Gender differences among shoulder arthroplasty surgeons: past, present, and future.

BACKGROUND: Reducing differences in the gender representation of shoulder arthroplasty surgeons may help optimize patient care. This work aimed to determine (1) the current gender distribution of surgeons performing shoulder arthroplasty, (2) how gender relates to practice patterns among shoulder arthroplasty surgeons, and (3) how gender distribution has been changing over time. METHODS: The Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data for the years 2012-2020 were used to identify orthopedic surgeons performing anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (Current Procedural Terminology code 23472). The data set provides self-reported gender, credentials, National Provider Identifier, annual volume of all procedures (based on Current Procedural Terminology codes) that were performed ≥11 times in the calendar year, and location for all included providers. The data set was linked to the Medicare Physician Compare data set using National Provider Identifiers to determine hospital affiliations, year of medical school graduation, and graduating medical school. All included hospitals were queried to determine academic status (affiliated orthopedic residency or fellowship program). The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) directory was reviewed to determine the gender breakdown of current members. RESULTS: The number of surgeons performing ≥11 shoulder arthroplasties annually increased from 821 (13 women [1.6%]) in 2012 to 1840 (53 women [2.9%], P = .05) in 2019. One female surgeon ranked in the top 100 surgeons by shoulder arthroplasty volume in 2012 and in 2020. Female surgeons graduated more recently from medical school (mean, 2005) compared with male surgeons (mean, 1997; P < .001). About 10% of female surgeons (10.8%, 12 of 111) and male surgeons (9.1%, 229 of 2528) practiced at hospitals with orthopedic residents (P = .50). Female surgeons performing shoulder arthroplasty were less likely than male surgeons to perform total knee arthroplasty (29.4% vs. 54.1%, P < .001) and total hip arthroplasty (12.6% vs. 34.7%, P < .001). There were 86 female members of ASES (6.7%, 86 of 1275), with a significant difference in the proportion of women in differing membership categories (P = .017). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: A diverse cohort of high-volume shoulder replacement surgeons is integral to delivering high-quality shoulder arthroplasty. Currently, the proportion of women performing high-volume shoulder replacement in the United States is small, with little improvement in recent years. However, women performing shoulder arthroplasty are younger and are often involved in academic practices, and the membership of ASES is increasingly female. Continued efforts to promote orthopedics-and to mentor female residents and medical students interested in shoulder surgery-may bring real change to the gender differences among shoulder replacement surgeons over the coming years.

Revision of failed reverse total shoulder arthroplasty with reverse: short-term clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of failed reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) is increasing. This can often present a challenging clinical situation with substantial bone loss and limited reconstruction options. This study reports a single tertiary referral center's experience with revision of failed rTSA managed with revision rTSA of bone-interfacing components. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, all revision shoulder arthroplasty cases performed at a single institution between 2012 and 2020 were reviewed. Cases in which rTSA was revised to a new rTSA construct with revision of at least 1 bone-interfacing implant (humeral stem and/or baseplate) with a minimum 2-year follow-up were identified. Characteristics of revision cases-including indications, bony stock, revised components, and use of bone graft-were collected. All patients were contacted for patient-reported outcome measures at a minimum of 2 years after surgery. In addition, the incidence and indication for any reoperation after revision were determined. RESULTS: Thirty-three patients with an average age of 66 years (range: 46-82 years), with 19 (58%) being female, met the inclusion criteria and had a mean follow-up of 4.2 years (range: 2-8 years). The most common indication for revision rTSA included humeral component loosening (33%; 11/33), baseplate loosening (27%; 9/33), and instability (21%; 7/33). Prerevision infectious workup demonstrated no cases of periprosthetic shoulder infection. Thirteen cases had massive bone loss-5 treated with humeral allograft prosthetic composite, 5 with glenoid bone grafting, and 3 with custom glenoid implant. In total, 10 of 33 cases (30%) required reoperation at a mean of 13 months (range: 1-44 months) for instability (4), humeral loosening (2), infection (1), baseplate loosening (1), or periprosthetic fracture (1). The reoperation rate for patients with revised baseplates only, humerus only, or combined was 23% (3/13), 28% (5/18), and 27% (3/11), respectively. Overall, the visual analog scale pain score improved from 6.5 preoperatively to 2.0 (P < .001), and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score improved from 30.7 to 67.5 (P < .001). However, the postoperative Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score averaged only 51.2% (range: 2-100%). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that failed rTSA can be salvaged with a revision rTSA. However, patient expectations for functional improvements should be tempered, and a high reoperation rate should be expected.

