Corticosteroid injection prior to surgery had no effect on 2-year outcomes following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

Background: Corticosteroid injections (CSIs) can be an effective nonsurgical treatment for patients with rotator cuff tears. Recent large database studies have raised concern that CSI may result in a higher reoperation rate, increased infection risk, and worse outcome after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the reoperation rate, incidence of postoperative infection, and two-year outcomes of patients undergoing ARCR with and without the use of preoperative CSI. Methods: An institutional database generated from fellowship-trained orthopedic sports surgeons was retrospectively queried for patients who underwent ARCR with a minimum of two-year follow-up. Inclusion criteria consisted of 1) primary full-thickness rotator cuff tear and 2) preoperative and minimum two-year patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Of the 219 patients identified, 134 patients had preoperative subacromial CSI administered within one year of ARCR. Reoperation rate, number of injections, Visual Analog Scale, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and Veterans Rand 12-Item Health Survey Physical Component Score/Mental Component Score were compared between groups at six months, one year, and two years. Chi-square and t-tests were used to compare baseline differences, postoperative infections, and reoperations. A repeated measures Analyses of Covariance was used to measure differences between PROMs at each time point. Simple Analyses of Covariance were used for the two-year sub-analyses for patients receiving CSI within 90 days of surgery and if multiple preoperative CSI had been given (α ≤ 0.05). Results: There were no significant demographic differences between groups (P > .05). Preoperative use of subacromial CSI within one year prior to ARCR did not increase reoperation rate (P = .85) or impact PROMs at any timepoint. There were two reoperations during the study period in the CSI group (2 lysis of adhesions). No infections occurred in either cohort. No differences were found if injections were performed within 90 days of surgery or if more than one CSI was administered within the year prior to surgery (P > .05). Conclusion: Our results show that preoperative CSI prior to primary ARCR did not increase risk of reoperation, infection, or influence PROMs with a minimum follow-up of 2 years.

The Impact of Virtual Reality on Anxiety and Pain During US-Guided Breast Biopsies: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of immersive virtual reality (VR) in combination with standard local anesthetic for mitigating anxiety and pain during US-guided breast biopsies compared to local anesthetic alone. METHODS: Patients scheduled for US-guided biopsy were invited to participate. Eligible patients were females 18 years of age or older. Patients were randomized to VR or control group at a 1:1 ratio. Patients in the VR group underwent biopsy with the addition of a VR experience and patients in the control group underwent usual biopsy. Patient-perceived levels of anxiety and pain were collected before and after biopsy via the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Physiological data were captured during biopsy using a clinically validated wristband. Differences in anxiety, pain, and physiologic data were compared between the VR and control group. RESULTS: Sixty patients were enrolled. After excluding 2 patients with VR device malfunction, there were 29 patients in the VR and 29 patients in the control group for analysis. The VR group had reduced anxiety compared to the control group based on postintervention STAI (P <.001) and VAS (P = .036). The VR group did not have lower pain based on postintervention VAS (P = .555). Physiological measures showed higher RR intervals and decreased skin conductance levels, which are associated with lower anxiety levels in the VR group. CONCLUSION: Use of VR in addition to standard local anesthetic for US-guided breast biopsies was associated with reduced patient anxiety. Virtual reality may be a useful tool to improve the patient biopsy experience.

Prevalence of Contralateral Hip Abductor Tears and Factors Associated With Symptomatic Progression.

