Does the Addition of PROMIS Pain Instruments Improve the Sensitivity of PROMIS Upper Extremity Scores Following Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair?

INTRODUCTION: Though Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity (P-UE) has been validated in upper extremity orthopedics, it's ability to capture a patient's functional recovery after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (aRCR), as measured by its responsiveness, is minimal in the early postoperative period. The primary purpose of this study is to determine if addition of PROMIS Pain Intensity (P-Intensity) or Pain Interference (P-Interference) scores to PROMIS UE improves the responsiveness throughout the one-year postoperative period after aRCR. METHODS: This prospective, longitudinal study included 100 patients who underwent aRCR. Patients completed P-UE, P-Interference, P-Intensity, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) scores preoperatively and at 2-weeks, 6-weeks, 3 months, 6-months and 12-months after surgery. Responsiveness at each time-point relative to preoperative baseline and one-way analysis of variance with post-hoc analysis was conducted for each PROM. Responsiveness of the outcome score was determined using the effect size (ES), graded as small (0.2), medium (0.5), or large (0.8). The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was determined between these instruments at each time-point. RESULTS: In isolation, P-UE, P-Interference, and P-Intensity showed a medium-large ability to detect change (positive and negative) throughout the one-year postoperative period. The addition of PROMIS pain scores to P-UE improved the responsiveness of the instrument (from medium to a large effect size) starting at 3 months and continued throughout the 12 month follow-up period. Though the addition of pain scores increases the response burden for PROMIS, this was still lower when compared to the response burden for the legacy outcome scores (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The addition of PROMIS pain instruments improves the responsiveness of the P-UE function score in patients undergoing aRCR.

Return to Sport after Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair of Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Perform a systematic literature review regarding return to sport (RTS) outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (aRCR) for full-thickness rotator cuff tears (FTRCTs). DATA SOURCES: Systematic review of all articles in PubMed, Medline, and Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE) was conducted in April 2022 using a combination of keywords: "rotator cuff repair," "RCR," "complete," "full-thickness," "tear," "RCT," "injury," "shoulder," "arthroscopic," "return to sport," "RTS," "sport," "return to play," and "athlete." Cohorts were included from all articles reporting RTS after aRCR for FTRCTs. Studies that were non-English, failed to distinguish between partial and FTRCT outcomes, or treated FTRCTs by open RCR, mini-open RCR, debridement, or nonsurgical management were excluded. Abstracted data included study design, surgical techniques, concomitant procedures, demographics, FTRCT type and size, patient-reported outcomes, type of sport, competition level, time to return, and reasons for failing to RTS. MAIN RESULTS: 11 studies were reviewed, with inclusion of 463 patients (385 athletes; mean age 47.9). RTS varied considerably in rate and timing, with 50.0% to 100% of patients returning on average between 4.8 to 14 months. In addition, 31 patients returned to a higher level of sport, 107 returned to or near preinjury level, and 36 returned to a lower level of competition or failed to RTS entirely. CONCLUSIONS: The ability for athletes to RTS after aRCR for FTRCTs is likely multifactorial, demonstrating high variability in return rates and time to RTS. Given the paucity of available literature, future studies are warranted to provide a more definitive consensus.

Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) of upper extremity PROMIS scores following arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs.