Three-dimensional analysis of biplanar glenoid deformities: what are they and can they be virtually reconstructed with anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty implants?

BACKGROUND: Descriptions of glenoid deformities in glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA) have focused on the axial plane. Less is known regarding arthritic glenoids with higher amounts of superior inclination and little evidence exists to guide management of inclination or combined version-inclination deformity when performing anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). We hypothesized that biplanar deformities (BD) would be present in a higher proportion of GHOA patients than previously appreciated, and these deformities would be difficult to adequately reconstruct with contemporary aTSA implants. METHODS: A retrospective query was performed of GHOA patients indicated for TSA 2012-2017 with a computed tomography (CT) scan within three months of surgery. Images were uploaded to three-dimensional (3D) software for automated measurements. Glenoids with superior inclination ≥10°, and retroversion ≥20° were considered to have BD. Walch classification was determined, and C-type glenoids were excluded. Rotator-cuff muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) was measured and fatty infiltration was graded. Glenoids with BD were virtually planned for aTSA with correction to neutral inclination and version, then with 5° superior inclination and 10° retroversion. RESULTS: Two-hundred and sixty-eight shoulders in 250 patients were included; average age was 65 years, 67% male. There were no differences in inclination between Walch types (P = .25). Twenty-nine shoulders with BD were identified (11%). These deformities were not associated with age (P = .47) or gender (P = .50) but were skewed towards Walch B-type, specifically B2 (P = .03). Acromial index and posterior humeral head subluxation were higher in BD patients (P = .04, P < .001, respectively). Biplanar deformities had similar cuff CSA compared to those without but were less frequently associated with fatty infiltration of the subscapularis (P = .05). When correcting to neutral version and inclination, 41% BD could not be reconstructed. Of those that could, 94% required augmented implants. When correcting to 5° superior inclination and 10° retroversion, 10% could not be reconstructed. Of those that could, 58% required augmented implants. With partial correction, augment use was predicted by retroversion >26° (P = .009). Inclination did not predict augment use (P = .90). Final implant position commonly involved unseating in the posterosuperior quadrant and cancellous exposure in the anteroinferior quadrant. CONCLUSIONS: This retrospective computed tomography (CT)-based study of 268 shoulders with GHOA found an 11% prevalence of BD. These deformities were commonly associated with Walch B2 wear patterns. Virtual aTSA planning showed a high failure rate (41%) when correcting to neutral version and inclination. Posteriorly augmented implants were frequently required, and often still involved unseating in the posterosuperior quadrant, increased cancellous exposure in the anteroinferior quadrant, and vault perforation.

Anatomic shoulder arthroplasty in Walch type C glenoid deformity: mid- to long-term outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Hypoplastic glenoid morphology in the setting of glenohumeral osteoarthritis is a rare yet complex surgical problem. Treatment of this patient population with anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) remains controversial. Furthermore, there is no gold-standard approach, with limited guidance for surgeons on the need for glenoid version correction in the setting of a dysplastic glenoid. The purpose of this study was to evaluate mid- to long-term outcomes and reoperation rates of aTSA for the treatment of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis with Walch type C glenoid deformity. METHODS: This observational, retrospective cohort study identified patients with a Walch type C glenoid who underwent aTSA at 2 institutions between 2007 and 2016. Patients were contacted to complete updated patient-reported outcome measures at a minimum of 5.5 years postoperatively. The outcome measures collected included the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score. Secondary outcomes included any additional surgical procedures on the operative shoulder, patient satisfaction, and willingness to undergo aTSA again. RESULTS: In total, 30 patients met the inclusion criteria, of whom 26 (86.7%) were able to be contacted to undergo final outcome evaluations. The mean age at the time of surgery was 61.3 years (range, 40.9-75.5 years), and 20 patients (76.9%) were men. The mean follow-up period was 8.5 years (range, 5.5-11.3 years) after surgery. Treatment was performed with an augmented component in 9 patients and with a standard component in 17. Of the 17 patients with non-augmented components, 9 underwent partial correction with asymmetrical reaming, 3 received a mini-inset glenoid component, and 2 had an anteriorly offset humeral component. At final follow-up, patients had a mean ASES score of 83.6 ± 16.7, ASES pain score of 24.7 ± 20.8, SANE score of 80.4 ± 20.9, and patient satisfaction rate of 84.1%. No statistically significant differences in any outcome measure were observed between patients with augmented glenoid components and those with non-augmented glenoid components. One revision to reverse shoulder arthroplasty was performed for instability at 7 years postoperatively after a traumatic dislocation. All patients reported that they would be willing to undergo the same surgical procedure again. DISCUSSION: Despite variance in glenoid reconstructive approach, aTSA provides satisfactory and sustained improvements in patient-reported outcomes in patients with glenoid dysplasia and primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis with a low revision rate at a mean of 8.5 years. Anatomic shoulder arthroplasty should remain a surgical option in patients with Walch type C glenoid deformity.

