European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow (SECEC) rotator cuff tear registry Delphi consensus.

Background: The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements via a Delphi process on the factors that should be included in a registry for those patients undergoing rotator cuff tear treatment. Methods: A consensus process on the treatment of rotator cuff utilizing a modified Delphi technique was conducted. Fifty-seven surgeons completed these consensus statements and 9 surgeons declined. The participants were members of the European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow committees representing 23 European countries. Thirteen questions were generated regarding the diagnosis and follow-up of rotator cuff tears were distributed, with 3 rounds of questionnaires and final voting occurring. Consensus was defined as achieving 80%-89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90%-99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was defined by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. Results: Of the 13 total questions and consensus statements on rotator cuff tears, 1 achieved unanimous consensus, 6 achieved strong consensus, 5 achieved consensus, and 1 did not achieve consensus. The statement that reached unanimous consensus was that the factors in the patient history that should be evaluated and recorded in the setting of suspected/known rotator cuff tear are age, gender, comorbidities, smoking, traumatic etiology, prior treatment including physical therapy/injections, pain, sleep disturbance, sports, occupation, workmen's compensation, hand dominance, and functional limitations. The statement that did not achieve consensus was related to the role of ultrasound in the initial diagnosis of patients with rotator cuff tears. Conclusion: Nearly all questions reached consensus among 57 European Society for Surgery of the Shoulder and Elbow members representing 23 different European countries. We encourage surgeons to use this minimum set of variables to establish rotator cuff registries and multicenter studies. By adapting and using compatible variables, data can more easily be compared and eventually merged across countries.

Clinical Outcomes in Prospective versus Retrospective Studies on Arthroscopic Bankart Repair: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The majority of the current literature on arthroscopic Bankart repair is retrospective and discrepancies exist regarding clinical outcomes including recurrent instability and return to play amongst studies of different levels of evidence. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic review of the literature to compare the outcomes of prospective and retrospective studies on arthroscopic Bankart repair. METHODS: A search was performed using the PubMed/Medline database for all studies that reported clinical outcomes on Bankart repair for anterior shoulder instability. The search term "Bankart repair" with all results being analyzed via strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Three independent investigators extracted data and scored each included study based on the 10 criteria of the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (CMS) out of 100. A chi-square test was performed to assess if recurrent instability, revision, return to play, and complications are independent of prospective and retrospective studies. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-three studies were included in the analysis with 53 prospective studies and 140 retrospective in design. Encompassing a total of 13,979 patients and 14,019 surgical procedures for Bankart repair for shoulder instability. The rate of re-dislocation in the prospective studies was 8.0% vs. 5.9% in retrospective (p < 0.001). The rate of recurrent subluxation in the prospective studies was 3.4% vs. 2.4% in retrospective (p = 0.004). The rate of revision was higher in retrospective studies at 4.9% vs. 3.9% in prospective studies (p = 0.013) There was no significant difference in terms of overall rate to return to play in prospective and retrospective studies was 90% and 91%, respectively (p=0.548). The overall rate of complications in the prospective cohort was 0.27% and 0.78% in the retrospective studies (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The overall rates of recurrent dislocations, subluxations are higher in prospective studies compared to retrospective studies. However, rates of revision were reportedly higher in retrospective studies. Complications after arthroscopic Bankart repair are rare in both prospective and retrospective studies, and there was no difference in rates of return to play.

