Does the Addition of PROMIS Pain Instruments Improve the Sensitivity of PROMIS Upper Extremity Scores Following Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair?

INTRODUCTION: Though Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity (P-UE) has been validated in upper extremity orthopedics, it's ability to capture a patient's functional recovery after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (aRCR), as measured by its responsiveness, is minimal in the early postoperative period. The primary purpose of this study is to determine if addition of PROMIS Pain Intensity (P-Intensity) or Pain Interference (P-Interference) scores to PROMIS UE improves the responsiveness throughout the one-year postoperative period after aRCR. METHODS: This prospective, longitudinal study included 100 patients who underwent aRCR. Patients completed P-UE, P-Interference, P-Intensity, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) scores preoperatively and at 2-weeks, 6-weeks, 3 months, 6-months and 12-months after surgery. Responsiveness at each time-point relative to preoperative baseline and one-way analysis of variance with post-hoc analysis was conducted for each PROM. Responsiveness of the outcome score was determined using the effect size (ES), graded as small (0.2), medium (0.5), or large (0.8). The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was determined between these instruments at each time-point. RESULTS: In isolation, P-UE, P-Interference, and P-Intensity showed a medium-large ability to detect change (positive and negative) throughout the one-year postoperative period. The addition of PROMIS pain scores to P-UE improved the responsiveness of the instrument (from medium to a large effect size) starting at 3 months and continued throughout the 12 month follow-up period. Though the addition of pain scores increases the response burden for PROMIS, this was still lower when compared to the response burden for the legacy outcome scores (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The addition of PROMIS pain instruments improves the responsiveness of the P-UE function score in patients undergoing aRCR.

Clinical outcomes of open Latarjet-Patte procedures performed for recurrent anterior shoulder instability with primary bone loss versus failed arthroscopic Bankart repair.

BACKGROUND: This study compares the outcomes of Latarjet-Patte procedures (LPs) performed for primary glenohumeral instability in the setting of critical bone loss (LP-BL) versus salvage surgery performed after a failed arthroscopic Bankart repair (LP-FB). METHODS: LP's performed by senior author from 2017 to 2021 were separated into cohorts by LP indication. Data abstracted from electronic medical records included demographic information, preoperative clinical scores, radiological imaging, and complications. Postoperative clinical outcome scores collected after a 2-year minimum follow-up included: patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) upper extremity (UE), PROMIS pain interference, PROMIS pain intensity, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and visual analog scale pain scores. RESULTS: A total of 47 patients (LP-BL: n=29, LP-FB: n=18) with a mean age of 29 years (range, 15-58 years) were included in this study. Both cohorts achieved good upper extremity functionality without significant differences as indicated by mean PROMIS UE (LP-BL: 52.6±10.0 vs. LP-FB: 54.6±7.6, P=0.442) and ASES score (LP-BL: 89.9±15.7 vs. LP-FB: 91.5±14.4, P=0.712). However, the LP-FB cohort reported lower levels of pain (LP-FB: 0.5±1.1 vs. LP-BL: 1.9±2.7, P=0.020) at their latest follow-up. There were no significant differences in complication rates including re-dislocation between cohorts (LP-BL: 2/29 [6.9%] vs. LP-FB: 2/18 [11.1%], P=0.629). CONCLUSIONS: When performed after failed Bankart repair, the LP results in similar postoperative functional outcomes and similar rates of complications and re-dislocations when compared to the primary indication of recurrent glenohumeral instability in the setting of critical bone loss. Level of evidence: III.

Analysis of factors associated with patient-reported outcome (PRO) score completion rate one year after shoulder surgeries.

