RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the effect of body mass index (BMI) on complications following anatomic shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) remains controversial. This high-powered study examines the effect of BMI on surgical and medical complications following anatomic shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Premier Healthcare Database (PHD) to query all adult patients who underwent primary, elective TSA (aTSA, rTSA) from 2016 to 2020. Patients eligible for inclusion were identified using ICD-10 and CPT codes for primary TSA. Patients were stratified into three subgroups based on BMI (BMI <30 kg/m2, BMI 30-35 kg/m2, BMI > 35 kg/m2). The primary endpoints assessed were 90-day risks of postoperative complications, revisions, and readmissions among the three BMI groups undergoing primary TSA. RESULTS: A total of 32,645 patients were analyzed; 10,951 patients underwent aTSA and 21,694 patients underwent rTSA. Patient populations for aTSA and rTSA differed significantly across all BMI categories in terms of age, sex, cost of care, and insurance status. After multivariate regression analysis, there was no increased risk of surgical complications in the aTSA and rTSA cohorts with BMI 30-35 kg/m2 and BMI > 35 kg/m2. In the aTSA cohort, rates of acute respiratory failure (adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) 2.65) was all significantly higher in the BMI > 35 kg/m2 group. As for rTSA cohort, acute respiratory failure (aOR 1.67) and acute renal failure (aOR 1.53) were significantly higher in the BMI > 35 kg/m2 group. CONCLUSION: While we found no increased risk of immediate postoperative surgical risks, patients with a BMI > 35 kg/m2 demonstrated greater risk of medical complications after rTSA. Given this trend, providers should exercise caution in patient selection for TSA and counsel obese patients as to these increased risks. Future studies should aim to provide a more comprehensive picture of the effect of BMI on functional outcomes after TSA.
RESUMEN
CONTEXT: While current literature has explored the outcomes of athletes who return to sport (RTS) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries, less is known about the outcomes of those who are unsuccessful in returning to sport. OBJECTIVE: To determine the rate of athletes who did not RTS after primary ACL reconstruction (ACLR) and to identify the specific subjective reasons for failure to RTS. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive search of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was conducted through April 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies included those explicitly reporting the rate of failure for RTS after ACLR as well as providing details on reasons for athletes' inability to return; 31 studies met the inclusion criteria. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2 to 4. DATA EXTRACTION: The reasons for failure to RTS referred to in our study are derived from those established previously in the studies included. Data were collected on the number of athletes, mean age, mean follow-up time, type of sport played, failure to RTS rate, and specific reasons for failure to return. RESULTS: The weighted rate of failure to RTS after ACLR was 25.5% (95% CI, 19.88-31.66). The estimated proportion of psychosocial-related reasons cited for failure to RTS was significantly greater than knee-related reasons for failure RTS (55.4% vs 44.6%, P < 0.01). The most cited reason for failure to RTS was fear of reinjury (33.0%). CONCLUSION: This study estimates the rate of failure to RTS after ACLR to be 25.5%, with the majority of athletes citing fear of reinjury as the major deterrent for returning to sports. We highlight how factors independent of surgical outcomes may impact an athlete's ability to return to play given that the predominant reason for no RTS after ACLR was unrelated to the knee.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To analyze reporting bias in the form of spin present in systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the topic of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed throughout this study. Peer-reviewed systematic reviews were collected from 3 databases (PubMed, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus), and their abstracts were assessed for the 15 most common types of spin. Articles were excluded if they were not published in English, had no evidence, were retracted, were published without an abstract, did not have full text available, or included cadaveric or nonhuman subjects. Full text quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews Version 2). Fisher exact tests were used to examine associations between the different types of spin and other study characteristics such as AMSTAR 2 confidence rating, study design, and level of evidence. RESULTS: Spin was present in the abstracts of 13 of 15 articles (86.7%). There were significant associations between PRISMA adherence and lower incidences of spin types 3, 6, and 8 (P = .029 for each). A critically low AMSTAR 2 confidence rating was significantly associated with an increased incidence of spin type 9 (P = .01), and a higher AMSTAR 2 score was significantly associated with decreased spin type 4 and type 5 (P = .039 and P = .048, respectively). A more recent year of publication was correlated with a lower incidence of spin type 14 (P = .044). CONCLUSIONS: Spin is present in most systematic reviews and meta-analyses regarding primary repair of the ACL, with two-thirds of abstracts spinning evidence in favor of ACL repair. Standardized guidelines including the PRISMA guidelines and the AMSTAR 2 assessment tool were negatively correlated with spin. More recently published articles were found to contain significantly less spin, as were articles published in journals with higher Clarivate Impact Factors and Scopus CiteScores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, systematic review of Level III through V studies.
RESUMEN
STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVES: Spin in scientific literature is defined as bias that overstates efficacy and/or underestimates harms of procedures undergoing review. While lumbar microdiscectomies (MD) are considered the gold standard for treating lumbar disc herniations (LDH), outcomes of novel procedures are being weighed against open MD. This study identifies the quantity and type of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of LDH interventions. METHODS: A search was conducted on the PubMed, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases for systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating the outcomes of MD against other LDH interventions. Each included study's abstract was assessed for the presence of the 15 most common types of spin, with full texts reviewed during cases of disagreement or for clarification. Full texts were used in the assessment of study quality per AMSTAR 2. RESULTS: All 34 included studies were observed to have at least 1 form of spin, in either the abstract or full text. The most common type of spin identified was type 5 ("The conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite a high risk of bias in primary studies"), which was observed in ten studies (10/34, 29.4%). There was a statistically significant association between studies not registered with PROSPERO and the failure to satisfy AMSTAR type 2 (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Misleading reporting is the most common category of spin in literature related to LDH. Spin overwhelmingly tends to go in the positive direction, with results inappropriately favoring the efficacy or safety of an experimental intervention.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Inflammatory arthritis (IA) represents a less common indication for anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) than osteoarthritis (OA). The safety and efficacy of anatomic and reverse TSA in this population has not been as well studied compared to OA. We analyzed the differences in outcomes between IA and OA patients undergoing TSA. METHODS: Patients who underwent primary anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) from 2016-2020 were identified in the Premier Healthcare Database. Inflammatory arthritis (IA) patients were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, diagnosis codes and compared to osteoarthritis controls. Patients were matched in a 1:8 fashion by age (±3 years), sex, race, and presence of pertinent comorbidities. Patient demographics, hospital factors, and patient comorbidities were compared. Multivariate regression was performed following matching to account for any residual confounding and 90-day complications were compared between the 2 cohorts. Descriptive statistics and regression analysis were employed with significance set at P < .05. RESULTS: Prior to matching, 5685 IA cases and 93,539 OA controls were identified. Patients with IA were more likely to be female, have prolonged length of stay and increased total costs (P < .0001). After matching and multivariate analysis, 4082 IA cases and 32,656 controls remained. IA patients were at increased risk of deep wound infection (OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.38-7.16, P = .006), implant loosening (OR 4.11, 95% CI 1.17-14.40, P = .027), and mechanical complications (OR 6.34, 95% CI 1.05-38.20, P = .044), as well as a decreased risk of postoperative stiffness (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16-0.83, P = .002). Medically, IA patients were at increased risk of PE (OR 2.97, 95% CI 1.52-5.77, P = .001) and acute blood loss anemia (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.12-1.44, P < .0001). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Inflammatory arthritis represents a distinctly morbid risk profile compared to osteoarthritis patients with multiple increased surgical and postoperative medical complications in patients undergoing aTSA and rTSA. Surgeons should consider these potential complications and employ a multidisciplinary approach in preoperative risk stratification of IA undergoing shoulder replacement.