Superior Pain Reduction with Anteromedialization Tibial Tubercle Osteotomy Versus Non-Operative Management for Patellofemoral Osteoarthritis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with patellofemoral osteoar-thritis (PFOA) treated non-operatively with those treated operatively with an unloading anteromedialization tibial tubercle osteotomy (TTO). METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed to identify patients with isolated PFOA who were either managed non-operatively or surgically with a TTO and who had a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Patients were surveyed with the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS-JR), Anterior Knee Pain scale (Kujala), and Tegner Activity scale. Statistical analysis included two-sample t-testing, one-way ANOVA, and bivariate analysis. RESULTS: The clinical outcomes of 49 non-operatively managed patients (mean age: 52.7 ± 11.3 years; mean follow-up: 1.7 ± 1.0 years) and 35 operatively managed patients (mean age: 31.8 ± 9.4 years; mean follow-up: 3.5 ± 1.7 years) were assessed. The mean VAS improved sig-nificantly in both groups [6.12 to 4.22 (non-operative), p < 0.0001; 6.94 to 2.45 (TTO); p < 0.0001], with operatively treated patients having significantly lower postoperative pain than non-operatively managed patients at the time of final follow-up [2.45 (TTO) vs. 4.22 (non-operative), p < 0.001]. The mean KOOS-JR score was significantly greater in the operative group at time of final follow-up [78.7 ± 11.6 (TTO) vs. 71.7 ± 17.8 (non-operative), p = 0.035]. There was no significant difference in Kujala or Tegner scores between the treatment groups. Additionally, there was no sig-nificant relationship between the number of intra-articular injections, duration of NSAID use, and number of physical therapy sessions on clinical outcomes in the non-operatively treated group (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: An unloading anteromedialization TTO provides significantly better pain relief and restoration of function compared to non-operative management in the treatment of symptomatic PFOA.

Matrix-Induced Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation Versus Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation of the Knee A Retrospective Comparison.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the short-term clinical outcomes of matrix-induced autologous chondrocyte implantation (MACI) to those seen following traditional autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI) in the management of symptomatic cartilage lesions of the knee. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent either ACI or MACI from January 2011 to March 2018. Patients with a minimum postoperative follow-up of 18 months were contacted. Demographic information, intraoperative findings, and patient-reported functional outcomes scores were collected. Comparisons were made between the two cell-based cartilage repair techniques. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were included in the study (39 ACI, 17 MACI). Visual analog scale (VAS) for pain scores improved significantly in both groups, with MACI patients demonstrating significantly lower postoperative pain scores compared to those treated with ACI. In the ACI group, there was a decrease in the Tegner Activity score compared to the preoperative baseline, while no significant difference was seen between pre- and postoperative activity levels in the MACI group. Patients were generally satisfied with the outcome of their procedures, and there was no significant difference in satisfaction between groups. No patients re-quired additional surgery during the follow-up period. CONCLUSION: Both ACI and MACI demonstrated good short-term postoperative clinical results with improved pain and activity levels compared to the preoperative baseline. Patients treated with the MACI technique demonstrated greater reductions in pain scores compared to ACI, and while ACI resulted in a decrease in levels of postoperative activity, activity levels for MACI remained stable.

Outcomes and Complications of Revision Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Following Failed Primary Anatomical Shoulder Arthroplasty or Hemiarthroplasty: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to systematically review the evidence in the literature to ascertain the functional outcomes, range of motion (ROM) and complication and reoperation rates following revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for a failed primary total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) or hemiarthroplasty (HA). METHODS: Two independent reviewers performed the literature search based on PRISMA guidelines, utilizing the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and The Cochrane Library Databases. Studies were included if they reported clinical outcomes for revision RSA for a failed primary TSA or HA. RESULTS: Our review found 23 studies including 1,041 shoulders (627 TSA, 414 HA) meeting our inclusion criteria. The majority of patients were female (66.1%), with an average age of 69.0 years (range 39-93) with a mean follow-up of 46.3 months. ASES and VAS pain scores improved from 32.6 to 61.9 and 6.7 to 2.7, respectively. ROM results including forward flexion, abduction and external rotation that improved from 59.4° to 107.7°, 50.7° to 104.4°, and 19.8° to 26.3° respectively. Only one out of the ten studies reporting internal rotation found a statistically significant difference with mean internal rotation improving from S1-S3 preoperatively to L4-L5 postoperatively for patients undergoing HA. The overall complication rate and reoperation rate were 23.4% and 12.5% respectively. The most common complications were glenoid component loosening (6.0%), fracture (periprosthetic, intraoperative, or other scapula fractures) (n=4.7%), and infection (n=3.3%). CONCLUSION: Revision RSA for a failed primary TSA and HA has been shown to result in excellent functional outcomes and improved ROM suggesting patients who have failed TSA or HA may benefit from a revision RSA.

