Workman's compensation as exclusion criteria in rotator cuff repair literature - are we inadvertently excluding race?

OBJECTIVE: Despite an equal willingness to participate in clinical trials, there is evidence that several minority populations are systematically under-represented in studies. One potential cause and frequently used exclusionary criterion in orthopedic trials is patients with active workman's compensation (WC) insurance claims. The purpose of this study is to determine demographic differences in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with commercial and government insurance vs workers compensation claims. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of patients who underwent primary arthroscopic rotator cuff repair at a single institution in the northeastern United States from 2018 to 2019. Patients undergoing revision cases were excluded. Chart review was used to extract demographic data such as age, gender, insurance, and reported race. RESULTS: A total of 4553 patient records were reviewed and included. There were 742 WC patients and 3811 non-WC patients. Two hundred and forty-four patients did not report their race. Overall, WC patients differed from non-WC with respect to race (P < 0.001). One hundred and eleven (15.0%) of WC and 293 (7.7%) non-WC patients reported being 'Black' or 'African American' (P = 0.002). This compares to 368 (49.6%) WC and 2788 (73.2%) non-WC patients who reported 'White' (P < 0.001). About 16.8% of WC patients were identified as 'Hispanic or Latino,' compared to 5.2% of non-WC (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: African American and Hispanic/Latino patients are over-represented in workman's compensation patient populations relative to non-workman's compensation. Conversely, white patients are over-represented in non-WC patient populations, which serve as the basis for the majority of clinical study populations. Excluding workman's compensation patients from clinical trials may lead to an underrepresentation of African American and Hispanic/Latino patient populations in orthopedic clinical trials. In doing so, the generalizability of the results of rotator cuff repair clinical outcomes research to all races and ethnicities may be compromised.

Incidence of Repeat Elbow Capsular Release After Arthroscopic Elbow Capsular Release.

Background: Elbow capsular release can be performed arthroscopically or through an open method to improve range of motion (ROM). However, it is unclear how frequently patients require an open capsular release after unsatisfactory results from an arthroscopic release. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to determine the percentage of patients who underwent an arthroscopic elbow release for loss of motion who then required a repeat elbow capsular release or other subsequent surgery on the same elbow. It was hypothesized that patients who underwent arthroscopic elbow release would rarely (<5%) require a subsequent elbow release. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: Patients who underwent arthroscopic elbow capsular release from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2019, were identified by chart review and procedure code. Demographic parameters, pre- and postoperative ROM, and surgical history were collected by chart review. Follow-up data included patient satisfaction and the Timmerman-Andrews (TA) elbow score. Data were compared between patients who did and those who did not require subsequent elbow surgery. Results: Overall, of 140 study patients (116 male, 24 female; mean age, 49.6 years), 18 (12.9%) required subsequent surgery, including 6 capsular releases (4.3%; 1 open and 5 arthroscopic). The most common follow-up procedure was ulnar nerve releases/transpositions (n = 7). Total arc of elbow motion (flexion to extension) improved by a mean of 51.4°. The mean TA score was 76.5 ± 20.4 at a mean of 5.25 years postoperatively. Mean satisfaction score was 77.6 ± 26.3. In this study, 82.4% of patients stated that their symptoms either improved or resolved completely. Patients who required subsequent surgery had a significantly lower preoperative total arc of elbow motion versus those who did not require subsequent surgery (P = .046). There was no difference between the groups in symptom resolution, satisfaction, ROM, or TA score (P ≥ .279 for all). Conclusion: After arthroscopic elbow release, <5% of patients required a repeat elbow capsular release, 12.9% required some form of follow-up elbow surgery, and 4.3% had a new injury of the elbow. Overall, patients saw improvement in elbow ROM, but many still had residual symptoms from their underlying disease after arthroscopic elbow capsular release.

