Editorial Commentary: The Difficulties of Assessing Return to Play and Return to Performance After Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction.

Ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) tears have moved from a career-ending injury to one in which success is almost expected from reconstruction. In reality, however, success from a UCL reconstruction is not guaranteed. As we have attempted to assess the true success rate of UCL reconstructions, we have also learned the difficulties of this assessment. Rates of return to sport after UCL reconstruction vary by level of play, the primary or revision status of the repair, along with the specific surgical techniques performed, the chronicity of the tear, the rehabilitation protocols associated with the surgery, and more. Return to sport is difficult to assess, as high school, collegiate, and even professional careers can be variable and there are no standard definitions of "returning to play." These variables also affect our assessments of performance after UCL reconstruction. Decisions for UCL reconstructions and appropriate counseling of patients regarding the likelihood of success currently remain an individual process.

Trends and outcomes of outpatient total shoulder arthroplasty after its removal from CMS's inpatient-only list.

BACKGROUND: In January 2021, the US Medicare program approved reimbursement of outpatient total shoulder arthroplasties (TSA), including anatomic and reverse TSAs. It remains unclear whether shifting TSAs from the inpatient to outpatient setting has affected clinical outcomes. Herein, we describe the rate of outpatient TSA growth and compare inpatient and outpatient TSA complications, readmissions, and mortality. METHODS: Medicare fee-for-service claims for 2019-2022Q1 were analyzed to identify the trends in outpatient TSAs and to compare 90-day postoperative complications, all-cause hospital readmissions, and mortality between outpatients and inpatients. Outpatient cases were defined as those discharged on the same day of the surgery. To reduce the COVID-19 pandemic's impact and selection bias, we excluded 2020Q2-Q4 data and used propensity scores to match 2021-2022Q1 outpatients with inpatients from the same period (the primary analysis) and from 2019-2020Q1 (the secondary analysis), respectively. We performed both propensity score-matched and -weighted multivariate analyses to compare outcomes between the two groups. Covariates included sociodemographics, preoperative diagnosis, comorbid conditions, the Hierarchical Condition Category risk score, prior year hospital/skilled nursing home admissions, annual surgeon volume, and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: Nationally, the proportion of outpatient TSAs increased from 3% (619) in 2019Q1 to 22% (3456) in 2021Q1 and 38% (6778) in 2022Q1. A total of 55,166 cases were identified for the primary analysis (14,540 outpatients and 40,576 inpatients). Overall, glenohumeral osteoarthritis was the most common indication for surgery (70.8%), followed by rotator cuff pathology (14.6%). The unadjusted rates of complications (1.3 vs 2.4%, P < .001), readmissions (3.7 vs 6.1%, P < .001), and mortality (0.2 vs 0.4%, P = .024) were significantly lower among outpatient TSAs than inpatient TSAs. Using 1:1 nearest matching, 12,703 patient pairs were identified. Propensity score-matched multivariate analyses showed similar rates of postoperative complications, hospital readmissions, and mortality between outpatients and inpatients. Propensity score-weighted multivariate analyses resulted in similar conclusions. The secondary analysis showed a lower hospital readmission rate in outpatients (odds ratio: 0.8, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: There has been accelerated growth in outpatient TSAs since 2019. Outpatient and inpatient TSAs have similar rates of postoperative complication, hospital readmission, and mortality.

Racial and Gender Disparities in Utilization of Outpatient Total Shoulder Arthroplasties.

BACKGROUND: Utilization in outpatient total shoulder arthroplasties (TSAs) has increased significantly in recent years. It remains largely unknown whether utilization of outpatient TSA differs across gender and racial groups. This study aimed to quantify racial and gender disparities both nationally and by geographic regions. METHODS: 168,504 TSAs were identified using Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) inpatient and outpatient claims data and beneficiary enrollment data from 2020 to 2022Q4. The percentage of outpatient cases, defined as cases discharged on the same day of surgery, was evaluated by racial and gender groups and by different census divisions. A multivariate logistics regression model controlling for patient socio-demographic information (white vs. non-white race, age, gender, and dual eligibility for both Medicare and Medicaid), hierarchical condition category (HCC) score, hospital characteristics, year fixed effects, and patient residency state fixed effects was performed. RESULTS: The TSA volume per 1000 beneficiaries was 2.3 for the White population compared to 0.8, 0.6 and 0.3 for the Black, Hispanic, and Asian population, respectively. A higher percentage of outpatient TSAs were in White patients (25.6%) compared to Black patients (20.4%) (p < 0.001). The Black TSA patients were also younger, more likely to be female, more likely to be dually eligible for Medicaid, and had higher HCC risk scores. After controlling for patient socio-demographic characteristics and hospital characteristics, the odds of receiving outpatient TSAs were 30% less for Black than the White group (OR 0.70). Variations were observed across different census divisions with South Atlantic (0.67, p < 0.01), East North Central (0.56, p < 0.001), and Middle Atlantic (0.36, p < 0.01) being the four regions observed with significant racial disparities. Statistically significant gender disparities were also found nationally and across regions, with an overall odds ratio of 0.75 (p < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Statistically significant racial and gender disparities were found nationally in outpatient TSAs, with Black patients having 30% (p < 0.001) fewer odds of receiving outpatient TSAs than white patients, and female patients with 25% (p < 0.001) fewer odds than male patients. Racial and gender disparities continue to be an issue for shoulder arthroplasties after the adoption of outpatient TSAs.