Posterior Shoulder Instability Part II - Glenoid Bone-Grafting, Glenoid Osteotomy, and Rehabilitation/Return to Play - An International Expert Delphi Consensus Statement.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements on glenoid bone-grafting, glenoid osteotomy, rehabilitation, return to play, and follow-up for posterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment of posterior shoulder instability was conducted, with 71 shoulder/sports surgeons from 12 countries participating based on their level of expertise in the field. Experts were assigned to one of 6 working groups defined by specific subtopics within posterior shoulder instability. Consensus was defined as achieving 80-89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90-99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. RESULTS: All of the statements relating to rehabilitation, return to play, and follow-up achieved consensus. There was unanimous consensus that the following criteria should be considered: restoration of strength, range of motion, proprioception, and sport-specific skills, with a lack of symptoms. There is no minimum time point required to return to play. Collision athletes and military athletes may take longer to return because of their higher risk for recurrent instability, and more caution should be exercised in clearing them to return to play, with elite athletes potentially having different considerations in returning to play. The relative indications for revision surgery are symptomatic apprehension, multiple recurrent instability episodes, further intra-articular pathologies, hardware failure, and pain. CONCLUSION: The study group achieved strong or unanimous consensus on 59% of statements. Unanimous consensus was reached regarding the criteria for return to play, collision/elite athletes having different considerations in return to play, indications for revision surgery, and imaging only required as routine for those with glenoid bone-grafting/osteotomies at subsequent follow-ups. There was no consensus on optimal fixation method for a glenoid bone-block, the relative indications for glenoid osteotomy, whether fluoroscopy is required or if the labrum should be concomitantly repaired. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V Expert Opinion.

Posterior Shoulder Instability Part I - Diagnosis, Non-Operative Management, and Labral Repair for Posterior Shoulder Instability - An International Expert Delphi Consensus Statement.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements on the diagnosis, non-operative management, and labral repair for posterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment of posterior shoulder instability was conducted, with 71 shoulder/sports surgeons from 12 countries participating based on their level of expertise in the field. Experts were assigned to one of 6 working groups defined by specific subtopics within posterior shoulder instability. Consensus was defined as achieving 80-89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90-99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. RESULTS: Unanimous agreement was reached on the indications for non-operative management and labral repair which include whether patients had primary or recurrent instability, with symptoms/functional limitations, and whether there was other underlying pathology, or patient's preference to avoid or delay surgery. Additionally, there was unanimous agreement that recurrence rates can be diminished by attention to detail, appropriate indication and assessment of risk factors, recognition of abnormalities in glenohumeral morphology, careful capsulolabral debridement and reattachment, small anchors with inferior placement and multiple fixation points that create a bumper with the labrum, treatment of concomitant pathologies, and a well-defined rehabilitation protocol with strict postoperative immobilization. CONCLUSION: The study group achieved strong or unanimous consensus on 63% of statements related to the diagnosis, nonoperative treatment, and labrum repair for posterior shoulder instability. The statements that achieved unanimous consensus were the relative indications for non-operative management, and the relative indications for labral repair, as well as the steps to minimize complications for labral repair. There was no consensus on whether an arthrogram is needed when performing advanced imaging, the role of corticosteroids/orthobiologics in non-operative management, whether a poster-inferior portal is required.

Shoulder Instability-Return to Sports After Injury (SIRSI) Scale Shows That Lack of Psychological Readiness Predicts Outcomes and Recurrence Following Surgical Stabilization.