Background: Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are important metrics for monitoring improvements following shoulder surgery. Despite the easy accessibility of electronic PROM surveys, completion rates vary, and factors predictive of survey completion for patients enrolled in medical survey follow-up after shoulder surgery remain largely unknown. The purpose of this study is to investigate survey completion rates for common shoulder procedures and identify factors predictive of PROM completion at one-year postoperatively. We hypothesize that the response rate to shoulder PROMs may vary by the shoulder procedure type after surgery. Methods: Patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), rotator cuff repair (RCR), and instability surgery (Latarjet procedure [LP], and arthroscopic Bankart repair [ABR]) from 2019 to 2021 were prospectively enrolled. Each patient was administered PROM surveys via email preoperatively and at 2-weeks, 6-weeks, 3-months, 6-months, and 12-months following surgery. Demographics and socioeconomic characteristics were collected from our institutional database. The primary outcome studied was survey completion rate by procedure. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors predictive of completing 12-month follow-up. Results: A total of 514 (251 TSA, 194 RCR, and 69 instability surgery (35 LP, 34 ABR)) patients with an average age of 58 ± 15 years were included in this study. Overall, the 12-month survey completion rate for all procedures was 57.2%. TSA had the highest completion rate (64.9%), followed by RCR (52.1%), ABR (44.2%), and LP (42.9%). ABR and LP demonstrated more than a 50% drop in survey response at 2 weeks, and the RCR cohort demonstrated an increased attrition in survey response at the 6-month mark. Patients who completed the 12-month follow-up survey were older [61 ± 14 vs. 54 ± 17; P < .001], less frequently self-identified as Hispanic [13% vs. 23%; P = .009], less frequently single [32% vs. 44%; P = .008], and most frequently classified as the American Society of Anesthesiology [ASA] score II [65%, P = .001]. Conclusion: Postoperative PROM survey completion rates vary significantly among commonly performed shoulder procedures during the first year after surgery. Hispanic ethnicity and younger age were all predictive of a lower propensity, and the TSA procedure is predictive of higher odds for PROM survey completion at the 12-month follow-up.

Trends in the treatment of proximal humerus fractures from 2010 to 2020.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of proximal humerus fractures (PHF) is continuing to rise due to shifts towards a more aged population as well as advancements in surgical treatment options. The purpose of this study is to examine and compare trends in the treatment of PHFs (nonoperative vs. operative; different surgical treatments) across different age groups over the last decade (2010-2020). METHODS: The New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) database was queried using International Classification of Diseases and Current Procedural Terminology codes to identify all patients presenting with or undergoing surgery for PHF between 2010 and 2020. Treatment trends, demographics, and insurance information were analyzed during the study period. Comparisons were made between operative and nonoperative trends with respect to the number and type of surgeries performed among 3 age groups: ≤49 years, 50-64 years, and ≥65 years. The rate of postoperative complications and reoperations was evaluated and compared among different surgical treatments for patients with a minimum 1-year postoperative follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 92,308 patients with a mean age of 67.8 ± 16.8 years were included. Over the last decade, there was no significant increase in the percentage of PHFs treated with surgery. A total of 15,523 PHFs (16.82%) were treated operatively, and these patients, compared with the nonoperative cohort, were younger (64.9 years vs. 68.4 years, P < .001), more likely to be White (80.2% vs. 74.7%, P < .001), and more likely to have private insurance (41.4% vs. 32.0%, P < .001). For patients ≤49 years old, trends in operative treatment have remained stable with internal fixation (IF) as the most used surgical modality. For patients 50-64 years old, we observed a gradual decline in the use of hemiarthroplasty (HA), with a corresponding increase in the use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA), but IF continued to be the most used operative modality. In patients over 65 years, a steep decline in the use of IF and HA was noted during the first half of the decade along with a significant exponential increase in the use of rTSA, which surpassed the use of IF in 2019. Despite the increase in the use of rTSA, no differences in rate of surgical complications were noted between rTSA and IF (χ2 = 0.245, P = .621) or reoperations (χ2 = 0.112, P = .730). CONCLUSION: Nonsurgical treatment remains the mainstay treatment of PHFs. Although there is no increase in the prevalence of operative treatment in patients ≥50 years in the last decade, there is an exponential increase in the use of rTSA with a corresponding decrease in HA and IF, a trend more substantial in patients ≥65 years compared with patients between 50 and 64 years.

No difference in complications between two-week vs. six-week duration of sling immobilization after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Background: The purpose of our study was to compare the outcomes and complications after a two- vs. six-week duration of sling immobilization following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). Methods: We conducted a retrospective review from our institutional database on 960 patients treated by primary rTSA between 2011 and 2021. Patients were separated into two cohorts of postoperative sling immobilization (a two-week and six-week group). Multivariate analysis was conducted to evaluate what factors were associated with patients experiencing either a postoperative complication or requiring reoperation. Results: A total of 276 patients were instructed to keep their operative arm in a sling for six weeks postoperatively, and 684 patients discontinued use at two weeks. There was no difference in postoperative complication rate (15.0% vs. 12.0%, P = .21), dislocation rate (P = .79), acromion stress fractures (P = .06), implant loosening (P = .15), and periprosthetic joint infections (P = .48) between the six- and two-week sling cohorts. In the immediate 90-day postoperative time period, no difference was seen in the reoperation rates (P = .73). Discussion: Shorter duration of sling immobilization (two weeks) does not incur additional risk of complications compared to standard duration (six weeks) of sling immobilization following rTSA.