A Preoperative Risk Assessment Tool for Predicting Adverse Outcomes among Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Patients.

BACKGROUND: With the increased utilization of Total Shoulder Arthroplasty (TSA) in the outpatient setting, understanding the risk factors associated with complications and hospital readmissions becomes a more significant consideration. Prior developed assessment metrics in the literature either consisted of hard-to-implement tools or relied on postoperative data to guide decision-making. This study aimed to develop a preoperative risk assessment tool to help predict the risk of hospital readmission and other postoperative adverse outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the 2019-2022(Q2) Medicare fee-for-service inpatient and outpatient claims data to identify primary anatomic or reserve TSAs and to predict postoperative adverse outcomes within 90 days post-discharge, including all-cause hospital readmissions, postoperative complications, emergency room visits, and mortality. We screened 108 candidate predictors, including demographics, social determinants of health, TSA indications, prior 12-month hospital and skilled nursing home admissions, comorbidities measured by hierarchical conditional categories, and prior orthopedic device-related complications. We used two approaches to reduce the number of predictors based on 80% of the data: 1) the Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) logistic regression and 2) the machine-learning-based cross-validation approach, with the resulting predictor sets being assessed in the remaining 20% of the data. A scoring system was created based on the final regression models' coefficients, and score cutoff points were determined for low, medium, and high-risk patients. RESULTS: A total of 208,634 TSA cases were included. There was a 6.8% hospital readmission rate with 11.2% of cases having at least one postoperative adverse outcome. Fifteen covariates were identified for predicting hospital readmission with the area under the curve (AUC) of 0.70, and 16 were selected to predict any adverse postoperative outcome (AUC=0.75). The LASSO and machine learning approaches had similar performance. Advanced age and a history of fracture due to orthopedic devices are among the top predictors of hospital readmissions and other adverse outcomes. The score range for hospital readmission and an adverse postoperative outcome was 0 to 48 and 0 to 79, respectively. The cutoff points for the low, medium, and high-risk categories are 0-9, 10-14, ≥15 for hospital readmissions, and 0-11, 12-16, ≥17 for the composite outcome. CONCLUSION: Based on Medicare fee-for-service claims data, this study presents a preoperative risk stratification tool to assess hospital readmission or adverse surgical outcomes following TSA. Further investigation is warranted to validate these tools in a variety of diverse demographic settings and improve their predictive performance.

Higher Surgeon Volume is Associated With a Lower Rate of Subsequent Revision Procedures After Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A National Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies assessing the relationship between surgeon volume and outcomes have shown mixed results, depending on the specific procedure analyzed. This volume relationship has not been well studied in patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), but it should be, because this procedure is common, expensive, and potentially morbid. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We performed this study to assess the association between increasing surgeon volume and decreasing rate of revision at 2 years for (1) anatomic TSA (aTSA) and (2) reverse TSA (rTSA) in the United States. METHODS: In this retrospective study, we used Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) fee-for-service inpatient and outpatient data from 2015 to 2021 to study the association between annual surgeon aTSA and rTSA volume and 2-year revision shoulder procedures after the initial surgery. The CMS database was chosen for this study because it is a national sample and can be used to follow patients over time. We included patients with Diagnosis-related Group code 483 and Current Procedural Terminology code 23472 for TSA (these codes include both aTSA and rTSA). We used International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, procedural codes. Patients who underwent shoulder arthroplasty for fracture (10% [17,524 of 173,242]) were excluded. We studied the variables associated with the subsequent procedure rate through a generalized linear model, controlling for confounders such as patient age, comorbidity risk score, surgeon and hospital volume, surgeon graduation year, hospital size and teaching status, assuming a binomial distribution with the dependent variable being whether an episode had at least one subsequent procedure within 2 years. The regression was fitted with standard errors clustered at the hospital level, combining all TSAs and within the aTSA and rTSA groups, respectively. Hospital and surgeon yearly volumes were calculated by including all TSAs, primary procedure and subsequent, during the study period. Other hospital-level and surgeon-level characteristics were obtained through public files from the CMS. The CMS Hierarchical Condition Category risk score was controlled because it is a measure reflecting the expected future health costs for each patient based on the patient's demographics and chronic illnesses. We then converted regression coefficients to the percentage change in the odds of having a subsequent procedure. RESULTS: After controlling for confounding variables including patient age, comorbidity risk score, surgeon and hospital volume, surgeon graduation year, and hospital size and teaching status, we found that an annual surgeon volume of ≥ 10 aTSAs was associated with a 27% decreased odds of revision within 2 years (95% confidence interval 13% to 39%; p < 0.001), while surgeon volume of ≥ 29 aTSAs was associated with a 33% decreased odds of revision within 2 years (95% CI 18% to 45%; p < 0.001) compared with a volume of fewer than four aTSAs per year. Annual surgeon volume of ≥ 29 rTSAs was associated with a 26% decreased odds of revision within 2 years (95% CI 9% to 39%; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Surgeons should consider modalities such as virtual planning software, templating, or enhanced surgeon training to aid lower-volume surgeons who perform aTSA and rTSA. More research is needed to assess the value of these modalities and their relationship with the rates of subsequent revision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Surgeon idiosyncrasy is a key driver of cost in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair: a time-driven activity-based costing analysis.