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the predictive ability of psychological readiness to return to sports on clinical outcomes and recurrences in athletes who return to sports following shoulder instability surgery. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed of patients who underwent shoulder instability surgery between September 2020 and October 2021 (arthroscopic Bankart repair or Latarjet procedure) with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Patients were grouped according to the achievement of psychological readiness to return to play using the SIRSI scale (≥ 55 points) measured at 6 months following surgery. Recurrences were measured and functional outcomes were evaluated by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Rowe, and Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS). The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the VAS and Rowe scores was calculated using the distribution-based method of ½ standard deviation of the delta (difference between postoperative and preoperative scores). The patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for the VAS scale was set at 2.5 based on previous literature. To evaluate the predictive ability of SIRSI a regression model analysis and a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve were used. RESULTS: A total of 108 who achieved psychological readiness (PSR) and 41 who did not (NPSR) met the study criteria. PSR achieved significantly higher percentages of MCID and PASS thresholds for VAS than NPSR (MCID: 68.5% vs 48.7%, p=0.026; PASS: 92.5% vs 58.5%, p<0.001). However, there were no differences in the percentage of patients achieving MCID for the Rowe score between groups (98.1% vs 100%, p=0.999). The only strongest independent predictor of postoperative outcomes was being psychologically ready to return to sports. The SIRSI scale had an excellent predictive ability for recurrences (area under curve 0.745, 95% CI 0.5-0.8). Of those who sustained a recurrence, 20% were not psychologically ready compared to 4.3% who were (p= 0.002). A power analysis was not conducted for this study. CONCLUSION: The SIRSI scale is associated with postoperative clinical outcomes and recurrences in patients who returned to sports following shoulder instability surgery. Patients who were not psychologically ready following shoulder instability surgery had worse clinical outcomes with fewer patients achieving clinically significant outcomes (PASS and MCID) for pain, and a higher risk of recurrence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, Retrospective cohort study.

Editorial Commentary: Latarjet for Anterior Shoulder Instability Literature Shows Limited Reporting of Outcomes in Female Patients: Female Patients Show Similar Outcomes but Greater Rate of Emergency Department Visits and Possible Greater of Complications.

It has been reported that use of the Latarjet procedure for anterior shoulder instability increased 250% from 2008 to 2019. With this increase in use, it is imperative to minimize complications. At present, most literature focuses on male patients, with scant evidence regarding female patients. Outcomes are similar when female with male patients are compared, but female patients have greater postoperative visits to the emergency department than male patients, which requires specific attention during the postoperative period. In addition, the literature reporting complications in female versus male patients after Latarjet is conflicting; some studies show similar rates of complications, whereas other studies show greater rates of adverse events in female patients. Previous consensus statements recommended (1) careful dissection; (2) identification of the musculocutaneous and axillary nerves; (3) prevention of overlateralization of the graft; (4) the use of tranexamic acid to reduce blood loss; (5) accurate screw placement; and (6) careful preparation of the glenoid neck and coracoid to reduce rates of nonunion or delayed union.

Clinical Significance Thresholds in Primary and Revision Latarjet Procedures With Comparable Outcome Achievements.