Is D-dimer a Reliable Serum Marker for Shoulder Periprosthetic Joint Infection?

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of periprosthetic shoulder infection continues to be difficult to make with confidence. Serum D-dimer has proven to be effective as a screening tool for periprosthetic joint infection in other major joints; however, it has yet to be evaluated for use in periprosthetic shoulder infection. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is D-dimer elevated in patients with probable or definite periprosthetic shoulder infections? (2) What is the diagnostic accuracy of D-dimer for periprosthetic shoulder infections? (3) What are the diagnostic accuracies of serum tests (erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR], C-reactive protein [CRP], and D-dimer), singly and in combination? METHODS: Between March 2016 and March 2020, 94 patients undergoing revision total shoulder arthroplasty (anatomic or reverse) at a single institution had preoperative serum testing with CRP, ESR, and D-dimer. These 94 patients were a subset of 189 revision shoulder arthroplasties performed at this institution during the study period who met inclusion criteria and consented to participate. Included patients had a mean ± SD age of 69 ± 8 years, and 56% (53 of 94) were men. Patient records were reviewed to classify patients as definitely having infection, probably having infection, possibly having infection, or unlikely to have an infection, according to the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) definition of periprosthetic shoulder infection. Statistical analyses, including a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, were performed to quantify the diagnostic value of D-dimer for periprosthetic shoulder infection. Based on the ICM definition, 4% (4 of 94), 15% (14 of 94), 14% (13 of 94), and 67% (63 of 94) of patients had definite, probable, possible, or unlikely periprosthetic shoulder infections. RESULTS: D-dimer was elevated in patients with definite or probable infections (median [range] 661 ng/mL [150 to 8205]) compared with those with possible infections or those who were unlikely to have an infection (263 ng/mL [150 to 3060]; median difference 143 ng/mL [95% CI 40 to 503]; p = 0.01). In the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, D-dimer had an area under the curve of 0.71 (0.50-0.92), demonstrating weak diagnostic value. A D-dimer level of 598 ng/mL provided a sensitivity and specificity of 61% (95% CI 36% to 82%) and 74% (95% CI 62% to 83%), respectively, for diagnosing a definite or probable infection according to the ICM definitions. The specificity of detecting periprosthetic joint infection (88% [95% CI 79% to 94%]) was high when three positive serum markers (ESR, CRP, and D-dimer) were required, at the expense of sensitivity (28% [95% CI 10% to 53%]). CONCLUSION: In periprosthetic shoulder infection, D-dimer is elevated. However, similar to other serum tests, it has limited diagnostic utility in identifying patients with periprosthetic shoulder infection. Further work is needed to understand the process by which D-dimer is associated with active infection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.

What is the clinical impact of positive cultures at the time of primary total shoulder arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Cultures taken at the time of primary shoulder arthroplasty are commonly positive for Cutibacterium acnes. Despite our limited understanding of the clinical implication of deep tissue inoculation from dermal colonization, significant efforts have been made to decolonize the shoulder prior to surgery. The purpose of this study is to determine differences in clinical outcomes based on culture positivity at the time of primary shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: A series of 134 patients who underwent primary anatomic or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty and had intraoperative cultures obtained via a standard protocol were included. In each case, 5 tissue samples were collected and processed in a single laboratory for culture on aerobic and anaerobic media for 13 days. Minimum 2-year functional outcomes scores (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form [ASES] and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation [SANE]) and reoperation data were analyzed. RESULTS: Forty-two (31.3%) patients had positive cultures (30 C acnes and 21 with at least 2 positive cultures) at the time of surgery. There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative functional outcome scores (ASES: 82.5 vs. 81.9; P = .89, SANE: 79.5 vs. 82.1; P = .54) between culture-positive and culture-negative cohorts. There were no cases of infection. Two patients (4.8%; 2/42) with positive cultures required reoperation compared with 4 patients (5.6%; 4/71) without positive cultures. CONCLUSION: The apparent colonization by nonvirulent organisms in patients undergoing primary shoulder arthroplasty does not appear to have a clinically significant effect on functional outcomes or need for repeat surgery in the short term.

