Factors Associated With Same Day Discharge Post-Spinal Cord Stimulator Placement.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulator (SCS) surgeries, whether performed using the open or percutaneous approach, are becoming increasingly common for a range of neuropathic pain conditions, including post-laminectomy syndrome and complex regional pain syndrome. However, there is limited knowledge regarding the factors linked to same-day discharge patterns following SCS. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with same-day discharge after SCS placement. The primary outcome was same-day discharge. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, cohort study using a nationwide database. METHODS: Inclusion criteria included patients who underwent percutaneous or open SCS from January 1, 2014 through December 31, 2021. Exclusion criteria included patients with missing data (n = 178) and those with SCS implants for unlisted indications (n = 1,817). A multivariable analysis was conducted on the outcome data and co-variates associated with same-day discharge after SCS. RESULTS: After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 18,058 patients remained in the final data set, including 7,339 patients who underwent percutaneous SCS and 10,719 patients who underwent open SCS procedures. After analysis, factors associated with increased rates of same-day discharge after SCS included men (odds ratio [OR] 1.16; 95% CI, 1.09 -1.24;  P < 0.001), patients on Medicaid (OR 1.64; 95% CI, 0.1.34 - 2.01; P < 0.001), and hospitals in the US Midwest (OR 1.66; 95% CI, 1.45 - 1.90; P < 0.001) and hospitals in the US West (OR 1.32; 95% CI, 1.20 - 1.46; P < 0.001). Factors associated with decreased rates of same-day discharge after SCS included the open approach (OR 0.21; 95% CI, 0.19 - 0.23; P < 0.001), Hispanic ethnicity (OR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.54 - 0.69; P < 0.001) and increased age (OR 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98 - 0.99; P < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: Since our study is retrospective, the data are subject to various biases, including variable confounding, human error in data entry, and generalizability of the results. CONCLUSION: These results can be used to help determine hospital bed needs post-SCS surgery. Future research should focus on identifying the specific reasons certain demographic and geographic factors might influence same-day discharge rates. Our study provides important insights into the factors associated with same-day discharge rates post open and percutaneous SCS implant and highlights the need for patient-centered, evidence-based approaches to health care delivery.

Long-Term Outcomes After Spinal Cord Stimulator Placement in Patients with Pre-procedural Active Opioid Use Versus Patients Who Were Opioid-Naïve.

BACKGROUND: Outcome optimization after the placement of a spinal cord stimulator (SCS) is critical. The objective of this study was to determine if an association existed between pre-procedural opioid use (compared to patients who were opioid-naïve) and postoperative long-term outcomes following SCS placement. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of preprocedural opioid use on long-term outcomes after SCS therapy. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study utilizing a nationwide database. SETTING: Retrospective. METHODS: With the use of data from HCA Healthcare's national database, a retrospective cohort study was performed to analyze differences in outcomes between opioid-naïve patients and preoperative opioid users who underwent SCS placements. The primary outcome of interest was device explantation at 6 months and 12 months. Secondary outcome measurements included reoperations and readmissions at 6 months and 12 months, as well as operative complications. Multivariable logistic regression models were performed to analyze the association of preoperative opioid use with those outcomes. The odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and P values were reported for the independent variables. RESULTS: The final study population consisted of 13,893 patients who underwent SCS placements. In univariate analyses, patients who used opioids preoperatively had higher 6-month (3.6% vs. 2.6%) and one-year removal rates (3.6% vs. 2.8%) (all P < 0.009). On multivariable logistic regression, those using opioids preoperatively had higher odds of removal at 6 months (OR = 1.290, 95% CI 1.05-1.58, P = 0.01) and at one year (OR = 1.23, 95% CI 1.01-1.50, P = 0.04). There was no difference between patients requiring preoperative opioids and patients who were opioid-naive as far as the odds of 6- or 12-month readmissions were concerned. Compared to the opioid-naive group, patients requiring preoperative opioids had increased odds of reoperation at 6 months (OR = 1.2, 95% CI 1.02-1.40, P = 0.03). There were no differences in the odds of complications between both cohorts. LIMITATIONS: Opioid use in this study was defined as using opioids preoperatively in the 30 days leading up to surgery. CONCLUSION: Patients requiring preoperative opioids before SCS placements had increased odds of SCS explantation at 6 months and 12 months, as well as increased odds of reoperation at 6 months.