BACKGROUND: Given the variability across populations and settings, defining the MCID and the PASS for the Rowe and ASOSS scores and patients undergoing primary and revision Latarjet it is essential to have accurate benchmarks relevant to these groups when interpreting clinical results. PURPOSE: To determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds for the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain during sports, Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS), and Rowe scores after primary and revision Latarjet procedures for treatment of shoulder instability. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Between January 2018 and January 2020, a retrospective review of 149 patients undergoing primary Latarjet (n = 82) and revision Latarjet (n = 67) to treat shoulder instability was performed in a single institution. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. The delta was defined as the change between the pre- and postoperative scores. Distribution-based and anchored-based approaches were used to estimate the MCID and the PASS, respectively. The optimal cutoff point and the percentage of patients achieving those thresholds were also calculated. RESULTS: The distribution-based MCIDs after primary Latarjet were 1.1, 7.5, and 9.6 for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The rates of patients who achieved the MCID thresholds were 93.9%, 98.7%, and 100% for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The PASS thresholds after primary Latarjet were ≤1, ≥90, and ≥85 for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The percentages of patients who achieved PASS thresholds were 82.9%, 89%, and 86.5% for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The distribution-based MCIDs after revision Latarjet were 0.6, 6.2, and 3.4 for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The rates of patients who achieved MCID thresholds were 89.3%, 100%, and 100% for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The PASS thresholds were ≤3, ≥87, and ≥86 after revision Latarjet for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The rates of patients who achieved the PASS thresholds were 88%, 88%, and 91% for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study identified useful values for the MCID and PASS thresholds in VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores after primary and revision Latarjet procedures for treating shoulder instability. Most patients achieved MCID and PASS benchmarks, indicating successful primary and revision Latarjet procedure outcomes. These metrics can serve as valuable parameters when analyzing parameters in future studies and have the potential to enhance patient care by optimizing treatment strategies and surgical decision making.

Glenohumeral morphological predictors of recurrent shoulder instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate glenohumeral morphological features on a magnetic resonance arthrogram (MRA) to determine risk factors for recurrence of anterior shoulder instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR). METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent ABR between 2012 and 2017 was performed to identify patients who had recurrence of instability following stabilisation (Group 1). These were pair-matched in a 2:1 ratio for age, gender and sport with a control (Group 2) who underwent ABR without recurrence. Preoperative MRAs were evaluated for risk factors for recurrence, with glenoid bone loss and Hill-Sachs lesions also measured. Multilinear and multilogistic regression models were used to evaluate factors affecting recurrence. RESULTS: Overall, 72 patients were included in this study, including 48 patients without recurrence and 24 patients with recurrent instability. There was a significant difference between the two groups in mean glenoid bone loss (Group 1: 7.3% vs. Group 2: 5.7%, p < 0.0001) and the rate of off-track Hill-Sachs lesions (Group 1: 20.8% vs. Group 2: 0%, p = 0.0003). Of the variables analysed in logistic regression, increased glenoid anteversion (p = 0.02), acromioclavicular (AC) degeneration (p = 0.03) and increased Hill-Sachs width were associated with increased risk of failure. Increased chondral version (p = 0.01) and humeral head diameter in the anteriorposterior view were found to be protective and associated with a greater likelihood of success. CONCLUSION: Glenoid anteversion was a risk factor for recurrent instability, whereas increased chondral version and humeral head diameter were associated with higher rates of success following ABR. Glenoid bone loss, presence of an off-track Hill-Sachs lesion, increased Hill-Sachs width and AC degeneration were also associated with failure. These findings should be used by surgeons to stratify risk for recurrence following ABR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Long-term outcomes of anterior shoulder instability treated with open latarjet procedure - a systematic review of outcomes at a minimum 15-year follow-up.

Background: To systematically review the literature to evaluate the outcomes following an open Latarjet (OL) procedure at a minimum 15-year follow-up. Methods: Two independent reviewers performed a literature search using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines using 3 databases. Only studies reporting outcomes of OL procedure with a minimum of 15 years of follow-up were included. Results: Nine studies composed of 326 shoulders (78.2% males) in 313 patients were included (average age 26.9 ± 3.2 years (15-58)), with a mean follow-up of 271.9 ± 69.2 months (180-420) At a minimum 15-year follow-up, 93.5% (286 of 306) patients reported being satisfied with their OL procedure, whilst 86.8% (177 of 204) reported good/excellent outcomes at final follow-up. All nine of the included studies reported an overall rate of recurrent instability was 7.7%, with re-dislocations and subluxation at 3.4% and 5.8%, respectively. The rate of surgical revision was 5.15%; 3.5% of cases were revised for recurrent instability. Instability arthropathy was reported across all included studies as 41.0%. Conclusion: The OL procedure results in satisfactory clinical outcomes, low rates of recurrent instability and surgical revision at a minimum 15-year follow-up. Although high levels of radiological instability arthropathy and residual pain are found over the same period, these appear stable from a minimum of 10-year follow-up data. Level of Evidence: IV; a systematic review of all levels of evidence.