PURPOSE: To calculate and determine what factors are associated with achieving the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and the Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB) of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Testing v2.0 (UE), Pain Interference (P-Interference), and Pain Intensity (P-Intensity) in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (aRCR). METHODS: The change in PROMIS scores representing the optimal cutoff for a ROC curve with an area under the curve analysis was used to calculate the anchor-based MCID and SCB. To assess the responsiveness of each PROM, effect sizes and standardized response means (SRM) were calculated. To identify factors associated with attaining the MCID and SCB, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 323 patients with an average age of 59.9 ± 9.5 were enrolled in this study, of which, 187/323 [57.9%] were male and 136/323 [42.1%] were female. The anchor-based MCID for PROMIS UE, P-Interference, and P-Intensity was: 9.0, 7.5, and 11.2, respectively. The respective SCB was 10.9, 9.3, and 12.7. Effect size and SRM were: PROMIS UE (1.4, 1.3), P-Interference (1.8, 1.5), and P-Intensity (2.3, 2.0). Lower preoperative P-Intensity scores (p = 0.02), dominant arm involvement (p = 0.03), and concomitant biceps tenodesis (p = 0.03) were associated with patients achieving the SCB for PROMIS UE. CONCLUSION: A large responsiveness for each of the PROMIS instruments due to the majority of patients reporting great improvement after aRCR and a small standard deviation across all outcome measures was shown in our study. Lower preoperative P-Intensity scores and concomitant biceps tenodesis were associated with higher odds of achieving the SCB for PROMIS UE. The knowledge of MCID and SCB values for PROMIS instruments will allow the surgeon to determine whether the improvements in the PROMIS scores after aRCR are clinically meaningful. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Correlation of Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon (ASES), and Constant (CS) scores in idiopathic adhesive capsulitis.

PURPOSE: To correlate the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity (PROMIS UE) score with pre-existing validated outcome scores, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES), and Constant score (CS) in patients with idiopathic adhesive capsulitis (AC). METHODS: Patients with a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic AC ("freezing" or "frozen" phases) who agreed to complete the ASES, CS, and PROMIS UE scores during their office visit were included in this study. Trained researchers performed the objective clinical assessments on the included patients. Responses to the 3 outcome scores were statistically analyzed and compared using Pearson correlation coefficients. Floor and ceiling effects were calculated. RESULTS: The final cohort included 100 patients with AC, of whom there were 72% female and 87% right hand dominant, with a mean age of 55 years. The PROMIS UE required fewer question responses (5.02 ± 1.84) compared with the fixed question burden with ASES (12) and CS (9). The mean outcome scores were 34.6 ± 2.5 (PROMIS UE), 55 ± 22 (ASES), and 51 ± 16 (CS). The PROMIS UE displayed an excellent correlation with both the ASES (r = 0.80, 95% confidence interval [0.72, 0.86], P < .001) and CS (r = 0.76, 95% confidence interval [0.67, 0.83], P < .001). Neither ceiling nor floor effects were present. CONCLUSION: The PROMIS UE displayed comparable efficacy to commonly used legacy outcome scores (ASES and CS) in AC. A lower question burden with the PROMIS UE carries potential for wider acceptability with the researchers and patients with shoulder pathology.

The future of health care service in orthopedic practice: telemedicine or in-person visits?

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to assess patient satisfaction and preference for telemedicine vs. in-person visits for outpatient shoulder and elbow musculoskeletal consultation during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and in the future. METHODS: Patients who had telemedicine visits for shoulder and elbow musculoskeletal complaints at a single institution from March through June 2020 were invited to respond to a post-visit survey. The survey included a standardized questionnaire that focused on the patient's satisfaction with the telemedicine visits during the pandemic and preference for using the telemedicine platform in the future, following the pandemic. Additional details regarding their virtual visits (severity of medical condition, as well as previous virtual or emergency department visits) were also obtained. Data regarding patient demographic characteristics and visit details (primary diagnosis, type of visit, length of visit, and treating physician) were extracted from the electronic medical records. RESULTS: In total, 153 patients participated in the study. Overall, high satisfaction scores regarding the telemedicine visits were noted: 91% of patients reported that their concerns were adequately addressed, 89% would recommend telemedicine to a friend, and 94% stated that they would use the telemedicine platform again in the presence of a situation similar to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the majority of patients (76%) reported a preference for in-person visits for the same musculoskeletal complaint if it were not for COVID-19. A telemedicine visit duration > 10 minutes and a first-time telemedicine visit correlated with higher satisfaction rates (P = .037 and P = .001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 has provided a boost to the use of our telemedicine platform, with a high satisfaction rate among patients with shoulder and elbow musculoskeletal complaints, largely owing to safety reasons and limited access to in-person doctor visits. However, a considerable number of patients would have preferred in-person visits for similar health complaints if there were no pandemic. Further research on optimizing the selection of patients for telemedicine visits and addressing their expectations and concerns regarding their visits will improve patients' preference for future telemedicine visits.