Association of patient characteristics with the receipt of regional anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Regional anesthesia (RA) may improve patient-related outcomes, including decreased operative complications, shortened recovery times, and lower hospital readmission rates. More analyses are needed using a diverse set of databases to examine characteristics associated with the receipt of RA. METHODS: A national hospital database was queried for patients 18 years or older who underwent total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), carpal tunnel release, ankle open reduction, and internal fixation and arteriovenous fistula creation between January 2016 and June 2021. Regional techniques included neuraxial anesthesia and various upper and lower extremity peripheral nerve blocks to create a binary variable of RA receipt. Univariate statistics were used to compare characteristics associated based on RA receipt and multivariable regression identified factors associated with RA receipt. RESULTS: A total of 51 776 patients were included in the analysis, of which 2111 (4.1%) received RA. Factors associated with decreased odds of RA receipt included black race (vs white race; OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.86), other non-white race (vs white race; OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.86), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class (vs ASA 1; OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.93), and Medicaid insurance (vs private insurance; OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.82) (all p<0.05). When compared with TKA, ACLR (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.84), ankle open reduction and internal fixation (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.81), and carpal tunnel release (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.78) demonstrated lower odds of RA receipt, whereas TSA (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.58) demonstrated higher odds of RA receipt (all p<0.05). CONCLUSION: RA use varies with respect to race, insurance status, and type of surgery.

The Association of Psychiatric Comorbidities With Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes Following Spinal Cord Stimulator Placement.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes after spinal cord stimulator (SCS) placement are affected by psychologic comorbidities. It is part of routine practice to do psychologic assessments prior to SCS trials to assess for the presence of maladaptive behavioral patterns. However, few studies have sought to quantify the effect of psychiatric comorbidities on complications, reoperation, and readmission rates. The purpose of this study was to assess the association of psychiatric comorbidities with postprocedural outcomes after SCS implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Inclusion criteria included SCS placement between 2015 and 2020 (percutaneous approach or an open laminectomy-based approach) using Healthcare Corporation of America National Database. Data on psychiatric comorbidities present at the time of SCS implantation surgery were collected. Outcomes of interest included complication rates (defined as lead migration, fracture, malfunction, battery failure, postoperative pain, infection, dural puncture, or neurological injury), reoperation rates (defined as either revision or explant [ie, removal]), and readmission rates within 30-day and 1-year time after SCS implantation. We measured the association between psychiatric comorbidities and outcomes using multivariable regression and reported odds ratio (OR) and respective 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: A total of 12,751 cases were included. The most common psychiatric comorbidities were major depressive disorder (16.1%) and anxiety disorder (13.4%). In unadjusted univariate analysis, patients with any psychiatric comorbidity had heightened rates of any complication (27.1% vs 19.4%), infection (5.9% vs 1.9%), lead displacement (2.2% vs 1.3%), surgical pain (2.1% vs 1.2%), explant (14.7% vs 8.8%), and readmission rates at one year (54.2% vs 33.8%) (all p < 0.001). In multivariable logistic regression, with each additional psychiatric comorbidity, a patient had increased odds of experiencing any complication (OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.36-1.57, p < 0.001), requiring a reoperation (OR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.37-1.6, p < 0.001), and requiring readmission (OR = 1.7, 99% CI = 1.6-1.8, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of psychiatric comorbidities was found to be associated with postoperative complication rates, reoperation, and readmission rates after SCS placement. Furthermore, each consecutive increase in psychiatric comorbidity burden was associated with increased odds of complications, reoperation, and readmission. Future studies might consider examining the role of presurgical mental health screening (ie, patient selection, psychologic testing) and treatment in optimizing outcomes for patients with psychiatric comorbidities.

Spinal Cord Stimulator (SCS) Placement: Examining Outcomes Between the Open and Percutaneous Approach.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord stimulator (SCS) placement has been gaining traction as an approach to modulate pain levels for several different chronic pain conditions. This procedure can be performed via a percutaneous or open approach. Data regarding SCS complications are relatively limited. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to leverage a large national database to examine outcomes between the percutaneous and open SCS placement approaches. Outcomes in this study include length of stay (LOS), complication rates, reoperation rates, and 1-year readmission rates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Inclusion criteria for the current study is SCS placement between 2015 and 2020, with receipt of an SCS using either a percutaneous approach or an open laminectomy based approach. Encounters included were limited to true SCS placement, such that trial placements were not included in the study. Univariate statistics and multivariable logistic regression was performed to compare outcomes between cohorts. RESULTS: Total SCS case volumes were 9935 between the percutaneous (n = 4477, 45.1%) and open (n = 5458, 54.9%) approach. Patients receiving the percutaneous approach were found to have a mean decrease in LOS of 9.91 hours when compared to those receiving the open approach. The percutaneous approach was significantly associated with the need for reoperation within one year compared to the open approach (odds ratio [OR]: 0.663, p < 0.001), as well as with the need for readmission within 30 days (51.2% vs 40.2%, OR: 0.759, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The open approach, when compared to the percutaneous approach, had a longer mean LOS, lower outpatient discharge rates, and higher odds of experiencing an operative complication in comparison to the percutaneous approach. The percutaneous approach had relatively increased odds of thirty-day readmission, although no significant difference in one-year readmission or removal was demonstrated.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings of the Asymptomatic Shoulder May Impact Performance, Not Future Injury List Placement in Major League Baseball Pitchers.