BACKGROUND: Delivering high-value orthopedic care requires optimizing value, defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent. Published literature is stippled with inaccurate proxies for cost, including negotiated reimbursement rates, fees paid, or listed prices. Time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) offers a more robust and accurate approach to calculating cost, including shoulder care. In the present study, we sought to determine the drivers of total cost in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (aRCR) using TDABC. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing aRCR at multiple sites associated with a large urban health care system between January 2019 and September 2021 were identified. Total cost was determined using TDABC methodology. The episode of care was defined by 3 phases: preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative care. Patient, procedure, rotator cuff tear morphology, and surgeon characteristics were collected. Bivariate analysis was performed across all characteristics between high-cost (top decile) and all other aRCRs. Multivariable linear regression was used to identify the key cost drivers. RESULTS: In total, 625 aRCRs performed by 24 orthopedic surgeons and 572 aRCRs performed by 13 orthopedic surgeons were included in the bivariate and multivariable linear regression analyses, respectively. By TDABC analysis, total aRCR cost varied 6-fold (5.9×) from least to most costly. Intraoperative costs accounted for 91% of average total cost, followed by preoperative costs and postoperative costs (6% and 3%, respectively). Biologic adjuncts (regression coefficient [RC] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.58, P < .001) and surgeon idiosyncrasy (RC of highest-cost surgeon 0.50, 95% CI 0.26-0.73, P < .001) were the major cost drivers in aRCR. Patient age, comorbidities, number of rotator cuff tendons torn, and revision surgery were not significantly associated with total cost. The amount of tendon retraction (RC 0.0012, 95% CI 0.000020-0.0024, P = .046), average Goutallier grade (RC 0.029, 95% CI 0.0086-0.049, P = .005), and the number of anchors used (RC 0.039, 95% CI 0.032-0.046, P < .001) were also significantly associated with cost, but with far smaller effect sizes. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Episode of care costs vary nearly 6-fold in aRCR and are almost exclusively dictated by the intraoperative phase. Tear morphology and repair technique contribute to cost, although the largest cost drivers of aRCR are the use of biologic adjuncts and surgeon idiosyncrasy, defined as something a surgeon does or does not do that impacts total cost and is not controlled for in the current analysis. Future work should seek to better delineate what these surgeon idiosyncrasies may represent.

What Is the Clinical Benefit of Common Orthopaedic Procedures as Assessed by the PROMIS Versus Other Validated Outcomes Tools?

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), are increasingly used to measure healthcare value. The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is a metric that helps clinicians determine whether a statistically detectable improvement in a PROM after surgical care is likely to be large enough to be important to a patient or to justify an intervention that carries risk and cost. There are two major categories of MCID calculation methods, anchor-based and distribution-based. This variability, coupled with heterogeneous surgical cohorts used for existing MCID values, limits their application to clinical care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In our study, we sought (1) to determine MCID thresholds and attainment percentages for PROMIS after common orthopaedic procedures using distribution-based methods, (2) to use anchor-based MCID values from published studies as a comparison, and (3) to compare MCID attainment percentages using PROMIS scores to other validated outcomes tools such as the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) and Knee Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). METHODS: This was a retrospective study at two academic medical centers and three community hospitals. The inclusion criteria for this study were patients who were age 18 years or older and who underwent elective THA for osteoarthritis, TKA for osteoarthritis, one-level posterior lumbar fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis or spondylolisthesis, anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthritis or rotator cuff arthropathy, arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, arthroscopic partial meniscectomy, or arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. This yielded 14,003 patients. Patients undergoing revision operations or surgery for nondegenerative pathologies and patients without preoperative PROMs assessments were excluded, leaving 9925 patients who completed preoperative PROMIS assessments and 9478 who completed other preoperative validated outcomes tools (HOOS, KOOS, numerical rating scale for leg pain, numerical rating scale for back pain, and QuickDASH). Approximately 66% (6529 of 9925) of patients had postoperative PROMIS scores (Physical Function, Mental Health, Pain Intensity, Pain Interference, and Upper Extremity) and were included for analysis. PROMIS scores are population normalized with a mean score of 50 ± 10, with most scores falling between 30 to 70. Approximately 74% (7007 of 9478) of patients had postoperative historical assessment scores and were included for analysis. The proportion who reached the MCID was calculated for each procedure cohort at 6 months of follow-up using distribution-based MCID methods, which included a fraction of the SD (1/2 or 1/3 SD) and minimum detectable change (MDC) using statistical significance (such as the MDC 90 from p < 0.1). Previously published anchor-based MCID thresholds from similar procedure cohorts and analogous PROMs were used to calculate the proportion reaching MCID. RESULTS: Within a given distribution-based method, MCID thresholds for PROMIS assessments were similar across multiple procedures. The MCID threshold ranged between 3.4 and 4.5 points across all procedures using the 1/2 SD method. Except for meniscectomy (3.5 points), the anchor-based PROMIS MCID thresholds (range 4.5 to 8.1 points) were higher than the SD distribution-based MCID values (2.3 to 4.5 points). The difference in MCID thresholds based on the calculation method led to a similar trend in MCID attainment. Using THA as an example, MCID attainment using PROMIS was achieved by 76% of patients using an anchor-based threshold of 7.9 points. However, 82% of THA patients attained MCID using the MDC 95 method (6.1 points), and 88% reached MCID using the 1/2 SD method (3.9 points). Using the HOOS metric (scaled from 0 to 100), 86% of THA patients reached the anchor-based MCID threshold (17.5 points). However, 91% of THA patients attained the MCID using the MDC 90 method (12.5 points), and 93% reached MCID using the 1/2 SD method (8.4 points). In general, the proportion of patients reaching MCID was lower for PROMIS than for other validated outcomes tools; for example, with the 1/2 SD method, 72% of patients who underwent arthroscopic partial meniscectomy reached the MCID on PROMIS Physical Function compared with 86% on KOOS. CONCLUSION: MCID calculations can provide clinical correlation for PROM scores interpretation. The PROMIS form is increasingly used because of its generalizability across diagnoses. However, we found lower proportions of MCID attainment using PROMIS scores compared with historical PROMs. By using historical proportions of attainment on common orthopaedic procedures and a spectrum of MCID calculation techniques, the PROMIS MCID benchmarks are realizable for common orthopaedic procedures. For clinical practices that routinely collect PROMIS scores in the clinical setting, these results can be used by individual surgeons to evaluate personal practice trends and by healthcare systems to quantify whether clinical care initiatives result in meaningful differences. Furthermore, these MCID thresholds can be used by researchers conducting retrospective outcomes research with PROMIS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Double-Row Repair With Platelet-Rich Plasma Optimizes Retear Rates After Small to Medium Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: To compare the different interventions described in the literature for the surgical treatment of small and medium complete rotator cuff tears. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of small-medium, full-thickness rotator cuff tears published since 2000 was performed. Clinical characteristics, re-tear rates, range of motion (ROM), and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data were collected. Interventions were compared via arm-based Bayesian network meta-analysis in a random-effects model. Interventions were ranked for each domain (re-tear risk, pain, ROM, and PROs) via surface under the cumulative ranking curves. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies comprising 2046 shoulders (47% females, mean age 61 ± 3 years, mean follow-up 21 ± 5 months) were included. Interventions that ranked highest for minimizing re-tear risk included arthroscopic single-row repair (A+SR) or double-row repair (A+DR) with or without platelet-rich plasma (PRP). Open repair and A+SR repair with acromioplasty (ACP) ranked highest for pain relief. Interventions that ranked highest for ROM improvement included open repair, PT, and A+DR with or without ACP. Interventions that ranked highest for PROs included arthroscopic footprint microfracture with or without SR, open repair, and A+SR with or without ACP. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a network meta-analysis of level 1 studies, arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with a SR or DR construct demonstrates similar retear rates, PROs, and clinical outcomes. The highest-ranking treatment for minimizing retears was arthroscopic repair with DR constructs and PRP augmentation, although open repair and arthroscopic SR remain reliable options with excellent clinical outcomes. Addition of PRP to DR constructs trended toward a 56% decreased risk of retear as compared to DR repair alone. Although no single treatment emerged superior, several interventions offered excellent clinical improvements in pain, ROM, and PROs that exceeded minimal clinically important difference thresholds. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I, systematic review and meta-analysis of level I studies.

