Orthopaedic Application of Cryotherapy: A Comprehensive Review of the History, Basic Science, Methods, and Clinical Effectiveness.

¼: Cold therapy, also known as cryotherapy, includes the use of bagged ice, ice packs, compressive cryotherapy devices, or whole-body cryotherapy chambers. Cryotherapy is commonly used in postoperative care for both arthroscopic and open orthopaedic procedures. ¼: Cryotherapy is associated with an analgesic effect caused by microvasculature alterations that decrease the production of inflammatory mediators, decrease local edema, disrupt the overall inflammatory response, and reduce nerve conduction velocity. ¼: Postoperative cryotherapy using bagged ice, ice packs, or continuous cryotherapy devices reduced visual analog scale pain scores and analgesic consumption in approximately half of research studies in which these outcomes were compared with no cryotherapy (11 [44%] of 25 studies on pain and 11 [48%] of 23 studies on opioids). However, an effect was less frequently reported for increasing range of motion (3 [19%] of 16) or decreasing swelling (2 [22%] of 9). ¼: Continuous cryotherapy devices demonstrated the best outcome in orthopaedic patients after knee arthroscopy procedures, compared with all other procedures and body locations, in terms of showing a significant reduction in pain, swelling, and analgesic consumption and increase in range of motion, compared with bagged ice or ice packs. ¼: There is no consensus as to whether the use of continuous cryotherapy devices leads to superior outcomes when compared with treatment with bagged ice or ice packs. However, complications from cryotherapy, including skin irritation, frostbite, perniosis, and peripheral nerve injuries, can be avoided through patient education and reducing the duration of application. ¼: Future Level-I or II studies are needed to compare both the clinical and cost benefits of continuous cryotherapy devices to bagged ice or ice pack treatment before continuous cryotherapy devices can be recommended as a standard of care in orthopaedic surgery following injury or surgery.

The effect of body mass index on internal rotation and function following anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: The exact relationship between body mass index (BMI) and internal rotation (IR) before and after total shoulder arthroplasty has not been studied to date. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of BMI on the preoperative and postoperative shoulder range of motion and function in anatomic (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA), and specifically how IR affects patient ability to perform IR-related activities of daily living (ADLs). METHODS: Patients from a prospective multicenter international shoulder arthroplasty registry who underwent primary rTSA (n=1171) and primary aTSA (n=883) were scored preoperatively and at latest follow-up (2-10 years, mean = 3 years) using the Simple Shoulder Test, University of California-Los Angeles shoulder score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, Constant score, and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Measured active abduction, forward flexion, IR, and active and passive external rotation were recorded, and BMI was evaluated as a predictor of motion and patient-reported outcomes. Patient responses to questions regarding the difficulty level of IR-related ADLs were studied. The relationships between BMI, IR, and ability to perform IR-related ADLs were quantified through analysis of variance with post hoc comparisons by Tukey honestly significant difference tests, where significance was denoted as P < .05. RESULTS: BMI was found to be inversely correlated with IR in patients undergoing both aTSA and rTSA, both preoperatively (P < .001 and P = .002) and postoperatively (P < .001 and P < .001). BMI affected the range of motion parameters of forward flexion abduction and external rotation but to a lesser extent than that of IR. Nonobese patients demonstrated significantly greater IR than overweight, obese, and morbidly obese patients postoperatively for aTSA (P < .001). For rTSA, nonobese patients had a significantly greater postoperative IR than obese and morbidly obese patients (P < .001 and P = .011, respectively). For both aTSA and rTSA patients, mean IR scores significantly differed between patients reporting normal function vs. patients reporting slight difficulty, considerable difficulty, or inability to perform IR-related ADLs. Increasing IR demonstrated a significant, positive correlation with all PROMs for both aTSA and rTSA patients (Pearson correlation, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: BMI is an independent predictor of IR, even when controlling for age, gender, glenosphere size, and subscapularis repair. BMI was inversely correlated with the degree of IR, and decreased IR significantly negatively affected the ability to perform IR-related ADLs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Increasing BMI adversely affects shoulder ROM, particularly IR. IR is correlated with the ability to perform ADLs requiring IR in both aTSA and rTSA patients.

Non-Orthopedic Encounters Increase Opioid Exposure in Joint Osteoarthritis: A Single-Institution Analysis.

BACKGROUND: There has been little-to-no evidence to support the use of opioid analgesia as a treatment modality for osteoarthritis (OA). Chronic opioid use has been associated with peri-operative and post-operative complications with joint reconstruction. The purpose of this study is to compare opioid-prescribing habits for OA between orthopedic and non-orthopedic physicians to identify encounters that increase opioid exposure. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on opioid-naive adult patients with outpatient opioid prescriptions for OA at a single academic institution between 2013 and 2018. Patients with prior surgery or opioid prescriptions were excluded. Independent t-tests and analysis of variance were used to compare prescription characteristics among providers. RESULTS: A total of 9625 opioid prescriptions were identified. Non-orthopedic providers account for 92% of prescriptions vs 8% by orthopedic surgeons. The greatest number of prescriptions is written by Internal Medicine (37.1%) and Family Medicine physicians (36.0%). Non-orthopedic physicians prescribe a greater number of prescriptions per patient, dosages, and refills (P < .001 for all). Non-orthopedic encounters are associated with increased risk for prescription dosages ≥50 MME/d (odds ratio 5.81, 95% confidence interval 4.35-7.81, P < .001) and 90 MME/d (odds ratio 18.2, 95% confidence interval 4.43-35.70, P < .001). CONCLUSION: The majority of opioid prescriptions for OA are written by non-orthopedic providers, with higher prescription rates, dosages, and more refills than orthopedic surgeons. OA is a common condition that will benefit from multi-disciplinary awareness to minimize unnecessary opioid exposure and reduce potential complications with joint arthroplasty.