Young Collision Athletes Have High Rate of Return to Play and Good Clinical Outcomes Following Open Latarjet Procedure.

PURPOSE: To evaluate return to play (RTP), clinical outcomes, and recurrence rates in collision athletes 20 years of age and younger who underwent open Latarjet for anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A retrospective review of collision athletes 20 years of age and younger, who underwent an open Latarjet procedure by a single surgeon between the years of 2010-2020 was carried out. Inclusion criteria were 1) collision athlete, 2) underwent open Latarjet procedure, 3) 16-20 years old, and 4) minimum 24-month follow-up. Exclusion criteria were 1) other pathology of the ipsilateral shoulder and 2) noncollision athlete. Rate of RTP, time to RTP, rate of return to preinjury level, the Shoulder Instability Return to Sport after Injury score (SIRSI) score, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), visual analogue scale (VAS) scores, and recurrence events were recorded. Quantitative statistical analysis was carried out. RESULTS: The study included 105 male collision athletes with a mean age of 18.6 ± 1.0 years (range: 17-20). The mean follow-up for patients was 36 ± 26.2 months. A total of 93 (88.6%) RTP at a mean time of 6.3 ± 2.2 months, with 73 (69.5%) returning to their preinjury level of participation. The mean SIRSI score was 69.2 ± 21.8, the mean VAS score was 2.3 ± 2.1, and the mean SSV score was 84.1 ± 16.8. Five patients (4.8%) redislocated their shoulder, with 4 of these requiring a further surgery (3.8%). Two patients (1.9%) reported incidents of subluxation. CONCLUSIONS: The open Latarjet procedure in young collision athletes results in high rates of RTP, excellent functional outcomes and low recurrence rates at mid-term follow-up. Additionally, complication rates are low in this cohort. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series.

Studies on Bankart Repair for Anterior Shoulder Instability Show Poor Reporting of Data and Reflect Low Level of Evidence: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To assess the quality and level of evidence of studies reporting on Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A search was performed using the PubMed/Medline database for all studies that reported clinical outcomes on Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability. The search term "Bankart repair" with all results were analyzed via strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two independent investigators scored each included study based on the 10 criteria of the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (CMS) out of 100 and gave each study a score out of 25 based on the Anterior Shoulder Instability (ASI) Methodology criteria. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-six studies were included in the analysis and encompassed a total of 19,156 patients and 19,317 surgical procedures for Bankart repair for shoulder instability. Overall, 81.6% of studies were Level III or IV evidence. The mean CMS score for the studies was 55.3 out of 100, and the mean ASI Methodology score for the studies was 12.1 out of 25. Weaknesses in the studies were identified in sample size, description of preoperative investigations and diagnoses, reporting of mean glenoid bone loss, nonsubjective clinical outcome reporting, and description of associated pathologies. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of studies reporting the clinical outcomes of Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability are of low methodological quality and have a low level of evidence. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study emphasizes need for greater reporting of many variables such as body mass index, mean glenoid bone loss, and patient-reported outcomes and provides a framework for future studies reporting.

Acellular Collagen Matrix Patch Augmentation of Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Reduces Re-Tear Rates: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Control Trials.

PURPOSE: To perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) with and without acellular collagen matrix patch (ACMP) augmentation. METHODS: A literature search of 3 databases was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. RCTs comparing ACMP augmentation and a control for ARCR were included. Clinical outcomes were compared using Revman, and a P value < .05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: Five RCTs with 307 patients were included. Overall, 11% of patients treated with ACMP augmentation and 34% of patients in the control group had a re-tear (P = .0006). The mean Constant score was 90.1 with ACMP augmentation, and 87.3 in controls (P = .02). Additionally, there was a significant higher American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score with ACMP augmentation (87.7 vs 82.1, P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: The RCTs in the literature support the use of ACMP augment as a modality to reduce re-tear rates and improve outcomes after ARCR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, Meta-Analysis of Level II Studies meta-analysis of Level II studies.