Biological augmentation of meniscal repair: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Orthopedic literature remains divided on the utility of biologic augmentation to optimize outcomes after isolated meniscal repair. The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the clinical outcomes and re-operation rates of biologically augmented meniscal repairs. METHODS: PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, and EMBASE databases were queried in October 2020 for published literature on isolated meniscal repair with biological augmentation. Studies were assessed for quality and risk of bias by two appraisal tools. Patient demographics, meniscal tear characteristics, surgical procedure, augmentation type, post-operative rehabilitation, patient reported outcome measures, and length of follow-up were recorded, reviewed, and analyzed by two independent reviewers. RESULTS: Of 3794 articles, 18 met inclusion criteria and yielded 537 patients who underwent biologic augmentation of meniscal repair. The biologically augmented repair rates were 5.8-27.0% with PRP augmentation, 0.0-28.5% with fibrin clot augmentation, 0.0-12.9% with marrow stimulation, and 0.0% with stem cell augmentation. One of seven studies showed lower revision rates with augmented meniscal repair compared to standard repair techniques, whereas five of seven found no benefit. Three of ten studies found significant functional improvement of biologically augmented repair versus standard repair techniques and six of ten studies found no difference. There was significant heterogeneity in methods for biologic preparation, delivery, and post-operative rehabilitation protocols. CONCLUSION: Patients reported significant improvements in functional outcomes scores after repair with biological augmentation, though the benefit over standard repair controls is questionable. Revision rates after biologically augmented meniscal repair also appear similar to standard repair techniques. Clinicians should bear this in mind when considering biologic augmentation in the setting of meniscal repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Surgical time and outcomes of stemmed versus stemless total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Stemless total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) was approved for use in the United States in 2015, and there remains a paucity of data on its performance in this market. Decreased operative time without compromise of clinical outcomes is a theoretical advantage of stemless TSA, but no studies have evaluated this in a comparative study to date. Herein, the operative times and clinical outcomes of stemless vs. conventional stemmed TSA are investigated. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study, evaluating all consecutive TSAs performed by a single surgeon between 2015 and 2018. Data were collected from 59 patients who underwent TSA with conventional, stemmed humeral implants and 115 patients in whom a stemless humeral implant was used. Operative times and demographic data were collected retrospectively from the anesthesia record, and prospectively collected patient-reported outcome measures were collected from the Surgical Outcomes System database. For patient-reported outcome measure, visual analog scale, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, and Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation scores were recorded serially until a minimum 2-year follow-up. RESULTS: The average operative time was 24 minutes less in the stemless cohort compared with the stemmed cohort (104 minutes vs. 128 minutes, P < .001). Cost analysis showed a decreased personnel cost of 15.9% that correlates to a 3.1% overall reduction in operating room-associated cost. Patient-reported outcome scores significantly improved postoperatively in both cohorts across all time points. There was no difference found in visual analog scale, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, and Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation scores between the cohorts at the 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Stemless TSA significantly reduces operative time with equivalent functional outcomes at a minimum 2-year follow-up.