Patient and Physician Satisfaction with Telehealth During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Sports Medicine Perspective.

Background:Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a large shift in health care toward virtual platforms. This study analyzed patient and physician satisfaction with telehealth during the height of the pandemic within the division of sports medicine.Methods:All sports medicine patients who completed a telemedicine visit from March 30, 2020, through April 30, 2020, were sent a 14-question Likert scale (1-5/5) survey. Sports medicine physicians who used telemedicine were sent a separate 14-question Likert scale (1-5/5) survey at the end of the study period. Factors influencing patient satisfaction were determined using a multivariate linear regression model.Results:A total of 143 patients and 9 sports medicine attendings completed the surveys. Most patients were "satisfied" (4/5) or "very satisfied" (5/5) (88.8%). A multivariate linear regression determined that patients who believed they had a greater ability to adopt new technology and were more effective at communicating questions/concerns to their physicians had greater satisfaction (p = 0.009 and p = 0.015, respectively). Most physicians were either "satisfied" (4/5) or "very satisfied" (5/5) (75.0%). On average, physicians felt that physical examinations conducted through telemedicine were "moderately effective" (2.75/5.00 ± 1.3), that they were "fairly confident" (3.86/5.00 ± 0.83) in their diagnoses, and that most sports medicine attendings plan to use telemedicine in the future (87.5%).Conclusion:Telehealth emerged as a valuable tool for the delivery of health care to sports medicine patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients and physicians reported high levels of satisfactions with its use, and this study further identifies areas that can improve the patient and physician experience.

Young age, female gender, Caucasian race, and workers' compensation claim are risk factors for reoperation following arthroscopic ACL reconstruction.

PURPOSE: Given the increasing incidence of arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), mid- to long-term rates of reoperations were investigated on the ipsilateral knee following ACLR. METHODS: New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative Systems (SPARCS) database was queried from 2003 to 2012 to identify patients with a primary ICD-9 diagnosis for ACL tear and concomitant CPT code for ACLR. Patients were longitudinally followed for at least 2 years to determine incidence and nature of subsequent ipsilateral knee procedures. RESULTS: The inclusion criteria were met by 45,231 patients who had undergone ACLR between 2003 and 2012. Mean age was found to be 29.7 years (SD 11.6). Subsequent ipsilateral outpatient knee surgery after a mean of 25.7 ± 24.5 months was performed in 10.7% of patients. Revision ACLR was performed for nearly one-third of reoperations. Meniscal pathology was addressed in 58% of subsequent procedures. Age 19 or younger, female gender, worker's compensation (WC) insurance, and Caucasian race were identified as independent risk factors for any ipsilateral reoperation. An initial isolated ACLR and initial ACLR performed by a high-volume surgeon were found to be independently associated with lower reoperation rates. Tobacco use was not significant. Survival rates of 93.4%, 89.8% and 86.7% at 2-, 5- and 10 years, respectively, were found for any ipsilateral reoperation. CONCLUSION: A 10.7% ipsilateral reoperation rate at an average of 25.9 (SD 24.5) months after ACLR and an overall ACLR revision rate of 3.1% were demonstrated by the analysis. Meniscal pathology was addressed in the majority of subsequent interventions. Age 19 or younger, female gender, Caucasian race, and WC claim were associated with reoperation. Initial isolated ACLR and procedure performed by high-volume surgeon were associated with reduced reoperation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Management of irreparable massive rotator cuff tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient-reported outcomes, reoperation rates, and treatment response.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on the treatment of irreparable massive rotator cuff tears. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to (1) compare patient-reported outcome scores, (2) define failure and reoperation rates, and (3) quantify the magnitude of patient response across treatment strategies. METHODS: The MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and Scopus databases were searched for studies including physical therapy and operative treatment of massive rotator cuff tears. The criteria of the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies were used to assess study quality. Primary outcome measures were patient-reported outcome scores as well as failure, complication, and reoperation rates. To quantify patient response to treatment, we compared changes in the Constant-Murley score and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score with previously reported minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds. RESULTS: No level I or II studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were found. Physical therapy was associated with a 30% failure rate among the included patients, and another 30% went on to undergo surgery. Partial repair was associated with a 45% retear rate and 10% reoperation rate. Only graft interposition was associated with a weighted average change that exceeded the MCID for both the Constant-Murley score and ASES score. Latissimus tendon transfer techniques using humeral bone tunnel fixation were associated with a 77% failure rate. Superior capsular reconstruction with fascia lata autograft was associated with a weighted average change that exceeded the MCID for the ASES score. Reverse arthroplasty was associated with a 10% prosthesis failure rate and 8% reoperation rate. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of high-quality comparative studies to guide treatment recommendations. Compared with surgery, physical therapy is associated with less improvement in perceived functional outcomes and a higher clinical failure rate.

