Morphometric analysis of cervical interlaminar space for posterior surgical approach and decompression.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to provide a morphometric description of the bony margins of the interlaminar spaces by level in the cervical spine for guidance of safe posterior cervical surgical dissection and decompression. We also aim to describe the impact of increasing static cervical lordosis on the overlap between the lamina. METHODS: Morphometric measurements of the interlaminar space were performed on 100 consecutive cervical spine CT scans of patients ranging in age from 18 to 50 years were selected. Three raters performed measurements of the interlaminar height measured using two techniques (true interlaminar height and surgical interlaminar height), and interlaminar width from C2-C3 to C7-T1. RESULTS: In total, 100 patients were included. The true interlaminar height was greatest at C2-3, C3-4, C4-5 (5.2 ± 1.4-1.8 mm) and smallest at C6-7 (4.4 ± 1.3 mm). Surgical interlaminar height was greatest at C3-4 (4.2 ± 1.7) and smallest at C6-7 (3.0 ± 1.3 mm). The widest interlaminar space was observed at C3-4 (27.1 ± 2.1 mm) and most narrow at C7-T1 (20.9 ± 2.4 mm). Following multivariate regression, male gender was associated with greater interlaminar widths at each cervical level between C4 and T1 (Table 2). While greater patient height was associated with larger interlaminar height (true and surgical) and width at C2-3 and C4-5, weight was not independently associated with the interlaminar measurements. Increasing C2-C7 lordosis was significantly associated with decreasing true and surgical interlaminar heights at all levels except C7-T1, but was not associated with differences between interlaminar width. CONCLUSION: The study provides a morphometric analysis of interlaminar anatomy in the cervical spine. Surgeons can apply this information in their pre-operative plan to safely approach the posterior cervical spine.

Does interbody cage lordosis impact actual segmental lordosis achieved in minimally invasive lumbar spine fusion?

OBJECTIVE: In an effort to prevent loss of segmental lordosis (SL) with minimally invasive interbody fusions, manufacturers have increased the amount of lordosis that is built into interbody cages. However, the relationship between cage lordotic angle and actual SL achieved intraoperatively remains unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine if the lordotic angle manufactured into an interbody cage impacts the change in SL during minimally invasive surgery (MIS) for lumbar interbody fusion (LIF) done for degenerative pathology. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective review of a single-surgeon database of adult patients who underwent primary LIF between April 2017 and December 2018. Procedures were performed for 1-2-level lumbar degenerative disease using contemporary MIS techniques, including transforaminal LIF (TLIF), lateral LIF (LLIF), and anterior LIF (ALIF). Surgical levels were classified on lateral radiographs based on the cage lordotic angle (6°-8°, 10°-12°, and 15°-20°) and the position of the cage in the disc space (anterior vs posterior). Change in SL was the primary outcome of interest. Subgroup analyses of the cage lordotic angle within each surgical approach were also conducted. RESULTS: A total of 116 surgical levels in 98 patients were included. Surgical approaches included TLIF (56.1%), LLIF (32.7%), and ALIF (11.2%). There were no differences in SL gained by cage lordotic angle (2.7° SL gain with 6°-8° cages, 1.6° with 10°-12° cages, and 3.4° with 15°-20° cages, p = 0.581). Subgroup analysis of LLIF showed increased SL with 15° cages only (p = 0.002). The change in SL was highest after ALIF (average increase 9.8° in SL vs 1.8° in TLIF vs 1.8° in LLIF, p < 0.001). Anterior position of the cage in the disc space was also associated with a significantly greater gain in SL (4.2° vs -0.3°, p = 0.001), and was the only factor independently correlated with SL gain (p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with cage lordotic angle, cage position and approach play larger roles in the generation of SL in 1-2-level MIS for lumbar degenerative disease.