BACKGROUND: Patients with gluteus medius tendinopathy present with laterally based hip pain that can be diagnosed under the greater trochanteric pain syndrome diagnosis. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can assist in diagnosing pathology of the symptomatic hip, and when a pelvic MRI that includes both hips, the clinician may identify asymptomatic tears in the nonsurgical hip. In patients who undergo unilateral gluteus medius repairs, little is known about the prevalence or subsequent onset of clinical symptoms in the nonsurgical hip. PURPOSE: To describe (1) the prevalence of asymptomatic contralateral gluteus medius tears in patients with unilateral symptoms, (2) the presentation and time before symptom onset, and (3) the morphological characteristics on MRI of future symptomatic tears. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A total of 51 consecutive patients who underwent gluteus medius tear surgery were reviewed for contralateral hip pathology; of these, 43 patients were 2 years out from index surgery with reviewable preoperative MRI scans. A musculoskeletal radiologist reviewed the MRI scans for tear size, tendon retraction, and fatty infiltration using the Goutallier-Fuchs grading system. Medical record review identified contralateral hips requiring subsequent treatment. RESULTS: Of the original 43 patients, 10 (23%) had no contralateral tear, 19 (44%) had low-grade partial tears, 9 (20%) had high-grade partial tears, and 5 (11%) had full-thickness tears. Thirty-seven patients had unilateral symptoms; the other 6 had mild contralateral hip pain at enrollment. Of the 37 patients with unilateral symptoms, 27 (73%) had a contralateral tear; of those, 10 became symptomatic at an average of 24 months after index presentation (range, 6-50 months). In patients with symptomatic progression, 7 had low-grade partial tears, 1 had a high-grade partial tear, and 2 had full-thickness tears, with an average retraction of 17 mm. Tendon tear grade on MRI did not always correlate with symptoms or future presentation. All symptomatic progression remained mild to moderate. Seven patients required a corticosteroid injection, and none needed contralateral hip surgery within 2 years. CONCLUSION: Of patients who underwent surgery for a gluteus medius tear, 73% (27/37) had an incidental MRI-confirmed contralateral hip abductor tear. Of these, 37% (10/27) developed symptoms consistent with greater trochanteric pain syndrome during the 2-year study period.

Single shot interscalene regional anesthesia provides noninferior analgesia and decreased complications compared with an indwelling catheter for arthroscopic and reconstructive shoulder surgery.

BACKGROUND: There is an abundance of literature comparing the efficacy, safety, and complication rates of regional anesthesia in shoulder surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare analgesia efficacy, and complication rates between single shot and continuous catheters in patients undergoing arthroscopic or reconstructive shoulder surgery in a large cohort. METHODS: Consecutive patients (n = 1888) who underwent shoulder arthroplasty or arthroscopic shoulder surgery and had regional anesthesia were included. Patients had either a single-shot interscalene block (SSIB) or an SSIB with a continuous interscalene nerve block with a catheter (CIB). The decision for SSIB or CIB was selected based on patient risk factors and surgeon preference. Patients received phone calls on postoperative days 1, 2, 7, and 14 to assess for pain levels (numeric rating scale [NRS]) and complications. RESULTS: One hundred sixty patients received SSIB, and 1728 patients received CIB. The postoperative NRS scores at day 1 were also similar. There were 3 complications (2%) in the SSIB group and 172 complications (10%) in the CIB group. Ten patients in the CIB group required emergency department (ED) visits secondary to block complications compared with no ED visits in the SSIB group. CONCLUSION: In 1888 consecutive patients, SSIB and CIB provided similar pain relief following shoulder surgery. However, patients who received CIB had significantly more complications and ED visits than patients who received SSIB. The potential benefits of longer pain relief may not outweigh the risks of CIB vs. SSIB in common shoulder procedures.

Athletes diagnosed with anterior and posterior shoulder instability display different chief complaints and disability.