Concomitant open distal clavicle excision is associated with greater improvement in range of motion without increased risk of acromial stress fracture after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of concomitant open distal clavicle excision (DCE) on postoperative clinical outcomes and incidence of acromial and scapular stress fractures (ASFs) in patients with symptomatic acromioclavicular joint osteoarthritis (ACJ OA) undergoing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). METHODS: A single-surgeon retrospective cohort study was conducted including patients who underwent primary elective RTSA with or without DCE from 2015 to 2019 with a minimum 6-month follow-up period. Shoulder active range of motion (AROM) and visual analog scale (VAS) pain were recorded preoperatively and postoperatively. ASFs and other adverse events were identified using postoperative notes and/or radiographs. Characteristics and outcomes were compared between the RTSA and RTSA-DCE groups. RESULTS: Forty-six RTSA patients (mean age, 67.9±8.7 years; 60.9% male; mean follow-up, 24.9±16.6 months) and 70 RTSA-DCE patients (mean age, 70.2±8.9 years; 20.0% male; mean follow-up, 22.7±12.9 months) were included. There were no significant intergroup differences in rates of ASF (RTSA, 0.0% vs. RTSA-DCE, 1.4%; P=1.00), stress reactions (RTSA, 8.7% vs. RTSA-DCE, 11.4%; P=0.76), reoperation, revision, or infection (all P>0.05), or in pre-to-postoperative reduction in VAS pain (P=0.17) at latest follow-up. However, the RTSA-DCE group had greater pre-to-postoperative improvement in flexion AROM (RTSA, 43.7°±38.5° vs. RTSA-DCE, 59.5°±33.4°; P=0.03) and internal rotation (IR) AROM (P=0.02) at latest follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant DCE in RTSA improves shoulder flexion and IR AROM, alleviates shoulder pain, and does not increase the risk of ASFs. Level of evidence: III.

Effects of increased body mass index on one year outcomes following soft tissue arthroscopic shoulder instability repair.

Background: The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of high body mass index on the 1-year minimal outcome following arthroscopic shoulder stabilization. Methods: Patients who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) between 2017 and 2021 were identified and assigned to 1 of 3 cohorts based on their preoperative body mass index: normal (18-25), overweight (25-30), and obese (>30). The primary outcomes assessed were postoperative shoulder instability and revision rates. The 3 groups were compared using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) upper extremity, pain interference, pain intensity, Clinical Global Impression scores, visual analog scale pain scores, and shoulder range of motion at 1 year postoperatively. Results: During the study period, 142 patients underwent ABR and had an average age of 35 ± 10 years. Obese patients had a higher percentage of partial rotator cuff tears (60% vs. 27%, odds ratio: 3.2 [1.1, 9.2]; P = .009), longer mean operative time (99.8 ± 40.0 vs. 75.7 ± 28.5 minutes; P < .001), and shorter time to complication (0.5 ± 0 vs. 7.0 ± 0 months; P = .038). After controlling for confounding factors, obesity was associated with a lesser improvement in upper extremity function scores (obese vs. normal: -4.9 [-9.4, -0.5]; P = .029); although this difference exists, found future studies are needed to determine the clinical significance. There were no differences in patient reported outcome measures, recurrence rate, or revision surgery rates between cohorts at any time point (P > .05). Conclusion: Obesity is an independent risk factor for longer operative times but does not confer a higher risk of recurrent instability, revision surgery, or lower outcome scores 1 year following ABR.

Increased 90-Day Readmissions and Complications Following Hip Arthroscopy in Centers With Low Surgical Volume in New York State.

