Correlation between the optimal screening for prediction of referral and outcome yellow flag tool and patient-reported legacy outcome measures in patients undergoing shoulder surgery.

Background: The Optimal Screening for Prediction of Referral and Outcome Yellow Flag (OSPRO-YF) Tool is a 10-item multidimensional screening tool utilized to evaluate pain-related psychological traits in individuals with musculoskeletal pain conditions. The validity of postoperatively collected OSPRO-YF is unclear. This study sought to assess validity of the OSPRO-YF by comparing it to patient-reported outcome scores in both preoperative and postoperative settings. Hypothesis: The authors hypothesized that OSPRO-YF overall score would correlate with shoulder and global function PROs at preoperative and postoperative timepoints. Methods: A review of 101 patients undergoing shoulder surgery by one sports medicine orthopedic surgeon at a large academic institution was conducted. 90 and 54 patients had complete preoperative and postoperative patient-reported outcome responses. OSPRO-YF, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Evaluation Form, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Computer Adaptive Test (PROMIS-CAT) were routinely administered before and after surgery at the senior author's clinic visits. Concurrent validity of OSPRO-YF at either timepoint was assessed by comparing scores with PROs cross-sectionally using Pearson correlations and multiple comparison corrections. Results: Preoperatively, higher OSPRO-YF total score was associated with greater concurrent PROMIS-CAT Pain Interference (r = 0.43; P < .01) and Depression (r = 0.36; P = .05) and lower ASES (r = -0.34; P < .01). Higher postoperative OSPRO-YF was also associated with greater concurrent PROMIS-CAT Pain Interference (r = 0.43; P < .01) and Depression (r = 0.36; P < .01) and lower ASES (r = -0.34; P = .01). ASES had strong correlation with Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation and Pain scores at both preoperative and postoperative timepoints. Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation was not significantly associated with OSPRO-YF total score or number of yellow flags at either timepoints. Conclusion: The study findings support the clinical validity of the 10-item OSPRO-YF tool when administered before or after shoulder surgery. For patients exhibiting suboptimal recovery or those identified as high risk at initial screening, assessment of pain-related psychological distress postoperatively may be particularly beneficial in guiding rehabilitation.

Healthcare Policy and Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Prices in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) is one of the most common orthopedic procedures in the general population. Despite its prevalence, the price of ARCR varies significantly across regions, hospital models, and settings. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of Geographic Region, Certificate of Need (CON) laws, and Medicaid expansion on ARCR pricing. METHODS: This cross-sectional observational study utilized hospital payer-specific ARCR prices from the Turquoise Health Database using CPT code 29827. These prices are negotiated rates or charges that hospitals establish with various payers, including insurance companies, Medicare, Medicaid, and self-pay patients, for medical services and treatments provided. Outliers below the 10th percentile and above the 90th percentile were excluded. State policies, including CON status and Medicaid expansion, were obtained from public sources, while additional socioeconomic and demographic data were sourced from the US Census. The state's region classification was determined based on one of four Geographic Regions defined by the US Census Bureau. A detailed analysis was also conducted for North Carolina, examining county-level data on urbanization and the Area Deprivation Index (ADI). RESULTS: There were 57,270 ARCR prices from 2,503 hospitals across the United States, with a median interquartile range (IQR) listed price of $6,428.17 (IQR: $2,886.88). States with CON regulations had significantly lower ARCR prices compared to those without ($6,500 vs. $8,000, p<0.0001). Multivariable analysis indicated that hospitals in the Northeast and West Regions listed significantly higher prices for ARCR compared to those in the Midwest Region (p<0.0001). In contrast, hospitals in the South Region listed lower prices for ARCR compared to those in the Midwest Region (p<0.0001). Medicaid expansion was associated with increased ARCR prices (p<0.0001), while CON laws were linked to reduced prices (p< .0001). In North Carolina, ADI and urbanization status did not significantly affect ARCR prices. CONCLUSION: The prices listed for ARCR varied significantly depending on the Geographic Region where hospitals were located. Additionally, CON laws were associated with reduced ARCR prices, while Medicaid expansion correlated with increased prices. These findings highlight the complex interplay between healthcare policy, regulatory frameworks, and socioeconomic factors in determining surgical prices.

Evolving concepts in the treatment of posterior shoulder instability with glenohumeral bone loss.