Change in humeral anchor position significantly affects isometry in ulnar collateral ligament repair: a 3-dimensional computer modeling study.

BACKGROUND: Medial ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) repair utilization is increasing in recent years, bolstered by shorter rehabilitation and satisfactory clinical outcomes. Although previous literature has illustrated the importance of tunnel position on restoring graft isometry in reconstruction, there remains a paucity of literature guiding anchor placement in UCL repair. The purpose of this study is to design a 3-dimensional (3D) elbow model to understand the effect of anchor location on UCL repair isometry. METHODS: A 3D computer model of an elbow joint was created using computed tomographic and magnetic resonance imaging MRI scans from a single patient. The humeral and ulnar attachments of the UCL were plotted using 3 methodologies: (1) geometric cloud mapping and (2) quantitative measurements from the anatomic studies by Camp et al and (3) Frangiamore et al. A 3.5-mm-diameter clockface was placed on each attachment site, which allowed for simulation of 12 distinct 1.75-mm deviations in anchor position. The 3 models were ranged through 0°-120° at 10° increments, and the 3D distances were measured between the ligament centroids. The humeral and ulnar anchors were sequentially repositioned around the clockfaces, and construct lengths were again measured to evaluate changes in isometry. A paired Student t test was performed to determine if there was a significant difference in isometry between the humeral and ulnar anchor deviations. RESULTS: Using method 1, the UCL repair length at 90° of elbow flexion was 26.8 mm. This construct underwent 13.6 mm of total excursion for a 46.4% change in length throughout its arc of motion. Method 2 produced a 19.3-mm construct that underwent 0.8 mm of excursion for a 3.9% length change throughout the arc. Method 3 produced a 24.5-mm construct that underwent 2.3 mm of excursion for a 9.4% length change. Identifying ligament footprints using the quantitative anatomic measurements from Camp et al and Frangiamore et al improved construct isometry through 120° of flexion (length changes of 3.9% and 9.4%, respectively) when compared to using the geometric cloud technique alone (46.4% length change). Humeral anchor deviations produced a significant increase in repair construct excursion compared with ulnar anchor deviations (P < .001). CONCLUSION: When performing UCL repair, small deviations in humeral anchor position may significantly influence ligament repair isometry. Using quantitative anatomic data may help identify anchor positions with improved repair isometry. Particularly when addressing detachments of the humeral footprint, surgeons should be critical of the humeral anchor position in order to restore native anatomy and optimal biomechanics.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on shoulder arthroplasty: surgical trends and postoperative care pathway analysis.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 triggered disruption in the conventional care pathways for many orthopedic procedures. The current study aims to quantify the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on shoulder arthroplasty hospital surgical volume, trends in surgical case distribution, length of hospitalization, posthospital disposition, and 30-day readmission rates. METHODS: This study queried all Medicare (100% sample) fee-for-service beneficiaries who underwent a shoulder arthroplasty procedure (Diagnosis-Related Group code 483, Current Procedural Terminology code 23472) from January 1, 2019, to December 18, 2020. Fracture cases were separated from nonfracture cases, which were further subdivided into anatomic or reverse arthroplasty. Volume per 1000 Medicare beneficiaries was calculated from April to December 2020 and compared to the same months in 2019. Length of stay (LOS), discharged-home rate, and 30-day readmission for the same period were obtained. The yearly difference adjusted for age, sex, race (white vs. nonwhite), Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hierarchical Condition Category risk score, month fixed effects, and Core-Based Statistical Area fixed effects, with standard errors clustered at the provider level, was calculated using a multivariate analysis (P < .05). RESULTS: A total of 49,412 and 41,554 total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) cases were observed April through December for 2019 and 2020, respectively. There was an overall decrease in shoulder arthroplasty volume per 1000 Medicare beneficiaries by 14% (19% reduction in anatomic TSA, 13% reduction in reverse shoulder arthroplasty, and 3% reduction in fracture cases). LOS for all shoulder arthroplasty cases decreased by 16% (-0.27 days, P < .001) when adjusted for confounders. There was a 5% increase in the discharged-home rate (88.0% to 92.7%, P < .001), which was most prominent in fracture cases, with a 20% increase in discharged-home cases (65.0% to 73.4%, P < .001). There was no significant change in 30-day hospital readmission rates overall (P = .20) or when broken down by individual procedures. CONCLUSIONS: There was an overall decrease in shoulder arthroplasty volume per 1000 Medicare beneficiaries by 14% during the COVID-19 pandemic. A decrease in LOS and increase in the discharged-home rates was also observed with no significant change in 30-day hospital readmission, indicating that a shift toward an outpatient surgical model can be performed safely and efficiently and has the potential to provide value.

