Missed Short-term Follow-up After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Surgery: Analysis of Surgical and Demographic Factors.

INTRODUCTION: Few current studies have examined loss to follow-up after rotator cuff-related shoulder arthroscopy. Understanding the demographic and surgical factors for missed follow-up would help identify patients most at risk and potentially mitigate the onset of complications while maximizing clinical outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review of consecutive rotator cuff arthroscopic procedures with a minimum of 12-month follow-up done by a single, fellowship-trained surgeon was undertaken from February 2016 through January 2022. Demographic patient and surgical data, including age, sex, marital status, self-identified race, and body mass index, were collected. Follow-up at ≤3, 6 weeks, 3, 6, and 12 months was determined. Patient-related and surgical predictors for missed short-term follow-up, defined as nonattendance at the 6 and 12-month postoperative visits, were identified. RESULTS: There were 449 cases included, of which 248 (55%) were women. The median age was 57 years (interquartile range [IQR], 51 to 62). Patients with commercial insurance (odds ratio [OR], 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23 to 0.64; P < 0.001) or workers' compensation (OR, 0.15; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.43; P < 0.001) were less likely to miss the 6-month follow-up compared with patients with Medicare, whereas increased socioeconomic deprivation (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97, P = 0.015) was associated with decreased odds of missing that visit. Patients who missed the ≤3 weeks (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.14 to 2.74, P = 0.010) and 3-month (OR, 8.55; 95% CI, 4.33 to 16.86; P < 0.001) follow-ups were more likely to miss the 6-month follow-up. Use of a patient contact system (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.35 to 0.87, P = 0.01) and increased number of preoperative visits (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84 to 0.99, P = 0.033) were associated with decreased odds of missing the 12-month follow-up. Patients who missed the 6-month follow-up were more likely to miss the 12-month follow-up (OR, 5.38; 95% CI, 3.45 to 8.40; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Implementing an electronic patient contact system while increasing focus on patients with few preoperative visits and who miss the 6-month follow-up can reduce the risk of missed follow-up at 12 months after shoulder arthroscopy.

Accuracy and Reliability of Computerized Surgical Planning Software in Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this study was to assess the concordance between preoperatively determined implant parameters using CT-based planning software and surgically implanted prostheses. Secondarily, we sought to evaluate the agreement between preoperative plans performed by surgeons at different levels of training. METHODS: Patients with primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis who underwent anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and had a preoperative CT scan according to Blueprint (Stryker, Mahwah, NJ) protocol to be used for preoperative planning were included. A cohort of short-stemmed (SS) and stemless cases performed between October 2017 and December 2018 was randomly selected from an institutional database for the study. Planning was performed separately by four observers at different levels of orthopedic training at a minimum of six months following the actual surgery. Concordance between the surgical decisions during planning and the actually utilized implants was calculated. Additionally, inter-rater agreement was analyzed using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC). Implant parameters assessed were glenoid size, backside radius of curvature, and the need for posterior augment, in addition to humeral stem/nucleus size, head size, head height, and head eccentricity. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were included (10 stemmed and 11 stemless) with a cohort comprising 12 (57%) females with a median age of 62 years (IQR 59.5,67). There was a total of 544 decision possibilities based on the above parameters. The total number of decisions that matched surgical data was 333 (61.2%). Prediction of glenoid component augmentation need and size was the variable that matched most with surgical data (83.3%), whereas nucleus/stem size was the worst (42.9%). Interobserver agreement was excellent in one variable, good in three variables, moderate in one, and poor in two. The best interobserver agreement was with regard to head height. CONCLUSION: Preoperative planning using CT-based software may be more accurate for the glenoid component when compared to humeral-sided parameters. Specifically, planning may be most helpful in determining the need and the size of glenoid component augmentation. Utilizing computerized software demonstrates high reliability, even among surgeons early in their orthopedic training.

Total elbow arthroplasty in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

AIMS: The aims of this study were to validate the outcome of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to identify factors that affect the outcome. METHODS: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Reviews, and Embase from between January 2003 and March 2019. The primary aim was to determine the implant failure rate, the mode of failure, and risk factors predisposing to failure. A secondary aim was to identify the overall complication rate, associated risk factors, and clinical performance. A meta-regression analysis was completed to identify the association between each parameter with the outcome. RESULTS: A total of 38 studies including 2,118 TEAs were included in the study. The mean follow-up was 80.9 months (8.2 to 156). The implant failure and complication rates were 16.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.128 to 0.200) and 24.5% (95% CI 0.203 to 0.293), respectively. Aseptic loosening was the most common mode of failure (9.5%; 95% CI 0.071 to 0.124). The mean postoperative ranges of motion (ROMs) were: flexion 131.5° (124.2° to 138.8°), extension 29.3° (26.8° to 31.9°), pronation 74.0° (67.8° to 80.2°), and supination 72.5° (69.5° to 75.5°), and the mean postoperative Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) was 89.3 (95% CI 86.9 to 91.6). The meta-regression analysis identified that younger patients and implants with an unlinked design correlated with higher failure rates. Younger patients were associated with increased complications, while female patients and an unlinked prosthesis were associated with aseptic loosening. CONCLUSION: TEA continues to provide satisfactory results for patients with RA. However, it is associated with a substantially higher implant failure and complication rates compared with hip and knee arthroplasties. The patient's age, sex, and whether cemented fixation and unlinked prosthesis were used can influence the outcome. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):967-980.

Outcomes following total elbow arthroplasty for rheumatoid arthritis versus post-traumatic conditions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the outcome of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) undertaken for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with TEA performed for post-traumatic conditions with regard to implant failure, functional outcome, and perioperative complications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We completed a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library and conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nine cohort studies investigated the outcome of TEA between RA and post-traumatic conditions. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)) guidelines and Newcastle-Ottawa scale were applied to assess the quality of the included studies. We assessed three major outcome domains: implant failures (including aseptic loosening, septic loosening, bushing wear, axle failure, component disassembly, or component fracture); functional outcomes (including arc of range of movement, Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire), and perioperative complications (including deep infection, intraoperative fracture, postoperative fracture, and ulnar neuropathy). RESULTS: This study included a total of 679 TEAs for RA (n = 482) or post-traumatic conditions (n = 197). After exclusion, all of the TEAs included in this meta-analysis were cemented with linked components. Our analysis demonstrated that the RA group was associated with a higher risk of septic loosening after TEA (odds ratio (OR) 3.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 to 14.12), while there was an increased risk of bushing wear, axle failure, component disassembly, or component fracture in the post-traumatic group (OR 4.72, 95% CI 2.37 to 9.35). A higher MEPS (standardized mean difference 0.634, 95% CI 0.379 to 0.890) was found in the RA group. There were no significant differences in arc of range of movement, DASH questionnaire, and risk of aseptic loosening, deep infection, perioperative fracture, or ulnar neuropathy. CONCLUSION: The aetiology of TEA surgery appears to have an impact on the outcome in terms of specific modes of implant failures. RA patients might have a better functional outcome after TEA surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1489-1497.