Return to work after shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: With the rising incidence of shoulder arthroplasty, there is increasing emphasis on improving functional outcomes and ability to return to work (RTW). The purpose of this study was to determine the rate of RTW after shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A literature search of 4 electronic databases was performed from database conception through April 2018 to identify studies reporting data on RTW after shoulder arthroplasty. The primary outcome was the rate of RTW after shoulder arthroplasty. Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool the rate of RTW across studies. RESULTS: Seven studies were reviewed, including 447 patients at an average follow-up of 4.4 years (range, 1.0-12.6 years). The overall rate of RTW was 63.6% (95% confidence interval, 58.8%-68.2%) at a mean 2.3 months postoperatively (range, 0.3-24.0 months). RTW was significantly lower for patients with heavy-intensity occupations vs. all intensity types (61.7% vs. 67.6%; P = .04). RTW did not differ between anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (63.4%) and hemiarthroplasty (66.1%) or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (61.5%; P = .53). There were no significant differences in RTW among underlying diagnoses (osteoarthritis, 64.4%; cuff tear arthropathy, 65.6%; proximal humerus fracture, 69.1%; P = .41) or by workers' compensation status (61.2% vs. 65.3%; P = .41). CONCLUSIONS: A majority of patients return to work after shoulder arthroplasty at an average of 2.3 months postoperatively. Those with heavy-intensity occupation return at significantly lower rates, whereas no differences in RTW by arthroplasty type, underlying diagnosis, or workers' compensation were found.

Return to sport after shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: With increasing incidence and indications for shoulder arthroplasty, there is an increasing emphasis on the ability to return to sports. The main goal of this study was to determine the rate of return to sport after shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were followed to perform this systematic review and meta-analysis. A search was performed on MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. The quality of the included studies was evaluated according to the Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies checklist. The main judgement outcome was the rate of return to sports activity after shoulder arthroplasty and the level of play upon return (identical or higher/lower level). RESULTS: Thirteen studies were reviewed, including 944 patients (506 athletes), treated with shoulder arthroplasty at an average follow-up of 5.1 years (range, 0.5-12.6 years). The most common sports were swimming (n = 169), golf (n = 144), fitness sports (n = 71), and tennis (n = 63). The overall rate of return to sport was 85.1% (95% CI, 76.5-92.3%), including 72.3% (95% CI, 60.6-82.8%) returning to an equivalent or improved level of play, after 1-36 months. Patients undergoing anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty returned at a significantly higher rate (92.6%) compared to hemiarthroplasty (71.1%, p = 0.02) or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (74.9%, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Most patients are able to return to one or more sports following shoulder arthroplasty, with anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty having the highest rate of return. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Analysis of Outcomes for High Tibial Osteotomies Performed With Cartilage Restoration Techniques.

PURPOSE: To evaluate reported medium- to long-term outcomes after high tibial osteotomy (HTO) with associated cartilage restoration procedures. METHODS: A review of the MEDLINE database was performed. The inclusion criteria were English language, clinical outcome study with HTO as the primary procedure, use of a form of cartilage repair included, and the mean follow-up period of at least 2 years. Each identified study was reviewed for study design, patient demographics, type of procedures performed, clinical outcomes, progression to total knee arthroplasty, and complications. RESULTS: Eight hundred and twenty-seven patients (839 knees) were included. The most common cartilage preservation technique used in conjunction with HTO was microfracture (4 studies; 22.2%). The mean Lyscholm scores, reported in 50% of the studies, ranged from 40 to 65.7 preoperatively and improved to a range of 67 to 94.6 postoperatively. Four studies (22.2%) used a visual analog scale for evaluation of pain and all had a mean visual analog scale of less than 3 postoperatively. Among studies evaluating conversion to arthroplasty, the rate of conversion was 6.8% and the range of mean number of years from HTO to conversion was 4.9 to 13.0. The overall reported complication rate was 10.3%. CONCLUSIONS: HTO with cartilage restoration procedures provides reliable improvement in functional status in the medium- to long-term period after surgery and has potential to delay or avoid the need for knee arthroplasty surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level I to IV studies.

