Epidemiology of Pediatric Dog Walking-Related Injuries Among Children Presenting to US Emergency Departments, 2001 to 2020.

BACKGROUND: Dog walking is associated with a significant injury burden among adults, but the risk of injury associated with dog walking among children is poorly understood. This study describes the epidemiology of children treated at US emergency departments for injuries related to leash-dependent dog walking. METHODS: The National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) database was retrospectively analyzed to identify children (5 to 18 years of age) presenting to US emergency departments between 2001 and 2020 with dog walking-related injuries. Primary outcomes included annual estimates of injury incidence, injury characteristics, and risk factors for fracture or traumatic brain injury (TBI). Weighted estimates, odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were generated using NEISS sample weights. RESULTS: An estimated 35,611 children presented to US emergency departments with injuries related to dog walking. The mean age of patients was 11 years, and most patients were girls (63%). Over half (55%) of injuries were orthopaedic, and patients commonly injured their upper extremity (57%) and were hurt while falling when pulled or tripped by the leash (55%). The most frequent injuries were wrist strain/sprain (5.6%), finger strain/sprain (5.4%), and ankle strain/sprain (5.3%). On multivariable analysis, injured children aged 5 to 11 years were more likely to have sustained a TBI (OR: 3.2, 95% CI: 1.1-9.7) or fracture (OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.1-2.3). Boys were more likely than girls to have experienced a fracture (OR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.3-2.5). CONCLUSIONS: Dog walking-related injuries in children are primarily orthopaedic and involve the upper extremity. Younger children and boys are at greater risk for serious dog walking-related injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for patients with cuff tear arthropathy: do clinical outcomes differ by inlay vs. onlay design?

BACKGROUND: The influence of position of the humeral tray (inlay or onlay) on clinical outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is a topic of debate. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes of patients with cuff tear arthropathy treated with RSA systems with inlay or onlay humeral tray design, similar neck-shaft angles, and lateralized glenospheres. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of prospectively obtained data from 1 tertiary care center. We identified all patients who underwent primary RSA between 2009 and 2017 (N = 511). We included 102 patients with diagnosed cuff tear arthropathy treated with RSA prostheses with a lateralized glenosphere and 135° neck-shaft angle (with either an inlay or onlay humeral tray design) who had a minimum of 2 years of follow-up (mean, 44 months; range, 24-125 months). Sixty-three patients (62%) had an inlay humeral tray (inlay group) and 39 (38%) had an onlay tray (onlay group). All patients underwent preoperative and postoperative evaluations, including measures of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), shoulder range of motion (ROM) testing, and radiographic imaging. Clinical relevance of changes in PROs and ROM was evaluated using published values for minimal clinically important differences. RESULTS: The 2 groups did not differ by demographic characteristics except for a higher proportion of women in the inlay group (75%) than in the onlay group (56%) (P = .04). Preoperative PROs and ROM were not significantly different between groups. At final follow-up, PROs and ROM were not different between groups in terms of statistical significance or clinical relevance. We found no significant differences in the rate of baseplate loosening (inlay, 3.2% vs. onlay, 5.1%, P = .63), revision surgery (inlay, 0% vs. onlay 5.1%, P = .07), acromial stress fracture (inlay, 3.2% vs. onlay, 5.1%, P = .63), prosthesis dislocation (inlay, 0% vs. onlay, 2.6%, P = .20), or scapular notching (inlay, 21% vs. onlay, 7.7%, P = .08). CONCLUSION: At 2-year minimum follow-up, the position of the humeral tray in RSA prostheses (either inlay or onlay) for cuff tear arthropathy was not associated with PROs, shoulder ROM, or rates of complications, including baseplate loosening, acromial stress fracture, and scapular notching.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty within 6 weeks of proximal humerus fracture is associated with the lowest risk of revision.