Disruptions in Standard Care in Patients After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic led to disruptions in care for orthopaedic patients who underwent surgery just before the outbreak, rendering some unable to participate in standard postoperative care. Many of these patients underwent clinical follow-up and physical therapy via telehealth. Purpose: To evaluate the methods of postoperative care in patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) and had follow-ups during the height of the pandemic versus those who received prior standard of care. We aimed to compare the 1-year outcomes between these cohorts. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A retrospective chart review was used to identify patients who underwent primary RCR in February and March 2020 (COVID cohort) and the same period in 2019 (control cohort) at a single institution. Excluded were patients who underwent revision RCR, used workers' compensation, or were incarcerated or deceased. The included patients reported the postoperative care received, their satisfaction with care, physical therapy appointment type (in person, home based, telehealth, or self-guided), satisfaction with physical therapy, and minimum 1-year postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and Penn Shoulder Score (PSS) outcomes. Results: Overall, 428 patients were included for final analysis--199 in the COVID cohort and 229 controls. Follow-up data were collected for 160 patients in the COVID group (80.4%) and 169 control patients (73.8%). In the COVID group, 110 patients (68.8%) had ≥1 clinical visit conducted via telehealth, compared with zero in the control group. There were no differences between the COVID and control groups in the ASES (84.2 ± 16.5 vs 86.5 ± 17; P = .27 ), SANE (83.9 ± 15.4 vs 84.8 ± 17.5; P = .66), PSS (84.8 ± 15.3 vs 87.1 ± 15.1; P = .22), or patient satisfaction with the care received (81.7 ± 22.6 vs 86.3 ± 23.5; P = .09). Satisfaction with physical therapy was significantly higher in the control group (88.3 ± 18.9 vs 81.9 ± 22.5; P = .01). Conclusion: Despite disruptions in care, RCR patients had comparable 1-year outcomes during the pandemic versus before the pandemic. Telehealth clinical follow-up appointments did not adversely affect patient-reported outcome measures and may be appropriate for RCR patients beyond the pandemic.

Outcomes following arthroscopic posteromedial osteophyte resection and risk of future ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: Despite successful return-to-sport (RTS) outcomes after posteromedial osteophyte resection, one possible consequence of osteophyte removal is increased stress on the ulnar collateral ligament (UCL), leading to a UCL injury. It is currently unknown how often overhead athletes who undergo isolated posteromedial osteophyte resection subsequently require UCL reconstruction (UCLR). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to report outcomes following arthroscopic resection of posteromedial osteophytes in overhead athletes and determine whether overhead athletes who underwent arthroscopic posteromedial osteophyte resection for posteromedial impingement went on to require UCL surgery. We hypothesized that there would be a high rate of RTS following osteophyte resection and that players who underwent arthroscopic posteromedial osteophyte resection would have a >10% risk of requiring subsequent UCLR or UCL repair. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients who underwent elbow arthroscopy from 2010-2020 at a single institution were reviewed. Patients were included if they underwent isolated arthroscopic posteromedial osteophyte resection without concomitant UCL surgery, were overhead athletes at the onset of posteromedial impingement symptoms, and had no history of elbow surgery. Primary outcomes included RTS rate, complications, and subsequent shoulder and/or elbow injury and surgery, as well as several patient-reported outcome measures (Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic score, Timmerman-Andrews elbow score, and Conway-Jobe score). RESULTS: Overall, 36 overhead athletes were evaluated at 5.1 ± 3.4 years postoperatively, including 28 baseball pitchers, 3 baseball catchers, 3 softball players, 1 tennis player, and 1 volleyball player. Of the overhead athletes, 77% were able to RTS; the mean Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic and satisfaction scores were 70 and 75, respectively; and 89% of athletes had either excellent (73%) or good (16%) Conway-Jobe scores at long-term follow-up. Subsequent UCLR was required in 18% of baseball pitchers (n = 5) at a median of 13 months postoperatively. Of the 5 UCLRs, 3 were performed shortly after posteromedial osteophyte resection (6, 7, and 13 months postoperatively) whereas the other 2 were performed at 6.2 and 7.5 years postoperatively. CONCLUSION: Following arthroscopic posteromedial osteophyte resection, 77% of athletes were able to RTS. Baseball pitchers who undergo arthroscopic resection of posteromedial osteophytes for posteromedial impingement have an 18% risk of subsequent UCLR.

Analysis of Musculoskeletal Injuries Among Collegiate Varsity Electronic Sports Athletes.