Symptomatic aseptic loosening of a short humeral stem following anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: The rate of aseptic humeral component loosening with standard-length stems is historically so low (0.3%) that presence of humeral loosening was given substantial weight in defining periprosthetic shoulder infection by the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) in 2018. This study aims to confirm that the historically low rate of humeral stem aseptic loosening is not affected by the adoption of a novel short humeral stem. METHODS: Following institutional review board approval, this retrospective multi-institutional study was undertaken. A review of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) cases at 3 institutions provided 184 shoulders that received TSA with a grit-blasted, rectangular short humeral stem without ingrowth coating (Univers Apex; Arthrex). The average patient age was 62.1 years (range: 30-84), and 57.1% (105/184) were male. One-year radiographic follow-up was achieved in 64.7%. Patient clinical charts were reviewed for onset of newly painful shoulders, radiographic evidence of loosening, and return to the operating room for any reason. All patients with concern for clinically significant humeral loosening underwent workup for periprosthetic shoulder infection. Immediate postoperative films were reviewed to identify any differences in prosthetic canal fit. The definition of periprosthetic shoulder infection used was provided by the recent ICM shoulder guidelines. RESULTS: Twenty-three (12.5%) patients presented with a painful shoulder and radiographic concern for potential humeral loosening at a mean follow-up of 1.5 years (range: 1.5 months-3.4 years). Thirteen (7.1%) of these underwent revision shoulder arthroplasty where a loose stem was confirmed. All revisions underwent tissue culture, and 3 cases were consistent with probable or possible periprosthetic infection at the time of revision arthroplasty. The rate of symptomatic aseptic humeral loosening in this series was 10.9% (20/184), with 5.4% undergoing revision surgery. Patients with symptomatic aseptic humeral loosening were more likely to be male (90.5%) than those patients without symptoms (52.8%, P < .001). There were no differences in canal fit between patients with concern for symptomatic loosening and those with pain-free, stable implants. CONCLUSION: In this multisurgeon, multicenter study, the early humeral loosening rate for this stem design far outpaces previously reported rates, and this study likely under-reports the true incidence of clinically significant loosening as it only contains limited short-term follow-up. The perception that humeral loosening is nearly pathognomonic for periprosthetic shoulder infection should be reconsidered for certain short humeral stem designs.

Development and validation of a predictive model for outcomes in shoulder arthroplasty: a multicenter analysis of nearly 2000 patients.

BACKGROUND: Guiding expectations following shoulder arthroplasty is important in improving patient satisfaction. The purpose of this study was to develop a predictive model to calculate 2-year American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores in shoulder arthroplasty patients from a comprehensive set of preoperative patient factors and types of arthroplasty performed. METHODS: This retrospective multicenter study included 1947 shoulder arthroplasties performed from 2010 to 2015 at 3 high-volume centers. Twenty-six variables were evaluated for an association with 2-year ASES scores, and variables with P < .20 in our pair-wise analysis were used to develop a predictive model. The prediction root-mean-square error was calculated. External validation was performed using data from 233 patients who underwent shoulder arthroplasty performed by a separate shoulder surgeon at a center not involved with creation of the predictive model. RESULTS: A total of 1947 patients were analyzed, and their data were used to construct the predictive model. Variables most associated with 2-year ASES scores were patient age, preoperative ASES score, disability, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, alcohol use, anatomic vs. reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, and primary vs. revision shoulder arthroplasty. By use of cross validation, the prediction error was 20.1, the proportion of variance explained was 25.3%, the mean absolute error was 15.9, and the C statistic for the linear regression model was 0.66. After external validation, the mean difference between predicted and actual 2-year ASES scores was 12.7 points, within the accepted minimal clinically important difference after shoulder arthroplasty. DISCUSSION: Data from nearly 2000 shoulder arthroplasties allowed the development and validation of a model to predict 2-year ASES scores following shoulder arthroplasty. The model was accurate within the minimal clinically important difference in 85% of patients.

What is the Geographic Distribution of Women Orthopaedic Surgeons Throughout the United States?