Efficacy of liposomal bupivacaine in shoulder surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the safety, efficacy, and opioid-sparing effect of liposomal bupivacaine (LB) vs. nonliposomal local anesthetic agents (NLAs) for postoperative analgesia after shoulder surgery. METHODS: A systematic literature review of randomized controlled clinical studies comparing the efficacy of LB with NLAs in shoulder surgery was conducted. Seven level I and II studies were included in the meta-analysis, and shoulder surgical procedures included arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and shoulder arthroplasty. Bias was assessed using The Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The primary outcome measures were visual analog scale pain scores and opioid consumption 24 and 48 hours after shoulder surgery. Subgroup analysis was performed for the method of LB administration (interscalene nerve block vs. local infiltration). RESULTS: A total of 7 studies (535 patients) were included in the final meta-analysis comparing LB (n = 260) with NLAs (n = 275). No significant difference was found between the LB and NLA groups in terms of visual analog scale pain scores at 24 hours (95% confidence interval, -1.02 to 0.84; P = .86) and 48 hours (95% confidence interval, -0.53 to 0.71; P = .78). Both groups had comparable opioid consumption at both 24 hours (P = .43) and 48 hours (P = .78) postoperatively and with respect to length of stay (P = .87) and adverse events (P = .97). Subgroup analysis demonstrated comparable efficacy irrespective of the method of administration of LB. CONCLUSION: LB is comparable to NLAs with respect to pain relief, the opioid-sparing effect, and adverse effects in the first 48 hours after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and total shoulder arthroplasty.

Treatment for Symptomatic SLAP Tears in Middle-Aged Patients Comparing Repair, Biceps Tenodesis, and Nonoperative Approaches: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nonoperative management, primary SLAP repair, and primary biceps tenodesis for the treatment of symptomatic isolated type II SLAP tear. METHODS: A microsimulation Markov model was constructed to compare 3 strategies for middle-aged patients with symptomatic type II SLAP tears: SLAP repair, biceps tenodesis, or nonoperative management. A failed 6-month trial of nonoperative treatment was assumed. The principal outcome measure was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio in 2017 U.S. dollars using a societal perspective over a 10-year time horizon. Treatment effectiveness was expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALY). Model results were compared with estimates from the published literature and were subjected to sensitivity analyses to evaluate robustness. RESULTS: Primary biceps tenodesis compared with SLAP repair conferred an increased effectiveness of 0.06 QALY with cost savings of $1,766. Compared with nonoperative treatment, both biceps tenodesis and SLAP repair were cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio values of $3,344/QALY gained and $4,289/QALY gained, respectively). Sensitivity analysis showed that biceps tenodesis was the preferred strategy in most simulations (52%); however, for SLAP repair to become cost-effective over biceps tenodesis, its probability of failure would have to be lower than 2.7% or the cost of biceps tenodesis would have to be higher than $14,644. CONCLUSIONS: When compared with primary SLAP repair and nonoperative treatment, primary biceps tenodesis is the most cost-effective treatment strategy for type II SLAP tears in middle-aged patients. Primary biceps tenodesis offers increased effectiveness when compared with both primary SLAP repair and nonoperative treatment and lower costs than primary SLAP repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, economic decision analysis.

Performance outcomes after medial ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction in Major League Baseball positional players.