Posterior shoulder instability is an increasingly recognized phenomenon and comprises approximately 5% of all shoulder instability cases. Posterior shoulder instability presents a complex clinical challenge, particularly when associated with bone loss. Bone loss may be present in up to 25% of patients with posterior shoulder instability. Understanding its etiology, diagnosis, and treatment options is crucial for optimal patient outcomes. Young athletic individuals, especially football linemen and throwing athletes, are commonly affected, with symptoms ranging from insidious onset pain to noticeable changes in athletic performance. History, physical examination, and imaging, including radiographs and advanced three-dimensional imaging, play pivotal roles in diagnosis, with specific tests like the Jerk, Kim, and load and shift tests aiding in provocation. Posterior glenoid bone loss (pGBL), whether dysplastic, attritional, or acute, significantly impacts management decisions. When pGBL exceeds critical thresholds, soft tissue repair alone may be insufficient, necessitating glenoid reconstruction with bone block procedures. Both iliac crest autograft and distal tibial allograft (DTA) offer viable options, with considerations including donor site morbidity and graft integration. Surgical techniques for reverse Hill-Sachs lesions vary from subscapularis transfers to arthroscopic balloon osteoplasty, each aiming to restore native anatomy and prevent engagement. Bipolar bone loss, involving both glenoid and humeral head defects, presents additional challenges and may require combined soft tissue and bony procedures. Quantifying bone loss and understanding its implications are essential for surgical planning. While various techniques show promise, further research is needed to elucidate their long-term outcomes and refine treatment algorithms for posterior shoulder instability with bone loss.

Addressing meniscal deficiency part 2: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on meniscal scaffold-based approaches.

Purpose: Meniscal injuries are common in knee surgery and often require preservation techniques to prevent secondary osteoarthritis. Despite advancements in repair techniques, some patients undergo partial meniscectomy, which can lead to postmeniscectomy syndrome. To address these challenges, meniscal substitution techniques like scaffolds have been developed. However, a comprehensive synthesis of the existing evidence through an umbrella review is lacking. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in the MEDLINE, Embase and Scopus databases to identify relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Studies were screened based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The quality of included studies was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Results: A total of 17 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Most studies focused on the use of collagen-based scaffolds, with fewer studies evaluating synthetic scaffolds. The majority of studies (52.9%) were rated as having 'Critically Low' overall confidence, with only one study (5.9%) rated as 'High' confidence and most studies exhibiting methodological limitations, such as small sample sizes and lack of long-term follow-up. Despite these limitations, the majority of studies reported positive short-term outcomes, including pain relief and functional improvement, following scaffold implantation. However, some studies noted a relatively high failure rate. Radiographically, outcomes also varied, with some studies reporting morphological deterioration of the implant seen on MRI, while others noted possible chondroprotective effects. Conclusions: Meniscal scaffold-based approaches show promise in the management of meniscal deficiency; however, the current evidence is limited by methodological shortcomings. One notable gap in the literature is the lack of clear guidelines for patient selection and surgical technique. Future research should focus on conducting well-designed randomized controlled trials with long-term follow-up to further elucidate the benefits and indications of these techniques in clinical practice. Additionally, efforts should be made to develop consensus guidelines to standardize the use of meniscal scaffolds and improve patient outcomes. Despite limited availability, synthesizing the literature on meniscal scaffold-based approaches is crucial for understanding research, guiding clinical decisions and informing future directions. Level of Evidence: Level IV.

Risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent instability remains a major source of morbidity following arthroscopic Bankart repair. Many risk factors and predictive tools have been described, but there remains a lack of consensus surrounding individual risk factors and their contribution to outcomes. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the literature to identify and quantify risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair. METHODS: A literature search was performed using the PubMed/MEDLINE databases based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were included if they evaluated risk factors for recurrent instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair. RESULTS: Overall, 111 studies were included in the analysis, including a total of 19,307 patients and 2750 episodes of recurrent instability with 45 risk factors described. Age at operation was reported by 60 studies, with 35 finding increased risk at younger ages. Meta-analysis showed a 2-fold recurrence rate of 27.0% (171 of 634) for patients <20 years old compared with 13.3% (197 of 1485) for older patients (P < .001). Seventeen studies completed multivariable analysis, 13 of which were significant (odds ratio 1.3-14.0). Glenoid bone loss was evaluated by 39 studies, with 20 finding an increased risk. Multivariable analysis in 9 studies found odds ratios ranging from 0.7 to 35.1; 6 were significant. Off-track Hill-Sachs lesions were evaluated in 21 studies (13 significant), with 3 of 4 studies that conducted multivariable analysis finding a significant association with odds ratio of 2.9-8.9 of recurrence. The number of anchors used in repair was reported by 25 studies, with 4 finding increased risk with fewer anchors. Pooled analysis demonstrated a 25.0% (29 of 156) risk of recurrence with 2 anchors, compared with 18.1% (89 of 491) with 3 or more anchors (P = .06). Other frequently described risk factors included glenohumeral joint hyperlaxity (46% of studies reporting a significant association), number of preoperative dislocations (31%), contact sport participation (20%), competitive sport participation (46%), patient sex (7%), and concomitant superior labral anterior-posterior tear (0%). CONCLUSION: Younger age, glenoid bone loss, and off-track Hill-Sachs lesions are established risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair. Other commonly reported risk factors included contact and competitive sports participation, number of fixation devices, and patient sex.

