Comparison of Pain Scores and Functional Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Hip Labral Repair and Concomitant Capsular Repair or Plication Versus No Closure.

Background: The need for capsular closure during arthroscopic hip labral repair is debated. Purpose: To compare pain and functional outcomes in patients undergoing arthroscopic hip labral repair with concomitant repair or plication of the capsule versus no closure. Study Design: Cohort study. Methods: Outcomes were compared between patients undergoing arthroscopic hip labral repair with concomitant repair or plication of the capsule versus no closure at up to 2 years postoperatively and with stratification by age and sex. Patients with lateral center-edge angle <20°, a history of instability, a history of prior arthroscopic surgery in the ipsilateral hip, or a history of labral debridement only were excluded. Subanalysis was performed between patients undergoing no capsular closure who were propensity score matched 1:1 with patients undergoing repair or plication based on age, sex, and preoperative Modified Harris Hip Score (MHHS). We compared patients who underwent T-capsulotomy with concomitant capsular closure matched 1:5 with patients who underwent an interportal capsulotomy with concomitant capsular repair based on age, sex, and preoperative MHHS. Results: Patients undergoing capsular closure (n = 1069), compared with the no-closure group (n = 230), were more often female (68.6% vs 53.0%, respectively; P < .001), were younger (36.4 ± 13.3 vs 47.9 ± 14.7 years; P < .001), and had superior MHHS scores at 2 years postoperatively (85.8 ± 14.5 vs 81.8 ± 18.4, respectively; P = .020). In the matched analysis, no difference was found in outcome measures between patients in the capsular closure group (n = 215) and the no-closure group (n = 215) at any follow-up timepoint. No significant difference was seen between the 2 closure techniques at any follow-up timepoint. Patients with closure of the capsule achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for the 1-year MHHS at a similar rate as those without closure (MCID, 50.3% vs 44.9%, P = .288; PASS, 56.8% vs 51.1%, P = .287, respectively). Patients with T-capsulotomy achieved the MCID and the PASS for the 1-year MHHS at a similar rate compared with those with interportal capsulotomy (MCID, 50.1% vs 44.9%, P = .531; PASS, 65.7% vs 61.2%, P = .518, respectively). Conclusion: When sex, age, and preoperative MHHS were controlled, capsular closure and no capsular closure after arthroscopic hip labral repair were associated with similar pain and functional outcomes for patients up to 2 years postoperatively.

Pain scores and functional outcomes of patients with shoulder labral repair using all-suture anchors versus conventional anchors.

HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare PROMs in patients undergoing anterior glenoid labral repair using all-suture versus conventional anchors. We hypothesized PROMs would be similar between groups. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of the Arthrex Global Surgical Outcomes System (SOS) database, querying patients who underwent arthroscopic glenoid labral repair between 01/01/2015 and 12/31/2020. Patients aged 18-100, who had isolated glenoid labrum repair with at least 12-month follow-up were included. The visual analog pain scale (VAS), Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index, Veteran's RAND 12-items health survey, single assessment numeric evaluation and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES) were compared preoperatively, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years postoperatively in patients who received all-suture anchors versus conventional anchors in the setting of anterior glenoid labrum repair. Our primary aim was comparison of PROMs between patients receiving all-suture versus conventional suture anchors. Secondarily, a sub-analysis was performed comparing outcomes based on anchor utilization for patients with noted anterior instability. RESULTS: We evaluated 566 patients, 54 patients receiving all-suture anchors and 512 patients receiving conventional anchors. At two-year follow-up there was no significant difference between the two groups in PROMs. In a sub-analysis of isolated anterior labrum repair, there was an improvement in ASES (P = 0.034) and VAS (P = 0.039) with the all-suture anchor at two-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: All-suture anchors provide similar or superior pain and functional outcome scores up to 2 years postoperatively compared to conventional anchors. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As all-suture anchors gain popularity among surgeons, this is the largest scale study to date validating their use in the setting of glenoid labrum repair. Institutional Review Board (IRB): IRB202102550.

The AANS Harvey Cushing Medal: a demographic and academic analysis of its recipients.