High Variability in Standardized Outcome Thresholds of Clinically Important Changes in Shoulder Instability Surgery: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine reported MCID and PASS values for PROMs following shoulder instability surgery and assess variability in published values depending on the surgery performed. Secondarily, our aims were to describe the methods used to derive MCID and PASS values in the published literature, including anchor-based, distribution-based, or other approaches, and to assess the frequency of MCID and PASS usage in studies on shoulder instability surgery. METHODS: A systematic review of MCID and PASS values following Bankart, Latarjet, and Remplissage procedures was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). The Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were queried from 1985 to 2023. Inclusion criteria included studies written in English, and studies reporting utilization MCID or PASS for patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) following Latarjet, Bankart, Remplissage approaches for shoulder instability surgery. Extracted data included study population characteristics, intervention characteristics, and outcomes of interest. Continuous data were described using median and range. Categorical variables, including PROMs reported and MCID/PASS methods, were described using percentages. As MCID is a patient-level metric and not a group-level metric, the authors validated that all included studies reported proportions (%) of subjects that met or exceeded the MCID. RESULTS: A total of 174 records were screened, and 8 studies were included in this review. MCID was the most widely utilized outcome threshold which was reported in all 8 studies, with only 2 studies reporting both the MCID and the PASS. The most widely studied PROMs were the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) (range 5.65-9.6 for distribution MCID, 8.5 anchor MCID, 86 anchor PASS); Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) (range 11.4-12.4 distribution MCID, 82.5-87.5 anchor PASS); visual analog scale (VAS) (range 1.1-1.7 distribution MCID, 1.5-2.5 PASS); Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) (range 60.7-254.9 distribution MCID, 126.43 anchor MCID, 571-619.5 anchor PASS); and Rowe scores (range 5.6-8.4 distribution MCID, 9.7 anchor MCID). Notably, no studies reported on substantial clinical benefit (SCB) or maximal outcome improvement (MOI). CONCLUSION: Despite the wide array of available PROMs for assessing shoulder instability surgery outcomes, the availability of clinically significant outcome thresholds such as MCID and PASS remains relatively limited. While MCID has been the most frequently reported metric, there is considerable inter-study variability observed in their values. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Knowing the outcome thresholds such as MCID and PASS of the PROMs frequently used to evaluate the results of glenohumeral stabilization surgery is fundamental, since they allow us to know what is a clinically significant improvement for the patient.

Evaluation High-Quality of Information from ChatGPT (Artificial Intelligence-Large Language Model) Artificial Intelligence on Shoulder Stabilization Surgery.

PURPOSE: To analyze the quality and readability of information regarding shoulder stabilization surgery available using an online AI software (ChatGPT), using standardized scoring systems, as well as to report on the given answers by the AI. METHODS: An open AI model (ChatGPT) was used to answer 23 commonly asked questions from patients on shoulder stabilization surgery. These answers were evaluated for medical accuracy, quality, and readability using The JAMA Benchmark criteria, DISCERN score, Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score (FRES) & Grade Level (FKGL). RESULTS: The JAMA Benchmark criteria score was 0, which is the lowest score, indicating no reliable resources cited. The DISCERN score was 60, which is considered a good score. The areas that open AI model did not achieve full marks were also related to the lack of available source material used to compile the answers, and finally some shortcomings with information not fully supported by the literature. The FRES was 26.2, and the FKGL was considered to be that of a college graduate. CONCLUSIONS: There was generally high quality in the answers given on questions relating to shoulder stabilization surgery, but there was a high reading level required to comprehend the information presented. However, it is unclear where the answers came from with no source material cited. It is important to note that the ChatGPT software repeatedly references the need to discuss these questions with an orthopaedic surgeon and the importance of shared discussion making, as well as compliance with surgeon treatment recommendations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As shoulder instability is an injury that predominantly affects younger individuals who may use the Internet for information, this study shows what information patients may be getting online.

Majority of Studies Show Similar Rates of Return to Play After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair or Latarjet Procedure: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the current evidence in the literature to compare return to play following arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet procedure for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A literature search was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Comparative studies reporting return to play following arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet procedure were included. Return to play was compared, with all statistical analysis performed using Review Manager, Version 5.3. RESULTS: Nine studies with 1,242 patients (mean age: 15-30 years) were included. The rate of return to play was 61% to 94.1% among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 72% to 96.8% in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure. Two studies (Bessiere et al. and Zimmerman et al.) found a significant difference in favor of the Latarjet procedure (P < .05 for both, I2 = 37%). The rate of return to play at preinjury level was 9% to 83.8% among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 19.4% to 80.6% in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure, with no study finding a significant difference (P > .05 for all, I2 = 0%). The mean time of return to play was 5.4 to 7.3 months among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 5.5 to 6.2 months in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure, with no study finding a significant difference (P > .05 for all, I2 = 39%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the majority of studies showed no significant difference in rates of return to play or timing following arthroscopic Bankart repair or open Latarjet procedure. Furthermore, no study has found a significant difference in rate of return to play at pre-injury level, or rate of return to play among collision athletes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level I-III studies.