Purpose: To evaluate preseason shoulder magnetic resonance images (MRIs) obtained from pitchers entering either major or minor league baseball (MLB) and correlate findings with subsequent injury, operative repair, and placement on the injured list (IL). Methods: Preseason-MRI of the throwing shoulders of professional-level baseball pitchers, taken during routine evaluations at a single organization (2004-2017) were retrospectively reviewed. Publicly available databases were queried to exclude pitchers with known injuries prior to pre-signing imaging. Three blinded reviewers reviewed all MRI scans independently to evaluate for the presence of abnormalities in the rotator cuff (RTC), labrum, capsule, long-head of the biceps tendon (LHBT), and humeral head. Binary imaging findings were correlated to future placement on the IL for subsequent shoulder complaints. Bivariate statistics using Student's t-tests and Fisher exact tests (both α = .05) were used in this study. Results: A total of 38 asymptomatic pitchers with shoulder MRIs were included. Pitchers had a mean (±SD) age of 28.2 ± 4.9 and had pitched an average of 119.6 ± 143.8 career games. Pitchers with partial articular-sided RTC tears (P = .04) or intra-articular BT hyperintensity (P = .04) on preseason MRI demonstrated an association with the need for future surgery. Pitchers with evidence of labral heterogeneity demonstrated greater total career pitch counts (10,034.1 vs 2,465.3; P = .04). Evidence of a posterior-superior humeral cyst was associated with decreased strikeouts per 9 innings (6.1 vs 8.0; P = .039) and total strikeout percentage (16.1% vs 23.2%; P = .04). Conclusion: Although there was a significant difference in the percent of various radiographic findings between the injured and healthy cohort, no MRI findings were predictive of future IL placement or duration of placement. The presence of a posterior superior humeral cyst was associated with decreased strikeout rates at 2 and 3 years, the presence of a labral tear was associated with decreased earned run average (ERA) at 3 years and decreased career strikeout percentages, and increased capsular signal was associated with decreased 5-year ERA. Level of Evidence: Level IV, retrospective study.

Moderate Return to Play and Previous Performance After SLAP Repairs in Competitive Overhead Athletes: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of return to play (RTP) and return to previous level of performance (RPP) in competitive overhead athletes after SLAP repair to identify factors associated with failure to RTP. METHODS: Systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Review was registered with PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (CRD42020215488). Inclusion criteria were literature reporting RTP or RPP following SLAP repair in overhead athletes were run in the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Google Scholar. Categories for data collection for each full article included (1) article information; (2) patient demographics; (3) surgical techniques; (4) level of competition; (5) rotator cuff treatment; (6) player position; (7) patient-reported outcome measures; and (8) RTP and RPP rates. The Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies checklist was used to evaluate quality of all included studies. RESULTS: Eight studies with 333 subjects were identified. Overall RTP and RPP rates were 50% to 83.6% and 35.3% to 64%, respectively. Patients with surgically treated rotator cuff pathology had lower RTP (12.5%-64.7%) rates compared with those without (80.0%-83.6%). Professional athletes had similar RTP rates (62.5%-81.5%) compared with high-school (75.0%-90.0%) and college athletes (12.5%-83.3%). However, professional athletes demonstrated the lowest relative range of reported RPP rates (27.7%-55.6%). Pitchers had lower RTP (62.5%-80.0%) and RPP (52.0%-58.9%) compared with position players (91.3% RTP, 76.3%-78.2% RPP). CONCLUSIONS: Studies reviewed reported moderate RTP and RPP rates following SLAP repairs in competitive overhead athletes. Those with associated rotator cuff tear requiring treatment, and baseball pitchers were less likely to RTP and RPP. Professional athletes had similar RTP to an amateur; however, they were less likely to RPP. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level III-IV studies.

How Long Does It Take to Achieve Clinically Significant Outcomes After Isolated Biceps Tenodesis?

Background: Clinically significant outcomes (CSOs) connect patient-reported outcome measures data to patient-perceived benefit. Although investigators have established threshold values for various CSOs, the timeline to achieve these outcomes after isolated biceps tenodesis (BT) has yet to be defined. Purpose: To define the time-dependent nature of minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) achievement after isolated BT. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES), the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and the Constant-Murley score (CMS) were administered preoperatively and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively to patients undergoing isolated BT between 2014 and 2018 at our institution. Cumulative probabilities for achieving MCID, SCB, and PASS were calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Weibull parametric regression evaluated the hazard ratios (HRs) of achieving earlier MCID, SCB, and PASS. Results: Overall cohort (N = 190) achievement rates ranged between 77.8% and 83.2% for MCID, between 42.2% and 80.2% for SCB, and between 59.7% and 62.9% for PASS. Median achievement time was 5.3 to 6.1 months for MCID, 5.9 to 6.4 months for SCB, and 6.07 to 6.1 months for PASS. Multivariate Weibull parametric regression identified older age, male sex, higher body mass index, preoperative thyroid disease, smoking history, and higher preoperative CMS as predictors of delayed CSO achievement (HR, 1.01-6.41), whereas normal tendon on arthroscopy, defined as absence of tenosynovitis or tendon tear on arthroscopy, predicted earlier CSO achievement (HR, 0.19-0.46). Location of tenodesis and worker compensation status did not significantly predict the time to achieve CSOs on multivariate analysis. Conclusion: After isolated BT, patients can expect to attain CSO by 13 months postoperatively, with most patients achieving this between 5 and 8 months. Patients tend to take longer to achieve PASS than MCID and SCB.