Is There An Association Between Bundled Payments and "Cherry Picking" and "Lemon Dropping" in Orthopaedic Surgery? A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The goal of bundled payments-lump monetary sums designed to cover the full set of services needed to provide care for a condition or medical event-is to provide a reimbursement structure that incentivizes improved value for patients. There is concern that such a payment mechanism may lead to patient screening and denying or providing orthopaedic care to patients based on the number and severity of comorbid conditions present associated with complications after surgery. Currently, however, there is no clear consensus about whether such an association exists. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In this systematic review, we asked: (1) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the sociodemographic characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? (2) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the comorbidities and/or case-complexity characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? (3) Is the implementation of a bundled payment model associated with a change in the recent use of healthcare resources characteristics of patients undergoing an orthopaedic procedure? METHODS: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO before data collection (CRD42020189416). Our systematic review included scientific manuscripts published in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Econlit, Policyfile, and Google Scholar through March 2020. Of the 30 studies undergoing full-text review, 20 were excluded because they did not evaluate the outcome of interest (patient selection) (n = 8); were editorial, commentary, or review articles (n = 5); did not evaluate the appropriate intervention (introduction of a bundled payment program) (n = 4); or assessed the wrong patient population (not orthopaedic surgery patients) (n = 3). This led to 10 studies included in this systematic review. For each study, patient factors analyzed in the included studies were grouped into the following three categories: sociodemographics, comorbidities and/or case complexity, or recent use of healthcare resources characteristics. Next, each patient factor falling into one of these three categories was examined to evaluate for changes from before to after implementation of a bundled payment initiative. In most cases, studies utilized a difference-in-difference (DID) statistical technique to assess for changes. Determination of whether the bundled payment initiative required mandatory participation or not was also noted. Scientific quality using the Adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale had a median (range) score of 8 (7 to 8; highest possible score: 9), and the quality of the total body of evidence for each patient characteristic group was found to be low using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool. We could not assess the likelihood of publication using funnel plots because of the variation of patient factors analyzed in each study and the heterogeneity of data precluded a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of the nine included studies that reported on the sociodemographic characteristics of patients selected for care, seven showed no change with the implementation of bundled payments, and two demonstrated a difference. Most notably, the studies identified a decrease in the percentage of patients undergoing an orthopaedic operative intervention who were dual-eligible (range DID estimate -0.4% [95% CI -0.75% to -0.1%]; p < 0.05 to DID estimate -1.0% [95% CI -1.7% to -0.2%]; p = 0.01), which means they qualified for both Medicare and Medicaid insurance coverage. Of the 10 included studies that reported on comorbidities and case-complexity characteristics, six reported no change in such characteristics with the implementation of bundled payments, and four studies noted differences. Most notably, one study showed a decrease in the number of treated patients with disabilities (DID estimate -0.6% [95% CI -0.97% to -0.18%]; p < 0.05) compared with before bundled payment implementation, while another demonstrated a lower number of Elixhauser comorbidities for those treated as part of a bundled payment program (before: score of 0-1 in 63.6%, 2-3 in 27.9%, > 3 in 8.5% versus after: score of 0-1 in 50.1%, 2-3 in 38.7%, > 3 in 11.2%; p = 0.033). Of the three included studies that reported on the recent use of healthcare resources of patients, one study found no difference in the use of healthcare resources with the implementation of bundled payments, and two studies did find differences. Both studies found a decrease in patients undergoing operative management who recently received care at a skilled nursing facility (range DID estimate -0.50% [95% CI -1.0% to 0.0%]; p = 0.04 to DID estimate: -0.53% [95% CI -0.96% to -0.10%]; p = 0.01), while one of the studies also found a decrease in patients undergoing operative management who recently received care at an acute care hospital (DID estimate -0.8% [95% CI -1.6% to -0.1%]; p = 0.03) or as part of home healthcare (DID estimate -1.3% [95% CI -2.0% to -0.6%]; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In six of 10 studies in which differences in patient characteristics were detected among those undergoing operative orthopaedic intervention once a bundled payment program was initiated, the effect was found to be minimal (approximately 1% or less). However, our findings still suggest some level of adverse patient selection, potentially worsening health inequities when considered on a large scale. It is also possible that our findings reflect better care, whereby the financial incentives lead to fewer patients with a high risk of complications undergoing surgical intervention and vice versa for patients with a low risk of complications postoperatively. However, this is a fine line, and it may also be that patients with a high risk of complications postoperatively are not being offered surgery enough, while patients at low risk of complications postoperatively are being offered surgery too frequently. Evaluation of the longer-term effect of these preliminary bundled payment programs on patient selection is warranted to determine whether adverse patient selection changes over time as health systems and orthopaedic surgeons become accustomed to such reimbursement models.