Body Mass Index Class Is Independently Associated With Health-Related Quality of Life After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: An Institutional Registry-Based Study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients across World Health Organization (WHO) body mass index (BMI) classes before and after total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHODS: Patients with end-stage hip osteoarthritis who received elective primary unilateral THA were identified through an institutional registry and categorized based on the World Health Organization BMI classification. Age, sex, laterality, year of surgery, and Charlson-Deyo comorbidity index were recorded. The primary outcome was the EQ-5D-3L index and visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) scores at 2 years postoperatively. Inferential statistics and regression analyses were performed to determine associations between BMI classes and HRQoL. RESULTS: EQ-5D-3L scores at baseline and at 2 years were statistically different across BMI classes, with higher EQ-VAS and index scores in patients with lower BMI. There was no difference observed for the 2-year change in EQ-VAS scores, but there was a statistically greater increase in index scores for more obese patients. In the regression analyses, there were statistically significant negative effect estimates for EQ-VAS and index scores associated with increasing BMI class. CONCLUSION: BMI class is independently associated with lower HRQoL scores 2 years after primary THA. While absolute scores in obese patients were lower than in nonobese patients, obese patients enjoyed more positive changes in EQ-5D index scores after THA. These results may provide the most detailed information on how BMI influences HRQoL before and after THA, and they are relevant to future economic decision analyses on the topic.

Outcomes After Diagnostic Hip Injection.

PURPOSE: To provide a comprehensive review of outcomes associated with local anesthetic (LA) or LA and corticosteroid (CS) diagnostic hip injections, and how well response predicts subsequent operative success. METHODS: A systematic review from database (PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Embase) inception to January 2015 for English-language articles reporting primary patient outcomes data was performed, excluding studies with >50% underlying osteoarthritis. Studies were assessed by 2 reviewers who collected pertinent data. RESULTS: Seven studies were included, reporting on a total 337 patients undergoing diagnostic hip injection. The mean age was 34.4 years, with 5 studies reporting 94 (35.2%) males and 173 (64.8%) females. One study examined the rate of pain relief with LA (92.5%); 2 CS studies reported relief on a scale from 0% to 100% (no to complete relief), ranging from 61% to 82.3%; and 3 studies used 10-point pain scales, with a CS study noting a pain score of 1.0, an LA study with a score of 3.03, and 1 study using either CS or LA scores of 3 to 5.6. Duration of pain relief was 9.8 (CS) and 2.35 days (LA). By pathology, greatest relief was achieved in acetabular chondral injury (93.3%) and least in cam impingement (81.6%), with clinical and imaging findings being unreliable predictors of relief. One study showed nonresponse to be a strong predictor of negative surgical outcome for femoroacetabular impingement. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic hip injections provide substantial pain relief for patients with various hip pathologies, with limited data to suggest greatest relief for those with chondral injury. Clinical and imaging findings are unreliable predictors of injection response, and nonresponse to injection is a strong negative predictor of surgical outcome. Future research should focus on elucidating differences by underlying pathology and predicting future operative success. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review.

Outcomes After Patch Use in Rotator Cuff Repair.

PURPOSE: To provide a comprehensive review of clinical outcomes and retear rates after patch use in rotator cuff repair, and to determine the differences between available graft types and techniques. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted from database (PubMed, Medline, Scopus, Embase) inception to January 2015 for English-language articles reporting outcome data with 9 months' minimum follow-up. Studies were assessed by 2 reviewers who collected pertinent data, with outcomes combined to generate frequency-weighted means. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria. The frequency-weighted mean age was 61.9 years with 35.4 months' follow-up. The mean improvements in postoperative range of motion in the forward elevation, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation planes were 58.6°, 66.2°, 16.6°, and 16.1°, respectively, and postoperative abduction strength improved by 3.84 kg. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, University of California-Los Angeles, Constant, Penn, and Oxford scores improved by 39.3, 10.7, 40.8, 34.4, and 17.6, respectively. Augmentation and interposition techniques showed similar improvements in range of motion, strength, and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), whereas xenografts showed less improvement in PROs compared with other graft types. Studies reported improvements in pain and activities of daily living (ADLs), with greater than 90% overall satisfaction, although few patients (13%) were able to return to preinjury activity. Whereas interposition and augmentation techniques showed similar improvements in pain and ADLs, xenografts showed less improvement in ADLs than other graft types. The overall retear rate was 25%, with rates of 34% and 12% for augmentation and interposition, respectively, and rates of 44%, 23%, and 15% for xenografts, allografts, and synthetic grafts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: We report improvements in clinical and functional outcomes, with similar results for augmentation and interposition techniques, whereas xenografts showed less improvement than synthetic grafts and allografts in PROs and ADLs. Retear rates may be lower with the interposition technique or in patients with synthetic grafts or allografts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II through IV studies.