Arthroscopic Bankart repair versus nonoperative management for first-time anterior shoulder instability: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

Purpose: Arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) may be more effective than nonoperative management for patients with anterior shoulder instability following first-time dislocation. The purpose of the study was to determine the most cost-effective treatment strategy by evaluating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ABR versus nonoperative treatment. Methods: This cost-effectiveness study utilized a Markov decision chain and Monte Carlo simulation. Probabilities, health utility values, and outcome data regarding ABR and nonoperative management of first-time shoulder instability derived from level I/II evidence. Costs were tabulated from Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed using >100,000 repetitions of the Monte Carlo simulation. A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at $50,000. Results: The expected cost for operative management higher than nonoperative management ($32,765 vs $29,343). However, ABR (5.48 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) was the more effective treatment strategy compared to nonoperative management (4.61 QALYs). The ICER for ABR was $3943. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that ABR was the most cost-effective strategy in 100% of simulations. Discussion: ABR is more cost-effective than nonoperative management for first-time anterior shoulder dislocation. The threshold analysis demonstrated that when accounting for WTP, ABR was found to be the more cost-effective strategy.

Return to play following operative management of anterior shoulder instability in overhead athletes-A systematic review.

Background: The purpose of this study was to systematically review the rate and timing of return to play in overhead athletes following operative management of anterior shoulder instability. Methods: A systematic literature search based on PRISMA guidelines, utilizing the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and The Cochrane Library Databases. Eligible for inclusion were clinical studies reporting on return to play among overhead athletes following arthroscopic Bankart repair, open Latarjet procedure or Remplissage procedure. Results: There are 23 studies included with 961 patients. Among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair, the rate of return to play was 86.2%, with 70.6% returning to the same level of play and the mean time to return to play was 7.1 months. Among those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure, the rate of return to play was 80.9%, with 77.7% returning to the same level of play and the mean time to return to play was 5.1 months. Among those undergoing a Remplissage procedure, the rate of return to play was 70.6%, with 70.0% returning to the same level of play or mean time to return to play. Discussion: Overall, there were high rates of return to play following operative management of anterior shoulder instability in overhead athletes.

Type V Superior-Labrum Anterior-Posterior (SLAP) Repair - A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to systematically review the evidence in the literature to ascertain the functional outcomes, recurrence rates, and subsequent revision rates following type V superior labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) repair. METHODS: Two independent reviewers performed a literature search based on PRISMA guidelines, utilizing the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and The Cochrane Library Databases. Studies were included if they had clinical outcomes on the patients undergoing type V SLAP repair. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). A P value of < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: Our review found 13 studies, including 451 shoulders meeting our inclusion criteria. The majority of patients were male (89.3%), with an average age of 25.9 years (range 15-58) and a mean follow-up of 53.8 months. The Rowe score was the most utilized functional outcome score, with a weighted mean of 88.5. Additionally, the mean Constant score was 91.0, the mean ASES score was 88.3, the mean SSV score was 85.5%, and the mean VAS pain score was 1.2. The overall rate of return to play was 84.8%, with 80.2% returning to the same level of play. The overall reoperation rate was 6.1%, with a recurrent dislocation rate of 8.2%. In the studies comparing type V SLAP and isolated Bankart repair, there were statistically insignificant differences in VAS pain scores (MD; 0.15, 95% CI, -0.13 to 0.44, I2 = 0%, p = 0.29) and recurrence rates (RR; 1.38, 95% CI, 0.88 to 2.15, I2 = 0%, p = 0.16). CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic repair of type V SLAP tears results in excellent functional outcomes, with high return to play rates in athletes. There are low rates of reoperations and recurrent dislocations. Additionally, in comparison to an isolated Bankart repair, SLAP repair does not increase recurrence rates or postoperative pain.