BACKGROUND: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has become an increasingly popular treatment strategy in the management of complex proximal humeral fractures (PHFs). However, no definitive consensus has been reached regarding the optimal surgical timing of RTSA following PHF, particularly considering nonoperative management is often a viable option. Therefore, the aim of this study was (1) to identify optimal timing intervals that maximize the likelihood of revision following RTSA and (2) to determine differences in revision etiologies using the identified timing intervals. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of patients undergoing PHF-indicated RTSA from 2010 to 2021 was conducted using a national administrative claims database. Stratum-specific likelihood ratio (SSLR) analysis was conducted to determine data-driven timing strata between PHF and RTSA that maximized the likelihood of revision surgery within 2 years of RTSA. To control for confounders, multivariable regression analysis was conducted to confirm the identified data-driven strata's association with 2-year revision rates as well as compare the likelihood of various indications for revision including mechanical loosening, dislocation, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), and periprosthetic fracture (PPF). RESULTS: In total, 11,707 patients undergoing TSA following PHF were included in this study. SSLR analysis identified 2 timing categories: 0-6 weeks and 7-52 weeks from the time of PHF to TSA surgery. Relative to the 0-6-week cohort, the 7-52-week cohort was more likely to undergo revision surgery within 2 years (OR 1.93, P < .001). Moreover, the 7-52-week cohort had significantly higher odds of revision indicated for dislocation (OR 2.24, P < .001), mechanical loosening (OR 1.71, P < .001), PJI (OR 1.74, P < .001), and PPF (OR 1.96, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Using SSLR, we were successful in identifying 2 data-driven timing strata between PHF and RTSA that maximized the likelihood of 2-year revision surgery. As it can be difficult to determine whether RTSA or nonoperative management is initially more appropriate, considering the results of this study, an early trial of 4-6 weeks of nonoperative management may be appropriate without altering the risks associated with RTSA.

Shoulder arthroplasty in patients with glenohumeral osteoarthritis, glenoid bone loss and an intact rotator cuff: an algorithmic approach and review of the literature.

In patients with severe glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA) and preserved rotator cuff function who have failed nonoperative treatment, anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) has historically been the preferred surgical treatment. Shoulder arthroplasty in the setting of glenoid bone loss setting is technically demanding. Many techniques have been described to deal with glenoid bone loss including eccentric reaming, bone grafting, augmented glenoid baseplates, and patient-specific implants. Still, the decision to perform anatomic TSA or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is often unclear, especially as the use of RTSA increases and evolves, making historical studies less useful when considering modern implant designs. RTSA has been advocated as a solution for patients with severe glenoid bone loss with intact rotator cuff function. Moreover, in appropriately selected patients, good outcomes can be achieved without the use of bone grafting or augmented baseplates. In cases of severe glenoid bone loss, RTSA can be performed with reaming the glenoid flat such that the baseplate rests on native glenoid bone. We have previously reported excellent prosthetic survival with this technique at 5-year follow-up. The purpose of this article is to highlight our suggested treatment algorithm for glenohumeral OA with glenoid bone loss and intact rotator cuff. Specifically, we focus on situations where RTSA may be preferred as opposed to anatomic TSA, and our suggested approach to managing bone loss intraoperatively in this complex patient population.

Narrative review of influence of prosthesis lateralization on clinical outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty: glenoid vs. humerus vs. combined.

Background and Objective: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty has become a common orthopaedic procedure, with a growing number of cases annually for multiple indications, such as rotator cuff arthropathy, osteoarthritis, or fractures of the proximal humerus, to reduce pain and restore shoulder mobility. Prosthesis design and various recent improvements aim to enhance range of motion (ROM) and stability and to limit component loosening and other potential complications. Many of these well-known issues could theoretically be improved by glenoid, humeral, or combined component lateralization. The objective of this article is to provide an up-to-date literature overview, present available options, and discuss the rationale behind lateralization of certain components, as well as their combined impact on outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Methods: PubMed and Scopus databases from 2003 to 2023 were searched and screened for studies, including systematic reviews, on the influence of glenoid, humeral, and combined component lateralization that served for narrative review of rationale behind such design. Key Content and Findings: Currently, a number of computer simulations, anatomic studies, and limited clinical references aim to support the rationale behind glenoid augmentation, variable humeral neck-shaft angle (NSA), or humeral tray design. Conclusions: The utility of lateralization has not yet been clinically established. Randomized, long-term clinical outcome studies are still needed to reach a verdict going beyond surgeon preference and case-specific indications.