Revision Arthroscopic Repair Versus Latarjet Procedure in Patients With Recurrent Instability After Initial Repair Attempt: A Cost-Effectiveness Model.

PURPOSE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of arthroscopic revision instability repair and Latarjet procedure in treating patients with recurrent instability after initial arthroscopic instability repair. METHODS: An expected-value decision analysis of revision arthroscopic instability repair compared with Latarjet procedure for recurrent instability followed by failed repair attempt was modeled. Inputs regarding procedure cost, clinical outcomes, and health utilities were derived from the literature. RESULTS: Compared with revision arthroscopic repair, Latarjet was less expensive ($13,672 v $15,287) with improved clinical outcomes (43.78 v 36.76 quality-adjusted life-years). Both arthroscopic repair and Latarjet were cost-effective compared with nonoperative treatment (incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of 3,082 and 1,141, respectively). Results from sensitivity analyses indicate that under scenarios of high rates of stability postoperatively, along with improved clinical outcome scores, revision arthroscopic repair becomes increasingly cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Latarjet procedure for failed instability repair is a cost-effective treatment option, with lower costs and improved clinical outcomes compared with revision arthroscopic instability repair. However, surgeons must still incorporate clinical judgment into treatment algorithm formation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, expected value decision analysis.

Cost-Effectiveness of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Versus Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair for Symptomatic Large and Massive Rotator Cuff Tears.

PURPOSE: To compare the cost-effectiveness within the United States health care system of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair versus reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with symptomatic large and massive rotator cuff tears without cuff-tear arthropathy. METHODS: An expected-value decision analysis was constructed comparing the costs and outcomes of patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for large and massive rotator cuff tears (and excluding cases of cuff-tear arthropathy). Comprehensive literature search provided input data to extrapolate costs and health utility states for these outcomes. The primary outcome assessed was that of incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty versus rotator cuff repair. RESULTS: For the base case, both arthroscopic rotator cuff repair and reverse total shoulder were superior to nonoperative care, with an ICER of $15,500/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and $37,400/QALY, respectively. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair was dominant over primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, with lower costs and slightly improved clinical outcomes. Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair was the preferred strategy as long as the lifetime progression rate from retear to end-stage cuff-tear arthropathy was less than 89%. However, when the model was modified to account for worse outcomes when reverse shoulder arthroplasty was performed after a failed attempted rotator cuff repair, primary reverse total shoulder had superior outcomes with an ICER of $90,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair-despite high rates of tendon retearing-for patients with large and massive rotator cuff tears may be a more cost-effective initial treatment strategy when compared with primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty and when assuming no detrimental impact of previous surgery on outcomes after arthroplasty. Clinical judgment should still be prioritized when formulating treatment plans for these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, economic decision analysis.

Quality and Variability of Online Available Physical Therapy Protocols From Academic Orthopaedic Surgery Programs for Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction.

