Inpatient versus outpatient shoulder arthroplasty outcomes: A propensity score matched risk-adjusted analysis demonstrates the safety of outpatient shoulder arthroplasty.

OBJECTIVES: Beginning January 1, 2021 total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) was removed from the Medicare (U.S national healthcare for patients ≥ 65years of age) inpatient-only list. Furthermore, there is limited data comparing outpatient and inpatient TSA among recent contemporary large population databases. This study aimed to analyze shoulder arthroplasty outcomes between inpatient and outpatient procedures at the national level. METHODS: The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database was utilized (2015-2019). Cases with a current procedural terminology of 23472 indicative of primary TSA and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty were included (N = 22,452). Outcomes were then analyzed in two approaches: unmatched analysis and propensity score matched risk-adjusted analysis. RESULTS: Overall, 9.7% (N = 2,185) of cases were performed outpatient and 90.3% (N = 20,357) of cases were performed inpatient. The rate of outpatient procedures has been steadily increasing (2015: 8.3%, 2016: 14.7%, 2017: 15.8%, 2018: 26.5%, 2019: 34.6%; P < 0.001). Outpatients were more likely to be male (50.7% vs. 43.7%) and younger (age < 65; 37.0% vs. 27.9%) and less likely to be ASA class 3 or 4 (49.5% vs. 58.3%). Outpatients had fewer comorbidities including obesity (46.1% vs. 51.9%), hypertension (60.5% vs. 67.4%), diabetes (15.1 vs. 18.2%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (4.8% vs. 7.0%), bleeding disorders (1.3% vs. 2.5%), or chronic steroid use (3.5% vs. 5.0%; all P < 0.001). In a non-risk matched analysis of outcomes, outpatient procedures displayed lower rates of any adverse event (3.5% vs. 5.3%; P < 0.001), minor adverse events (1.5% vs. 3.0%; P = 0.001), and readmission (2.2% vs. 2.8%; P = 0.025). Following a propensity score matched analysis, two risk matched cohorts of outpatient (N = 2,172) and inpatient (N = 2,172) procedures were identified. Subsequent analysis of outcomes revealed no significant differences in outcome metrics between risk-matched outpatient and inpatient procedures. CONCLUSIONS: From 2015 to 2019, there has been a four-fold increase in the proportion of outpatient shoulder arthroplasty cases in the ACS-NSQIP database. This study shows that outpatient shoulder arthroplasty may be safely performed in a select cohort of patients without increased risk of adverse events. After adjusting for comorbidities, there were no differences in clinical outcomes or rates of adverse outcomes between inpatient and outpatient shoulder arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective Observational Study, Level IV.

Readability assessment of patient educational materials for shoulder arthroplasty from top academic orthopedic institutions.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated that online patient educational materials are written at reading levels too advanced for the average patient. The average American reads at the eighth-grade reading level. To date, the readability of online educational material of academic centers for shoulder arthroplasty has not been analyzed. METHODS: Online patient educational materials from the top 25 orthopedic institutions, as ranked by U.S. News & World Report, were assessed utilizing the following readability assessments: Flesch-Kincaid (FK), Flesch Reading Ease, Gunning Fog Index, Coleman-Liau Index, Simple Measure of the Gobbledygook Index, Automated Readability Index, FORCAST, and the New Dale and Chall Readability. All of these scores, with the exception of the Flesch Reading Ease, provide an output indicating reading difficulty based on grade level. Correlations between academic institutional ranking and FK scores were evaluated using a Spearman regression. Lastly, additional factors including geographical location, private versus public institution, and use of concomitant multi-media modalities that may impact institutional readability scores (as determined by FK) were evaluated. RESULTS: Only 16.0% of the top 25 institutions included online material at or below the eighth-grade reading level. Moreover, half of the online resources evaluated (those with FK score ≥9.3) were not at a suitable reading level for more than two-thirds of the general United States population (∼70%). Overall, the composite mean scores were 9.5 ± 2.1 for FK, 52.8 ± 9. for 4 Flesch Reading Ease, 12.2 ± 2.4 for Gunning Fog, 11.6 ± 1.8 for Coleman-Liau, 12.3 ± 1.7 for Simple Measure of the Gobbledygook Index, 9.6 ± 2.6 for Automated Readability, 11.1 ± 0.6 for FORCAST, and 5.9 ± 0.6 for New Dale and Chall. There was no correlation between institutional ranking and FK scores (ρ = -0.15; P = .946). Geographical location, private versus public institution, and use of concomitant multi-media modalities were not significantly associated with readability. CONCLUSION: Shoulder arthroplasty online patient educational material at top-ranked orthopedic institutions have poor readability and are likely not suitable for the majority of patients in the United States.

Comparison of the Coracoid, Distal Clavicle, and Scapular Spine for Autograft Augmentation of Glenoid Bone Loss: A Radiologic and Cadaveric Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Glenohumeral instability caused by bone loss requires adequate bony restoration for successful surgical stabilization. Coracoid transfer has been the gold standard bone graft; however, it has high complication rates. Alternative autologous free bone grafts, which include the distal clavicle and scapular spine, have been suggested. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the percentage of glenoid bone loss (GBL) restored via coracoid, distal clavicle, and scapular spine bone grafts using a patient cohort and a cadaveric evaluation. METHODS: Autologous bone graft dimensions from a traditional Latarjet, congruent arc Latarjet, distal clavicle, and scapular spine were measured in a 2-part study using 52 computed tomography (CT) scans and 10 unmatched cadaveric specimens. The amount of GBL restored using each graft was calculated by comparing the graft thickness with the glenoid diameter. RESULTS: Using CT measurements, we found the mean percentage of glenoid restoration for each graft was 49.5% ± 6.7% (traditional Latarjet), 45.1% ± 4.9% (congruent arc Latarjet), 42.2% ± 7.7% (distal clavicle), and 26.2% ± 8.1% (scapular spine). Using cadaveric measurements, we found the mean percentage of glenoid restoration for each graft was 40.2% ± 5.0% (traditional Latarjet), 53.4% ± 4.7% (congruent arc Latarjet), 45.6% ± 8.4% (distal clavicle), and 28.2% ± 7.7% (scapular spine). With 10% GBL, 100% of the coracoid and distal clavicle grafts, as well as 88% of scapular spine grafts, could restore the defect (P < .001). With 20% GBL, 100% of the coracoid and distal clavicle grafts but only 66% of scapular spine grafts could restore the defect (P < .001). With 30% GBL, 100% of coracoid grafts, 98% of distal clavicle grafts, and 28% of scapular spine grafts could restore the defect (P < .001). With 40% GBL, a significant difference was identified (P = .001), as most coracoid grafts still provided adequate restoration (congruent arc Latarjet, 82.7%; traditional Latarjet, 76.9%), but distal clavicle grafts were markedly reduced, with only 51.9% of grafts maintaining sufficient dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: The coracoid and distal clavicle grafts reliably restored up to 30% GBL in nearly all patients. The coracoid was the only graft that could reliably restore up to 40% GBL. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: With "subcritical" GBL (>13.5%), all autologous bone grafts can be used to adequately restore the bony defect. However, with "critical" GBL (≥20%), only the coracoid and distal clavicle can reliably restore the bony defect.