RESUMO
Background: This study investigated the rate of acromial insufficiency fractures (AIF) in patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) with concomitant distal clavicle excision (DCE). Methods: Patients who underwent primary RSA with DCE by a single surgeon from 2010 to 2021 were identified. Exclusion criteria included revision RSA, RSA for fracture, or cases utilizing an augmented baseplate or bone graft. AIF was defined as a radiographically proven acromion or scapular spine fracture. Pain without an identifiable fracture on imaging was defined as an acromial insufficiency reaction. Patient demographics, implant information, and radiograph measurements were compared between patients with and without acromial pathology. Results: One hundred and seventy-five patients were included. Mean age was 72.8 years, and 67% of patients were female. There were 3/174 acromial insufficiency fractures (1.7%). AIF occurred at a mean of 9.3 months after surgery. Twelve patients had insufficiency reactions (6.9%). Patients with acromial pathology were more likely to be female (p = .003) and have a diagnosis of osteoporosis (p = .047) and inflammatory arthritis (p = .049). There was no significant difference between groups in terms of other factors. Conclusion: The AIF rate in patients who underwent RSA with DCE was 1.7%. These findings suggest that DCE in the setting of RSA may have a protective role against AIF.
RESUMO
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to determine whether patient-specific e-mails after surgical arthroscopy improve patient satisfaction and patient understanding of their procedure compared to traditional, preprinted discharge instructions. Methods: Sixty patients who underwent surgical arthroscopy were prospectively, randomized into two separate groups. One cohort received a detailed e-mail of their procedure, discharge instructions, and labeled intraoperative arthroscopic images, while the second cohort received the standard preprinted instructions, while their arthroscopic images were discussed at the time of follow-up. The procedures were performed by a single surgeon. All patients were seen at 1-week follow-up and given a 14-question survey specific to their postoperative course, discharge instructions, and overall satisfaction using a 5-point Likert Scale. Demographic information was collected and data points comparing overall patient satisfaction, ease of understanding instructions, quality of information, and the number of times referenced were analyzed using nonparametric tests between the two cohorts. Results: Patients in the e-mail cohort were significantly more satisfied with their surgery than patients in the printed cohort (medians: 5 versus 4, Wilcoxon chi-square = 9.98; P =.002). Patients in the e-mail cohort indicated that their instructions more greatly enhanced their overall understanding of their surgery (medians: 5 vs 3, Wilcoxon chi-square = 10.84; P = .001) and were more helpful to their recovery (medians: 5 vs 3, Wilcoxon chi-square = 7.37; P = .007). E-mail patients were significantly more likely to recommend similar instructions be sent to a friend undergoing surgery (medians: 5 versus 3, Wilcoxon chi-square = 11.10; P < .001) and share their instructions with others 72% (18/25) versus 34.5% (10/29). There was no significant difference between the e-mail cohort and the print cohort for the number of times patients referred to their instructions (medians: 3 versus 3, Wilcoxon chi-square = 2.41; P =.121). Conclusions: Patient-specific e-mailed discharge instructions improve patient satisfaction and overall understanding of the procedure compared with traditional printed discharge instructions after surgical arthroscopy. Level of Evidence: Level II, prospective randomized trial.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic debridement is an effective means of surgical management of both degenerative osteoarthritis (DOA) and posttraumatic arthritis (PTA) of the elbow. However, the difference in the efficacy and longevity of this procedure when performed for these two distinct pathologies remains in question. The purpose of this study was to identify and compare the midterm outcomes and survivorship of arthroscopic debridement of elbow PTA and DOA. