Surgeon Factors and Trends Associated With the Use of Subacromial Decompression at the Time of Rotator Cuff Repair.

PURPOSE: Subacromial decompression (SAD) has historically been described as an essential part of the surgical treatment of rotator cuff disorders. However, investigations throughout the 21st century have increasingly questioned the need for routine SAD during rotator cuff repair (RCR). Our purpose was to assess for changes in the incidence of SAD performed during RCR over a 12-year period. In addition, we aimed to characterize surgeon and practice factors associated with SAD use. METHODS: Records from two large tertiary referral systems in the United States from 2010 to 2021 were reviewed. All cases of RCR with and without SAD were identified. The outcome of interest was the proportion of SAD performed during RCR across years and by surgeon. Surgeon-specific characteristics included institution, fellowship training, surgical volume, academic practice, and years in practice. Yearly trends were assessed using binomial logistic regression modeling, with a random effect accounting for surgeon-specific variability. RESULTS: During the study period, 37,165 RCR surgeries were performed by 104 surgeons. Of these cases, 71% underwent SAD during RCR. SAD use decreased by 11%. The multivariable model found that surgeons in academic practice, those with lower surgical volume, and those with increasing years in practice were significantly associated with increased odds of performing SAD. Surgeons with fellowship training were significantly more likely to use SAD over time, with the greatest odds of SAD noted for sports medicine surgeons (odds ratio = 3.04). CONCLUSIONS: Although SAD use during RCR appears to be decreasing, multiple surgeon and practice factors (years in practice, fellowship training, volume, and academic practice) are associated with a change in SAD use. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These data suggest that early-career surgeons entering practice are likely driving the trend of declining SAD. Despite evidence suggesting limited clinical benefits, SAD remains commonly performed; future studies should endeavor to determine factors associated with practice changes among surgeons.

Subacromial Balloon Spacer Versus Partial Rotator Cuff Repair in the Treatment of Massive Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears: Facility Personnel Allocation and Procedural Cost Analysis.

Background The subacromial balloon is a novel technology that has shown promise in managing a select patient population with massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. The purpose of this study was to quantify the true facility cost difference between subacromial balloon placement (SBP) and partial rotator cuff repair (PCR). Methodology A prospective cohort of patients with massive irreparable rotator cuff tears randomized to SBP versus PCR between 2015 and 2018 was retrospectively reviewed. Demographic variables, medical comorbidities, and range-of-motion (ROM) outcomes for all patients were recorded. True facility costs with respect to personnel were calculated using a time-driven activity based-costing (TDABC) algorithm and were classified into personnel costs and supply costs. Results Seven patients were treated with PCR compared to nine treated with SBP. No significant differences were observed with respect to demographic characteristics. Postoperative mean external rotation was 37° in SBP patients significantly higher than that of PCR patients at 8° (P = 0.023). Personnel time and cost differences while in the operating room (OR) were significantly less for the SBP ($605.58) compared to PCR ($1362.76) (P < 0.001). Implant costs were higher for SBP when compared to PCR, whereas disposable equipment costs were higher for PCR when compared to SBP. The total mean true facility cost was $7658.00 for SBP, significantly higher than that of PCR at $3429.00 (P < 0.001). Conclusions Despite the substantial reduction in personnel costs seen with SBP, the true facility cost of SBP was significantly higher than that of PCR. As this novel technology is used more ubiquitously and its price is negotiated down, the cost savings seen in personnel and OR time will become more significant. Future prospective cost analyses should follow up on the changes in implant costs and account for potential anesthesia cost savings.