Editorial Commentary: At Present, ChatGPT Cannot Be Relied Upon to Answer Patient Questions and Requires Physician Expertise to Interpret Answers for Patients.

ChatGPT is designed to provide accurate and reliable information to the best of its abilities based on the data input and knowledge available. Thus, ChatGPT is being studied as a patient information tool. This artificial intelligence (AI) tool has been shown to frequently provide technically correct information but with limitations. ChatGPT provides different answers to similar questions based on the prompts, and patients may not have expertise in prompting ChatGPT to elicit a best answer. (Prompting large language models has been shown to be a skill that can improve.) Of greater concern, ChatGPT fails to provide sources or references for its answers. At present, ChatGPT cannot be relied upon to address patient questions; in the future, ChatGPT will improve. Today, AI requires physician expertise to interpret AI answers for patients.

Artificial intelligence in shoulder and elbow surgery: overview of current and future applications.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is amongst the most rapidly growing technologies in orthopedic surgery. With the exponential growth in healthcare data, computing power, and complex predictive algorithms, this technology is poised to aid providers in data processing and clinical decision support throughout the continuum of orthopedic care. Understanding the utility and limitations of this technology is vital to practicing orthopedic surgeons, as these applications will become more common place in everyday practice. AI has already demonstrated its utility in shoulder and elbow surgery for imaging-based diagnosis, predictive modeling of clinical outcomes, implant identification, and automated image segmentation. The future integration of AI and robotic surgery represents the largest potential application of AI in shoulder and elbow surgery with the potential for significant clinical and financial impact. This editorial's purpose is to summarize common AI terms, provide a framework to understand and interpret AI model results, and discuss current applications and future directions within shoulder and elbow surgery.

Cannabidiol for Postoperative Pain Control After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Demonstrates No Deficits in Patient-Reported Outcomes Versus Placebo: 1-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Cannabidiol (CBD) has been shown recently to positively affect patient pain and satisfaction immediately after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). However, it is unclear whether the addition of CBD to a perioperative regimen could affect postoperative outcomes. Purpose: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes among patients who underwent ARCR and received buccally absorbed CBD or an identical placebo for early postoperative pain management at 1-year follow-up. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Eligible patients had previously participated in a multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blinded trial that evaluated the analgesic effects of CBD in the immediate postoperative period after ARCR. The experimental group received 25 mg of CBD 3 times/day if <80 kg and 50 mg of CBD 3 times/day if >80 kg for 14 days, with the control group receiving an identical placebo. The following outcomes were assessed at minimum 1-year follow-up: visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and patient satisfaction. The rates of achievement of the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) were compared based on ASES at latest follow-up. Continuous and categorical variables were compared with the Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher exact test, respectively. Results: Follow-up was obtained from 83 of 99 patients (83.8%) who completed the original trial. There were no significant differences between the CBD and control groups with respect to age, sex, body mass index, rate of concomitant procedures, or number of anchors used intraoperatively. At 1-year follow-up, there were no significant differences between the CBD and control groups in VAS pain (0.8 vs 1.2, P = .38), ASES (93.0 vs 91.1, P = .71), SANE (87.6 vs 90.1, P = .24), or satisfaction (97.4 vs 95.4, P = .41). A majority of patients achieved the PASS (81.0% [CBD] vs 77.5% [control]; P = .79). Conclusion: Perioperative use of CBD for pain control among patients undergoing ARCR did not result in any significant deficits in pain, satisfaction, or patient-reported outcomes at 1-year postoperatively compared with a placebo control group. These findings suggest that CBD can be considered in a postoperative multimodal pain management regimen without detrimental effects on outcome. Registration: NCT04672252 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).