Outcomes of arthroscopic stabilization for posterior shoulder instability: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Posterior shoulder instability makes up approximately 10% of all shoulder instability cases and its diagnosis and treatment is less well understood. Recently, however, there has been increased recognition of posterior instability and posterior stabilization. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature to ascertain the outcomes on arthroscopic stabilization of posterior shoulder instability. METHODS: Two independent reviewers conducted a systematic literature search based on PRISMA guidelines, utilizing the MEDLINE database. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported postoperative outcomes for posterior shoulder instability following arthroscopic stabilization. RESULTS: A total of 48 studies met inclusion criteria for review including 2307 shoulders. Majority of patients were male (83.3%), with an average age of 26.1 years and a mean follow-up of 46.8 months. The functional outcome score primarily utilized for postoperative assessment was the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons with an average of 84.77. Overall, 90.9% of patients reported being satisfied with their arthroscopic stabilization. Recurrent instability occurred in 7.4% of patients. The total revision rate was 5.2%. 16.6% of patients reported residual pain postoperatively. The rate of return to play was 86.4% with 68.0% of patients returning to play at the same or higher level of play. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic stabilization of posterior shoulder instability resulted in good outcomes with high patient satisfaction and low rates of recurrent instability, revisions, and residual pain.

Examining the Evidence Regarding Smoking and Patient Outcomes for Isolated Meniscus Pathology: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Smoking is a well-known cause of impairment in wound healing and postoperative outcomes; however, its effects on treating meniscus issues remain unclear. This study assesses the relationship between smoking and meniscus treatment outcomes. PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and CINAHL were searched from inception to 24 December 2023. Inclusion criteria encompassed studies examining smoking's impact on patient outcomes regarding meniscus pathology. A secondary PubMed search targeted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the top ten orthopedic journals focusing on meniscus pathology and smoking as a demographic variable. Meta-analysis of six studies (n = 528) assessed meniscus failure rate based on smoking status. Eighteen observational studies (n = 8353 patients; 53.25% male; mean age: 51.35 ± 11.53 years; follow-up: 184.11 ± 117.34 months) were analyzed, covering meniscus repair, meniscectomy, allograft transplant, conservative care, and arthroscopy. Results showed four studies (36.36%) linked smoking with worse meniscus repair outcomes, while seven studies (63.64%) did not find significant associations. Meta-analysis from six studies showed no significant impact of smoking on repair failure (p = 0.118). Regarding meniscectomy, one study (33.33%) identified a significant association with smoking, but two did not. Only one (3.8%) of the RCTs in leading orthopedic journals included smoking as a factor. The evidence on smoking's effect on meniscus treatment is mixed, necessitating further investigation.