PURPOSE: To assess the quality and variability found across anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rehabilitation protocols published online by academic orthopaedic programs. METHODS: Web-based ACL physical therapy protocols from United States academic orthopaedic programs available online were included for review. Main exclusion criteria included concomitant meniscus repair, protocols aimed at pediatric patients, and failure to provide time points for the commencement or recommended completion of any protocol components. A comprehensive, custom scoring rubric was created that was used to assess each protocol for the presence or absence of various rehabilitation components, as well as when those activities were allowed to be initiated in each protocol. RESULTS: Forty-two protocols were included for review from 155 U.S. academic orthopaedic programs. Only 13 protocols (31%) recommended a prehabilitation program. Five protocols (12%) recommended continuous passive motion postoperatively. Eleven protocols (26%) recommended routine partial or non-weight bearing immediately postoperatively. Ten protocols (24%) mentioned utilization of a secondary/functional brace. There was considerable variation in range of desired full-weight-bearing initiation (9 weeks), as well as in the types of strength and proprioception exercises specifically recommended. Only 8 different protocols (19%) recommended return to sport after achieving certain strength and activity criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Many ACL rehabilitation protocols recommend treatment modalities not supported by current reports. Moreover, high variability in the composition and time ranges of rehabilitation components may lead to confusion among patients and therapists. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.

Variable reporting of functional outcomes and return to play in superior labrum anterior and posterior tear.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes assessments after superior labrum anterior and posterior (SLAP) tear/repair are highly varied, making it difficult to draw comparisons across the literature. This study examined the inconsistency in outcomes reporting in the SLAP tear literature. We hypothesize that there is significant variability in outcomes reporting and that although most studies may report return to play, time to return reporting will be highly variable. METHODS: The PubMed, Medline, Scopus, and Embase databases were systematically reviewed for studies from January 2000 to December 2014 reporting outcomes after SLAP tear/repair. Two reviewers assessed each study, and those meeting inclusion criteria were examined for pertinent data. Outcomes included objective (range of motion, strength, clinical examinations, and imaging) and subjective (patient-reported outcomes, satisfaction, activities of daily living, and return to play) measures. RESULTS: Of the 56 included studies, 43% documented range of motion, 14% reported strength, and 16% noted postoperative imaging. There was significant variation in use of patient-reported outcomes measures, with the 3 most commonly noted measures reported in 20% to 55% of studies. Return to play was noted in 75% of studies, and 23% reported time to return, with greater rates in elite athletes. Eleven studies (20%) did not report follow-up or noted data with <12 months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The SLAP literature is characterized by substantial variability in outcomes reporting, with time to return to play noted in few studies. Efforts to standardize outcomes reporting would facilitate comparisons across the literature and improve our understanding of the prognosis of this injury.

What Are the Strength of Recommendations and Methodologic Reporting in Health Economic Studies in Orthopaedic Surgery?

BACKGROUND: Cost-effectiveness research is an increasingly used tool in evaluating treatments in orthopaedic surgery. Without high-quality primary-source data, the results of a cost-effectiveness study are either unreliable or heavily dependent on sensitivity analyses of the findings from the source studies. However, to our knowledge, the strength of recommendations provided by these studies in orthopaedics has not been studied. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked: (1) What are the strengths of recommendations in recent orthopaedic cost-effectiveness studies? (2) What are the reasons authors cite for weak recommendations? (3) What are the methodologic reporting practices used by these studies? METHODS: The titles of all articles published in six different orthopaedic journals from January 1, 2004, through April 1, 2014, were scanned for original health economics studies comparing two different types of treatment or intervention. The full texts of included studies were reviewed to determine the strength of recommendations determined subjectively by our study team, with studies providing equivocal conclusions stemming from a lack or uncertainty surrounding key primary data classified as weak and those with definitive conclusions not lacking in high-quality primary data classified as strong. The reasons underlying a weak designation were noted, and methodologic practices reported in each of the studies were examined using a validated instrument. A total of 79 articles met our prespecified inclusion criteria and were evaluated in depth. RESULTS: Of the articles included, 50 (63%) provided strong recommendations, whereas 29 (37%) provided weak recommendations. Of the 29 studies, clinical outcomes data were cited in 26 references as being insufficient to provide definitive conclusions, whereas cost and utility data were cited in 13 and seven articles, respectively. Methodologic reporting practices varied greatly, with mixed adherence to framing, costs, and results reporting. The framing variables included clearly defined intervention, adequate description of a comparator, study perspective clearly stated, and reported discount rate for future costs and quality-adjusted life years. Reporting costs variables included economic data collected alongside a clinical trial or another primary source and clear statement of the year of monetary units. Finally, results reporting included whether a sensitivity analysis was performed. CONCLUSIONS: Given that a considerable portion of orthopaedic cost-effectiveness studies provide weak recommendations and that methodologic reporting practices varied greatly among strong and weak studies, we believe that clinicians should exercise great caution when considering the conclusions of cost-effectiveness studies. Future research could assess the effect of such cost-effectiveness studies in clinical practice, and whether the strength of recommendations of a study's conclusions has any effect on practice patterns. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Given the increasing use of cost-effectiveness studies in orthopaedic surgery, understanding the quality of these studies and the reasons that limit the ability of studies to provide more definitive recommendations is critical. Highlighting the heterogeneity of methodologic reporting practices will aid clinicians in interpreting the conclusions of cost-effectiveness studies and improve future research efforts.