BACKGROUND: We sought to determine whether professional baseball positional players who underwent medial ulnar collateral ligament (MUCL) reconstruction demonstrate decreases in performance on return to competition compared with preoperative performance metrics and their control-matched peers. METHODS: Data for 35 Major League Baseball positional players who underwent MUCL reconstruction during 31 seasons were obtained. Twenty-six players met inclusion criteria. Individual statistics for the 2 seasons immediately before injury and the 2 seasons after injury included wins above replacement (WAR), on-base plus slugging (OPS), and isolated power (ISO). Twenty-six controls matched by player position, age, plate appearances, and performance statistics were identified. RESULTS: Of the 35 athletes who underwent surgery, 7 did not return to their preinjury level of competition (return to play rate of 80%). In comparing preinjury with postinjury statistics, players exhibited a significant decrease in plate appearances, at-bats, and WAR 2 seasons after injury but did not demonstrate declines in WAR 1 season after injury. Compared with matched controls, athletes who underwent MUCL reconstruction did not demonstrate significant decline in statistical performance, including OPS, WAR, and ISO, after return to play from surgery. Of all positional players, catchers undergoing surgery demonstrated lowest rates of return to play (56%) along with statistically significant decreases in home run rate, runs batted in, and ISO. CONCLUSION: Major League Baseball positional players undergoing MUCL reconstruction can reasonably expect to return to their preinjury level of competition and performance after surgery compared with their peers. Positional players return to play at a rate comparable to that of pitchers; catchers may experience more difficultly in returning to preinjury levels of play.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for postoperative pain relief after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a prospective double-blinded randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) can be associated with significant postoperative pain. Concern for opioid abuse has led surgeons to identify alternative, efficacious methods of postoperative analgesia. To determine whether transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) can have a similarly beneficial effect after shoulder procedures, we conducted a prospective double-blinded randomized trial in patients undergoing outpatient ARCR. METHODS: All patients undergoing ARCR of a full-thickness rotator cuff tear by the senior authors were identified. Patients with a history of recent narcotic use or prior narcotic abuse and those under management of a pain control specialist were excluded. Patients were randomized into 2 groups, active or placebo TENS, and used the device for 4 sessions/day for 45 minutes/session for the first postoperative week. All patients received Percocet 5/325 mg (oxycodone/acetaminophen) for use as rescue pain pills. One-week narcotic consumption and visual analog scale pain scores were compared between groups. RESULTS: The final analysis included 37 patients (21 active,16 placebo). Baseline and procedural differences were not different between groups. At 1 week postoperatively, patients in the active group had significantly lower pain scores (3.6 ± 2.1 vs. 5.8 ± 1.2; P= .008). Postoperative Percocet consumption during the initial 48 hours (12.8 ± 4.7 vs. 17.2 ± 6.3; P = .020) and during the first week (25.2 ± 9.9 vs. 33.8 ± 14.3; P = .037) was also significantly lower in the active group. CONCLUSION: Results from this prospective double-blinded randomized trial demonstrate that compared with placebo TENS, active TENS can result in significantly less pain and reduced opioid use in the immediate postoperative period after ARCR, suggesting that TENS may be potentially useful in a multimodal approach to managing postoperative pain.

Subsequent Shoulder Surgery After Isolated Arthroscopic SLAP Repair.

PURPOSE: To quantify the incidence of and identify the risk factors for subsequent shoulder procedures after isolated SLAP repair. METHODS: New York's Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database was searched between 2003 and 2014 to identify individuals with the sole diagnosis of a SLAP lesion who underwent isolated arthroscopic SLAP repair. Patients were longitudinally followed up for a minimum of 3 years to analyze for subsequent ipsilateral shoulder procedures. RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2014, 2,524 patients met our inclusion criteria. After 3 to 11 years of follow-up, 10.1% of patients (254 of 2,524) underwent repeat surgical intervention on the same shoulder as the initial SLAP repair. The mean time to repeat shoulder surgery was 2.3 ± 2.1 years. Subsequent procedures included subacromial decompression (35%), debridement (26.7%). repeat SLAP repair (19.7%), and biceps tenodesis or tenotomy (13.0%). After isolated SLAP repair, patients aged 20 years or younger were more likely to undergo arthroscopic Bankart repair (odds ratio [OR], 2.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-6.21; P = .005), whereas age older than 30 years was an independent risk factor for subsequent acromioplasty (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4-3.7; P < .001) and distal clavicle resection (OR, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.1-5.5; P = .030). The need for a subsequent procedure was significantly associated with Workers' Compensation cases (OR, 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7-3.2; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: We identified a 10.1% incidence of subsequent surgery after isolated SLAP repair, often related to an additional diagnosis, suggesting that clinicians should consider other potential causes of shoulder pain when considering surgery for patients with SLAP lesions. In addition, the number of isolated SLAP repairs performed has decreased over time, and management of failed SLAP repair has shifted toward biceps tenodesis or tenotomy over revision SLAP repair in more recent years. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case-control study.