There is high variability in quantitative measurement techniques in glenohumeral capsular measurements for shoulder instability: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: Instability of the glenohumeral joint remains a complex clinical issue with high rates of surgical failure and significant morbidity. Advances in specific radiologic measurements involving the glenoid and the humerus have provided insight into glenohumeral pathology, which can be corrected surgically towards improving patient outcomes. The contributions of capsular pathology to ongoing instability remain unclear. The purpose of this study is to provide a systematic review of existing glenohumeral capsular measurement techniques published in the last 15 years. METHODS: A systematic review of multiple databases was performed following PRISMA guidelines for all primary research articles between 2008 and 2023 with quantitative measurements of the glenohumeral capsule in patients with instability, including anterior, posterior and multi-directional instability. RESULTS: There were a total of 14 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. High variability in measurement methodology across studies was observed, including variable amounts of intra-articular contrast, heterogeneity among magnetic resonance sequence acquisitions, differences in measurements performed and the specific approach taken to compute each measurement. CONCLUSION: There is a need for standardization of methods in the measurement of glenohumeral capsular pathology in the setting of glenohumeral instability to allow for cross-study analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Clinical outcomes in prospective versus retrospective studies on arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The majority of the current literature on arthroscopic Bankart repair is retrospective, and discrepancies exist regarding clinical outcomes including recurrent instability and return to play among studies of different levels of evidence. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic review of the literature to compare the outcomes of prospective and retrospective studies on arthroscopic Bankart repair. METHODS: A search was performed using the PubMed/Medline database for all studies that reported clinical outcomes on Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability. The search term "Bankart repair" was used, with all results being analyzed via strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Three independent investigators extracted data and scored each included study based on the 10 criteria of the Modified Coleman Methodology Score out of 100. A χ2 test was performed to assess if recurrent instability, revision, return to play, and complications are independent of prospective and retrospective studies. RESULTS: A total of 193 studies were included in the analysis, with 53 prospective studies and 140 retrospective in design. These studies encompassed a total of 13,979 patients and 14,019 surgical procedures for Bankart repair for shoulder instability. The rate of redislocation in the prospective studies was 8.0% vs. 5.9% in retrospective studies (P < .001). The rate of recurrent subluxation in the prospective studies was 3.4% vs. 2.4% in retrospective studies (P = .004). The rate of revision was higher in retrospective studies at 4.9% vs. 3.9% in prospective studies (P = .013). There was no significant difference in terms of overall rate to return to play between prospective and retrospective studies (90% and 91%, respectively; P = .548). The overall rate of non-instability complications in the prospective cohort was 0.27% vs. 0.78% in the retrospective studies (P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: The overall rates of recurrent dislocations-subluxations are higher in prospective studies than retrospective studies. However, rates of revision were reportedly higher in retrospective studies. Complications after arthroscopic Bankart repair are rare in both prospective and retrospective studies, and there was no difference in rates of return to play.

Type V superior labrum anterior to posterior repair: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to systematically review the evidence in the literature to ascertain the functional outcomes, recurrence rates, and subsequent revision rates following type V superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) repair. METHODS: Two independent reviewers performed a literature search based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines, utilizing the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library Databases. Studies were included if they had clinical outcomes on the patients undergoing type V SLAP repair. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). A P value of <.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: Our review found 13 studies, including 451 shoulders meeting our inclusion criteria. The majority of patients were males (89.3%), with an average age of 25.9 years (range 15-58) and a mean follow-up of 53.8 months. The Rowe score was the most utilized functional outcome score, with a weighted mean of 88.5. Additionally, the mean Constant score was 91.0, the mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 88.3, the mean subjective shoulder value score was 85.5%, and the mean visual analog scale pain score was 1.2. The overall rate of return to play was 84.8%, with 80.2% returning to the same level of play. The overall reoperation rate was 6.1%, with a recurrent dislocation rate of 8.2%. In the studies comparing type V SLAP and isolated Bankart repair, there were statistically insignificant differences in visual analog scale pain scores (mean difference; 0.15, 95% confidence interval, -0.13 to 0.44, I2 = 0%, P = .29) and recurrence rates (risk ratio; 1.38, 95% confidence interval, 0.88-2.15, I2 = 0%, P = .16). CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic repair of type V SLAP tears results in excellent functional outcomes, with high return to play rates in athletes. There are low rates of reoperations and recurrent dislocations. Additionally, in comparison to an isolated Bankart repair, SLAP repair does not increase recurrence rates or postoperative pain.

Preoperative planning with three-dimensional CT vs. three-dimensional magnetic resonance imaging does not change surgical management for shoulder instability.