Clinical Outcomes of Revision Biceps Tenodesis for Failed Long Head of Biceps Surgery: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: We summarize the indications, assess the modes of failure, and analyze the clinical and functional outcomes of revision biceps tenodesis after failed primary surgical treatment of long head of biceps (LHB) pathology. METHODS: A computerized search of PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases and manual screening of selected article reference lists was performed in September 2020. Randomized controlled trial, cohort, case-control, and case series studies reporting clinical outcomes of revision biceps tenodesis following failed LHB surgery were eligible. Patient demographics, indications for revision, intraoperative findings, surgical techniques, and patient-reported outcomes were recorded. Functional assessment and pain scores were assessed and summarized as forest plots with means and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Five of 465 identified studies met inclusion criteria, encompassing 70 revision biceps tenodesis procedures with mean follow-up of 2.4-6.4 years. The failed index procedure was biceps tenodesis in 62 patients and tenotomy in 8 patients. The most common indications for revision were pain or cramping and rerupture, cited by 4 and 3 articles, respectively. After failed conservative treatment, open subpectoral revision tenodesis was performed with concomitant arthroscopic debridement in 65 of 70 cases. Common intraoperative findings at time of revision were adhesions or scarring (39.0-83.0%), fixation failure (8.7-75.0%), and biceps rupture (17.4-80.0%). Revision tenodesis patients reported good to excellent functional outcomes with improvements in Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder, and visual analog scale pain scores, and satisfaction ranged from 88.0 to 100%. All studies demonstrated moderate quality of evidence and risk of bias when critically appraised. CONCLUSION: This systematic review of 5 moderate risk of bias studies demonstrated that the most common reasons for revision biceps tenodesis were pain or cramping and rerupture. Open subpectoral revision tenodesis with concomitant arthroscopic debridement provided improvements in functional scores with high patient satisfaction at mid-term follow up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, Systematic Review of level III and IV investigations.

Rehabilitation variability after rotator cuff repair.

BACKGROUND: There has been increasing recognition of the importance for standardized postoperative rehabilitation protocols. Despite published guidelines in 2016 by the American Society of Shoulder and Elbow Therapists (ASSET), optimal postoperative rehabilitation after rotator cuff repair (RCR) remains an area of active academic debate. The goals of this study were (1) to assess the variability of RCR rehabilitation protocols published online, (2) to study the congruence between online RCR rehabilitation protocols and the ASSET consensus statement, and (3) to identify differences in online RCR rehabilitation protocols from before and after 2016. METHODS: A web-based search was conducted for publicly available RCR rehabilitation protocols from websites of all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) academic orthopedic institutions. A supplemental 10-page Google search was also performed with the search terms "rotator cuff repair rehabilitation protocol." Collected protocols were grouped by tear size (small/medium or large/massive) and examined for information relating to the following categories: protocol demographics, adjunctive therapy use, immobilization/range of motion, and strengthening. Findings were compared to the ASSET statement's recommendations. Protocols published before and after ASSET's 2016 publication were compared for differences. RESULTS: A total of 66 online RCR rehabilitation protocols were collected. Only 16 of 187 (8.5%) ACGME institutions provided online RCR rehabilitation protocols. The collected protocols recommend more aggressive rehabilitation in comparison to ASSET, specifically regarding immobilization time, passive range of motion initiation, active assisted range of motion initiation, and strengthening initiation (P < .001). Protocols published after 2016 trended toward more conservative recommendations in comparison to protocols published before 2016. Regardless of this trend, the majority of these recommendations were still largely more aggressive than ASSET's recommendations. CONCLUSION: Despite an attempt by ASSET to provide standardization, this study highlights the marked variations that still exist regarding RCR rehabilitation. Additionally, online RCR rehabilitation protocols tend to make more aggressive recommendations than the ASSET consensus statement. Further research is needed to address these variations and to either validate, alter, or reject the ASSET recommendations.

The Effect of Patient Characteristics and Comorbidities on the Rate of Revision Rotator Cuff Repair.

PURPOSE: To describe the national rates of failed primary rotator cuff repair (RCR) requiring revision repair, using numerous patient characteristics previously defined in orthopaedic literature, including smoking history, diabetes mellitus (DM), hyperlipidemia (HLD), vitamin D deficiency, and osteoporosis to determine which factors independently affect the success of primary RCR. METHODS: A combined public and private national insurance database was searched from 2007 to 2016 for all patients who underwent RCR. Current Procedural Terminology codes were used to identify RCRs. Laterality modifiers for the primary surgery were used to identify subsequent revision RCRs. All patients who did not have a linked laterality modifier for the RCR Current Procedural Terminology code were excluded from the study. Basic demographics were recorded. International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision codes were used to identify patient characteristics including Charlson Comorbidity Index, smoking status, DM, obesity, HLD, vitamin D deficiency, and osteoporosis. Patient age categorized as <60, 60-69, 70-74, or 75+ years old. Dichotomous data were analyzed with χ2 testing. Multivariable logistic regression was used to characterize independent associations with revision RCR. RESULTS: Included in the study were 41,467 patients (41,844 shoulders, 52.7% male patients) who underwent primary arthroscopic RCR. Of all arthroscopic RCRs, 3072 patients (3463 shoulders, 53.5% male patients) underwent revision RCR (8.38%). In both primary and revision RCR, patients age 60 to 69 years were most prevalent, accounting for 38.4% and 37.6% of the cohorts, respectively. The average time from primary RCR to revision was 414.9 days (median 214.0 days). Increasing age and male sex (odds ratio [OR] 1.10, P = .019, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.19) were significantly predictive of revision RCR. Of the remaining patient characteristics, smoking most strongly predicted revision RCR (OR 1.36, P < .001, CI 1.23-1.49). Obesity (OR 1.32, P < .001, CI 1.21-1.43), hyperlipidemia (OR 1.09, P = .032, CI 1.01-1.18), and vitamin D deficiency (OR 1.18, P < .001, CI 1.08-1.28) also increased risk of revision RCR significantly. DM was found to be protective against revision surgery (OR 0.84, P < .001, CI 0.76-0.92). Overall comorbidity burden as measured by the Charlson Comorbidity Index was not predictive of revision RCR. CONCLUSIONS: Smoking, obesity, vitamin D deficiency, and HLD are shown to be independent risk factors for failure of primary RCR requiring revision RCR. However, despite the suggestions of previous studies, DM, osteoporosis, and overall comorbidity burden did not demonstrate independent associations in this study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV, Case Series.