The Incidence of Subsequent Surgery After Outpatient Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair.

PURPOSE: To quantify the incidence and risk factors associated with subsequent shoulder procedures in individuals undergoing outpatient arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). METHODS: We examined the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative Systems outpatient database from 2003 through 2014 to identify patients undergoing isolated ARCR with or without concomitant acromioplasty. Patients were longitudinally followed up for a minimum of 2 years to determine the incidence of subsequent ipsilateral shoulder surgery. The impact of age, sex, insurance, concomitant acromioplasty, and tobacco use on reoperation was explored. RESULTS: Between 2003 and 2012, 30,430 patients underwent isolated ARCR. The mean age was 56.6 ± 11.5 years, and 55.1% were male patients. A total of 1,826 patients (6.0%) underwent subsequent ipsilateral outpatient shoulder surgery a mean of 24.3 ± 27.1 months after the initial ARCR. Of patients who underwent repeat surgery, 57.3% underwent a revision cuff repair. Patients who underwent additional outpatient shoulder surgery were significantly younger (53.7 ± 10.9 years v 56.8 ± 11.5 years, P < .001). Tobacco use was associated with an increased rate of subsequent surgery (7.3% v 5.9%, P = .044) and accelerated time to reoperation (16.9 months v 24.7 months, P < .001). Independent risk factors for subsequent ipsilateral surgery after initial ARCR were presence of a Workers' Compensation claim (odds ratio, 2.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.89-2.36; P < .001) and initial ARCR without acromioplasty (odds ratio, 1.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.34; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: We identified a 6.0% incidence of repeat ipsilateral surgery after isolated ARCR. Although reasons for reoperation are likely multifactorial, younger age, Workers' Compensation claim, and absence of acromioplasty at the time of initial ARCR remained independent predictors of subsequent outpatient procedures, whereas a history of tobacco use was associated with accelerated time to subsequent surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Postoperative pain control after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) can provide excellent clinical results for patients who fail to respond to conservative management of symptomatic rotator cuff tears. ARCR, however, can be associated with severe postoperative pain and discomfort that requires adequate analgesia. As ARCR continues to shift toward being performed as an outpatient procedure, it is incumbent on physicians and ambulatory surgical centers to provide appropriate pain relief with minimal side effects to ensure rapid recovery and safe discharge. Although intravenous and oral opioids are the cornerstone of pain management after orthopedic procedures, they are associated with drowsiness, nausea, vomiting, and increased length of hospital stay. As health care reimbursements continue to become more intimately focused on quality, patient satisfaction, and minimizing of complications, the need for adequate pain control with minimal complications will continue to be a principal focus for providers and institutions alike. We present a review of alternative modalities for pain relief after ARCR, including cryotherapy, intralesional anesthesia, nerve blockade, indwelling continuous nerve block catheters, and multimodal anesthesia. In choosing among these modalities, physicians should consider patient- and system-based factors to allow the efficient delivery of analgesia that optimizes recovery and improves patient satisfaction.

Disproportionate trends in ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction: projections through 2025 and a literature review.