Background: This study aims to determine the effect of time and imaging modality (three-dimensional (3D) CT vs. 3D magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)) on the surgical procedure indicated for shoulder instability. The hypothesis is there will be no clinical difference in procedure selection between time and imaging modality. Methods: Eleven shoulder surgeons were surveyed with the same ten shoulder instability clinical scenarios at three time points. All time points included history of present illness, musculoskeletal exam, radiographs, and standard two-dimensional MRI. To assess the effect of imaging modality, survey 1 included 3D MRI while survey 2 included a two-dimensional and 3D CT scan. To assess the effect of time, a retest was performed with survey 3 which was identical to survey 2. The outcome measured was whether surgeons made a "major" or "minor" surgical change between surveys. Results: The average major change rate was 14.1% (standard deviation: 7.6%). The average minor change rate was 12.6% (standard deviation: 7.5%). Between survey 1 to the survey 2, the major change rate was 15.2%, compared to 13.1% when going from the second to the third survey (P = .68). The minior change rate between the first and second surveys was 12.1% and between the second to third interview was 13.1% (P = .8). Discussion: The findings suggest that the major factor related to procedural changes was time between reviewing patient information. Furthermore, this study demonstrates that there remains significant intrasurgeon variability in selecting surgical procedures for shoulder instability. Lastly, the findings in this study suggest that 3D MRI is clinically equivalent to 3D CT in guiding shoulder instability surgical management. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that there is significant variability in surgical procedure selection driven by time alone in shoulder instability. Surgical decision making with 3D MRI was similar to 3D CT scans and may be used by surgeons for preoperative planning.

Evaluation High-Quality of Information from ChatGPT (Artificial Intelligence-Large Language Model) Artificial Intelligence on Shoulder Stabilization Surgery.

PURPOSE: To analyze the quality and readability of information regarding shoulder stabilization surgery available using an online AI software (ChatGPT), using standardized scoring systems, as well as to report on the given answers by the AI. METHODS: An open AI model (ChatGPT) was used to answer 23 commonly asked questions from patients on shoulder stabilization surgery. These answers were evaluated for medical accuracy, quality, and readability using The JAMA Benchmark criteria, DISCERN score, Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score (FRES) & Grade Level (FKGL). RESULTS: The JAMA Benchmark criteria score was 0, which is the lowest score, indicating no reliable resources cited. The DISCERN score was 60, which is considered a good score. The areas that open AI model did not achieve full marks were also related to the lack of available source material used to compile the answers, and finally some shortcomings with information not fully supported by the literature. The FRES was 26.2, and the FKGL was considered to be that of a college graduate. CONCLUSIONS: There was generally high quality in the answers given on questions relating to shoulder stabilization surgery, but there was a high reading level required to comprehend the information presented. However, it is unclear where the answers came from with no source material cited. It is important to note that the ChatGPT software repeatedly references the need to discuss these questions with an orthopaedic surgeon and the importance of shared discussion making, as well as compliance with surgeon treatment recommendations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As shoulder instability is an injury that predominantly affects younger individuals who may use the Internet for information, this study shows what information patients may be getting online.

Complications following arthroscopic Bankart repair: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Complications are rare after arthroscopic Bankart repair, and as a result, there is a lack of guidance over rates of complications that can be used to consent patients. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the literature to assess the complications after arthroscopic Bankart repair, other than recurrent instability. METHODS: A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Clinical studies reporting on the complications after arthroscopic Bankart repair were included. RESULTS: A total of 194 studies were included in the analysis, with 13,979 patients and 14,019 shoulders undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair. The overall complication rate was 0.67%, with frozen shoulder being the most common complication occurring in 0.32%. Persistent pain occurred in 0.17%. The rates of nerve, hardware, and wound complications were 0.07%, 0.05%, and 0.03%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The arthroscopic Bankart repair has a very low rate of complications. Frozen shoulder and persistent pain are the most frequently encountered complications.

Similar outcomes between biceps tenodesis and SLAP repair for SLAP tears in younger patients - A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to systematically review the comparative studies in the literature to ascertain if biceps tenodesis or superior-labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) repair results in superior clinical outcomes in the treatment of type II SLAP tears in patients under 40. METHODS: A systematic search of articles in Pubmed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library databases was carried out according to the PRISMA guidelines. Cohort studies comparing biceps tenodesis to repair in type II SLAP tears in patients under 40 were included. Clinical outcomes were extracted including return to play, reoperations, ASES, and VAS for pain. All statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager. A p-value of <0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: Five studies were included. Biceps tenodesis resulted in comparable rates of return to play compared to SLAP repair (78.5% vs 67.7%, p â€‹= â€‹0.33), and there was no significant difference in return to play in overhead athletes (83.6% vs 74%, p â€‹= â€‹0.82). There was no significant difference in ASES score (87.2 vs 86.2, p â€‹= â€‹0.27) or VAS score for pain (1.8 vs 2.1, p â€‹= â€‹0.48). There was no significant difference in re-operation rates (2.9% vs 10.8%, p â€‹= â€‹0.22). CONCLUSION: This study found that biceps tenodesis has no significant difference in rates of return to play in athletes, as well as in functional outcome scores and rates of revision surgery in younger patients compared to SLAP repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Systematic review of Level III studies.