BACKGROUND: Anterior shoulder instability is a common complaint of young athletes. Posterior instability in this population is less well understood, and the standard of care has not been defined. The purpose of the study is to compare index frequency, treatment choice, and athlete disability following an incident of anterior or posterior shoulder instability in high school and collegiate athletes. METHODS: A total of 58 high school and collegiate athletes (n=30 athletes with anterior instability; n=28 athletes with posterior instability) were included. Athletes suffering from a traumatic sport-related shoulder instability episode during a team-sponsored practice or game were identified by their school athletic trainer. Athletes were referred to the sports medicine physician or orthopedic surgeon for diagnosis and initial treatment choice (operative vs. nonoperative). Athletes diagnosed with traumatic anterior or posterior instability who completed the full course of treatment and provided pre- and post-treatment patient-reported outcome measures were included in the study. The frequency of shoulder instability was compared by direction, mechanism of injury (MOI), and treatment choice through χ2 analyses. A repeated measures analysis of variance was used to compare the functional outcomes by treatment type and direction of instability (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Athletes diagnosed with anterior instability were more likely to report a chief complaint of instability (70%), whereas those diagnosed with posterior instability reported a primary complaint of pain interfering with function (96%) (P = .001). The primary MOI classified as a contact event was similar between anterior and posterior instability groups (77% vs. 54%, P = .06) as well as the decision to proceed with surgery (60% vs. 72%, P = .31). In patients with nonoperative care, athletes with anterior instability had significantly more initial disability than those with posterior instability (32±6.1 vs. 58±8.1, P = .001). Pre- and post-treatment Penn Shoulder Scores for athletes treated with early surgery were similar (P > .05). There were no differences in functional outcomes at discharge in those treated nonoperatively regardless of direction of instability (P = .24); however, change in Penn score was significantly greater in those with anterior (61±18.7) than those with posterior (27 ± 25.2) instability (P = .002). CONCLUSION: Athletes with anterior instability appear to have different mechanisms and complaints than those with posterior instability. Among those that receive nonoperative treatment, athletes with anterior instability have significantly greater initial disability and change in disability than those with posterior disability during course of care.

Regenesorb and polylactic acid hydroxyapatite anchors are associated with similar osseous integration and rotator cuff healing at 2 years.

BACKGROUND: Commercially available suture anchors for rotator cuff repairs can differ significantly in architecture and material. Clinical data on their osseous integration and its effect on patient-reported outcomes is scarce. Preclinical investigations indicated a higher rate of osseous integration for the open-architecture design of the Healicoil Regenesorb anchor than the closed-threaded design of the Twinfix (Smith & Nephew). The purpose of this study was to investigate these 2 anchors with different architecture and material to determine their effect on osseous integration and clinical outcomes after rotator cuff repair. METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled trial was performed from 2014 to 2019. Sixty-four patients (39 females, 25 males) with an average age of 58.7 years who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair by one of 4 board-certified, fellowship-trained surgeons were randomized to receive Healicoil Regenesorb (PLGA/ß-TCP/Calcium Sulfate) or Twinfix Ultra HA (PLLA/HA) anchors. Thirty-two patients had Healicoil anchors implanted, and 32 patients had Twinfix anchors implanted. Of the 64 patients, 51 returned at 24 months for computed tomographic (CT) examination (25 Twinfix and 26 Healicoil) to determine osteointegration of the anchors. Patient-reported outcomes, including Penn Shoulder Score (PENN), Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index, visual analog scale, EQ-5D, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, Global Rating of Change, were collected at baseline, 6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months, 12 months, and 24 months. Ultrasonography was used to assess rotator cuff integrity after 6 months. Two board-certified, fellowship-trained orthopedic surgeons, blinded to the type of anchors, analyzed the CT scans to assess the anchor osteointegration at 24 months using a previously published grading scale. RESULTS: There were no differences in demographics, preoperative outcomes, or baseline characteristics such as tear size, number of anchors, Goutallier classification, or smoking status between groups. There was no difference in osseous integration between the 2 anchors at 24 months (P = .117). Eight patients had rotator cuff retears, of which 2 patients had Twinfix anchors and 6 patients had Healicoil anchors (P = .18). There were no statistically significant differences in patient-reported outcomes or complications between groups. The 2-year PENN scores were 89 with the Twinfix and 88 with Healicoil anchors (P = .55). CONCLUSION: Despite differences in material and anchor architecture, the rate of healing and patient-reported outcomes were similar between the Twinfix and Healicoil anchor groups. The rate of osteointegration was the same at 2 years.