BACKGROUND: Orthopaedic surgery has a shortage of women surgeons. An even geographic distribution of women orthopaedic surgeons may provide more uniform care to patients. However, little is known about the geographical distribution of women orthopaedic surgeons. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is there substantial geographic variation in the distribution of orthopaedic surgeons who are women? (2) How does the geographic distribution of women orthopaedic surgeons compare with that of other physicians? (3) What are the variables associated with increased region-based proportions of orthopaedic surgeons who are women? METHODS: To obtain a national snapshot of orthopaedic providers, two Medicare databases were used (Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data and Medicare's current and archived Physician Compare Data). These databases were used to identify physicians with self-reported specialties of "Orthopedic Surgeon," "Hand Surgeon," or "Sports Medicine" with at least 11 Medicare claims in 1 year for a single procedure type between 2012 and 2014. These databases are the only databases known to specifically report surgeon gender on a national scale and include physician demographics and education. The Dartmouth Atlas's hospital referral regions and United States Census Bureau divisions were used to group physicians by geographic region. The Gini coefficient, a measure of statistical dispersion, was used to quantify the regional distribution of orthopaedic surgeons. This was compared with the dispersion of non-orthopaedic physicians within the same Medicare databases. Surgeon and regional characteristics were correlated with the proportion of women orthopaedic surgeons in the region. RESULTS: There is substantial geographic variation in the distribution of orthopaedic surgeons who are women, ranging from 0% to 15%. There was a greater prevalence of women orthopaedic surgeons in New England (7.3%, 107 of 1469 surgeons) and the Pacific region (6.5%, 208 of 3196 surgeons) than in the South Atlantic (4.5%, 210 of 4618 surgeons) and East South Central regions (3.5%, 50 of 1442 surgeons). This represents a greater level of variation (Gini coefficient = 0.37) compared with other specialties (0.30 and 0.37) and compared with men orthopaedic surgeons (0.16). Variables independently associated with an increased prevalence of women orthopaedic surgeons based on hospital referral region were an increased proportion of currently practicing women physicians who graduated from medical schools in that region (beta = 0.03; p = 0.01), increased proportion of Medicaid-eligible patients (beta = 0.12; p = 0.002), increased proportion of regional population is black (beta = -0.06; p = 0.03), and increased regional supply of women physicians (beta = 0.26; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the recent increase in women orthopaedic surgeons nationally, gains have not been equally distributed throughout the United States. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In other medical fields, gender diversity has been proven to be beneficial for patients. If this holds true in the field of orthopaedic surgery, we should be mindful of the geographic distribution of women orthopaedic surgeons as the percentage of these surgeons increases.

Clinically significant subscapularis failure after anatomic shoulder arthroplasty: is it worth repairing?

BACKGROUND: Symptomatic subscapularis (SC) failure after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is difficult to treat. The purpose of this study was to determine the outcomes of reoperation for SC failure. METHODS: All patients undergoing reoperation for SC failure after TSA were identified from a single-institution database. Patients underwent either revision SC repair or revision to reverse shoulder arthroplasty. At a minimum of 1 year after reoperation, complications, reoperations, and functional outcomes were collected. RESULTS: Patients who initially underwent SC repair were significantly younger than patients who underwent revision to reverse shoulder arthroplasty (mean age, 59.3 years vs. 70.3 years; P = .004), had a better comorbidity profile (mean Charlson Comorbidity Index, 2.2 vs. 3.6; P = .04), and had a more acute presentation (mean time between injury and surgery, 9.1 weeks vs. 28.5 weeks; P = .03). Patients who underwent SC repair also had a significantly higher reoperation rate (52.9% vs. 0.0%, P = .01). At final follow-up, functional outcomes scores and patient satisfaction rates were not significantly different between treatment groups. DISCUSSION: Decision making on how to treat patients with SC failure following TSA remains challenging and should be individualized to the patient's age, level of activity, comorbidities, timing and mechanism of SC failure, and functional expectations.

Acromial stress fracture following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: incidence and predictors.

BACKGROUND: Increased use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has led to an understanding of unique complications such as acromial stress fractures (ASFs). The factors associated with ASFs are not fully known. This study investigates the incidence and predictors of ASFs following RTSA. METHODS: All RTSAs performed at a single tertiary referral hospital were retrospectively reviewed. ASF findings were classified as a definitive acromial or scapular spine stress fracture based on radiographic findings or stress reaction based on clinical findings (pain and tenderness at the acromion or acromial spine) without radiographic changes. Preoperative and postoperative radiographs were reviewed for radiographic predictors of postoperative acromial stress pathology. Clinical factors and implant characteristics were also investigated. RESULTS: Between September 2010 and January 2017, a total of 1170 RTSAs were performed, with 958 cases (81.9%) having at least 3 months' clinical follow-up (mean, 407 days; range, 90-1698 days). There were 40 ASFs (4.2%) and 61 acromial stress reactions (6.4%). For fractures and reactions, symptom onset averaged 8.8 and 7.3 months (P = .37), respectively, with durations of 4.5 and 2.9 months (P = .02), respectively, following RTSA. Independent predictors of acromial stress pathology were female sex, decreased change in deltoid length, and increased preoperative glenohumeral center-of-rotation medialization. CONCLUSION: Acromion-related symptoms are common following RTSA. Female patients with increased preoperative center-of-rotation medialization had an increased incidence of ASFs. Although this study establishes which patients are at risk of ASFs, methods for prevention of ASFs in these patients remain unclear.