Identification of ChatGPT-Generated Abstracts Within Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Poses a Challenge for Reviewers.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the extent to which experienced reviewers can accurately discern between artificial intelligence (AI)-generated and original research abstracts published in the field of shoulder and elbow surgery and compare this with the performance of an AI detection tool. METHODS: Twenty-five shoulder- and elbow-related articles published in high-impact journals in 2023 were randomly selected. ChatGPT was prompted with only the abstract title to create an AI-generated version of each abstract. The resulting 50 abstracts were randomly distributed to and evaluated by 8 blinded peer reviewers with at least 5 years of experience. Reviewers were tasked with distinguishing between original and AI-generated text. A Likert scale assessed reviewer confidence for each interpretation, and the primary reason guiding assessment of generated text was collected. AI output detector (0%-100%) and plagiarism (0%-100%) scores were evaluated using GPTZero. RESULTS: Reviewers correctly identified 62% of AI-generated abstracts and misclassified 38% of original abstracts as being AI generated. GPTZero reported a significantly higher probability of AI output among generated abstracts (median, 56%; interquartile range [IQR], 51%-77%) compared with original abstracts (median, 10%; IQR, 4%-37%; P < .01). Generated abstracts scored significantly lower on the plagiarism detector (median, 7%; IQR, 5%-14%) relative to original abstracts (median, 82%; IQR, 72%-92%; P < .01). Correct identification of AI-generated abstracts was predominately attributed to the presence of unrealistic data/values. The primary reason for misidentifying original abstracts as AI was attributed to writing style. CONCLUSIONS: Experienced reviewers faced difficulties in distinguishing between human and AI-generated research content within shoulder and elbow surgery. The presence of unrealistic data facilitated correct identification of AI abstracts, whereas misidentification of original abstracts was often ascribed to writing style. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: With rapidly increasing AI advancements, it is paramount that ethical standards of scientific reporting are upheld. It is therefore helpful to understand the ability of reviewers to identify AI-generated content.

Posterior Shoulder Instability, Part I-Diagnosis, Nonoperative Management, and Labral Repair for Posterior Shoulder Instability-An International Expert Delphi Consensus Statement.

PURPOSE: To establish consensus statements on the diagnosis, nonoperative management, and labral repair for posterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment of posterior shoulder instability was conducted, with 71 shoulder/sports surgeons from 12 countries participating on the basis of their level of expertise in the field. Experts were assigned to 1 of 6 working groups defined by specific subtopics within posterior shoulder instability. Consensus was defined as achieving 80% to 89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90% to 99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. RESULTS: Unanimous agreement was reached on the indications for nonoperative management and labral repair, which include whether patients had primary or recurrent instability, with symptoms/functional limitations, and whether there was other underlying pathology, or patient's preference to avoid or delay surgery. In addition, there was unanimous agreement that recurrence rates can be diminished by attention to detail, appropriate indication and assessment of risk factors, recognition of abnormalities in glenohumeral morphology, careful capsulolabral debridement and reattachment, small anchors with inferior placement and multiple fixation points that create a bumper with the labrum, treatment of concomitant pathologies, and a well-defined rehabilitation protocol with strict postoperative immobilization. CONCLUSIONS: The study group achieved strong or unanimous consensus on 63% of statements related to the diagnosis, nonoperative treatment, and labrum repair for posterior shoulder instability. The statements that achieved unanimous consensus were the relative indications for nonoperative management, and the relative indications for labral repair, as well as the steps to minimize complications for labral repair. There was no consensus on whether an arthrogram is needed when performing advanced imaging, the role of corticosteroids/orthobiologics in nonoperative management, whether a posteroinferior portal is required. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, expert opinion.

Posterior Shoulder Instability, Part II-Glenoid Bone Grafting, Glenoid Osteotomy, and Rehabilitation/Return to Play-An International Expert Delphi Consensus Statement.