Functional Outcome and Graft Retention in Patients With Septic Arthritis After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To provide a comprehensive review of clinical and functional outcomes after treatment for septic arthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed. Two reviewers assessed and confirmed the methodologic quality of each study. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were assessed for pertinent data, and when available, similar outcomes were combined to generate frequency-weighted means. RESULTS: Nineteen studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria for this review, reporting on a total of 203 infected knees. The mean age was 27.5 years and the mean length of follow-up was 44.2 months, with male patients comprising 88% of the population. Hamstring and bone-patellar tendon-bone autografts were used in 63% and 33% of patients, respectively, with 78% of patients retaining their grafts. The studies reported mean flexion and extension deficits of 5.8° and 1.0°, respectively, and laxity testing showed a mean difference of 1.9 mm. The studies reported mean Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee, and Tegner scores of 82.1, 68.2, and 5.6, respectively. Of the patients, 83% reported an ability to return to activities of daily living whereas 67% reported a return to their preinjury level of athletics. Evidence of new degenerative changes was seen in 22% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Septic arthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction remains a very infrequent event, affecting 0.5% of patients. On average, outcomes in these patients are comparable with those in patients in whom infection does not develop, including postoperative range of motion, residual instability, Lysholm scores, and return to preinjury level of activity. These patients do exhibit decreased International Knee Documentation Committee scores compared with patients without septic arthritis, however. The impact of this differential is not clear, but this scoring difference suggests that septic arthritis may be associated with more severe symptoms and reduced functional outcomes. In addition, there is limited evidence suggesting that septic arthritis leads to early degenerative changes found on imaging. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.

Outcomes assessment in rotator cuff pathology: what are we measuring?

BACKGROUND: Assessments used to measure outcomes associated with rotator cuff pathology and after repair are varied. This lack of standardization leads to difficulty drawing comparisons across studies. We hypothesize that this variability in patient-reported outcome measures and objective metrics used in rotator cuff studies persists even in high-impact, peer reviewed journals. METHODS: All studies assessing rotator cuff tear and repair outcomes in 6 orthopedic journals with a high impact factor from January 2010 to December 2014 were reviewed. Cadaveric and animal studies and those without outcomes were excluded. Outcome measures included range of motion (forward elevation, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation), strength (in the same 4 planes), tendon integrity imaging, patient satisfaction, and functional assessment scores. RESULTS: Of the 156 included studies, 63% documented range of motion measurements, with 18% reporting range of motion in all 4 planes. Only 38% of studies reported quantitative strength measurements. In 65% of studies, tendon integrity was documented with imaging (38% magnetic resonance imaging/magnetic resonance anrhrogram, 31% ultrasound, and 8% computed tomography arthrogram). Finally, functional score reporting varied significantly, with the 5 most frequently reported scores ranging from 16% to 61% in studies, and 15 of the least reported outcomes were each reported in ≤6% of studies. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variability exists in outcomes reporting after rotator cuff tear and repair, making comparisons between clinical studies difficult. Creating a uniformly accepted, validated outcomes tool that assesses pain, function, patient satisfaction, and anatomic integrity would enable consistent outcomes assessment after operative and nonoperative management and allow comparisons across the literature.