PURPOSE: To (1) classify surgical centers in New York State by volume of hip arthroscopies performed, (2) calculate rates of readmissions and complications by center volume, and (3) identify socioeconomic predictive factors for readmissions and complications following hip arthroscopy. METHODS: Patients who underwent hip arthroscopy at New York State health care facilities from 2010 to 2020 were retrospectively identified using the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System (SPARCS) database. Hip arthroscopic procedures were identified using the following Current Procedural Terminology codes. Surgical center volumes were classified into 3 categories: low (<85th percentile), medium (85th-95th percentile), and high (>95th percentile). Incidence of readmissions and complications within 90 days was abstracted from SPARCS. Neighborhood socioeconomic status was quantified using the U.S. Area Deprivation Index. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine whether center volume and other socioeconomic variables were independent predictors of outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 50,252 patients who underwent hip arthroscopy were identified in SPARCS from 2010 to 2020. Of these patients, 13,861 (27.6%) underwent surgery at low-volume centers, 11,757 (23.4%) at medium-volume centers, and 24,634 (49.0%) at high-volume centers. Minorities, publicly insured patients, and patients from lower socioeconomic status neighborhoods made up a larger proportion of cases seen by low-volume centers versus high-volume centers (P < .001). Patients in the low-volume group experienced significantly greater 90-day rates of readmissions (P < .001) and all-cause complications (P < .001) than the other groups. Furthermore, high-volume centers were independently associated with lower odds of readmission (odds ratio 0.57, P < .001) and all-cause complications (odds ratio 0.73, P < .001) versus low-volume centers. CONCLUSIONS: Low-volume surgical centers are associated with increased readmission and complication rates following hip arthroscopy, independent of other socioeconomic factors such as age, sex, race, insurance status, and neighborhood socioeconomic status. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative prognostic trial.

Excellent Correlation of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity Score With Legacy Outcome Scores Preoperatively and at 1 Year After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair.

Purpose: To assess the preoperative and postoperative performance of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity (PROMIS-UE, version 2.0) outcome score in comparison to the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) instruments in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair. Methods: This prospective longitudinal study included 91 patients undergoing rotator cuff repair. Patients completed the PROMIS-UE, ASES, and WORC instruments preoperatively and postoperatively at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 12 months. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) between these tools was calculated at each time point. Correlations were graded as excellent (>0.7), excellent-good (0.61-0.7), good (0.4-0.6), or poor (<0.4). Responsiveness to change was assessed using the effect size and the standardized response mean. Floor and ceiling effects for each instrument were also assessed. Results: The PROMIS-UE instrument showed good to excellent correlation with the legacy instruments at all time points. There were variations in the measured effect sizes of the various instruments, with the PROMIS-UE instrument showing responsiveness to change at 3 and 12 months but the ASES and WORC instruments showing responsiveness at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 12 months. Both PROMIS-UE and ASES scores displayed ceiling effects at 12 months. Conclusions: The PROMIS-UE instrument shows excellent correlation with the ASES instrument and a rotator cuff-specific outcome instrument-the WORC instrument-preoperatively and at 1 year after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Variations in the measured effect sizes at different postoperative time points and high ceiling effects of the PROMIS-UE instrument at the 1-year time point may limit its utility in the early postoperative phase and at long-term follow-up after rotator cuff repair. Clinical Relevance: The performance of the PROMIS-UE outcome measure after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair was investigated.

90-day outcomes and factors for complications following radial head arthroplasty for Mason Type III and IV radial head fractures.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate 90-day outcomes and complications following radial head arthroplasty (RHA) for Mason Type III and IV radial head fractures (RHFs) and determine factors predisposing patients to early complications and revision surgery. METHODS: Patients undergoing RHA for Mason Type III and IV RHFs were identified retrospectively from an institutional database. Postoperative complications, reoperations, elbow range of motion, radiographs and concomitant injuries on the ipsilateral upper extremity were reviewed. Additionally, injuries were sub-classified as low-energy trauma (LET) or high-energy trauma (HET). Univariate logistic regression was performed to evaluate the risk for complications using patient factors not limited to the presence of concomitant ligamentous or bony injuries. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Seventy four patients were included in our study with an average follow-up time of 12.7 months. Complications within 90-days of operation occurred in 8.1% of patients: heterotopic ossification (4.1%), superficial wound dehiscence (2.7%), and posterior interosseous nerve palsy (1.4%). No patients required readmission or revision surgery in the 90-day postoperative period. Univariate regression analysis did not demonstrate a significant association between diabetes, ASA status, HET versus LET, or the presence of concomitant injury. Concomitant injuries were found in 92% of patients. CONCLUSION: Radial head arthroplasty for RHFs demonstrates a low complication rate in the short-term. Diabetes, ASA class, high versus low energy trauma, and presence of concomitant injury were not found to be associated with higher complication rates in the 90-day postoperative period. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level of evidence IV, retrospective case series.