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing arthroscopic debridement of DOA and PTA of the elbow was performed. A questionnaire containing the Oxford Elbow Score, as well as questions regarding the incidence of reoperation, additional nonoperative intervention, complications, pain, and satisfaction, was given at 5 years, minimum, after surgery. The midterm survivorship of arthroscopic debridement free of reoperation for any reason, as well as the remaining outcome measurements obtained via the questionnaire and in-office evaluation, was compared between PTA and DOA cohorts. RESULTS: Eighty patients (DOA = 36, PTA = 44) were included in this study for analysis. All 36 patients with DOA were noted to be male. Follow-up time at the date of questionnaire response was 7.9 years (range, 5.6-11.8) in the DOA cohort and 8.6 years (range, 5.7-12.7) in the PTA cohort. Reoperation rates of 5.6% and 11.4% were identified in the DOA and PTA cohorts, respectively. No statistical difference was noted in reoperation rate, survivorship, or any measured patient-reported outcomes between cohorts at the final follow-up visit. Both cohorts demonstrated a significant improvement in Visual Analog Scale pain scores (P < .001) and ROM. Postoperative ROM was obtained at the final clinic visit at an average follow-up duration of 151 days and 255 days in the DOA and PTA cohorts, respectively. However, no difference in the degree of improvement in either outcome variable was identified after a comparison between cohorts. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic debridement is an equally efficacious treatment option for DOA and PTA of the elbow. Patients with either pathology can expect satisfactory elbow function and an improvement in pain with little chance of reoperation at the midterm of the follow-up duration.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Patients often ask their doctors when they can safely return to driving after orthopaedic injuries and procedures, but the data regarding this topic are diverse and sometimes conflicting. Some studies provide observer-reported outcome measures, such as brake response time or simulators, to estimate when patients can safely resume driving after surgery, and patient survey data describing when patients report a return to driving, but they do not all agree. We performed a systematic review and quality appraisal for available data regarding when patients are safe to resume driving after common orthopaedic surgeries and injuries affecting the ability to drive. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Based on the available evidence, we sought to determine when patients can safely return to driving after (1) lower extremity orthopaedic surgery and injuries; (2) upper extremity orthopaedic surgery and injuries; and (3) spine surgery. METHODS: A search was performed using PubMed and EMBASE®, with a list of 20 common orthopaedic procedures and the words "driving" and "brake". Selection criteria included any article that evaluated driver safety or time to driving after major orthopaedic surgery or immobilization using observer-reported outcome measures or survey data. A total of 446 articles were identified from the initial search, 48 of which met inclusion criteria; abstract-only publications and non-English-language articles were not included. The evidence base includes data for driving safety on foot, ankle, spine, and leg injuries, knee and shoulder arthroscopy, hip and knee arthroplasty, carpal tunnel surgery, and extremity immobilization. Thirty-four of the articles used observer-reported outcome measures such as total brake time, brake response time, driving simulator, and standardized driving track results, whereas the remaining 14 used survey data. RESULTS: Observer-reported outcome measures of total brake time, brake response time, and brake force postoperatively suggested patients reached presurgical norms 4 weeks after right-sided procedures such as TKA, THA, and ACL reconstruction and approximately 1 week after left-sided TKA and THA. The collected survey data suggest patients resumed driving 1 month after right-sided and left-sided TKAs. Patients who had THA reported returning to driving between 6 days and 3 months postoperatively. Observer-reported outcome measures showed that patients' driving abilities often are impaired when wearing an immobilizing cast above or below the elbow or a shoulder sling on their dominant arm. Patients reported a return to driving on average 2 months after rotator cuff repair procedures and approximately 1-3 months postoperatively for total shoulder arthroplasties. Most patients with spine surgery had normal brake response times at the time of hospital discharge. Patients reported driving 6 weeks after total disc arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence provides a best-case scenario for when patients can return to driving. It is important for observer-reported outcome measures to have normalized before a patient can consider driving, but other factors such as strength, ROM, and use of opioid analgesics need to be considered. This review can provide a guideline for when physicians can begin to consider evaluating these other factors and discussing a return to driving with patients. Survey data suggest that patients are returning to driving before observer-reported outcome measures have normalized, indicating that physicians should tell patients to wait longer before driving. Further research is needed to correlate observer-reported outcome measures with adverse events, such as motor vehicle accidents, and clinical tests that can be performed in the office. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.