Baseline Neck Disability Index and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function Predict Postoperative Return to Normal in Cervical Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies assessing the importance of various preoperative factors on postoperative outcomes following spine surgery have uncovered several important variables that influence subjective and objective outcomes following cervical spine surgery, but it is still unclear which patients are most likely to benefit from operative management. PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to assess whether preoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can be used to predict which patients achieve "normal" levels of pain and function after surgery. STUDY DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study. PATIENT SAMPLE: This study included all adult patients undergoing cervical spine surgery by 1 of 7 senior spine surgeons at our institution between 2016 and 2018. Of the 164 patients who were eligible for 6-month follow-up at the time that study data were collected, 139 had available follow-up data and were included in our analysis. OUTCOMES MEASURES: Patients completed the Neck Disability Index (NDI) as well as the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) and Pain Interference computer adaptive tests preoperatively and at 6 months postoperatively. METHODS: Patients who achieved postoperative patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) for NDI (≤17) and the normative mean (50) for PROMIS were identified. The relationship between preoperative PROMs and the probability of achieving PASS and the normative mean was assessed. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-nine patients met inclusion criteria with diagnoses of myelopathy (n = 36), radiculopathy (n = 48), and myeloradiculopathy (n = 49). For NDI, a 1-point worsening in the preoperative score resulted in an OR of achieving PASS of 0.96 (P < 0.001) in the overall population. This association held true for patients with radiculopathy (OR 0.96; P = 0.022) but not myelopathy (OR 0.98; P = 0.35). For PROMIS PF, a 1-point improvement in the preoperative score resulted in an OR of achieving the normative mean of 1.10 (P < 0.001). This association held true for patients with radiculopathy (OR 1.14; P = 0.033) but did not reach statistical significance for patients with myelopathy (OR 1.03; P = 0.515). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative PROMs can predict postoperative benefit for patients undergoing cervical spine surgery, with worse baseline function associated with a lower likelihood of attaining PASS for NDI and the normative mean for PROMIS PF, especially for patients with radiculopathy. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Baseline symptoms and function, including myelopathy or radiculopathy-dominant symptoms and preoperative PROMs, may predict postoperative outcomes.

Intravenous Ketorolac Substantially Reduces Opioid Use and Length of Stay After Lumbar Fusion: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

STUDY DESIGN: A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of intravenous ketorolac (IV-K) on hospital opioid use compared with IV-placebo (IV-P) and IV acetaminophen (IV-A). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Controlling postoperative pain while minimizing opioid use after lumbar spinal fusion is an important area of study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged 18 to 75 years undergoing 1 to 2 level lumbar fusions between April 2016 and December 2019 were included. Patients with chronic opioid use, smokers, and those on systemic glucocorticoids or contraindications to study medications were excluded. A block randomization scheme was used, and study personnel, hospital staff, and subjects were blinded to the assignment. Patients were randomized postoperatively. The IV-K group received 15 mg (age > 65) or 30 mg (age < 65) every six hours (q6h) for 48 hours, IV-A received 1000 mg q6h, and IV-P received normal saline q6h for 48 hours. Demographic and surgical details, opioid use in morphine milliequivalents, opioid-related adverse events, and length of stay (LOS) were recorded. The primary outcome was in-hospital opioid use up to 72 hours. RESULTS: A total of 171 patients were included (58 IV-K, 55 IV-A, and 58 IV-P) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis, with a mean age of 57.1 years. The IV-K group had lower opioid use at 72 hours (173 ± 157 mg) versus IV-A (255 ± 179 mg) and IV-P (299 ± 179 mg; P = 0.000). In terms of opiate use, IV-K was superior to IV-A ( P = 0.025) and IV-P ( P = 0.000) on ITT analysis, although on per-protocol analysis, the difference with IV-A did not reach significance ( P = 0.063). When compared with IV-P, IV-K patients reported significantly lower worst ( P = 0.004), best ( P = 0.001), average ( P = 0.001), and current pain ( P = 0.002) on postoperative day 1, and significantly shorter LOS ( P = 0.009) on ITT analysis. There were no differences in opioid-related adverse events, drain output, clinical outcomes, transfusion rates, or fusion rates. CONCLUSIONS: By reducing opioid use, improving pain control on postoperative day 1, and decreasing LOS without increases in complications or pseudarthrosis, IV-K may be an important component of "enhanced recovery after surgery" protocols.