Prognostic factors associated with improvements in patient-reported outcomes in idiopathic adhesive capsulitis.

Background: The purpose of this study was to identify prognostic factors that are associated with improvements in patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) related to upper extremity function and pain in those suffering from idiopathic adhesive capsulitis. Methods: All patients treated conservatively for primary idiopathic adhesive capsulitis were identified from our institutional database between 2019 and 2021. Exclusion criteria included any patients treated surgically, follow-up less than one year, or incomplete survey results. PROMs including Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test Version 2.0 (P-UE), Pain Interference (P-Interference), Pain Intensity (P-Intensity), and visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores. They were obtained at initial consultation and at one year to assess patient-perceived impact of their condition. Multiple linear and multivariable logistic regressions were performed to identify factors associated with improvement in patient-perceived pain and shoulder function using final PROM scores and difference in PROM scores from initial consultation. An independent t-test was used to compare baseline and one-year minimum follow-up PROMs. Odds ratios and their 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each factor; a P value of < .05 was considered statistically significant. Results: A total of 56 patients (40 females and 16 males) were enrolled in the study with an average age of 54.7 ± 7.7 years. A significant improvement (P < .001) was demonstrated at one-year minimum outcomes for P-UE, P-Interference, P-Intensity, and VAS scores. With respect to comorbid conditions, hypothyroidism [P-UE (ß: 9.57, P = .006)] was associated with greater improvements in PROMs, while hyperlipidemia [P-UE (ß: -4.13, P = .01) and P-Intensity (ß: 2.40, P = .02)] and anxiety [P-UE (ß: -4.13, P = .03)] were associated with poorer reported changes in PROMs. Female sex [P-UE (ß: 4.03, P = .007) and P-Interference (ß: -2.65, P = .04)] and employment in manual labor professions [P-Interference (ß: -3.07, P = .01), P-Intensity (ß: -2.92, P = .006), and VAS (ß: -0.66, P = .03)] were associated with significantly better patient-perceived outcomes. Hispanic heritage was associated with higher reported changes of P-Intensity (ß: 8.45, P = .004) and VAS (ß: 2.65, P = .002). Conclusion: Patient-perceived improvements in PROMIS score during the natural history of adhesive capsulitis are likely multifactorial, with anxiety, hyperlipidemia, increased body mass index, and Hispanic heritage associated with reduced improvement in PROMIS scores.

Return to Sport after Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair of Full-Thickness Rotator Cuff Tears: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Perform a systematic literature review regarding return to sport (RTS) outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (aRCR) for full-thickness rotator cuff tears (FTRCTs). DATA SOURCES: Systematic review of all articles in PubMed, Medline, and Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE) was conducted in April 2022 using a combination of keywords: "rotator cuff repair," "RCR," "complete," "full-thickness," "tear," "RCT," "injury," "shoulder," "arthroscopic," "return to sport," "RTS," "sport," "return to play," and "athlete." Cohorts were included from all articles reporting RTS after aRCR for FTRCTs. Studies that were non-English, failed to distinguish between partial and FTRCT outcomes, or treated FTRCTs by open RCR, mini-open RCR, debridement, or nonsurgical management were excluded. Abstracted data included study design, surgical techniques, concomitant procedures, demographics, FTRCT type and size, patient-reported outcomes, type of sport, competition level, time to return, and reasons for failing to RTS. MAIN RESULTS: 11 studies were reviewed, with inclusion of 463 patients (385 athletes; mean age 47.9). RTS varied considerably in rate and timing, with 50.0% to 100% of patients returning on average between 4.8 to 14 months. In addition, 31 patients returned to a higher level of sport, 107 returned to or near preinjury level, and 36 returned to a lower level of competition or failed to RTS entirely. CONCLUSIONS: The ability for athletes to RTS after aRCR for FTRCTs is likely multifactorial, demonstrating high variability in return rates and time to RTS. Given the paucity of available literature, future studies are warranted to provide a more definitive consensus.

Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) of upper extremity PROMIS scores following arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs.