BACKGROUND: Medial ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) injuries of the elbow that require surgical management are uncommon. There is growing evidence, however, suggesting that the incidence of UCL reconstruction (UCLR) procedures is rapidly increasing. We sought to quantify the incidence of age-related trends for UCLR from 2003 to 2014 and subsequently to project future trends through 2025. We hypothesized that as the total number of UCLRs performed increased, a disproportionate incidence among younger patients would be observed. METHODS: New York State's Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database was queried from 2003 to 2014 to identify individuals between 10 and 40 years old undergoing UCLR. Poisson regression was used to develop future projections for UCLR and New York State population through 2025, and incidence estimates per 100,000 people were calculated. RESULTS: In New York State between 2003 and 2014, there were 890 patients who underwent UCLR, with average annual incidence per 100,000 people equaling 6.3 ± 2.8 for ages 15 to 19 years, significantly greater than for all other age groups (P < .001). Projections from 2015 through 2025 suggest that incidence in 15- to 19-year-olds and 20- to 24-year-olds will continue to rapidly increase while rates for other age groups will remain relatively stable. CONCLUSIONS: The number of UCLRs performed between 2003 and 2014 increased by 343%, and a disproportionate trend in average annual incidence for patients between 15 and 19 years old was observed. As our review of the literature questioned outcomes in adolescent athletes after UCLR, continued attempts at preventing these injuries in the young throwing athlete remain paramount.

Trends in Elbow Ulnar Collateral Ligament Repairs and Reconstructions and an Analysis Between Low- and High-Volume Surgical Centers: A 10-Year Study in New York State.

Background: Elbow ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) reconstruction (UCLR) is the gold standard for operative treatment of UCL tears, with renewed interest in UCL repairs. Purpose: To (1) assess trends in rates of UCLR and UCL repair and (2) identify predictors of complications by demographic, socioeconomic, or surgical center volume factors. Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: Patients who underwent UCLR or UCL repair at New York State health care facilities between 2010 and 2019 were retrospectively identified; concomitant ulnar nerve procedures among the cohort were also identified. Surgical center volumes were classified as low (<99th percentile) or high (≥99th percentile). Patient information, neighborhood socioeconomic status quantified using the Area Deprivation Index, and complications within 90 days were recorded. Poisson regression analysis was used to compare trends in UCLR versus UCL repair. Multivariable regression was used to determine whether center volume, demographic, or socioeconomic variables were independent predictors of complications. Results: A total of 1448 UCL surgeries were performed, with 388 (26.8%) concomitant ulnar nerve procedures. UCLR (1084 procedures; 74.9%) was performed more commonly than UCL repair (364 procedures; 25.1%), with patients undergoing UCL repair more likely to be older, female, and not privately ensured and having undergone a concomitant ulnar nerve procedure (all P < .001). With each year, there was an increased incidence rate ratio for UCL repair versus UCLR (ß = 1.12 [95% CI, 1.02-1.23]; P = .022). The authors identified 2 high-volume centers (720 UCL procedures; 49.7%) and 131 low-volume centers (728 UCL procedures; 50.3%). Patients undergoing UCL procedures at high-volume centers were more likely to be younger and male and receive workers' compensation (all P < .001). UCL repair and ulnar nerve-related procedures were both more commonly performed at low-volume centers (P < .001). There were no significant differences in 3-month infection, ulnar neuritis, instability, arthrofibrosis, heterotopic ossification, or all-cause complication rates between low- and high-volume centers. The only significant predictor for all-cause complication was Medicaid insurance (OR, 2.91 [95% CI, 1.20-6.33]; P = .011). Conclusion: A rising incidence of UCL repair compared with UCLR was found in New York State, especially among female patients, older patients, and nonprivate payers. There were no differences in 3-month complication rates between high- and low-volume centers, and Medicaid insurance status was a predictor for overall complications within 90 days of operation.