Reading angles in maps.

Preschool children can navigate by simple geometric maps of the environment, but the nature of the geometric relations they use in map reading remains unclear. Here, children were tested specifically on their sensitivity to angle. Forty-eight children (age 47:15-53:30 months) were presented with fragments of geometric maps, in which angle sections appeared without any relevant length or distance information. Children were able to read these map fragments and compare two-dimensional to three-dimensional angles. However, this ability appeared both variable and fragile among the youngest children of the sample. These findings suggest that 4-year-old children begin to form an abstract concept of angle that applies both to two-dimensional and three-dimensional displays and that serves to interpret novel spatial symbols.

Surgical treatment of posterolateral rotatory instability of the elbow.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to critically examine the outcomes of lateral ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction for posterolateral rotatory instability (PLRI) of the elbow. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed. Two reviewers assessed and confirmed the methodologic and patient data from the included studies. Frequency-weighted means were calculated for outcomes that were present in multiple studies. RESULTS: Eight studies fulfilled our criteria, and they included 130 patients. The mean age was 38.1 years, and the mean follow-up period was 44.5 months. Traumatic dislocation was the most common cause of PLRI. Of the studies that reported the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, 91% of patients had good or excellent results, with a frequency-weighted mean of 91. Improvement in elbow range of motion was noted (133° to 138° of flexion [P < .0001] and 6.6° to 3.9° of extension [P = .005]). A complication rate of 11% was noted, with recurrent instability noted to occur in 8% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: PLRI of the elbow remains to be fully understood. Treatment strategies vary and should be performed based on surgeon experience and evidence available. Most patients will have good or excellent results after surgery; however, up to 11% of patients may have complications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level II through IV studies.

Current Concepts in Management of Acromioclavicular Joint Injury.

Background: The management of acromioclavicular joint injuries requires a thorough understanding of the anatomy and biomechanics of the joint, as well as knowledge of the pertinent physical exam findings and classification to determine an appropriate treatment approach, whether operative or nonoperative. In this article, we present a narrative review of the current state of understanding surrounding these issues. Although there are a large number of options for operative intervention, we additionally present our experience with anatomic coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction (ACCR) with imbrication of the deltoid fascia. Methods: A retrospective review of prospectively collected data on a total of 45 patients who had undergone ACCR between 2003 and 2016 were collected. Results: We found that improvements were seen in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score (ASES) (53 ± 19 to 81 ± 23), Simple Shoulder Test (SST) (6 ± 3 to 12 ± 13), Constant-Murley (CM) (60 ± 18 to 92 ± 8), and Rowe (67 ± 14 to 89 ± 11) and the mean post-operative SANE score was 86 ± 17. Conclusions: ACCR has the advantage of addressing both horizontal and vertical stability with good outcomes.

Five-Year Mortality Rates Following Elective Shoulder Arthroplasty and Shoulder Arthroplasty for Fracture in Patients Over Age 65.

Background: To effectively counsel patients prior to shoulder arthroplasty, surgeons should understand the overall life trajectory and life expectancy of patients in the context of the patient's shoulder pathology and medical comorbidities. Such an understanding can influence both operative and nonoperative decision-making and implant choices. This study evaluated 5-year mortality following shoulder arthroplasty in patients ≥65 years old and identified associated risk factors. Methods: We utilized Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Fee-for-Service inpatient and outpatient claims data to investigate the 5-year mortality rate following shoulder arthroplasty procedures performed from 2014 to 2016. The impact of patient demographics, including fracture diagnosis, year fixed effects, and state fixed effects; patient comorbidities; and hospital-level characteristics on 5-year mortality rates were assessed with use of a Cox proportional hazards regression model. A p value of <0.05 was considered significant. Results: A total of 108,667 shoulder arthroplasty cases (96,104 nonfracture and 12,563 fracture) were examined. The cohort was 62.7% female and 5.8% non-White and had a mean age at surgery of 74.3 years. The mean 5-year mortality rate was 16.6% across all shoulder arthroplasty cases, 14.9% for nonfracture cases, and 29.9% for fracture cases. The trend toward higher mortality in the fracture group compared with the nonfracture group was sustained throughout the 5-year postoperative period, with a fracture diagnosis being associated with a hazard ratio of 1.63 for mortality (p < 0.001). Medical comorbidities were associated with an increased risk of mortality, with liver disease bearing the highest hazard ratio (3.07; p < 0.001), followed by chronic kidney disease (2.59; p < 0.001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (1.92; p < 0.001), and congestive heart failure (1.90; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The mean 5-year mortality following shoulder arthroplasty was 16.6%. Patients with a fracture diagnosis had a significantly higher 5-year mortality risk (29.9%) than those with a nonfracture diagnosis (14.9%). Medical comorbidities had the greatest impact on mortality risk, with chronic liver and kidney disease being the most noteworthy. This novel longer-term data can help with patient education and risk stratification prior to undergoing shoulder replacement. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.