Delaying ACL reconstruction beyond 6 months from injury impacts likelihood for clinically significant outcome improvement.

BACKGROUND: The effect of surgical latency on outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) is a topic that is heavily debated. Some studies report increased benefit when time from injury to surgery is decreased while other studies report no benefit. The purpose of our analysis was to compare achievement of clinically significant outcomes (CSOs) in patients with greater than six months of time from injury to ACLR to those with less than or equal to six months of time to surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing primary ACLR between January 2017 and January 2018 with minimum one year follow-up were included. International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (KOOS) were collected. Multivariate logistic regression was performed for outcome achievement and risk of revision ACLR and Weibull parametric survival analysis was performed for relative time to outcome achievement. The level of significance was set at α = 0.05. RESULTS: 379 patients were included of which, 140 patients sustained ACL injury greater than six months prior to surgery. This group of patients experienced reduced likelihood to achieve patient-acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) on the IKDC (p = 0.03), KOOS Pain (p = 0.01) and a greater likelihood to undergo revision ACLR (p = 0.001). There was no impact of surgical timing on minimal clinically important difference (MCID). CONCLUSION: Patients with greater than 6 months from injury to ACLR reported reduced likelihood to achieve CSOs, delayed achievement of CSOs, and increased rates of revision surgery.

Microdrilling Demonstrates Superior Patient-Reported Outcomes and Lower Revision Rates Than Traditional Microfracture: A Matched Cohort Analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes and revision rates between the standard microfracture awl versus the microdrilling technique. METHODS: Microfracture patients were queried from a single-institution database between 2001 and 2016. Patient-reported outcome measure data were collected at preoperative and 6- and 12-month time points, inclusive of the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Short Form 12 (SF12) Physical Component Score (PCS) and Mental Component Score, and all Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscales. A matching algorithm based on previous procedures, lesion size, and demographic factors created 2 technique-based cohorts. Outcomes including revision rates and both statistically and clinically significant differences (i.e., the minimally clinically important difference [MCID]) between awl and microdrill cohorts were compared using univariate statistics. RESULTS: A total of 68 patients (aged 32.0 ± 13.1 years, 48.5% female, body mass index 26.7 ± 5.3 kg/m2), with 34 patients in each group, were included after the match. At 6 months, the microdrilling group demonstrated significantly greater levels of improvement than the awl group on the IKDC, SF12 PCS, and KOOS Pain, Symptom, Sport, and Quality of Life (P < .04), although differences at 1 year were only maintained on the SF12 PCS instrument (P < .001). With respect to MCID achievement, the microdrilling group demonstrated greater achievement rates at 6 months on the IKDC, KOOS Pain, and KOOS Sport (P < .04). The awl group demonstrated a higher rate of revision surgery (P = .02) within 3 years of follow-up and a greater likelihood to require multiple subsequent procedures (41.1% vs 17.6%, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Microdrilling demonstrated superior outcomes relative to traditional microfracture awl techniques with respect to patient-reported outcomes at 6 months and revision rates within 3 years of follow-up. In addition, clinically meaningful differences were evident at 6 months in the microdrilling group. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Preoperative psychometric properties of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity, Pain Interference, and Depression in Bankart repair and rotator cuff repair.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to examine the preoperative performance of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity (UE, versions 1.2 and 2.0), Pain Interference (PI, version 1.1), and Depression (version 1.0) testing across multiple orthopedic procedures for the upper extremity and define its susceptibility to preoperative floor and ceiling effects. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected patient-reported outcome measures using an electronic outcome registry for procedures performed between May 2017 and April 2019. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes were used to examine cohorts for 2 upper-extremity orthopedic procedures: Bankart repair and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). Shapiro-Wilk normality testing was used to assess score distributions for normalcy; given non-normal score distributions, Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated for preoperative patient-reported outcome scores. Absolute floor and ceiling effects were calculated for preoperative time points based on CPT code. RESULTS: A total of 488 patients were included across the Bankart repair cohort (n = 109; mean age, 29.3 ± 12.5 years) and ARCR cohort (n = 379; mean age, 57.5 ± 9.5 years). In the Bankart repair cohort, the PROMIS PI score demonstrated strong correlations with the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (r = -0.63), Constant score (r = -0.75), PROMIS UE score (r = -0.75), and Veterans RAND-6 Domain score (r = -0.61). The PROMIS Depression score (r = 0.23 and r = 0.17, respectively), Short Form 12 Mental Composite Scale score (r = 0.34 and r = 0.11, respectively), and Veterans RAND 12-item health survey Mental Composite Scale score (r = 0.44 and r = 0.15, respectively) exhibited poor correlations with the PROMIS PI and UE scores. In the ARCR cohort, the PROMIS PI score demonstrated a good correlation with the PROMIS UE score (r = 0.61). The Constant score (r = 0.58 and r = 0.67, respectively), Veterans RAND 12-item health survey Physical Composite Scale score (r = 0.58 and r = 0.47, respectively), and Veterans RAND-6 Domain score (r = 0.67 and r = 0.53, respectively) exhibited good correlations with the PROMIS PI and UE measures. No significant absolute floor or ceiling effects were observed for the PROMIS instruments except the PROMIS Depression measure: An absolute floor effect was noted for both the Bankart repair (n = 12, 30%) and ARCR (n = 38, 14.7%) groups. CONCLUSION: The PROMIS PI and UE instruments perform favorably compared with legacy outcome instruments in patients receiving Bankart repair, as well as those undergoing ARCR. Furthermore, in both populations, the PROMIS Depression instrument exhibits absolute floor effects whereas the PROMIS PI and UE instruments fail to demonstrate any absolute floor or ceiling effects.