Majority of Studies Show Similar Rates of Return to Play After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair or Latarjet Procedure: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the current evidence in the literature to compare return to play following arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet procedure for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A literature search was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Comparative studies reporting return to play following arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet procedure were included. Return to play was compared, with all statistical analysis performed using Review Manager, Version 5.3. RESULTS: Nine studies with 1,242 patients (mean age: 15-30 years) were included. The rate of return to play was 61% to 94.1% among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 72% to 96.8% in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure. Two studies (Bessiere et al. and Zimmerman et al.) found a significant difference in favor of the Latarjet procedure (P < .05 for both, I2 = 37%). The rate of return to play at preinjury level was 9% to 83.8% among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 19.4% to 80.6% in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure, with no study finding a significant difference (P > .05 for all, I2 = 0%). The mean time of return to play was 5.4 to 7.3 months among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 5.5 to 6.2 months in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure, with no study finding a significant difference (P > .05 for all, I2 = 39%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the majority of studies showed no significant difference in rates of return to play or timing following arthroscopic Bankart repair or open Latarjet procedure. Furthermore, no study has found a significant difference in rate of return to play at pre-injury level, or rate of return to play among collision athletes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level I-III studies.

Nonoperative Management, Repair, or Reconstruction of the Medial Collateral Ligament in Combined Anterior Cruciate and Medial Collateral Ligament Injuries-Which Is Best? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Combined injury of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) and the medial collateral ligament (MCL) is a common injury pattern and accounts for 20% of all ligamentous knee injuries. Despite advancements in surgical technique, there is no up-to-date consensus regarding the superiority of nonoperative versus operative management in higher-grade MCL tears of combined ACL-MCL injuries. PURPOSE: To interpret recent literature on treatment options and to provide an updated evidence-based approach for management of combined ACL-MCL knee injuries. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: We performed a systematic review on outcomes following treatment of concomitant ACL and MCL injuries. A computerized search was conducted in PubMed, Embase.com, and Scopus.com. Authors independently assessed eligible studies and screened titles and abstracts. Articles reporting on patients with concomitant ACL and MCL injuries with or without concomitant procedures were included. Data regarding study design, sample size, patient age and sex, length of follow-up, timing of surgery, indications, surgical methods, concomitant procedures, outcomes, and complications were recorded. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and functional outcomes, including Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, International Knee Documentation Committee scores, Lysholm and Tegner scores, and range of motion, were estimated via meta-analysis and compared statistically by surgical approach. RESULTS: In total, 18 studies were included in the systematic review with level 1 to level 4 evidence, with a total of 1,534 cases, were included in the systematic review. Of these, 16 studies with sufficient statistical reporting including 997 cases with sufficient follow-up were included in meta-analysis. Three different approaches to combined ACL-MCL injuries were identified: ACL reconstruction with (1) nonoperative MCL, (2) MCL repair, and (3) MCL reconstruction. There was no statistical difference between nonoperative versus surgically managed MCL injuries for PROs, range of motion at final follow up, or quadriceps strength. CONCLUSION: Reconstruction of combined injury in a delayed fashion facilitates return of range of motion and may allow time for low-grade MCL tears to heal. If residual valgus or anteromedial rotatory laxity remains after a period of rehabilitation, then concomitant surgical management of ACL and MCL injuries is warranted. Avulsion MCL injuries and Stener-type lesions may benefit from early repair techniques.

Primary Total Shoulder Arthroplasty is Superior to Hemiarthroplasty for the Treatment of Glenohumeral Arthritis: Analysis of 5-year Outcomes in a Large Surgical Database.