PURPOSE: To establish consensus statements on glenoid bone grafting, glenoid osteotomy, rehabilitation, return to play, and follow-up for posterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment of posterior shoulder instability was conducted, with 71 shoulder/sports surgeons from 12 countries participating on the basis of their level of expertise in the field. Experts were assigned to 1 of 6 working groups defined by specific subtopics within posterior shoulder instability. Consensus was defined as achieving 80% to 89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90% to 99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. RESULTS: All of the statements relating to rehabilitation, return to play, and follow-up achieved consensus. There was unanimous consensus that the following criteria should be considered: restoration of strength, range of motion, proprioception, and sport-specific skills, with a lack of symptoms. There is no minimum time point required to return to play. Collision athletes and military athletes may take longer to return because of their greater risk for recurrent instability, and more caution should be exercised in clearing them to return to play, with elite athletes potentially having different considerations in returning to play. The relative indications for revision surgery are symptomatic apprehension, multiple recurrent instability episodes, further intra-articular pathologies, hardware failure, and pain. CONCLUSIONS: The study group achieved strong or unanimous consensus on 59% of statements. Unanimous consensus was reached regarding the criteria for return to play, collision/elite athletes having different considerations in return to play, indications for revision surgery, and imaging only required as routine for those with glenoid bone grafting/osteotomies at subsequent follow-ups. There was no consensus on optimal fixation method for a glenoid bone block, the relative indications for glenoid osteotomy, whether fluoroscopy is required or if the labrum should be concomitantly repaired. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, expert opinion.

Efficacy of Intra-Articular Corticosteroid Injection for Nonsurgical Management of Trapeziometacarpal Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: As osteoarthritis (OA) of the trapeziometacarpal (TMC) joint leads to a high degree of disease burden with compromises in rudimentary and fine movements of the hand, intra-articular injections may be a desirable treatment option. However, because there are no evidence-based guidelines, the choice of intra-articular injection type is left to the discretion of the individual surgeon in collaboration with the patient. The purpose of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis using level I studies to compare outcomes following corticosteroid and alternative methods of intra-articular injections for the management of TMC OA. Our hypothesis was that intra-articular corticosteroid injections were no more effective than other methods of intra-articular injections for the management of TMC OA. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed. Eligible for inclusion were randomized control trials reporting on intra-articular corticosteroid injection for the management of TMC OA. Clinical outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: The 10 included studies comprised 673 patients. The mean age was 57.8 ± 8.3 years, with a mean follow-up of 6.4 ± 2.7 months. There was no significant difference in visual analog scale scores, grip strength and tip pinch strength between corticosteroids and hyaluronic acid at short- and medium-term follow-up. Further, there was no difference in visual analog scale pain scores at rest at medium-term follow-up between corticosteroids and platelet-rich plasma. CONCLUSIONS: Despite short-term improvement with intra-articular corticosteroid injections, there was no significant difference in pain and functional outcomes following intra-articular corticosteroid injections compared to hyaluronic acid or platelet-rich plasma administration. Given the affordability, ease of administration, and efficacy associated with corticosteroids, they are a favorable option when considering the choice of intra-articular injection for the management of TMC OA. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic II.

Defining pseudoparalysis and pseudoparesis: a consensus study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements via a modified Delphi process on the definition of shoulder pseudoparalysis and pseudoparesis. METHODS: A consensus process on the definition of a diagnosis of pseudoparalysis utilizing a modified Delphi technique was conducted, and 26 shoulder/sports surgeons from 11 countries, selected based on their level of expertise in the field, participated in these consensus statements. Consensus was defined as achieving 80%-89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90%-99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. RESULTS: Three statements regarding the diagnosis of pseudoparalysis reached strong (>89%) consensus: passive range of motion should be unaffected, the passive range of abduction should not be considered, and diagnosis should be excluded if lidocaine injection produces a substantial improvement in range of motion. Additionally, consensus (>79%) was reached that the active range of external rotation should not be considered for diagnosis, pain as a cause of restricted motion must be excluded, and that distinctions between restricted active flexion and external rotation should be made by range of motion rather than tear characteristics. No consensus could be reached on statements regarding the size, number of tendons or chronicity of cuff tears. Nor was there agreement on the active range of flexion permitted or on the difference between pseudoparalysis and pseudoparesis. CONCLUSION: A modified Delphi process was utilized to establish consensus on the definition of shoulder pseudoparalysis and pseudoparesis. Unfortunately, almost half of the statements did not reach consensus, and agreement could not be reached across all domains for a unifying definition for the diagnosis of pseudoparalysis in the setting of rotator cuff tears. Furthermore, it was not agreed how or whether pseudoparalysis should be differentiated from pseudoparesis. Based on the lack of a consensus for these terms, studies should report explicitly how these terms are defined when they are used.