Cost-effectiveness analyses in shoulder arthroplasty: a critical review using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument.

HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review to identify cost-analysis studies pertaining to shoulder arthroplasty, provide a comprehensive review of published studies, and critically evaluate the quality of the available literature using the Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) instrument. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify cost analyses examining shoulder arthroplasty. The inclusion criteria included studies pertaining to either shoulder hemiarthroplasty (HA), total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), or reverse TSA. Articles were excluded based on the following: nonoperative studies, nonclinical studies, studies not based in the United States, and studies in which no cost analysis was performed. The quality of studies was assessed using the QHES instrument. One-sided Fisher exact testing was performed to identify predictors of both low-quality (ie, QHES score < 25th percentile) and high-quality (ie, QHES score > 75th percentile) cost analyses based on items within the QHES checklist. RESULTS: Of the 196 studies screened, 9 were included. Seven studies conducted cost analyses comparing reverse TSA vs. arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, HA, or total hip arthroplasty, and 2 studies examined TSA vs. HA for primary glenohumeral arthritis. The average QHES score among all studies was 86.22 ± 13.39 points. Failure to include an annual cost discounting rate was associated with a low-quality QHES score (P = .03). In addition, including a discussion of the magnitude and direction of potential biases was associated with a high-quality score (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Shoulder arthroplasty is a cost-effective procedure when used to treat a multitude of shoulder pathologies. The overall quality of cost analysis in shoulder arthroplasty is relatively good, with an average QHES score of 86.22 points. Studies failing to include an annual cost discounting rate are more likely to score below the 25th percentile, whereas those including a discussion of the magnitude and direction of potential biases are more likely to achieve a score in excess of the 75th percentile.

The Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State in Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Predictors of Achievement.

PURPOSE: To identify thresholds for patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) achievement in a cohort of primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) recipients, and to identify factors predictive of PASS achievement. METHODS: A prospective clinical registry was queried for primary ACLR patients from January 2014 to April 2017 with serial patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) completion at 6, 12, and 24 months. Exclusion criteria included significant concomitant procedures. Knee-based PROMs included the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscores. PASS threshold values were calculated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves with area under the curve (AUC) analysis. A stepwise multivariate regression identified preoperative and operative predictors of PASS achievement. RESULTS: A total of 144 primary ACLR patients (30.86 ± 12.78 years, body mass index 25.51 ± 4.64, 41.0% male) were included in the analysis. PASS threshold values were established using ROC curve analysis, all of which exceeded 0.7 on AUC analysis (0.742 to 0.911). Factors impacting odds of PASS achievement in the ACLR cohort included preoperative exercises (odds ratio [OR] 2.95 to 4.74, P = .003 to .038), worker's compensation status (OR 0.25 to 0.28, P = .014 to .033), preoperative scores (OR 1.03 to 1.07, P = .005 to <.001), iliotibial band tenodesis (OR 11.08, P = .010), and anteromedial approach (OR 18.03 to 37.05, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Factors predictive of PASS achievement in recipients of primary ACLR include functional status (e.g., preoperative exercise, preoperative KOOS Sport/Recreation score), worker's compensation status, technique (e.g., anteromedial) and preoperative PROMs. The results of our study are important in better informing shared decision-making models and improving evidence-based guidelines to optimize patient outcomes.