Comparison of Multiple Surgical Treatments for Massive Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears in Patients Younger Than 70 Years of Age: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Massive irreparable rotator cuff tears (MIRCTs) remain a challenging treatment paradigm, particularly for nonelderly patients without pseudoparalysis or arthritis. PURPOSE: To use a network meta-analysis to analyze comparative studies of surgical treatment options for MIRCTs in patients <70 years of age for several patient-reported outcomes, range of motion (ROM), and acromiohumeral distance (AHD). STUDY DESIGN: Network meta-analysis of comparative studies; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature, using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, of the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases was conducted from 2017 to 2022. Inclusion criteria were (1) clinical comparative studies of MIRCTs (with several study-specific criteria); (2) ≥1 outcome of interest reported on, with standard deviations; (3) minimum 1-year follow-up; and (4) mean age of <70 years for both cohorts, without arthritis or pseudoparalysis. There were 8 treatment arms compared. Outcomes of interest were the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Constant-Murley score, visual analog scale for pain, AHD, and forward flexion and external rotation ROM. A frequentist approach to network meta-analysis with a random-effects model was performed using the netmeta package Version 0.9-6 in R. RESULTS: A total of 23 studies met the inclusion criteria, with 1178 patients included in the network meta-analysis. There was a mean weighted age of 62.8 years, 568 (48.2%) men, with a mean follow-up of 28.9 months. There were no significant differences between groups in regard to sex (P = .732) or age (P = .469). For the ASES score, InSpace balloon arthroplasty (mean difference [MD], 12.34; 95% CI, 2.18 to 22.50; P = .017), arthroscopic bridging graft (aBG) (MD, 7.07; 95% CI, 0.28 to 13.85; P = .041), and long head of biceps augmented superior capsular reconstruction (BSCR) (MD, 5.16; 95% CI, 1.10 to 9.22; P = .013) resulted in the highest P-scores. For the Constant-Murley score, debridement (MD, 21.03; 95% CI, 8.98 to 33.08; P < .001) and aBG (MD, 6.97; 95% CI, 1.88 to 12.05; P = .007) resulted in the highest P-scores. For AHD, BSCR resulted in the highest P-score (MD, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.48; P = .005). For forward flexion ROM, debridement (MD, 45.77; 95% CI, 25.41 to 66.13; P < .001) resulted in the highest P-score, while RSA resulted in the lowest P-score (MD, -16.70; 95% CI, -31.20 to -2.20; P = .024). CONCLUSION: For patients <70 years with MIRCT without significant arthritis or pseudoparalysis, it appears that graft interposition repair techniques, superior capsular reconstruction using the long head of the biceps tendon, arthroscopic debridement, and balloon arthroplasty provide superiority in various outcome domains, while RSA provides the least benefit in forward flexion.

Clinical outcomes of open Latarjet-Patte procedures performed for recurrent anterior shoulder instability with primary bone loss versus failed arthroscopic Bankart repair.

BACKGROUND: This study compares the outcomes of Latarjet-Patte procedures (LPs) performed for primary glenohumeral instability in the setting of critical bone loss (LP-BL) versus salvage surgery performed after a failed arthroscopic Bankart repair (LP-FB). METHODS: LP's performed by senior author from 2017 to 2021 were separated into cohorts by LP indication. Data abstracted from electronic medical records included demographic information, preoperative clinical scores, radiological imaging, and complications. Postoperative clinical outcome scores collected after a 2-year minimum follow-up included: patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) upper extremity (UE), PROMIS pain interference, PROMIS pain intensity, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and visual analog scale pain scores. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients (LP-BL: n=29, LP-FB: n=18) with a mean age of 29 years (range, 15-58 years) were included in this study. Both cohorts achieved good upper extremity functionality without significant differences as indicated by mean PROMIS UE (LP-BL: 52.6±10.0 vs. LP-FB: 54.6±7.6, P=0.442) and ASES score (LP-BL: 89.9±15.7 vs. LP-FB: 91.5±14.4, P=0.712). However, the LP-FB cohort reported lower levels of pain (LP-FB: 0.5±1.1 vs. LP-BL: 1.9±2.7, P=0.020) at their latest follow-up. There were no significant differences in complication rates including re-dislocation between cohorts (LP-BL: 2/29 [6.9%] vs. LP-FB: 2/18 [11.1%], P=0.629). CONCLUSIONS: When performed after failed Bankart repair, the LP results in similar postoperative functional outcomes and similar rates of complications and re-dislocations when compared to the primary indication of recurrent glenohumeral instability in the setting of critical bone loss. Level of evidence: III.