Radiographic comparison of eccentric stemmed vs. concentric stemless prosthetic humeral head positioning after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: Maintaining premorbid proximal humeral positioning is an essential consideration of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA), as malposition of the prosthetic humeral head can result in poor clinical outcomes. Stemless aTSA prosthetic heads are usually concentric, while stemmed aTSA prosthetic heads are typically eccentric in nature. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to compare the ability to restore native humeral head position between stemmed (eccentric) vs. stemless (concentric) aTSA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Postoperative anteroposterior radiographs of 52 stemmed and 46 stemless aTSAs were analyzed. A best-fit circle was created using previously published and validated techniques to represent the premorbid humeral head position and axis of rotation. This circle was juxtaposed with another circle following the arc of the implant head. Next, the offset in center of rotation (COR), radius of curvature (RoC), and humeral head height above the greater tuberosity (HHH) were measured. Additionally, based on prior studies, an offset of >3 mm at any point between the implant head surface and premorbid best-fit circle was considered significant and further classified as overstuffed or understuffed. RESULTS: RoC deviation was significantly greater in the stemmed cohort than the stemless cohort (1.19 ± 1.37 mm vs. 0.65 ± 1.17 mm, P = .025). There was no statistically significant difference in deviation from premorbid humeral head between the stemmed and stemless cohorts for COR (3.20 ± 2.28 mm vs. 3.23 ± 2.09 mm, P = .800) or HHH (1.12 ± 3.27 mm vs. 0.92 ± 2.70 mm, P = .677). When comparing overstuffed implants to appropriately placed implants, there was a significant difference in overall COR deviation in stemmed implants (3.93 ± 2.51 mm vs. 1.92 ± 1.05 mm, P < .001). Superoinferior COR deviation (stemmed: 2.38 ± 3.01 mm vs. -0.61 ± 1.59 mm, P < .001; stemless: 2.70 ± 1.75 mm vs. -0.16 ± 1.87 mm, P < .001), mediolateral COR deviation (stemmed: 0.79 ± 2.65 mm vs. -0.62 ± 1.27 mm, P = .020; stemless: 0.40 ± 1.41 mm vs. -1.13 ± 1.96 mm, P = .020), and HHH (stemmed: 3.61 ± 2.73 mm vs. 0.50 ± 1.31 mm, P < .001; stemless: 3.98 ± 1.18 mm vs. 0.53 ± 1.41 mm, P < .001) were significantly different between overstuffed implants and appropriate implants in both the stemmed and stemless cohorts. DISCUSSION: Stemless and stemmed aTSA implants have similar rates of reproducing satisfactory postoperative humeral head COR with both producing COR deviation most commonly in the superomedial direction. Deviation in HHH contributes to overstuffing in both stemmed and stemless implants, COR deviation contributes to overstuffing in stemmed implants, while RoC (humeral head size) is not associated with overstuffing. Based on this study, it appears that neither eccentric nor concentric prosthetic heads are superior in recreating premorbid humeral head position.