PURPOSE: To calculate and determine what factors are associated with achieving the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and the Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB) of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Testing v2.0 (UE), Pain Interference (P-Interference), and Pain Intensity (P-Intensity) in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (aRCR). METHODS: The change in PROMIS scores representing the optimal cutoff for a ROC curve with an area under the curve analysis was used to calculate the anchor-based MCID and SCB. To assess the responsiveness of each PROM, effect sizes and standardized response means (SRM) were calculated. To identify factors associated with attaining the MCID and SCB, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 323 patients with an average age of 59.9 ± 9.5 were enrolled in this study, of which, 187/323 [57.9%] were male and 136/323 [42.1%] were female. The anchor-based MCID for PROMIS UE, P-Interference, and P-Intensity was: 9.0, 7.5, and 11.2, respectively. The respective SCB was 10.9, 9.3, and 12.7. Effect size and SRM were: PROMIS UE (1.4, 1.3), P-Interference (1.8, 1.5), and P-Intensity (2.3, 2.0). Lower preoperative P-Intensity scores (p = 0.02), dominant arm involvement (p = 0.03), and concomitant biceps tenodesis (p = 0.03) were associated with patients achieving the SCB for PROMIS UE. CONCLUSION: A large responsiveness for each of the PROMIS instruments due to the majority of patients reporting great improvement after aRCR and a small standard deviation across all outcome measures was shown in our study. Lower preoperative P-Intensity scores and concomitant biceps tenodesis were associated with higher odds of achieving the SCB for PROMIS UE. The knowledge of MCID and SCB values for PROMIS instruments will allow the surgeon to determine whether the improvements in the PROMIS scores after aRCR are clinically meaningful. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Short-term outcomes of instability related anterior glenoid fractures treated with open repair utilizing subscapularis split technique.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this series is to report on the one-year clinical outcomes of instability related anterior glenoid fractures treated with open repair utilizing the subscapularis split technique. METHODS: Patients with displaced anterior glenoid fractures who underwent open surgical treatment via deltopectoral incision and subscapularis split were identified from a single surgeons database. Fractures were repaired using screw fixation or with distal tibia osteochondral allograft reconstruction. Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test (UE), PROMIS Pain interference (PI), PROMIS pain intensity (Pi), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain, and Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV) scores were obtained at minimum one-year follow-up. RESULTS: Twelve patients with a mean age of 54 (range 28-72) years were included in our study with a follow-up at an average of 16.6 (range 12-30) months. Ten patients underwent internal fixation and two patients underwent allograft reconstruction. Postoperative imaging (n = 10) at latest follow-up demonstrated healed fractures without any hardware complication. Mean postoperative range of motion included forward elevation of 147 ± 44.0° and external rotation of 44 ± 17°. Postoperative PROMs were obtained from nine patients with a mean PROMIS UE, PI, and Pi score of 49.4 ± 4.1, 39.9 ± 3.8 and 35.6 ± 4.3, respectively. The respective mean ASES, VAS, and SSV scores were 91.8 ± 7.2, 1.2 ± 1.0, and 91.0 ± 8.0. CONCLUSION: Open surgical repair of anterior glenoid fractures utilizing subscapularis split results in good functional outcomes and low complications including risk of recurrent instability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III case series.

Comparison of 90-day complication rates and readmissions of primary total elbow arthroplasty in elective and traumatic cases: a single center experience.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to compare the 90 day complication rates of primary Total Elbow Arthroplasty (TEA) performed for arthritis (primary-OA; rheumatoid arthritis-RA) versus those performed for distal humerus fractures (DHF). METHODS: Patients who underwent a TEA from 2015 to 2021 were identified from our institutional database and placed into cohorts based on surgical indications (TEA-OA, TEA-RA and TEA-DHF). Chart review was conducted to analyze the prevalence of complications, emergency department (ED) visits, readmissions, and secondary procedures in the first 90 day post-operative period. Complications included but were not limited to wound complications, hematoma, infection (superficial or deep), nerve palsy, periprosthetic fracture/failure and others. RESULTS: 49 patients who underwent TEA were included in this study: (DHF = 19, OA = 14, RA = 16). Six complications occurred within the first 90 days of surgery. There were two periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) in the OA group, requiring irrigation and debridement (I & D) within the first 90 days of surgery. There were three post-operative ulnar nerve palsies and one PJI requiring I & D in the TEA-RA group. Compared to the TEA-DHF and TEA-OA groups, the RA group had higher rates of all-cause complications (p = 0.03) and nerve palsy (p = 0.03). There were no significant differences between groups in readmissions (p = 0.27) or secondary interventions (p = 0.27). CONCLUSION: The 90-day complication/readmission rates of TEA preformed for DHFs is lower than those preformed for OA and RA. These differences could be related to the underlying chronic inflammatory etiology and side effect of treatments (intraarticular steroid injection, and biologics) received by patients with arthritis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective Cohort Study, level IV.

Minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) of upper extremity PROMIS scores in idiopathic adhesive capsulitis.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study is to calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Testing v2.0 (UE), Pain Interference (P-Interference), and Pain Intensity (P-Intensity) in patients treated nonoperatively for idiopathic adhesive capsulitis (IAC). METHODS: The anchor-based MCID, SCB, and PASS were calculated as the change in PROMIS scores representing the optimal cutoff for a ROC curve with an area under the curve (AUC) analysis. The distribution-based MCID was calculated as a range between the average standard error of measurement multiplied by two different constants: 1 and 2.77. Effect sizes and standardized response means (SRM) were calculated to assess the responsiveness of each PROMIS instrument while regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with achieving these thresholds. RESULTS: This study enrolled 115 patients. The anchor-based MCID for PROMIS UE, P-Interference, and P-Intensity was 5.11, 4.16, and 8.16, respectively. The respective SCB was 8.44, 6.65, and 10.05. The respective PASS was 8.47, 7.01, and 10.41. The odds of achieving MCID values in adhesive capsulitis were negatively affected by gender (male), higher forward elevation at the time of presentation, higher pain scores (P-Interference), need for ≥ 2 corticosteroid injections, and a concomitant diagnosis of diabetes. CONCLUSION: The MCID, SCB, and PASS parameters for PROMIS scores can be utilized to determine the clinical meaningfulness of patient-reported improvements in these instruments during the nonoperative treatment and as a research tool to compare the efficacy of new treatments for adhesive capsulitis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, basic science study, validation of outcome instruments. Key points • This is the first study to calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity and Pain instruments in patients with idiopathic adhesive capsulitis (IAC) of the shoulder.• This study determined the impact of symptom severity, demographics, and comorbidities on achieving the MCID, SCB, and PASS for PROMIS instruments in IAC patients treated nonoperatively.

Outcomes after arthroscopic scapulothoracic bursectomy for the treatment of symptomatic snapping scapula syndrome.

Background: The purpose of our study was to examine the clinical outcomes after arthroscopic scapulothoracic bursectomy for the treatment of scapulothoracic bursitis at a minimum of 2-year follow-up. Methods: Twenty patients who underwent arthroscopic scapulothoracic bursectomy for the treatment of symptomatic snapping scapula syndrome were identified from a single surgeon's database. Patients were indicated for surgery if their symptoms persisted for more than 6 months and if they failed nonoperative treatment. Acquired data included patient demographics, shoulder range of motion, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon score, visual analog scale scores for pain, and the following Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scores: Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test Version 2.0, pain intensity, and pain interference scores. Patient satisfaction and subjective shoulder value were also recorded out of 100. Fisher's test and unpaired t tests were performed for statistical analysis, and P values <.05 were considered significant. Results: A total of 20 patients (24 scapulae) were included in our study, with an average follow-up period of 44 (range: 27-91) months. The mean postoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scores for Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test Version 2.0, pain interference, and pain intensity were 44.2 ± 10.7, 50.9 ± 9.5, and 42.1 ± 9.5, respectively. The mean postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon score was 79.0 ± 21.5, and the mean subjective shoulder value was 82.7 ± 12.9. Visual analog scale pain levels showed a significant decrease from 4.95 ± 2.26 preoperatively to 2.27 ± 2.7 (P < .05) postoperatively. There was no significant difference in shoulder range of motion after surgery. The mean patient satisfaction was 72.9, with 65% (13/20) of patients reporting satisfaction levels ≥ 80%. Two patients did not report the resolution of their symptoms and required revision surgery. Conclusion: Arthroscopic treatment of scapulothoracic bursitis is a safe, reliable technique that is effective in providing symptomatic relief with a low rate of recurrence, with most patients reporting a significant reduction in periscapular pain.

No Differences in 90-Day Complications and Admissions After Latarjet Procedure for Primary Bone Loss Versus Latarjet Procedure for Failed Arthroscopic Instability Repair.