Background: The Harvey Cushing Medal, awarded by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, is the premier accolade in neurosurgery. The study's purpose was to examine the qualities and accomplishments of previous winners, emphasizing potential selection biases, with the aim to promote social justice and guide young neurosurgeons in their career paths. Results: Predominantly, recipients graduated from top-ranked United States News and World Report institutions and specialized in cerebrovascular and neuro-oncologic/skull base neurosurgery. A significant proportion held roles as department or division chairs and led neurosurgical organizations. All awardees were male, and there was a notable trend of increasing publication counts among more recent recipients. Conclusions: Commonalities among Harvey Cushing Medal winners include graduating from top institutions, holding significant leadership roles, and having an extensive publication history. However, the absence of female and underrepresented minority awardees underscores an urgent need for greater diversity in the selection process.

Update for astrocytomas: medical and surgical management considerations.

Astrocytomas include a wide range of tumors with unique mutations and varying grades of malignancy. These tumors all originate from the astrocyte, a star-shaped glial cell that plays a major role in supporting functions of the central nervous system (CNS), including blood-brain barrier (BBB) development and maintenance, water and ion regulation, influencing neuronal synaptogenesis, and stimulating the immunological response. In terms of epidemiology, glioblastoma (GB), the most common and malignant astrocytoma, generally occur with higher rates in Australia, Western Europe, and Canada, with the lowest rates in Southeast Asia. Additionally, significantly higher rates of GB are observed in males and non-Hispanic whites. It has been suggested that higher levels of testosterone observed in biological males may account for the increased rates of GB. Hereditary syndromes such as Cowden, Lynch, Turcot, Li-Fraumeni, and neurofibromatosis type 1 have been linked to increased rates of astrocytoma development. While there are a number of specific gene mutations that may influence malignancy or be targeted in astrocytoma treatment, O 6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) gene function is an important predictor of astrocytoma response to chemotherapeutic agent temozolomide (TMZ). TMZ for primary and bevacizumab in the setting of recurrent tumor formation are two of the main chemotherapeutic agents currently approved in the treatment of astrocytomas. While stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) has debatable implications for increased survival in comparison to whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT), SRS demonstrates increased precision with reduced radiation toxicity. When considering surgical resection of astrocytoma, the extent of resection (EoR) is taken into consideration. Subtotal resection (STR) spares the margins of the T1 enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) region, gross total resection (GTR) includes the margins, and supramaximal resection (SMR) extends beyond the margin of the T1 and into the T2 region. Surgical resection, radiation, and chemotherapy are integral components of astrocytoma treatment.

Assessing the quality of reporting of studies using Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) data.

OBJECTIVE: The Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative (VQI) has become an increasingly popular data source for retrospective observational vascular surgery studies. There are published guidelines on the reporting of data in such studies to promote transparency and rigor, but these have not been used to evaluate studies using VQI data. Our objective was to appraise the methodological reporting quality of studies using VQI data by evaluating their adherence to these guidelines. METHODS: The Society for Vascular Surgery VQI publication repository was queried for all articles published in 2020. The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected Health Data (RECORD) statement and the Journal of American Medical Association-Surgical Section (JAMA-Surgery) checklist were utilized to assess the quality of each article's reporting. Five and three items from the RECORD statement and JAMA-Surgery checklist were excluded, respectively, because they were either inapplicable or nonassessable. Journal impact factor (IF) was queried for each article to elucidate any difference in reporting standards between high and low IF journals. RESULTS: Ninety studies were identified and analyzed. The median score on the RECORD checklist was 6 (of 8). The most commonly missed item was discussing data cleaning methods (93% missed). The median score on the JAMA-Surgery checklist was 3 (of 7). The most commonly missed items were the identification of competing risks (98% missed), the use of a flow chart to clearly define sample exclusion and inclusion criteria (84% missed), and the inclusion of a solid research question and hypothesis (81% missed). There were no differences in JAMA-Surgery checklist or RECORD statement median scores among studies published in low vs high IF journals. CONCLUSIONS: Studies using VQI data demonstrate a poor to moderate adherence to reporting standards. Key areas for improvement in research reporting include articulating a clear hypothesis, using flow charts to clearly define inclusion and exclusion criteria, identifying competing risks, and discussing data cleaning methods. Additionally, future efforts should center on creating tailored instruments to better guide reporting in studies using VQI data.