How can we define clinically important improvement in pain scores after biceps tenodesis?

BACKGROUND: Patient postoperative pain is an important consideration following biceps tenodesis. The visual analog scale (VAS) for pain is one of the most commonly used measures for perioperative pain assessment. Currently, there is limited understanding of clinically significant improvement in VAS pain. PURPOSE: To define the substantial clinical benefit (SCB), patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS), and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the VAS pain score in patients undergoing open subpectoral (OSPBT) or arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (ASPBT) at 1 year from surgery; and to identify preoperative predictors of achieving each outcome end point. METHODS: Data from consecutive patients who underwent isolated biceps tenodesis between January 2014 and March 2017 were collected and analyzed. Baseline data and postoperative patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores were recorded at 1 year postoperatively. In order to quantify the clinical significance of outcome achievement for the VAS pain score, the MCID, PASS, and SCB were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 165 patients were included in the final analysis. The VAS pain score threshold for achieving MCID was defined as a decrease of 12.9 (0-100). PASS was defined as achieving a 2-year postoperative score of 27.4 points (0-100), and SCB was defined as a decrease of 25.1 (0-100) at 1-year follow-up. The rates of achieving MCID, PASS, and SCB were 73.3%, 52.8%, and 45.9%, respectively. Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that ASPBT (P = .01) and a lower preoperative Constant-Murley score were predictive of achieving the MCID (P = .01). In contrast, a lower preoperative score on the SF-12 Physical Component Summary (P = .01) and a higher score on the preoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (P < .001) were predictive of achieving the SCB and PASS, respectively. Preoperative duration of symptoms >6 months was predictive of a reduced likelihood to achieve PASS. CONCLUSION: This study identified scores for VAS pain that can be used to define clinically significant outcome after biceps tenodesis. Specifically, a decrease in pain score of 12.9 was a clinically important improvement in VAS pain, whereas a decrease of 25.1 represented the upper threshold of VAS pain improvement. Additionally, there were both modifiable and nonmodifiable factors that predicted achieving clinically significant levels of postoperative pain improvement.

Association of race and ethnicity in the receipt of regional anesthesia following mastectomy.

BACKGROUND: Regional anesthetic techniques have become increasingly used for the purpose of pain management following mastectomy. Although a variety of beneficial techniques have been described, the delivery of regional anesthesia following mastectomy has yet to be examined for racial or ethnic disparities. We aimed to examine the association of race and ethnicity on the delivery of regional anesthesia in patients undergoing surgical mastectomy using a large national database. METHODS: We used the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database to identify adult patients aged ≥18 years old who underwent mastectomy from 2014 to 2016. We reported unadjusted estimates of regional anesthesia accordingly to race and ethnicity and examined differences in sociodemographic characteristics and health status. Multivariable logistic regression was used to report the association of race and ethnicity with use of regional anesthesia. RESULTS: A total of 81 345 patients who underwent mastectomy were included, 14 887 (18.3%) of whom underwent regional anesthesia. The unadjusted rate of use of regional anesthesia was 18.9% for white patients, 16.8% for black patients, 15.6% for Asian patients, 16.5% for Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander patients, 17.8% for American Indian or Alaska Native and 17.4% for unknown race (p<0.001). With respect to ethnicity, the unadjusted rate of regional anesthesia use was 18.4% for non-Hispanic patients vs 16.1% for Hispanic patients vs 18.6% for the unknown ethnicity cohort (p<0.001). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, the odds of receipt of regional anesthesia was 12% lower in black patients and 21% lower in Asian patients compared with white patients (p<0.001). The odds of regional anesthesia use were 13% lower in Hispanic compared with non-Hispanic patients (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Black and Asian patients had lower odds of undergoing regional anesthesia following mastectomy compared with white counterparts. In addition, Hispanic patients had lower odds of undergoing regional anesthesia than non-Hispanic counterparts. These differences underlie the importance of working to deliver equitable healthcare irrespective of race or ethnicity.