Job satisfaction and practice characteristics of shoulder and elbow surgeons: a survey of American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons society members.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to assess the current trends in fellowship training, career satisfaction, practice characteristics, and surgical case volume among shoulder and elbow surgeons. METHODS: A web-based, anonymous 25-item survey was sent to the membership of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) in October of 2022. Questions posed included respondent demographics, fellowship training, career satisfaction, practice characteristics, and surgical case characteristics. Descriptive statistics were performed to report demographic information, assess job and training satisfaction rates, and evaluate practice characteristics. Chi-squared and independent samples t-tests were performed to analyze satisfaction rates, job applications, and surgical case volume with regard to years in practice and practice setting. RESULTS: Twenty percent (243/1248) of ASES members satisfactorily completed the survey. Of the 243 ASES member respondents, 97% (236/243) stated that they would pursue their fellowship training again. Ninety-eight percent (239/243) of respondents were satisfied with their specialty choice. One-hundred percent (242/243) were satisfied with their training in shoulder. Seventy-two percent (176/243) were satisfied with their training in elbow. Seventy-four percent (179/243) were satisfied with their job availability and 85% (207/243) were satisfied with their job location. The mean total number of orthopedic surgical cases per year was 393 ± 171. The mean total number of shoulder cases per year was 253 ± 149. The mean total number of elbow cases per year was 41 ± 41. Physicians who have been in practice for 11 years or more were comparatively more satisfied (90% vs. 80%) with their job location (P value = .008) and job availability (81% vs. 64%, P value < .001). Additionally, senior surgeons completed more orthopedic (431 vs. 347, P value < .001) and shoulder (279 vs. 220, P value = .002) cases annually than surgeons earlier in their careers. Satisfaction rates, job applications, and surgical case volume did not associate with practice setting. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of ASES member shoulder and elbow surgeons are satisfied with their training, their case volume and complexity, and their specialty choice. Fewer surgeons are satisfied with their elbow training and overall elbow case volume remains low among shoulder and elbow surgeons. Shoulder and elbow surgeons earlier in their careers perform fewer surgical cases, are less satisfied with their job availability and location, and completed more job applications for their first job after fellowship when compared to more senior surgeons.

Complications following arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Complications are rare after arthroscopic Bankart repair, and as a result, there is a lack of guidance over rates of complications that can be used to consent patients. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the literature to assess the complications after arthroscopic Bankart repair, other than recurrent instability. METHODS: A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Clinical studies reporting on the complications after arthroscopic Bankart repair were included. RESULTS: A total of 194 studies were included in the analysis, with 13,979 patients and 14,019 shoulders undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair. The overall complication rate was 0.67%, with frozen shoulder being the most common complication occurring in 0.32%. Persistent pain occurred in 0.17%. The rates of nerve, hardware, and wound complications were 0.07%, 0.05%, and 0.03%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The arthroscopic Bankart repair has a very low rate of complications. Frozen shoulder and persistent pain are the most frequently encountered complications.

The Effect of Surgeon Volume on Complications Following Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Nationwide Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Increased surgeon volume has been demonstrated to correlate with improved outcomes after orthopedic surgery. However, there is a lack of data demonstrating the effect of surgeon volume on outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: The PearlDiver Mariner database was retrospectively queried from the years 2010-2022. Patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty were selected using the CPT code 23472 (Total Shoulder Arthroplasty). Patients under 40 years of age, those undergoing revision arthroplasty and cases of bilateral arthroplasty were excluded. Additionally, cases with a history of fracture, infection, or malignancy prior to surgery were excluded. Only surgeons who performed a minimum of 10 cases were selected and PearlDiver was queried using their provider ID codes. Primary outcome measures included 90 day, 1-year, and 2-year rates of complication and reoperation. A Bonferroni correction was utilized in which the significance threshold was set at p≤0.00082 RESULTS: A total of 155,560 patients met inclusion criteria and were retained for analysis. The 90th percentile for surgeon volume was determined to be 112 cases during the study period. Surgeons above the 90th percentile (n=340) operated on 68,531 patients whereas surgeons below the 90th percentile (n=3,038) operated on 87,029 patients. Surgeons in the high-volume group were significantly more likely to have completed a Shoulder and Elbow fellowship (p<0.001) and less likely to have no fellowship training or fellowship training outside of Shoulder and Elbow or Sports Medicine (p<0.001). Low-volume surgeons operated on patients with higher baseline comorbidities (CCI: 2.01 vs 1.85, p<0.001). After adjusting for age, gender, CCI, obesity, and tobacco use, high-volume surgeons experienced lower rates of medical complications including renal failure (p<0.001), anemia (p<0.001), and UTI (p<0.001). All cause readmission (0.90, p<0.001), reoperation at 90 days (OR 0.75, p<0.001) and reoperation at 1 year (OR: 0.86, p<0.001) were significantly lower among high-volume surgeons. High-volume surgeons exhibited lower rates of various complications including prosthetic joint infection (90d: p<0.001; 1yr: p<0.001; 2yr: p<0.001), periprosthetic fracture (90d: p<0.001; 1yr: p<0.001; 2yr: p<0.001) and all complications (90d: p<0.001; 1yr: p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Surgeons who perform a high volume of total shoulder arthroplasty are more likely to operate on healthier patients than surgeons who perform a lower volume of cases. When compared to low-volume surgeons, and after adjusting for age, gender, and CCI, high-volume surgeons have a significantly lower overall complication rate. Despite this lower complication rate, high-volume surgeons are responsible for a decreasing portion of shoulder arthroplasty since 2016.