Infraspinatus or teres minor fatty infiltration does not influence patient outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty with a lateralized glenoid.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies show that reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) may improve forward elevation (FE) but external rotation may remain impaired with substantial teres minor fatty infiltration. The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of fatty infiltration on postoperative range of motion (ROM) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after RSA with a more lateralized center of rotation. METHODS: About 69 patients (average age 69 years; 44 women, 25 men) with preoperative MRI, 1-year postoperative ROM, 2-year Veteran's Rand Survey, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons subjective form, and Single Alpha-Numeric Evaluation scores who underwent RSA with a lateralized glenoid component between 2010 and 2014 were identified. Patients with Fuchs stage 3 fatty degeneration were compared with patients with Fuchs stage ≤ 2 using a one-way ANOVA. RESULTS: Eleven patients had Fuchs stage 3 in the teres minor and 28 with stage 3 in the infraspinatus. Charlson comorbidity indices, Veteran's Rand Survey scores, age, and BMI were not different between groups. There were no differences after one year (follow-up = 15 ± 14 months) in FE (FE = 128 ± 29) or external rotation (33 ± 13) between groups. There were no differences in two-year minimum (follow-up = 42.9 ± 17.9 months) American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores between degenerated teres minor (76.4 ± 20) or infraspinatus (69.1 ± 24) groups. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to assess the influence of teres minor and infraspinatus fatty infiltration on the postoperative ROM and PROs with a more lateralized glenoid RSA implant. Our results show that in a more lateralized RSA, neither teres minor nor infraspinatus fatty infiltration appear to negatively influence ROM or PROs.

Reduction of Postoperative Hip Arthroscopy Pain With an Ultrasound-Guided Fascia Iliaca Block: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound-guided fascia iliaca blocks have been used for pain control after hip arthroscopy. There is little evidence regarding their effectiveness in comparison with other pain control modalities in patients who have undergone hip arthroscopy. PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of ultrasound-guided fascia iliac block with intra-articular ropivacaine in controlling pain after hip arthroscopy. STUDY DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2. METHODS: Between 2015 and 2017, patients (N = 95) undergoing hip arthroscopy were randomly assigned to 2 groups. The first group received an ultrasound-guided fascia iliaca block with 50 to 60 mL of 0.35% ropivacaine. The second group received an intra-articular injection of 20 mL of 0.5% ropivacaine at the completion of the surgical case. Primary outcomes were postoperative pain scores in the recovery room; at postanesthesia care unit (PACU) discharge; and at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative and PACU narcotic usage (converted to morphine equivalent use) as well as readmission rates, PACU recovery time, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. RESULTS: Postoperative pain across all points did not significantly differ between the groups. Intraoperative and PACU narcotics did not differ significantly between the groups. Readmission rates, PACU recovery time, and postoperative nausea and vomiting did not significantly differ between the groups. There were no associated complications in either group. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound-guided fascia iliaca block for hip arthroscopy had no clinical advantage when compared with onetime intra-articular ropivacaine injection. REGISTRATION: NCT02365961 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

The influence of radiographic markers of biomechanical variables on outcomes in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in regard to variability in the center of rotation (COR), which modifies the superior-inferior position of the humerus to affect the acromiohumeral interval (AHI), and its effect on the deltoid lever arm (DLA), acromial index (AI), and critical shoulder angle (CSA). The purpose of this study was to investigate the variation in biomechanics and the association with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and range of motion (ROM) measurements. METHODS: Radiographs, ROM, and 2-year PRO scores were retrospectively reviewed for 108 patients. RESULTS: There was large variability in preoperative and postoperative biomechanics. The COR was medialized 12.01 ± 4.8 mm. The CSA increased 2.64° ± 12.45°. The AHI increased 20.6 ± 9.80 mm. The DLA lengthened 21.21 ± 10.15 mm. The AI increased 0.009 ± 0.3. Postoperative AI positively correlated with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score and Penn Shoulder Score (P = .03). Specifically, a postoperative AI of 0.62 corresponded to American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (72.5 ± 18.3 vs. 62.3 ± 24.7; P = .02) and Penn Shoulder Score (71.2 ± 21.4 vs. 61.8 ± 25.6; P = .05), an average 10 points higher than AI of <0.6. Also, a smaller postoperative CSA (<25°) correlated with improved forward elevation (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study that evaluates the variability of biomechanical factors and their impact on postoperative ROM and PROs. An increased AI and decreased CSA are associated with improved PROs in this study, and a smaller CSA is associated with better forward elevation. Change in the COR, AHI, or DLA, however, did not affect patient outcomes or ROM. Further study is warranted to determine the optimal position.