ACL Reconstruction Graft Angle and Outcomes: Transtibial vs Anteromedial Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The importance of creating an anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction has been receiving significant attention. The best technique by which to achieve this anatomic reconstruction continues to be debated. The two most common methods are the transtibial (TT) and anteromedial (AM) techniques. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, and the literature comparing the two remains uncertain. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this prospective comparative study, we aimed to compare the ACL graft and tunnel angles achieved using the anatomic transtibial (TT) and anteromedial (AM) techniques; compare the ACL graft and tunnel angles in knees that have undergone ACL reconstruction and knees with intact ACLs; and determine whether differences in the graft or tunnel angle produce differences in clinical outcomes, as measured using both physical exam and patient-reported outcomes, after ACL reconstruction. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary ACL reconstruction with bone-tendon-bone grafts using a TT or AM technique were included. Femoral graft angle (FGA), tibial graft angle (TGA), and sagittal orientation of the reconstructed ACL and contralateral native ACL were measured on post-operative magnetic resonance imaging. Post-operatively, patients underwent measurement of knee stability and completed the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) survey. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients were enrolled (AM group, 14; TT group, 15); at follow-up, KOOS data were available for 26 patients (13 in each group). There were no differences in sagittal ACL graft angle between groups or in comparison with the normal knee. The FGA was more vertical after TT reconstructions; the TGA was comparable between groups. There were no significant differences in 2-year post-operative physical exam measurements or in KOOS scores. CONCLUSION: Anatomic ACL angle was restored after reconstruction with both the TT and AM techniques, despite different FGAs. No significant differences in clinical outcome were noted between groups on physical exam or KOOS at 2 years after surgery. These results suggest that TT reconstruction results in a graft position similar to that seen in AM reconstruction and that the location of the intra-articular tunnel aperture matters more than the orientation of the tunnel.

Time to Achievement of Clinically Significant Outcomes After Isolated Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy: A Multivariate Analysis.

PURPOSE: To define the time required to achieve the minimally clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for isolated arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM), and define preoperative and intraoperative factors that predict both early and late achievement of the stated metrics. METHODS: Patients who underwent isolated APM between 2014 and 2017 were retrospectively included. Patients without preoperative and 6-month patient-reported outcome measure scores, revision procedures, and significant concomitant procedures were excluded. The MCID, SCB, and PASS were calculated for knee-based patient-reported outcome measure scores using receiver operating curve analysis. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis established the time required to achieve MCID, SCB and PASS. Hazard ratios from multivariate Cox regression allowed for the isolation of demographic and intraoperative factors predictive of the delayed time required to achieve MCID, SCB and PASS. RESULTS: A total of 126 patients (42.86% female, age: 48.9 ± 12.4 years) were included. Overall achievement rates ranged between 73.0% and 89.7% for MCID, 43.7% and 68.2% for SCB, and 50.8% and 68.3% for PASS. Median achievement time for MCID was 5.68-5.78 months, 5.73-6.05 months for SCB and 6.54-7.72 months for PASS. Multivariate Cox regression identified older age, workers' compensation status, diabetes, and various tear types (i.e., longitudinal, transverse, bucket handle, complex) as predictors of early clinically significant outcome achievement (hazard ratio: 1.02-24.72), whereas subsequent steroid injection, higher preoperative scores and root and flap tears predicted delays in clinically significant outcome achievement (hazard ratio: 0.12-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients undergoing APM achieve benefit within 6 months of surgery, with diminishing proportions at later timepoints. Important factors for consideration of the the timeline of achieving clinically significant outcome include age, diabetes, workers' compensation, preoperative score, and tear type. The timeline for achieving improvement that was established by this study may aid in setting patient expectations and designing future outcome studies involving APM. STUDY DESIGN: Level IV, Therapeutic Case Series.

Performance of PROMIS Physical Function, Pain Interference, and Depression Computer Adaptive Tests Instruments in Patients Undergoing Meniscal Surgery.

PURPOSE: To compare the performance of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF), pain interference (PIF), and depression computer adaptive tests (CAT) relative to legacy instruments in patients undergoing meniscal surgery. METHODS: Patients scheduled to undergo meniscal surgery completed legacy knee function PROMs (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS] subscores), Marx Activity Rating Scale (MARS), Veterans-Rand 12 (VR12), Short Form 12 (SF12), and the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) alongside PROMIS PF, PIF, and Depression preoperatively. Spearman rank correlations were calculated, and score distributions were examined for floor and ceiling effects. RESULTS: 152 patients (46.6 ± 14.9 years, 67.1% male) completed PROMs for appropriate inclusion. PROMIS PF yielded high-moderate to high correlations with the IKDC and KOOS subscales (r = 0.61 to 0.73), demonstrating similar performance to the IKDC. PROMIS PIF demonstrated moderately high-moderate to high correlations with the IKDC, KOOS subscales, VR-12 Physical Component Score (PCS), and SF12 PCS (r = 0.62 to 0.71), performing comparably to KOOS Pain (r = 0.55 to 0.92). PROMIS Depression demonstrated moderate to high-moderate correlations with the mental health legacies (r = 0.46 to 0.66). Significant ceiling effects were observed for MARS (n = 29, 18.8%), and significant floor effects were exhibited by PROMIS Depression (n = 38, 25%) and MARS (n = 27, 17.6%). CONCLUSION: The PROMIS PF, PIF CAT, and Depression instruments exhibit comparable performance profiles relative to legacy knee PROMs. PROMIS PF and PIF demonstrated no floor and ceiling effects, whereas PROMIS Depression exhibited a significant relative floor effect. PROMIS PF and PIF may be appropriately used to establish functional baselines preoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, diagnostic case series.