Type V superior labrum anterior to posterior repair: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to systematically review the evidence in the literature to ascertain the functional outcomes, recurrence rates, and subsequent revision rates following type V superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) repair. METHODS: Two independent reviewers performed a literature search based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, utilizing the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library Databases. Studies were included if they had clinical outcomes on the patients undergoing type V SLAP repair. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). A P value of <.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: Our review found 13 studies, including 451 shoulders meeting our inclusion criteria. The majority of patients were males (89.3%), with an average age of 25.9 years (range 15-58) and a mean follow-up of 53.8 months. The Rowe score was the most utilized functional outcome score, with a weighted mean of 88.5. Additionally, the mean Constant score was 91.0, the mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 88.3, the mean subjective shoulder value score was 85.5%, and the mean visual analog scale pain score was 1.2. The overall rate of return to play was 84.8%, with 80.2% returning to the same level of play. The overall reoperation rate was 6.1%, with a recurrent dislocation rate of 8.2%. In the studies comparing type V SLAP and isolated Bankart repair, there were statistically insignificant differences in visual analog scale pain scores (mean difference; 0.15, 95% confidence interval, -0.13 to 0.44, I2 = 0%, P = .29) and recurrence rates (risk ratio; 1.38, 95% confidence interval, 0.88-2.15, I2 = 0%, P = .16). CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic repair of type V SLAP tears results in excellent functional outcomes, with high return to play rates in athletes. There are low rates of reoperations and recurrent dislocations. Additionally, in comparison to an isolated Bankart repair, SLAP repair does not increase recurrence rates or postoperative pain.

Clinical outcomes in prospective versus retrospective studies on arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The majority of the current literature on arthroscopic Bankart repair is retrospective, and discrepancies exist regarding clinical outcomes including recurrent instability and return to play among studies of different levels of evidence. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic review of the literature to compare the outcomes of prospective and retrospective studies on arthroscopic Bankart repair. METHODS: A search was performed using the PubMed/Medline database for all studies that reported clinical outcomes on Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability. The search term "Bankart repair" was used, with all results being analyzed via strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Three independent investigators extracted data and scored each included study based on the 10 criteria of the Modified Coleman Methodology Score out of 100. A χ2 test was performed to assess if recurrent instability, revision, return to play, and complications are independent of prospective and retrospective studies. RESULTS: A total of 193 studies were included in the analysis, with 53 prospective studies and 140 retrospective in design. These studies encompassed a total of 13,979 patients and 14,019 surgical procedures for Bankart repair for shoulder instability. The rate of redislocation in the prospective studies was 8.0% vs. 5.9% in retrospective studies (P < .001). The rate of recurrent subluxation in the prospective studies was 3.4% vs. 2.4% in retrospective studies (P = .004). The rate of revision was higher in retrospective studies at 4.9% vs. 3.9% in prospective studies (P = .013). There was no significant difference in terms of overall rate to return to play between prospective and retrospective studies (90% and 91%, respectively; P = .548). The overall rate of non-instability complications in the prospective cohort was 0.27% vs. 0.78% in the retrospective studies (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: The overall rates of recurrent dislocations-subluxations are higher in prospective studies than retrospective studies. However, rates of revision were reportedly higher in retrospective studies. Complications after arthroscopic Bankart repair are rare in both prospective and retrospective studies, and there was no difference in rates of return to play.