Predictors of Subsidence and its Clinical Impact After Expandable Cage Insertion in Minimally Invasive Transforaminal Interbody Fusion.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected multisurgeon data. OBJECTIVE: Examine the rate, clinical impact, and predictors of subsidence after expandable minimally invasive transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF) cage. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Expandable cage technology has been adopted in MI-TLIF to reduce the risks and optimize outcomes. Although subsidence is of particular concern when using expandable technology as the force required to expand the cage can weaken the endplates, its rates, predictors, and outcomes lack evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent 1 or 2-level MI-TLIF using expandable cages for degenerative lumbar conditions and had a follow-up of >1 year were included. Preoperative and immediate, early, and late postoperative radiographs were reviewed. Subsidence was determined if the average anterior/posterior disc height decreased by >25% compared with the immediate postoperative value. Patient-reported outcomes were collected and analyzed for differences at the early (<6 mo) and late (>6 mo) time points. Fusion was assessed by 1-year postoperative computed tomography. RESULTS: One hundred forty-eight patients were included (mean age, 61 yr, 86% 1-level, 14% 2-level). Twenty-two (14.9%) demonstrated subsidence. Although statistically not significant, patients with subsidence were older, had lower bone mineral density, and had higher body mass index and comorbidity burden. Operative time was significantly higher ( P = 0.02) and implant width was lower ( P < 0.01) for subsided patients. Visual analog scale-leg was significantly lower for subsided patients compared with nonsubsided patients at a >6 months time point. Long-term (>6 mo) patient-acceptable symptom state achievement rate was lower for subsided patients (53% vs . 77%), although statistically not significant ( P = 0.065). No differences existed in complication, reoperation, or fusion rates. CONCLUSIONS: Of the patients, 14.9% experienced subsidence predicted by narrower implants. Although subsidence did not have a significant impact on most patient-reported outcome measures and complication, reoperation, or fusion rates, patients had lower visual analog scale-leg and patient-acceptable symptom state achievement rates at the >6-month time point. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4.

The Impact of Corticosteroid Injection Timing on Infection Rates Following Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Systematic review/meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to assess how the risk of infection following lumbar spine surgery varies as a function of the timing of preoperative corticosteroid spinal injections (CSIs). METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched and data was pooled for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Six studies were identified for inclusion. Two (33.3%) demonstrated a significant relationship between the timing of preoperative CSIs and the risk of postoperative infection, while 4 (66.7%) demonstrated no impact. A total of 2.5% (110/4,448) of patients who underwent CSI <1 month before surgery experienced a postoperative infection, as compared to 1.2% (1,466/120, 943) of controls, which was statistically significant (RR = 1.986 95% CI 1.202-3.282 P = 0.007). A total of 1.6% (25/1,600) of patients who underwent CSI 0-3 months before surgery experienced a postoperative infection, as compared to 1.6% (201/12, 845) of controls (RR = 0.887 95% CI 0.586-1.341, P = 0.569). A total of 1.1% (199/17 870) of patients who underwent CSI 3-6 months before surgery experienced a postoperative infection, as compared to 1.3% (1,382/102, 572) of controls (RR = 1.053 95% CI 0.704-1.575, P = 0.802). Differences in infection risk for 0-3 months and 3-6 months were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: CSIs <1 month prior to lumbar spine surgery are a significant risk factor for infection, while CSIs beyond that point showed no such association. Surgeons should consider avoiding CSIs <1 month of the use of CSIs of the spine.