Background: Total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is the preferred treatment for glenohumeral arthritis refractory to nonoperative measures. However, some surgeons have argued for a role for hemiarthroplasty (HA) in the setting of a smooth glenoid that articulates appropriately with the humeral head. The purpose of this study is to evaluate long-term revision rates and short-term postoperative complications in patients undergoing either HA or TSA for glenohumeral arthritis. Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent HA and TSA was conducted using a commercially available national database. Demographics, postoperative complications, risk factors, revision rates, and costs were analyzed using 2 sample t-tests, chi-squared tests, and multivariate logistic regressions. Results: Patients were stratified by operation: (1) HA (n = 1615) or 2) TSA (n = 7845). Patients undergoing primary TSA had higher rates of prior ipsilateral rotator cuff repair and corticosteroid injections. At 2 years, patients who underwent HA, 3.0% of patients had revision surgery, compared to 1.6% of patients who underwent TSA (P = .002); at 5 years, 3.7% of the HA cohort (P < .0001) had revision surgery, compared to 1.9% of patients who underwent TSA. Conclusions: Patients undergoing TSA or RTSA for glenohumeral arthritis had higher preoperative co-morbidities but had no difference in short-term complication rates with a lower risk of revision surgery at both 2-year and 5-year follow-up when compared to HA. Increasing age, female sex, hyperlipidemia, postoperative infection, shoulder instability, and thromboembolism all independently increased odds for revision shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthritis. Level of evidence Level: III.

Trends in the surgical treatment of posterior shoulder instability in the United States from 2016 to 2020.

Background: The purpose of this study was to describe trends in the incidence of open versus arthroscopic management of posterior shoulder instability (PSI) as well as the patients undergoing these procedures in the United States over time. Methods: The PearlDiver Patient Records Database was utilized for this study. Cases of PSI and surgery were identified via the appropriate ICD-10-CM and CPT codes. Linear regression and two-sample Student's t-test were used to analyze incidence rates, procedure type, number of instability events, and patient age. Results: A total of 5655 patients were identified as having PSI, undergoing a total of 686 capsulorraphies. The incidence of PSI treated surgically increased across the years of the study at a rate of 0.0293 per 100,000 person-years with an incidence in 2019-2020 greater than in 2016-2018 (p = 0.0151). Patients undergoing arthroscopic capsulorrhaphy were on average younger than those undergoing open capsulorrhaphy (p = 0.0021). Patients experienced a higher number of posterior instability events before open surgery compared to arthroscopic (p = 0.0274). Discussion: The incidence of surgical treatment of PSI in the United States is steadily rising, with greater than 90% of cases being treated arthroscopically. Those undergoing arthroscopic posterior stabilization are both younger and face fewer instability events prior to surgery.

Early clinical and patient-reported outcomes for arthroscopic and mini-open superior capsular reconstruction are similar for irreparable rotator cuff tears.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to report and compare postoperative range of motion (ROM), patient-reported outcomes, and failure rates following superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) and to compare outcomes between arthroscopic and mini-open techniques. METHODS: All SCR procedures utilising dermal allograft with a minimum of 6 months of follow-up at multiple institutions between November 2015 and October 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. Preoperative patient demographics, imaging measurements, surgical technique (arthroscopic versus mini-open), and outcomes including pain scores, conversion to reverse shoulder arthroplasty, subsequent surgery, and postoperative ROM were recorded. Outcomes for arthroscopic versus mini-open approaches were compared via t-test, Fisher's exact test, or chi square test, as appropriate, with differences of p â€‹< â€‹0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: 180 total patients were included, including 98 who underwent arthroscopic SCR and 82 who underwent mini-open SCR. Final follow-up was at a mean of 32 months (standard deviation = 11 months). SCR improved pain (visual analog scale â€‹= â€‹4.4 pre-operatively vs. 1.4 post-operatively, p â€‹< â€‹0.0001) and ROMin active forward flexion (136° pre-operatively vs. 150° post-operatively, p â€‹= â€‹0.0012). No difference in post-operative pain visual analog scores was found between mini-open and arthroscopic cohorts (1.3 vs. 1.6, p â€‹= â€‹0.3432) at a mean of 14 months post-operatively. At a mean of 32 months post-operatively, there were no differences in ASES, QuickDASH, SST, WORC, or SANE scores between open and arthroscopic cohorts. There was no difference in rates of failure between mini-open and arthroscopic cohorts (15.9% vs. 17.3%, p â€‹= â€‹0.789). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirmed that SCR improves pain and ROM in the short term. Mini-open SCR appears to provide similar improvements in pain and ROM compared with arthroscopic SCR, as well as patient-reported outcomes at 3 years. No difference in failure rates was detected between the 2 procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3 evidence.