How are Electronic Health Records Associated with Provider Productivity and Billing in Orthopaedic Surgery?

BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) have become ubiquitous in orthopaedics. Although they offer certain benefits, they have been cited as a factor that can contribute to provider burnout. Little is known about the degree to which EHR adoption is associated with provider and practice characteristics or outpatient and surgical volume. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) What was the rate of EHR adoption in orthopaedics and how are physician and practice characteristics associated with adoption? (2) How is EHR adoption related to outpatient productivity? (3) How is EHR adoption associated with surgical volume? METHODS: We conducted this retrospective analysis by linking three publicly available Medicare databases, which we chose for their reliability in reporting because they are provided by a government-funded entity. We included providers in the 2016 Physician Compare dataset who reported a primary specialty of orthopaedic surgery. The EHR adoption status for these providers between 2011 and 2016 was determined using the Meaningful Use Eligible Professional public use files, which we chose to standardize both adoption and usage of EHRs. Provider characteristics, from the Physician Compare dataset, were compared between non-adopters, early adopters (who adopted EHR in 2011 and 2012), and late adopters (2016) using a multivariate logistic analysis, due to the binary nature of the dependent variable (adoption). To measure productivity and billing, we used the 2012 and 2016 Medicare Utilization and Payment datasets. To measure productivity before and after EHR adoption, we compared the number of services for select Current Procedural Terminology codes between 2012 and 2016 for providers who first adopted EHR in 2013, and performed the same comparison for non-adopters for the same years. Paired t-tests were used where volume in 2012 and 2016 were being compared, and multivariate analysis was performed. RESULTS: By 2016, 10,904 of 21,484 orthopaedic providers (51%) had adopted EHRs, with an increase from 8% to 46% during the incentive phase (2011 to 2014) and an increase from 44% to 51% during the penalty phase (2015 to 2016). After analyzing factors associated with adoption, it was most notable that for every additional year since graduation, the odds of adopting EHR later increased by 4.14 (95% confidence interval 4.00 to 4.33; p < 0.001). After adoption, providers who adopted EHRs increased the mean number of Medicare outpatient visits per year from 439 to 470 (mean difference, increase of 31 procedures [95% CI 24 to 39]; p < 0.001), and providers who did not use EHRs decreased from 378 to 368 visits per year (median difference, decrease of 10 procedures [95% CI 8.0 to 12.0]; p < 0.001). EHR was not associated with billing for Level 4-5 visits, after adjusting for practice size and pre-adoption volumes (p = 0.32; R = 0.51). EHR adoption was not associated with surgical volume for 10 of 11 common orthopaedic procedures. However, two additional TKA procedures annually could be attributed to EHR adoption, when compared with non-adopters (p = 0.03; R = 0.65). After adoption, orthopaedic surgeons increased their annual TKA volume from 42 to 48 (mean difference, increase of 6 [95% CI 4.0 to 7.0]; p < 0.001), while non-adopting orthopaedic surgeons increased their annual surgical volume for TKA from 28 to 30 (median difference, increase of 2 [95% CI 2.0 to 4.0]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In orthopaedics, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act resulted in approximately half of self-reported orthopaedic surgeons adopting EHR from 2011 to 2016. Considering the high cost of most EHRs and the substantial investment in adoption incentives, this adoption rate may not be sufficient to fully realize the objectives of the HITECH Act. Diffusion of technology is a vast field of study within social theory. Prominent sociologist Everett M. Rogers details its complexity in Diffusion of Innovations. Diffusion of technology is impacted by factors such as the possibility to sample the innovation without commitment, opinion leadership, and observability of results in a peer network, to name a few. Incorporating these principles, where appropriate, into a more focused action plan may facilitate technological diffusion for future innovations. Lastly, EHR adoption was not associated with higher-level billing or surgical volume. This might suggest that EHRs have not had a meaningful clinical benefit, but this needs to be further investigated by relating these trends to patient outcomes or other quality measures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Should the Use of Biologic Agents in Patients With Renal and Lung Cancer Affect Our Surgical Management of Femoral Metastases?