Background Collegiate electronic sports (esports) in the United States has grown from seven varsity programs in 2016 to over 200 today. Despite its growing success, little has been studied on the injuries of these athletes. In this study, we aimed to investigate the prevalence of injuries sustained by collegiate esports players and explore the injuries' impacts on their careers. The authors hypothesized that athletes who spend more time practicing and playing competitively in esports will report an increased history of musculoskeletal injury. Methodology This was a cross-sectional study, level IV evidence. A list of collegiate esports athletes was collected from publicly available sources. Athletes with available contact information were sent a self-reporting questionnaire. The questionnaire examined variables including length of time playing esports, hours/day playing esports, esports-related injury history, surgeries needed, and missed competition time. Results Overall, 153 collegiate esports athletes (88% male, aged 18-42 years) were included, with 41 (26.8%) having experienced at least one injury from esports. Of the 41 injured athletes, three (7.3%) required surgery, 17 (41.5%) had multiple injuries, and seven (17.1%) missed competition time for an average of 3.0 ± 2.3 weeks. Athletes who have been on their respective college team longer (2.0 ± 1.0 vs. 1.7 ± 0.9 years, p = 0.03) and who spent more hours per day practicing had a higher injury incidence (p = 0.01). There was no difference in the current age, sex, age at which athletes began competing in esports, and scholarship status between groups (all p > 0.05). When analyzing the 41 athletes who experienced an injury, the most common injury was to the wrist with 25 total injuries. There were 11 neck, 10 back, nine finger, eight hand, six elbow, and four thumb injuries. Conclusions Collegiate esports players who trained for more hours per day (31.7% of injured players vs. 10.7% of uninjured players practiced more than five hours/day, p = 0.01) and played competitive collegiate esports for more years (2.0 ± 1.0 vs. 1.7 ± 0.9 years, p = 0.03) were more likely to have experienced an esports-related injury. Fortunately, only a small portion of athletes who experienced an injury was forced to miss competition time or require surgery. With this being the largest investigation into collegiate esports-related injuries, future medical research regarding the incidence, management, and prevention of its injuries can help collegiate and professional programs place a greater emphasis on the health of their athletes.

Declining Quality of Systematic Reviews in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine: An Updated Systematic Review.

Purpose: To evaluate the quality and characteristics of systematic reviews, including meta-analyses, in the clinical orthopaedic sports medicine literature from 2015 to 2019 and to compare the results to previous findings from a similar analysis from 2009 to 2013. Methods: All clinical orthopaedic sports medicine and meta-analyses published from 2015 to 2019 published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, and Sports Health were reviewed. These were evaluated according to guidelines from Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool. Results were compared to the quality of publications from 2009 to 2013. Results: A total of 516 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in this study. Of these, 17.1% of studies included Level I or II evidence only, whereas 79.1% included Level IV or V studies. When compared to the previous study from 2009 to 2013, which demonstrated 32% of Level I or II evidence studies and 53% Level IV or V, there was a significant decrease in the level of evidence in the more recent study period (P < .001). The average Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses scores were 81% and the average Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews scores 56%, which are declines from 87% and 73%, respectively (P < .001, P < .001). Conclusions: There has been a significant increase in the volume of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in orthopaedic sports medicine. This has coincided with significant declines in the level of evidence, as well as declines in methodologic and reporting quality. Clinical Relevance: Clinicians increasingly use systematic reviews to drive their treatment decisions. Therefore, the quality of systematic reviews in orthopaedic sports medicine merits assessment.

Disruptions in standard care: anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction outcomes during the SARS-COV2 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The SARS-COV2 pandemic led to massive disruptions of care for orthopedic patients. Although many elective procedures were put on hold, a cohort of patients who underwent surgery prior to the outbreak of the pandemic were rendered unable to participate in standard post-operative care. The purpose of this study was to determine the methods of post-operative care in arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction patients who received care during an early height of the pandemic to those who received standard of care in the prior year. We aimed to correlate those results with 1-year clinical outcomes in the form of subjective surveys. METHODS: Retrospective chart review was used to identify patients who underwent primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction in February and March of 2020 (case) and 2019 (control) at a single institution. Workman's compensation patients were excluded. Identified patients were asked to report post-operative care received, satisfaction with care, and complete the IKDC and Lysholm outcome measures. Surveys were conducted minimum 1-year post-operative. RESULTS: 236 patients were identified, including 103 in 2020 and 133 in 2019. Follow-up data was collected for 73 patients (70.9%) in 2020 and 97 patients (72.9%) in 2019. Fifty-one COVID cohort patients (69.9%) had at least one clinical visit conducted via telehealth, compared to zero in the control. There were no differences in IKDC (82.8 ± 13.2 vs 85.0 ± 12.0, P = 0.29) and Lysholm (89.2 ± 11.3 vs 89.6 ± 10.8, P = 0.82) between groups. There were no differences in patient satisfaction with the care received (82.9 ± 22.4 vs 81.9 ± 21.8, P = 0.79). CONCLUSION: Despite disruptions in care, anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction patients have excellent 1-year outcomes during the pandemic. Telehealth follow-up appointments may be appropriate for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction patients beyond the pandemic and do not seem to adversely affect short-term patient reported outcome measures.