Retear bigger than preoperative tear size would lead to treatment failure after rotator cuff repair.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to (1) define treatment failure using the referred patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) values for pain visual analog scale (PVAS), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) clinical scores and (2) identify the factors that lead to patient dissatisfaction after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). METHODS: We analyzed the arthroscopic rotator cuff surgery registry data from January 2015 to December 2016. Patients were followed for ≥2 years and categorized as dissatisfied or satisfied based on our own definition of treatment failure at 2 years postoperatively. For defining treatment failure, the referred PASS values for the PVAS, ASES, and SANE scores were used. Patients who failed to attain the PASS value for the PVAS, ASES, or SANE score were categorized into the dissatisfied group. Pre- and postoperative imaging and basic demographic data were compared between groups. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the factors affecting patient satisfaction at 2 years after rotator cuff repair. RESULTS: Of 117 patients, 30 (25.6%) were defined as the dissatisfied group (mean follow-up period, 37.5 months). Seventeen patients (14.5%) had confirmed retear on follow-up magnetic resonance imaging. In the univariate analysis, sex significantly differed between the groups (female, satisfied vs. dissatisfied groups: 39 [44.8%] vs. 22 [73.3%]; P = .010). Retear alone did not affect patient satisfaction in the univariate analysis (P = .11). Progressed retear size featured a significantly higher risk of patient dissatisfaction (P = .024; odds ratio 6.430, 95% confidence interval 1.270-32.541) in the multivariable analysis using symptom duration, sex, preoperative ASES score, preoperative tear size, retear, and progressed retear size as variables. Moreover, female sex had an increased odds for dissatisfaction (odds ratio 4.646, 95% confidence interval 1.590-13.578; P = .005). CONCLUSION: Two years after ARCR, most patients (74.4%) reported satisfaction with their outcomes. However, satisfaction levels can be altered by female sex or progressed retear size compared with the preoperative state.

Do Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory or COX-2 Inhibitor Drugs Increase the Nonunion or Delayed Union Rates After Fracture Surgery?: A Propensity-Score-Matched Study.

BACKGROUND: The effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)/cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 inhibitors on postoperative fracture-healing are controversial. Thus, we investigated the association between NSAID/COX-2 inhibitor administration and postoperative nonunion or delayed union of fractures. We aimed to determine the effects of NSAID/COX-2 inhibitor administration on postoperative fracture-healing with use of a common data model. METHODS: Patients who underwent operative treatment of a fracture between 1998 and 2018 were included. To determine the effects of NSAID/COX-2 inhibitor administration on fracture-healing, postoperative NSAID/COX-2 inhibitor users were compared and 1:1 matched to nonusers, with 3,264 patients matched. The effect of each agent on bone-healing was determined on the basis of the primary outcome (nonunion/delayed union), defined as having a diagnosis code for nonunion or delayed union ≥6 months after surgery. The secondary outcome was reoperation for nonunion/delayed union. To examine the effect of NSAIDs/COX-2 inhibitors on bone union according to medication duration, a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. RESULTS: Of the 8,693 patients who were included in the analysis, 208 had nonunion (178 patients; 2.05%) or delayed union (30 patients; 0.35%). Sixty-four (30.8%) of those 208 patients had a reoperation for nonunion or delayed union. NSAID users showed a significantly lower hazard of nonunion compared with the matched cohort of nonusers (hazard ratio, 0.69 [95% confidence interval, 0.48 to 0.98]; p = 0.040) but did not show a significant difference in the other matched comparison for any other outcomes. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed significantly lower and higher nonunion/delayed union rates when the medication durations were ≤3 and >3 weeks, respectively (p = 0.001). For COX-2 inhibitors, the survival curve according to the medication duration showed no significant difference among the groups (p = 0.9). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated no short-term impact of NSAIDs/COX-2 inhibitors on long-bone fracture-healing. However, continued use of these medications for a period of >3 weeks may be associated with higher rates of nonunion or delayed union. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Role of Additional Inferomedial Supporting Screws in Osteoporotic 3-Part Proximal Humerus Fracture: Finite Element Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Importance of inferomedial supporting screws in preventing varus collapse has been investigated for the proximal humerus fracture. However, few studies reported the results of osteoporotic complex fracture. This study aimed to demonstrate the stress distribution pattern, particularly in osteoporotic 3-part proximal humerus fractures involving greater tuberosity (GT) with different screw configurations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the computed tomography (CT) images of 2 patients, who had osteoporosis and the other had normal bone density, 3-part fractures involving the GT, without medial support were reconstructed. To reflect the osteoporosis or real bone density, Hounsfield unit of CT scans were utilized. A force of 200 N was applied in 30° varus direction. The proximal screws were set in 2 ways: 6 screws without inferomedial supporting screws and 9 screws with inferomedial supporting screws. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of internal stress distribution were performed. RESULTS: The most proximal part area near humeral head vertex and near the 1st screw's passage and tip had more stress concentrated in osteoporotic 3-part fractures. The stress distribution around the proximal screws was found near the GT fracture line and its lateral side, where the local max values located. Inferomedial supporting screws decreased these effects by changing the points to medial side from the GT. The ratio in osteoporotic bone model decreased to that in normal bone model when inferomedial supporting screws were applied (normal bone, 2.97%-1.30%; osteoporosis bone, 4.76%-1.71%). CONCLUSIONS: In osteoporotic 3-part proximal humerus fracture, the stress distribution was concentrated on the area near the humeral vertex, 1st row screw tips, and lateral side region from the GT fracture line. Moreover, inferomedial supporting screws ensured that the stress distribution is similar to that in normal bone setting, particularly in osteoporotic condition.