BACKGROUND: Biologic agents may prolong survival of patients with certain kidney and lung adenocarcinomas that have metastasized to bone, and patient response to these agents should be considered when choosing between an endoprosthesis and internal fixation for surgical treatment of femoral metastases. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: Among patients undergoing surgery for femoral metastases of lung or renal cell carcinoma, (1) Does survival differ between patients who receive only cytotoxic chemotherapy and those who either respond or do not respond to biologic therapy? (2) Does postsurgical incidence of local disease progression differ between groups stratified by systemic treatment and response? (3) Does implant survival differ among groups stratified by systemic treatment and response? METHODS: From our institutional longitudinally maintained orthopaedic database, patients were identified by a query initially identifying all patients who carried a diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma or lung carcinoma. Patients who underwent internal fixation or prosthetic reconstruction between 2000 and 2016 for pathologic fracture of the femur and who survived ≥ 1 year after surgery were studied. Patients who received either traditional cytotoxic chemotherapy or a biologic agent were included. Patients were classified as responders or nonresponders to biologic agents based on whether they had clinical and imaging evidence of a response recorded on two consecutive office visits over ≥ 6 months. Endpoints were overall survival from the time of diagnosis, survival after the femoral operation, evidence of disease progression in the femoral operative site, and symptomatic local disease progression for which revision surgery was necessary. Our analysis included 148 patients with renal (n = 26) and lung (n = 122) adenocarcinoma. Fifty-one patients received traditional chemotherapy only. Of 97 patients who received a biologic agent, 41 achieved a response (stabilization/regression of visceral metastases), whereas 56 developed disease progression. We analyzed overall patient survival with the Kaplan-Meier method and used the log-rank test to identify significant differences (p < 0.05) between groups. RESULTS: One-year survival after surgery among patients responsive to biologic therapy was 61% compared with 20% among patients nonresponsive to biologics (p < 0.001) and 10% among those who received chemotherapy only (p < 0.009). With the number of patients we had to study, we could not detect any difference in local progression of femoral disease associated with systemic treatment and response. Radiologic evidence of periimplant local disease progression developed in three (7%) of 41 patients who responded to biologic treatment, two (3%) of 56 patients nonresponsive to biologics, and one (2%) of 51 patients treated with traditional chemotherapy. With the numbers of patients we had, we could not detect a difference in patients who underwent revision. All three patients responsive to biologics who developed local recurrence underwent revision, whereas the two without a response to biologics did not. CONCLUSIONS: Biologic therapy improves the overall longevity of some patients with lung and renal metastases to the femur in whom a visceral disease response occurred. In our limited cohort, we could not demonstrate an implant survival difference between such patients and those with shorter survival who may have had more aggressive disease. However, an increased life expectancy beyond 1 year among patients responsive to biologics may increase risk of mechanical failure of fixation constructs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Proceedings from the 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Orthopedic Infections: prevention of periprosthetic shoulder infection.

The Second International Consensus Meeting on Orthopedic Infections was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in July 2018. Over 800 international experts from all 9 subspecialties of orthopedic surgery and allied fields of infectious disease, microbiology, and epidemiology were assembled to form a consensus workgroup. The following proceedings on the prevention of periprosthetic shoulder infection come from 16 questions evaluated by delegates from the shoulder section.

Proceedings from the 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Orthopedic Infections: evaluation of periprosthetic shoulder infection.

The Second International Consensus Meeting on Orthopedic Infections was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in July 2018. More than 800 experts from all 9 subspecialties of orthopedic surgery and allied fields of infectious disease, microbiology, and epidemiology were assembled to form the International Consensus Group. The shoulder workgroup reached consensus on 27 questions related to culture techniques, inflammatory markers, and diagnostic criteria used to evaluate patients for periprosthetic shoulder infection. This document contains the group's recommendations and rationale for each question related to evaluating periprosthetic shoulder infection.

Proceedings from the 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Orthopedic Infections: management of periprosthetic shoulder infection.

The Second International Consensus Meeting on Orthopedic Infections was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in July 2018. A multidisciplinary team of international experts from all 9 subspecialties of orthopedic surgery and allied fields of infectious disease, microbiology, and epidemiology was assembled to form the International Consensus Group. The following consensus proceedings from the International Consensus Meeting involve 30 questions pertaining to the management of periprosthetic shoulder infection.

Proceedings from the 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Orthopedic Infections: the definition of periprosthetic shoulder infection.

Research studies with evidence impacting clinical practice have used disparate definitions of shoulder periprosthetic joint infection, likely leading to variable and inconsistent conclusions about its diagnosis and management. In an effort to establish uniform guidelines for clinical decision making and research reporting, a clear definition of periprosthetic shoulder infection was established at the 2018 International Consensus Meeting on Orthopedic Infections.