Purpose: To investigate the variance in 90-day complication, emergency department (ED) visit, revision, and readmission rates between the Latarjet procedure (LP) performed as a primary procedure for the treatment of recurrent shoulder instability associated with critical levels of glenohumeral bone loss and the LP performed as a salvage surgical procedure after failed arthroscopic instability repair (FAIR). Methods: Patients who underwent a primary LP from 2016-2021 in a single surgeon's practice were identified and divided into 2 cohorts based on the indication for surgery: primary LP for critical bone loss (unipolar or bipolar) (LP-PBL) or LP as salvage surgery for FAIR (LP-FAIR). Patients without a minimum follow-up period of 90 days were excluded. Chart review was conducted to analyze the prevalence of complications, ED visits and/or admissions, and secondary procedures in the 90-day postoperative period. Radiographic images were reviewed to evaluate for graft and/or hardware failure. An unpaired t test and the Fisher exact test were used to compare the 2 groups regarding continuous and categorical data, respectively, and the significance level was set at P < .05. Results: The final sample sizes consisted of 54 patients in the LP-PBL group and 23 patients in the LP-FAIR group. In the postoperative period, 4 complications were observed in the first 90 days. These included complex regional pain syndrome (n = 1) and superficial wound dehiscence (n = 1) in the LP-PBL cohort. Superficial suture abscess (n = 1) and audible crepitation (n = 1) were observed in the LP-FAIR cohort. There was 1 secondary intervention (arthroscopic debridement) in the LP-FAIR cohort. No statistically significant difference in complication rates, ED visits or admissions, or secondary procedures was found between the LP-PBL and LP-FAIR groups. Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that the 90-day complication, ED visit, revision, and readmission rates after open LP are low irrespective of the extent of glenoid or bipolar bone loss and history of arthroscopic instability repair. Level of Evidence: Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Isolated infraspinatus musculotendinous junction tear treated with open repair and dermal allograft augmentation: a case report with 5-year outcome.

We report the 5-year outcome of an isolated, atraumatic full-thickness infraspinatus myotendinous junction tear treated with open surgical repair. The index patient developed severe pain and weakness in external rotation strength following a subacromial corticosteroid injection. Magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound of the shoulder demonstrated a full-thickness myotendinous junction tear with extensive muscle edema, mild atrophy and a spinoglenoid notch varix. Due to persistent, worsening pain and presence of ER weakness, the patient underwent primary infraspinatus muscle-tendon repair with allograft augmentation via an arthroscopic-assisted open posterior approach. The patient had an uneventful postoperative course with a resolution of pain and improvement in ER strength, which is maintained at the latest 5-year follow-up. This case report highlights a favorable long-term outcome of an isolated infraspinatus myotendinous junction tear treated with primary muscle-tendon repair and dermal allograft augmentation.

Inlay versus onlay humeral design for reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of the Grammont-style reverse total shoulder arthroplasty, the humeral stem design has been modified with improved clinical outcomes. Two distinct humeral designs have been used extensively: the inlay design, in which the humeral tray is seated within the metaphysis, and the onlay design, in which the humeral tray sits on the metaphysis at the level of the humeral neck cut. The purpose of this systematic review was to determine whether there are differences in clinical outcomes and complication rates between these designs. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to perform this systematic review. A search of MEDLINE, PubMed, and Embase was performed to identify all studies comparing the clinical results of both humeral designs. Primary outcomes included patient-reported outcome measures, shoulder range of motion, and incidence of complications. RESULTS: From the 156 identified publications, 12 studies were included in the final review. A total of 1447 patients were included, with a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. At final follow-up, both implants demonstrated significant improvements in comparison to preoperative baseline. On comparison of the inlay vs. onlay groups, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was higher in the inlay group (mean difference, 2.53 [95% confidence interval, 0.27-4.78]; P = .03). Postoperative motion, even if statistically greater in the onlay group (differences of 5° in forward flexion [P < .001], 3° in abduction [P = .003], and 4° in external rotation [P < .001]), was not clinically different. On comparison of complications, the inlay group showed more instances of scapular notching (93 of 322 patients vs. 70 of 415 patients; odds ratio, 0.35; P < .001) but fewer scapular spine fractures (26 of 727 patients vs. 21 of 559 patients, P = .09). DISCUSSION: Inlay and onlay humeral tray designs in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty demonstrate similar clinical improvements postoperatively. Onlay implants have a low rate of scapular notching but a higher rate of scapular spine fracture. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the 2 humeral tray designs is important to provide surgeons with options to tailor surgical plans for high-risk patients.