], P < .01) scores vs. those who had not received injection. There was no difference when comparing preoperative injection vs. no injection in patients undergoing TSA. Those patients undergoing RSA displayed significantly higher ASES scores (P < .01). There were no significant differences in visual analog scale, Veteran's RAND 12 Physical Component Score, and Veteran's RAND 12 Mental Component Score among any analysis (P > .05), and the minimal clinically important difference in ASES was not different between groups (P.09). CONCLUSION: CSIs within 12 months prior to anatomic and RSA do not compromise PROs during a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Although more complications occurred in the injection group, it did not reach statistical significance and warrants further study in a larger population.

No clinical difference in outcomes between inlay and onlay arthroscopic biceps tenodesis techniques during rotator cuff repair.

BACKGROUND: Both inlay and onlay arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (ABT) are common procedures performed during rotator cuff repair. The inlay method involves creating a bone socket in the bicipital groove to secure the long head of the biceps tendon using an interference screw. The onlay method utilizes a suture anchor to secure the long head of the biceps tendon on the surface of the bicipital groove. Little is known on the long-term differences in patient-reported outcomes between these 2 techniques. The primary purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes of inlay vs. onlay ABT with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Secondary aims were to evaluate the impact of rotator cuff tear size on outcomes and compare rates of complications between the 2 techniques. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patients who had an ABT during a full-thickness rotator cuff repair. Any symptom specific to the biceps were noted, including pain and cramping, Popeye deformity, or revision surgery. Complication rates were compared between groups. The visual analog scale pain score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and Veteran's RAND-12 score (VR-12) scores were compared at 2 years. The impact of rotator cuff tear size was analyzed by categorizing into small/medium or large/massive based on operative reports and arthroscopic images. RESULTS: There were 165 patients identified (106 in the inlay group and 59 in the onlay group). No revision surgeries were performed secondary to the biceps tendon in either group. Eleven patients (10%) in the inlay group complained of biceps pain or cramping compared to 2 patients (3%) in the onlay group (P = .11). One Popeye deformity was noted in each group (P = .67). No significant differences were found between groups for visual analog scale (P = .41), ASES functional (P = .61), ASES index (P = .91), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (P = .09), VR-12 Physical Component Score (P = .77), or VR-12 Mental Component Score (P = .09). Rotator cuff tear size within the groups also did not demonstrate statistical significance. CONCLUSION: No clinical differences or complications were found at minimum 2-year follow-up between inlay and onlay ABT in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair when controlling for tear size. The clinical relevance suggests either technique is effective and can be based on surgeon preference.

Corticosteroid injection prior to surgery had no effect on 2-year outcomes following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

Background: Corticosteroid injections (CSIs) can be an effective nonsurgical treatment for patients with rotator cuff tears. Recent large database studies have raised concern that CSI may result in a higher reoperation rate, increased infection risk, and worse outcome after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reoperation rate, incidence of postoperative infection, and two-year outcomes of patients undergoing ARCR with and without the use of preoperative CSI. Methods: An institutional database generated from fellowship-trained orthopedic sports surgeons was retrospectively queried for patients who underwent ARCR with a minimum of two-year follow-up. Inclusion criteria consisted of 1) primary full-thickness rotator cuff tear and 2) preoperative and minimum two-year patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Of the 219 patients identified, 134 patients had preoperative subacromial CSI administered within one year of ARCR. Reoperation rate, number of injections, Visual Analog Scale, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and Veterans Rand 12-Item Health Survey Physical Component Score/Mental Component Score were compared between groups at six months, one year, and two years. Chi-square and t-tests were used to compare baseline differences, postoperative infections, and reoperations. A repeated measures Analyses of Covariance was used to measure differences between PROMs at each time point. Simple Analyses of Covariance were used for the two-year sub-analyses for patients receiving CSI within 90 days of surgery and if multiple preoperative CSI had been given (α ≤ 0.05). Results: There were no significant demographic differences between groups (P > .05). Preoperative use of subacromial CSI within one year prior to ARCR did not increase reoperation rate (P = .85) or impact PROMs at any timepoint. There were two reoperations during the study period in the CSI group (2 lysis of adhesions). No infections occurred in either cohort. No differences were found if injections were performed within 90 days of surgery or if more than one CSI was administered within the year prior to surgery (P > .05). Conclusion: Our results show that preoperative CSI prior to primary ARCR did not increase risk of reoperation, infection, or influence PROMs with a minimum follow-up of 2 years.

Measure what matters: Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score as the critical measure for shoulder outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of a system anchored in patient outcomes is challenged to gain widespread adoption required to demonstrate the value of care provided for shoulder conditions. This is in large part because of the administrative burden created by current tools and clinical implementation barriers that limit practical use and therefore leave most clinicians, administrators, payers, and patients without a measure of what matters most: Are patients improving? Thus, we must ask ourselves, How do we accurately and efficiently measure and report quality of care in a simple, reliable, and easily communicated manner? We propose that the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score is the best solution to measure patient improvement and can be used universally for all shoulder conditions. The measure is simple, valid, reliable, and sensitive to change and has the lowest implementation barrier compared with all other outcome measures. METHODS: We synthesized the available literature (11 studies) that demonstrates strong psychometrics comparable to legacy measures across >4000 patients with a wide range of shoulder conditions. RESULTS: SANE scores range from 40% to 60% at baseline for most patients before treatment and range from 75% to 85% at 1 year after therapy depending on the condition, similar to legacy scores such as the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score. Additionally, the SANE score shows similar baseline and post-care measures across conditions that can be used to guide clinical care. This finding shows that the observed baseline and improvement scores can provide valuable patient assessment and can be used in aggregate for quality improvement and other value-based purposes. CONCLUSION: We strongly recommend the SANE score as the primary patient outcome measure for patients with all shoulder conditions, given the value of measuring every patient's progress and growing pressure to quantify patient outcomes.