A concise shoulder outcome measure: application of computerized adaptive testing to the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Assessment.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures enable quantitative and patient-centric assessment of orthopedic interventions; however, increased use of these forms has an associated burden for patients and practices. We examined the utility of a computerized adaptive testing (CAT) method to reduce the number of questions on the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) instrument. METHODS: A previously developed ASES CAT system was applied to the responses of 2763 patients who underwent shoulder evaluation and treatment and had answered all questions on the full ASES instrument. Analyses to assess the accuracy of the CAT score in replicating the full-form score included the mean and standard deviation of both groups of scores, frequency distributions of the 2 sets of scores and score differences, Pearson and intraclass correlation coefficients, and Bland-Altman assessment of patterns in score differences. RESULTS: By tailoring questions according to prior responses, CAT reduced the question burden by 40%. The mean difference between CAT and full ASES scores was -0.14, and the scores were within 5 points in 95% of cases (a 12-point difference is considered the threshold for clinical significance) and were clustered around zero. The correlation coefficients were 0.99, and the frequency distributions of the CAT and full ASES scores were nearly identical. The differences between scores were independent of the overall score, and no significant bias for CAT scores was found in either a positive or negative direction. CONCLUSION: The ASES CAT system lessens respondent burden with a negligible effect on score integrity.

Routine Patellar Resurfacing During Total Knee Arthroplasty Is Not Cost-Effective in Patients Without Patellar Arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Currently, the decision to resurface the patella is often made irrespective of the presence of patellar arthritis. The purpose of this study is to utilize the existing literature to assess cost-utility of routinely vs selectively resurfacing the patella. METHODS: Prospective randomized studies of patella resurfacing vs non-resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were identified through literature review. Data from these studies represented probabilities of varied outcomes following TKA dependent upon patella resurfacing. Using previously validated utility scores from the McKnee modified Health Utilities Index, endpoint utility values were provided for each potential outcome. RESULTS: Literature review yielded a total of 14 studies with 3,562 patients receiving 3,823 TKAs, of which 1,873 (49.0%) patellae were resurfaced. Persistent postoperative anterior knee pain occurred in 20.9% vs 13.2% (P < .001) and patella reoperation was performed in 3.7% vs 1.6% (P < .001) of unresurfaced and resurfaced patella, respectively. In studies excluding those with arthritic patellae, the incidence of anterior knee pain was equivalent between groups and reoperation decreased to 1.2% vs 0% (P = .06). Patella resurfacing provided marginally improved quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) for both selective and indiscriminate patella resurfacing. When including all studies, the incremental cost per QALY was $3,032. However, when analyzing only those studies with nonarthritic patellae, the incremental cost per QALY to resurface the patella increased to $183,584. CONCLUSION: Patellar resurfacing remains a controversial issue in TKA. Utilizing data from new prospective randomized studies, this analysis finds that routinely resurfacing arthritis-free patellae in TKA are not cost-effective.

Treatment of periprosthetic joint infection of the elbow: 15-year experience at a single institution.

BACKGROUND: Total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) can be complicated by periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) with potentially catastrophic failure. The purpose of this study was to describe the results of elbow PJI treatment at a tertiary-care referral center. METHODS: An institutional TEA database was queried for infection and reoperation after TEA. Patients who underwent irrigation and débridement (I&D) with component retention were compared with those who underwent component explantation, antibiotic spacer placement, and reimplantation of a revision TEA. RESULTS: A total of 26 patients (10 men; mean age, 64.3 years) were treated for PJI of TEA. There were 3 polymicrobial infections (11.5%) and 13 Staphylococcus aureus infections (50%) (4 methicillin resistant); 6 patients (23.1%) had negative culture results. Ten patients (38.5%) underwent I&D and component retention, with 5 of those patients (5 of 10, 50%) having recurrent infection at an average of 3.1 years (range, 0.25-7.8 years) after I&D. Of 16 patients who underwent antibiotic spacer placement, 12 (75%) underwent 2-stage reimplantation of a TEA. Among those with reimplantation, 4 of 12 (33.3%) required reoperation. In 3 of 12 (25.0%), reoperation was required for infection, whereas 1 of 12 (8.3%) required surgery for mechanical complications. CONCLUSION: Two-stage revision results in a decreased rate of recurrent PJI. Certain patients (those with poor health or well-fixed components) may be more suitable for I&D and component retention, with a demonstrated 50% success rate over a period of 3 years. Longer-term follow-up may result in higher reinfection rates in both groups.