Time Required to Achieve Clinically Significant Outcomes After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair.

BACKGROUND: Recent literature has focused on correlating statistically significant changes in outcome measures with clinically significant outcomes (CSOs). CSO benchmarks are being established for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR), but more remains to be defined about them. PURPOSE: To define the time-dependent nature of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State (PASS) after RCR and to define what factors affect this time to CSO achievement. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: An institutional registry was queried for patients who underwent arthroscopic RCR between 2014 and 2016 and completed preoperative, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Threshold values for MCID, SCB, and PASS were obtained from previous literature for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and subjective Constant score. The time in which patients achieved MCID, SCB, and PASS was calculated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. A Cox multivariate regression model was used to identify variables correlated with earlier or later achievement of CSOs. RESULTS: A total of 203 patients with an average age of 56.19 ± 9.96 years and average body mass index was 30.29 ± 6.49 were included. The time of mean achievement of MCID, SCB, and PASS for ASES was 5.77 ± 1.79 months, 6.22 ± 2.85 months, and 7.23 ± 3.81 months, respectively. The time of mean achievement of MCID, SCB, and PASS for SANE was 6.25 ± 2.42 months, 7.05 ± 4.10 months, and 9.26 ± 5.89 months, respectively. The time of mean achievement of MCID, SCB, and PASS for Constant was 6.94 ± 3.85 months, 7.13 ± 4.13 months, and 8.66 ± 5.46 months, respectively. Patients with dominant-sided surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 1.363; 95% CI, 1.065-1.745; P = .014) achieved CSOs earlier on ASES, while patients with workers' compensation status (HR, 0.752; 95% CI, 0.592-0.955; P = .019), who were current smokers (HR, 0.323; 95% CI, 0.119-0.882; P = .028), and with concomitant biceps tenodesis (HR, 0.763; 95% CI, 0.607-0.959; P = .021) achieved CSOs on ASES at later timepoints. Patients with distal clavicle excision (HR, 1.484; 95% CI, 1.028-2.143; P = .035) achieved CSOs earlier on SANE. Patients with distal clavicle excision (HR, 1.689; 95% CI, 1.183-2.411, P = .004) achieved CSOs earlier on Constant, while patients with workers' compensation insurance status (HR, 0.671; 95% CI, 0.506-0.891; P = .006) and partial-thickness tears (HR, 0.410; 95% CI, 0.250-0.671; P < .001) achieved CSOs later on Constant. Greater preoperative score was associated with delayed achievement of CSOs for ASES, SANE (HR, 0.993; 95% CI, 0.987-0.999; P = .020), and Constant (HR, 0.941; 95% CI, 0.928-0.962; P < .001). CONCLUSION: A majority of patients achieved MCID by 6 months after surgery. Dominant-sided surgery and concomitant distal clavicle excision resulted in faster CSO achievement, while workers' compensation status, concomitant biceps tenodesis, current smoking, partial-thickness rotator cuff tears, and higher preoperative PROMs resulted in delayed CSO achievement.

Preoperative psychometric properties of visual analog scale asessments for function, pain, and strength compared with legacy upper extremity outcome measures in glenohumeral osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used in orthopedic surgery; however, there is significant variability and burden associated with their administration. The visual analog scale (VAS) may represent an efficient, single-question method to establish functional baselines in a domain-specific manner for glenohumeral arthritis. METHODS: Single-question VAS measures assessing function, strength, and pain as a percentage of normal were administered alongside legacy PROMs in patients with primary glenohumeral arthritis in a preoperative setting between October 2015 and March 2017. PROM performance was assessed using Spearman correlation coefficients. Both absolute and relative floor and ceiling effects were examined. RESULTS: A total of 70 patients (age 66.09 ± 9.84 years, body mass index 28.8 ± 9.77, 57.1% male, 54.2% right-sided) were included. The VAS Pain instrument (r = 0.45-0.64) outperformed the VAS Function (r = 0.23-0.62) and VAS Strength (r = 0.21-0.65) in correlation to preoperative PROMs. The performance of VAS Pain was comparable to American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES; r = 0.47-0.84). None of the VAS instruments in our study demonstrated preoperative floor effects (7.1%-8.6%) or ceiling effects (0.0%-4.3%). The most efficient instruments were Single-Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE; 0.87 ± 0.41 minutes), Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test (PROMIS UE CAT; 1.27 ± 1.30 minutes), and the triad of VAS measures (1.51 ± 1.61 minutes). CONCLUSION: VAS Pain outperformed VAS Strength and Function relative to legacy PROMs, while performing comparable to ASES. None of the VAS measures were susceptible to significant floor or ceiling effects preoperatively. The VAS instruments along with SANE and PROMIS UE were the most time-efficient measures. VAS instruments may have a role in establishing preoperative baselines in those with glenohumeral arthritis in a simple, efficient, and adoptable manner.