Subscapularis Repair Is Unnecessary After Lateralized Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists as to whether the subscapularis should be repaired after reverse shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the utility of repairing the subscapularis after reverse shoulder arthroplasty with regard to complications, objective findings, and patient-reported outcome measures. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records for 99 patients who had undergone a lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty with (n = 58) or without (n = 41) subscapularis repair. Outcomes were compared with the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), Penn shoulder score (PSS), Veterans RAND (VR)-12, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score at a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Demographics, range of motion, and complications were also compared. A 1-way analysis of variance was performed to determine differences in performance and outcome scores, and a chi-square analysis was performed to compare the frequency of complications between groups. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the repair and no-repair groups in terms of SANE, PSS, ASES, or VR-12 scores. There also were no significant differences between the 2 groups in terms of postoperative ranges of forward elevation (128° versus 123°; p = 0.44) and external rotation (33° versus 29°; p = 0.29), the dislocation rate (5% versus 2%; p = 0.49), or the overall complication rate (9% versus 5%; p = 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study suggest that repair of the subscapularis tendon after lateralized reverse shoulder arthroplasty may not be necessary. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Liposomal bupivacaine versus indwelling interscalene nerve block for postoperative pain control in shoulder arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pain management strategies following shoulder arthroplasty vary significantly. Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) is an extended-release delivery of a phospholipid bilayer encapsulating bupivacaine that can result in drug delivery up to 72 hours. Prior studies in lower extremity surgery demonstrated efficacy of LB in comparison to a single-shot peripheral nerve block; however, no study has investigated LB in a total shoulder arthroplasty population. Therefore, this study compared LB vs. an indwelling interscalene nerve block (IINB). METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized study of 83 consecutive shoulder arthroplasty patients; 36 patients received LB and a "bridge" of 30 mL of 0.5% bupivacaine, and 47 patients received an IINB. Postoperative visual analog scale pain levels, opiate consumption measured with oral morphine equivalents, length of hospital stay, and postoperative complications were recorded. Continuous variables were compared using an analysis of variance with significance set at P < .05. RESULTS: Visual analog scale pain scores were statistically higher in the LB cohort immediately postoperatively in the postanesthesia care unit (7.25 vs. 1.91; P = .000) as well as for the remainder of postoperative day 0 (4.99 vs. 3.20; P = .005) but not for the remainder of admission. Opiate consumption was significantly higher among the LB cohort in the postanesthesia care unit (31.79 vs. 7.47; P = .000), on postoperative day 0 (32.64 vs. 15.04; P = .000), and for the total hospital admission (189.50 vs. 91.70, P = .000). Complication numbers and length of stay were not statistically different. CONCLUSION: Use of an IINB provides superior pain management in the immediate postoperative setting as demonstrated by decreased narcotic medication consumption and lower subjective pain scores.

Nonoperative management versus reverse shoulder arthroplasty for treatment of 3- and 4-part proximal humeral fractures in older adults.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of 3- and 4-part proximal humeral fractures in the older adult is controversial. No study has directly compared reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) with nonoperative treatment for these fractures. The purpose of this study was to compare clinical and patient-reported outcomes between RSA and nonoperative treatment groups. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on all 3- and 4-part proximal humeral fractures treated with either RSA or nonoperative treatment with minimum 1-year follow-up. All patients in the nonoperative cohort were offered RSA but declined. Objective patient data were obtained from medical records. Patient-reported outcomes including visual analog scale score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, Penn Shoulder Score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, resiliency score, and Veterans Rand-12 scores were obtained at follow-up. Statistical analysis was performed by use of the Student t test for continuous variables and χ2 analysis for nonparametric data. RESULTS: We analyzed 19 nonoperative and 20 RSA patients with a mean follow-up period greater than 2 years (29 months in nonoperative group and 53 months in RSA group). There were no differences in range of motion between groups (forward elevation, 120° vs 119° [P = .87]; external rotation, 23° vs 31° [P = .06]). No differences between the nonoperative and RSA groups were noted for any patient-reported outcomes. Among patients receiving RSA, there was no difference in outcomes in those undergoing surgery less than 30 days after injury versus those receiving delayed RSA. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there are minimal benefits of RSA over nonoperative treatment for 3- and 4-part proximal humeral fractures in older adults.