Outcomes and complications of revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty after failed primary anatomic shoulder arthroplasty or hemiarthroplasty: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to systematically review the evidence in the literature to ascertain the functional outcomes, range of motion (ROM), and complication and reoperation rates after revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for a failed primary total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) or hemiarthroplasty (HA). METHODS: Two independent reviewers performed the literature search based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines using the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and The Cochrane Library databases. Studies were included if they reported clinical outcomes for revision RSA for a failed primary TSA or HA. RESULTS: Our review found 23 studies including 1041 shoulders (627 TSA and 414 HA) meeting our inclusion criteria. The majority of patients were female (66.1%), with an average age of 69.0 years (range: 39-93 years) and a mean follow-up of 46.3 months. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons and visual analog scale pain scores improved from 32.6 to 61.9 and 6.7 to 2.7, respectively. ROM results include forward flexion, abduction, and external rotation, which improved from 59.4° to 107.7°, 50.7° to 104.4°, and 19.8° to 26.3°, respectively. Only 1 of the 10 studies reporting internal rotation found a statistically significant difference, with the mean internal rotation improving from S1-S3 preoperatively to L4-L5 postoperatively for patients undergoing HA. The overall complication rate and reoperation rate were 23.4% and 12.5%, respectively. The most common complications were glenoid component loosening (6.0%), fracture (periprosthetic, intraoperative, or other scapula fractures) (n = 4.7%), and infection (n = 3.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Revision RSA for a failed primary TSA and HA has been shown to result in excellent functional outcomes and improved ROM, suggesting that patients who have failed TSA or HA may benefit from a revision RSA.

Outcomes of arthroscopic stabilization for posterior shoulder instability: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Posterior shoulder instability makes up approximately 10% of all shoulder instability cases and its diagnosis and treatment is less well understood. Recently, however, there has been increased recognition of posterior instability and posterior stabilization. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature to ascertain the outcomes on arthroscopic stabilization of posterior shoulder instability. METHODS: Two independent reviewers conducted a systematic literature search based on PRISMA guidelines, utilizing the MEDLINE database. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported postoperative outcomes for posterior shoulder instability following arthroscopic stabilization. RESULTS: A total of 48 studies met inclusion criteria for review including 2307 shoulders. Majority of patients were male (83.3%), with an average age of 26.1 years and a mean follow-up of 46.8 months. The functional outcome score primarily utilized for postoperative assessment was the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons with an average of 84.77. Overall, 90.9% of patients reported being satisfied with their arthroscopic stabilization. Recurrent instability occurred in 7.4% of patients. The total revision rate was 5.2%. 16.6% of patients reported residual pain postoperatively. The rate of return to play was 86.4% with 68.0% of patients returning to play at the same or higher level of play. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic stabilization of posterior shoulder instability resulted in good outcomes with high patient satisfaction and low rates of recurrent instability, revisions, and residual pain.

Risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent instability remains a major source of morbidity following arthroscopic Bankart repair. Many risk factors and predictive tools have been described, but there remains a lack of consensus surrounding individual risk factors and their contribution to outcomes. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the literature to identify and quantify risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair. METHODS: A literature search was performed using the PubMed/MEDLINE databases based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were included if they evaluated risk factors for recurrent instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair. RESULTS: Overall, 111 studies were included in the analysis, including a total of 19,307 patients and 2750 episodes of recurrent instability with 45 risk factors described. Age at operation was reported by 60 studies, with 35 finding increased risk at younger ages. Meta-analysis showed a 2-fold recurrence rate of 27.0% (171 of 634) for patients <20 years old compared with 13.3% (197 of 1485) for older patients (P < .001). Seventeen studies completed multivariable analysis, 13 of which were significant (odds ratio 1.3-14.0). Glenoid bone loss was evaluated by 39 studies, with 20 finding an increased risk. Multivariable analysis in 9 studies found odds ratios ranging from 0.7 to 35.1; 6 were significant. Off-track Hill-Sachs lesions were evaluated in 21 studies (13 significant), with 3 of 4 studies that conducted multivariable analysis finding a significant association with odds ratio of 2.9-8.9 of recurrence. The number of anchors used in repair was reported by 25 studies, with 4 finding increased risk with fewer anchors. Pooled analysis demonstrated a 25.0% (29 of 156) risk of recurrence with 2 anchors, compared with 18.1% (89 of 491) with 3 or more anchors (P = .06). Other frequently described risk factors included glenohumeral joint hyperlaxity (46% of studies reporting a significant association), number of preoperative dislocations (31%), contact sport participation (20%), competitive sport participation (46%), patient sex (7%), and concomitant superior labral anterior-posterior tear (0%). CONCLUSION: Younger age, glenoid bone loss, and off-track Hill-Sachs lesions are established risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair. Other commonly reported risk factors included contact and competitive sports participation, number of fixation devices, and patient sex.